JACKSON V AEG LIVE July 23

rd
2013
John Meglen
(CEO of Concerts West, division of AEG Live)
Defense witness.
Continued direct examination by Jessica Stebbins:
Q. Good morning, Mr. Meglen.
A. Good morning.
Q. When we left off yesterday, we were talking about the Jackson/
AEG Live tour agreement. You remember that?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, I wanted to go back a little bit in time from there and talk about, you said yesterday you were
not involved in putting that agreement together; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Were you involved at any point in sort of strategizing about what kind of tour Mr. Jackson might be
doing before that?

A. Yes.
Q. When was that?
A. We would have numerous phone calls, or in our executive meetings, those are the types of topics
we would discuss when we're putting a potential tour offer together.
Q. So even though you didn't have involvement in the negotiations themselves, did you have
involvement in figuring out what kind of tour might make sense for Mr. Jackson?
A. Yes. Absolutely.
Q. And what factors -- tell me about how you went about making that kind of assessment. First of all,
who was involved in that?
Mr. Panish: Your honor, can I have clarification as to time?
Judge: Okay. Time.
Q. Was this in 2007? 2008? Do you recall?
A. I would say this was probably early 2008. Again, you know, I'm guessing here. But this would be
after -- we went through a quiet period after the initial meetings that we had with Michael and
Raymone Bain, and kind of like the deal had gone away and nothing was going to happen. Then when
the deal reemerged, and we started talking about what were the potential things that we could do on a
live basis, you know, the first thing you're going to do is discuss, you know, where should we go first?
What is the right territory to go to first? We felt that, you know, London is probably the number one
concert market in the world. It was outside of North America, which we very much wanted to stay
outside of North America. So I think in our initial conversations, it was probably about, should we go
to London, or potentially Asia would have been another one we would have discussed.
Q. And I guess my question is: What kinds of factors go into that analysis? What are you looking at
when you're trying to figure out where should we send an artist out on tour?
A. Well, we had had -- well, the factors that go into that on a tour are, you look for strength, where the
artist is -- has a lot of popularity. Popularity can be looked at as to historical ticket sales; ticket sales of
other similar-type artists; record sales, radio airplay. Those are going to be your biggest factors in
deciding that.
Q. Anything else that you look at in terms of picking markets for artists? You said something about
London being the biggest market in the world.
A. Well, we kind of -- you know, as I said, we kind of right now consider London to be the biggest
concert market in the world. It has a new arena that's very hot. It's one of those markets. It's just really,
really hot right now. And at different times, different markets become hot. But I think one of the factors
was that we did not want to start the tour in North America.
Q. And without going into details, was that because of some reputational troubles Mr. Jackson had had

in North America?
A. Very much so. We didn't know what the reactions would be to ticket sales in North America because
of some of the historic stuff that Michael had gone through previously in the US
Q. So you said London and possibly Asia was another choice?
A. Yes. Asia was always considered to be a very, very strong market for Michael. Japan, specifically.
Q. That was going to be my next question. When you say "Asia," do you mean anywhere specifically?
A. You know, Asia -- a lot of people like to bulk it all together, but the fact is, it's many different
countries, many different nationalities, many different likes and dislikes. So you can't just generalize
Asia. We were most specifically honing in on -- you know, you would hone in on Tokyo; you would
take a look at a market like shanghai, because it's such an up-and-coming hot market, world market
today. But it also has a very -- the economics are much lower there so you're not going to be able to
generate as much revenue there. You can generate a lot more revenue in Japan than you can in China.
Q. What do you mean, "the economics are lower"?
Mr. Panish: Just -- your honor, this is all expert testimony.
Ms. Stebbins: Your honor, I'm asking how he plans tours for his own company.
Judge: Then lay some foundation for Asia in terms of tours in Asia and what countries, then, perhaps.
Q. Mr. Meglen, how do you plan tours in China in connection with your work with AEG Live?
A. I have a -- an office, the company has an office in shanghai, both an AEG And AEG Live office in
shanghai. The man who runs the AEG Live office reports to me, and I have worked with him over the
last four to five years developing our business in that marketplace.
Mr. Panish: Objection. Nonresponsive. The question was: Had he planned specifically tours in China.
Ms. Stebbins: Your honor, I think the answer was responsive, but I can ask a follow-up.
The witness: Yes. I'm heading to China in a couple of weeks for some Metallica shows. We have done
Jennifer Lopez in Asia; just put Justin Bieber on sale in China. Yes, I believe I've done a number of
tours through Asia.
Q. And in considering where to send Mr. Jackson, was China one of the markets you considered?
A. It was considered briefly, but -- and we thought maybe we could go in and do something really
special there like we did in London, but the economics -- we came to the conclusion that the economics
simply wouldn't work there.
Q. And what do you mean, "the economics wouldn't work there"?
A. You couldn't get a high enough ticket price, you know, was probably the biggest thing. You have a

number of people in China who have a lot of money, but you have many, many, many more people who
don't have a lot of money, and so it makes it difficult.
Q. So are ticket prices the same in London as they are in Shanghai?
A. No.
Q. Which place is higher?
A. On an average, London would be much higher.
Q. So did you eventually come to a conclusion as to where would be the best place to start Mr. Jackson
in any kind of comeback tour?
A. Yes. We thought that London would be the right place that would get us out of any of the
controversy there was in North America. We knew Michael had a big history of selling out. You know,
he had sold out a couple of Wembley stadiums on earlier tours, so we knew that was a very, very big
market for Michael. And in addition to that, we had done what we started calling arena residencies,
both with Prince and with the spice girls in London, and they were both very, very successful. So that
was -- those were also big factors in deciding why to go to London.
Q. In considering what kind of tour to put on, do you consider the artist's own touring history?
A. Oh, absolutely.
Q. And what about the artist's history?
A. Well, the first thing you have to look at is, you know, how well do they travel; how big is their
production; how many shows per week can they do that is different for every artist. And in a sense --
and you also have to discuss, you know, what does he want to reach out to? Does he want to try and put
something out there that can reach the masses, you know? A lower ticket price is kind of what I'm
getting at.
Mr. Panish: Just for the record, your honor, again, I'm going to object. This is all calling for expert
testimony, non-disclosed expert talking about these matters.
Ms. Stebbins: Your honor, the witness is talking about his own business and factors that went into
consideration in selecting what venues to put Mr. Jackson in.
Judge: Then lay the foundation for that.
Mr. Panish: He wasn't even involved.
Judge: Overruled.
Q. All right. I actually now want to ask you about an email Plaintiffs asked you about at the deposition.
Ms. Stebbins: Your honor, may I approach the witness?

Judge: Yes.
Q. Mr. Meglen, do you recall being asked about exhibit 31 to your deposition?
A. Yes, I believe so.
Ms. Stebbins: Mr. Panish, is it okay to show?
Mr. Panish: Lay the foundation first.
Q. Is this a document you were copied on?
A. Yes, it is.
Mr. Panish: If -- well, if he remembers it.
Q. I'm going to ask a few specific questions. You did not recall this document at your deposition;
right?
A. No, I did not, I don't believe.
Q. Do you recall now receiving it when you -- at the time you received it?
A. (reviewing document) yes, I remember this.
Q. So you now remember it?
A. Yes.
Ms. Stebbins: All right. Okay to show?
Mr. Panish: Sure.
Q. And I'm only going to ask a few questions about this document. We've seen it in this court a few
times. This
is in the fall of 2008. Do you know whether the AEG/Michael Jackson agreement had been
Entered by this time?
A. No, I do not believe it was.
Q. Okay. Do you recall being asked at
Your deposition about the concept of talking about gross numbers versus net numbers with the artist?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you explain to us which is more common, gross or net, to be used when discussing touring
with an artist?

Mr. Panish: Again, it's calling for expert testimony.

Ms. Stebbins: Your honor, this was a question asked by Plaintiffs at his deposition.
Mr. Panish: That wasn't the question. But, again, my objection is this is a non-disclosed expert who is
giving expert testimony as to industry practices.
Ms. Stebbins: Your honor --
Judge: Overruled. But you still need to lay some foundation as to if he's been involved in those
negotiations.
Q. Have you been involved in negotiations with artists?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. In connection with AEG Live?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. In connection with other tours?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. Have you talked numbers with artists and their management in preparation for tours?
A. Many times.
Q. Have you talked about gross numbers and net numbers for tours?
A. Many times.
Q. You talked to us a little bit yesterday about the concept of show net and artist net. Have you talked
about those numbers with artists and their management?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. And have you talked about tour gross with artists and their management?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. In that situation, can you tell us how those numbers are usually used in terms of with artists and
their management, in your experience personally?
A. In my experience, when you're talking with an artist, you are talking about what the show net or
what we call the artist gross is. The reason we do that is most artists receive guarantees. A. Guaranteed
fee. Sometimes that is a flat guarantee, sometimes that is versus a percentage. So an artist always
wants to know how his guarantee or his earnings compare to the others. You can't compare net between
different artists because they all spend differently on the road. So what you can compare is that we can

sell this many tickets at this ticket price, which artist "x" may do that, and then artist "y" may say,
"Well, I can do the same thing," and that will give you a definitive gross. And then from that, we know
pretty much what the local show expenses are: What the rent, the advertising, the ushers and the ticket-
takers, because we have done that many times over and again in these buildings, and then that gives us
what we call the "show net." the show net is where you determine the "artist's gross" from. So it is all --
more common to tell the artist, here is what you are grossing from a promoter standpoint, because it is
up to the artist what he wants to spend on his tour. He may say, "I want to go out with a microphone
and one spotlight and my guitar, and I don't want to spend any money on that, and I'll drive from city to
city." and another guy may say, "I need planes, trains and automobiles and video screens," and things
like that. So the true comparison needs to be done on, here's how much you earn from your performing,
but then part two is how much do you spend? And that is why it's more important to tell an artist,
"here's the gross dollars that you earn," because it's up to them what they spend.
Q. And that was going to be my follow-up question. In September of 2008, before the contract with
Michael Jackson was signed, was there any way to know exactly how much Michael Jackson's
production costs were going to be?
A. No.
Q. He could have gone for the "one guy in the spotlight" show?
A. Yes.
Q. You think it was likely he was going to go with the "one guy with the spotlight" show?
A. No, we didn't think that at all.
Q. Did you have any idea of exactly how much he was eventually going to spend on his production?
A. Well, you're now changing to the producer's side, which was to help Michael control what he was
going to spend on the show. That was the general concept there, is that you need somebody who has
experience doing this that can help him organize this; otherwise, you know, you can imagine how costs
can just run wild.
Q. So you would attempt to control costs, but did you actually know what the costs were going to be at
that point?
A. No. At that time, no, we had no idea.
Q. You think there's anything wrong with using an artist's gross numbers when you're talking to the
artist?
A. No, because whenever we do a tour, normally it's the gross number that the manager, the agent is
going to be asking of us.
Ms. Stebbins: If we turn to the next page, I want to zoom in to the middle.
Q. So this is something that was asked about a couple of witnesses. And, again, you're cc'd. First, I
want to ask: Were you deep in the budget of the Michael Jackson "This Is It" 02 tours?

A. Yes.
Q. You were?
A. Was I what?
Q. Deep in the budgets of --
A. Did I review the budgets?
Q. Were you intimately familiar with them?
A. Which budgets?
Q. Any of the Michael Jackson --
A. The show budget or the production budget? I wasn't intimately available, but I -- you know, I could
look at them and understand them.
Q. Got it.
A. Okay.
Q. I guess my question is: Did you regularly review budgets for the "This Is It" tour?
A. No, no.
Q. And -- but you could look at a budget and understand basically what it says based on your
experience in the industry?
A. Yes. And at different times you could ask someone to give you a budget, because there may be
something in particular you wanted to take a look at.
Mr. Panish: Again, your honor, this again would call for expert testimony. He was not involved in this
budget, and anything he gives would be expert testimony.
Ms. Stebbins: Again, your honor, I think, first off, he is familiar with this budget based on his
business, but I'm actually not going to ask him about the budget.
Judge: Okay. Then sustained.
Ms. Stebbins: Well, your honor, I think I could lay a foundation if I needed to.
Judge: Not if he doesn't have personal knowledge concerning this tour.
Ms. Stebbins: Your honor, he testified he has some personal knowledge concerning the tour. Again,
that's not what I'm asking about here.

Judge: Okay. Let's hear the question.

Q. Mr. Meglen, trying to cut to the chase here. This has come up in that there was some talk of a
potential world tour for Mr. Jackson after the 02.
A. Correct.
Q. Were you aware of that through executive committee meetings or otherwise?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. And would you have had to approve any additional legs to the "This Is It" tour?
A. Yes, I would.
Q. So at any point -- well, can you tell me what was actually approved in terms of legs from the "This
Is It" tour?
A. The London shows were the only approved shows from our standpoint at AEG.
Q. And you said from your standpoint. What do you mean?
A. Meaning that there's an approval process that we have for tours, and the only one that went through
the process and got approved by everybody that needs to approve it was the London shows.
Q. Did you ever discuss any detailed further plans for additional shows after London?
A. In executive meetings, we would have discussions about, if everything went well in London, could
we go and do more? So the answer is, "yes."
Q. Did it ever get beyond those discussions?
A. No. It was a long ways from the completion of the London run, so there wasn't necessarily an
urgency at that time to figure out where we could go next, if we went and did more shows.
Q. And was it something that you and others would have to approve to do further shows?
A. Absolutely.
Q. And what factors would go into whether or not you approved additional shows?
A. Uhm, projected sales and projected revenue and the -- you know, the show net is really what I look
at. Is the show making money or is the show losing money?
Q. So it would depend on how the show was doing in London?
A. Yes.

Q. Would it depend on how the performances in London were reviewed?

A. Oh, yes, of course.
Q. Now, one last thing on this email, this email that was asked about in your deposition. You see where
it says "net to Mikey 132 million"?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, there's been some question about the term "Mikey," and you stated at your deposition you
thought this referred to Michael Jackson.
A. Yes.
Q. Why do you believe this referred to Michael Jackson?
A. Because Paul called Michael Jackson "Mikey."
Q. To you?
A. To Michael. The first time we walked in, Paul went, "Mikey," like -- in his Paul way. And Michael
went, "Paul Gongaware." so, yeah, the two of them were pretty close.
Mr. Panish: Well, your honor, I'm going to move to strike the last statement on the relationship
between Mr. Gongaware and this witness because he'd seen Mr. Jackson three times in his life.
Ms. Stebbins: Your honor, the witness was able to testify to his observations of the two of them when
he saw them together.
Judge: Overruled. Lay opinion. Overruled.
Ms. Stebbins: Okay. That's all I've got on that document, your honor.
Q. Now, you spoke a moment ago, Mr. Meglen, about some artists have guarantees.
A. Yes.
Q. Do all artists that you tour with have a guarantee?
A. No.
Q. Did the Michael Jackson deal have a guarantee?
A. No. I mean, we -- I think you could say that we guaranteed the production costs, and the show costs
was part -- well, we advanced that, I would say. We didn't -- weren't even guaranteeing that. We were
advancing that money. But in terms of touring deals, no, there was not an artist guarantee.

Q. And are there deals structured

sometimes where there is not an artist guarantee?
A. Oh, yeah.
Q. What might be the reasons for that, in your experience?
A. Well, it's -- you know, it's usually -- we kind of call them, you know, they're the super star deals.
The big, big artists, you don't -- you know, the selling of tickets is kind of a given. It's a question of
how many you're going to sell and at what ticket price. But it's really a given. So the reason why an
artist will opt out of a guarantee is because they want to make as much money as they possibly can.
They're more worried about what their share is versus what their guarantee is. So, you know, when you
put up guarantees, there's a cost of money. It costs money to put up money. So if you don't have that
cost of money, then the artist can earn more on the back end. And these are the old deals that were done
with artists, you know, the Led Zeppelins and the Elvis Presleys and Neil Diamond deals.
Q. Now, I want to ask a couple other things about Mr. Jackson's tours to sort of establish what you
know and what you don't know. Were you involved in the production of the "This Is It" tour?
A. No.
Q. Now, there's been testimony about Dr. Conrad Murray in this case. Did you ever meet Dr. Murray?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever talk to Dr. Murray?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever see any draft agreements with Dr. Murray?
A. No.
Q. That was not something you were involved in at all?
A. No.
Q. What were you doing in this time frame of 2009?
A. I think we were -- I think I was launching bette midler in Vegas at the time. I think we had -- you
know, we were remounting a new show in Vegas. I spent a lot of time there, but I'm trying to remember
what other tours could have been out at that time period. But generally, I was watching out for the other
things in the company while a number of our senior executives were working on the "This Is It" tour.
Q. So you were watching the rest of the business?
A. Yeah, more or less. They kind of left me alone.

Q. Now, have you ever been involved in a tour where there's been a doctor on the tour?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you give us some examples?
A. Yeah. Just finished the Rolling Stones tour. There was a doctor on the tour. Celine Dion "taking
chances," there's a doctor on the tour. John Denver tours, there was a doctor on the tour.
Q. Is that something that you consider unusual or uncommon?
A. No.
Q. Is it something that you consider worrisome?
A. No, not at all. You know, we're dealing with singers, to begin with, so, you know, a lot of times they
need -- or you may have a lot of dancers or something like that on your tour, or stuff like that. So
doctors, physical therapists, yoga instructors, Pilates instructors, chefs -- you know, seen them all out
there.
Q. And you were not involved in any way with Dr. Murray?
A. No.
Q. I wanted to ask about a couple of other things that have kind of come up in this case relating to the
concert industry. And one thing is about artist rehearsal attendance. Have you ever seen a contract
between AEG Live and an artist that requires the artist to rehearse?
A. No.
Q. Have you ever heard of such a contract?
A. No.
Q. Is it generally expected, though, that an artist will rehearse before a show?
A. Yeah. Never to the degree everybody wants them to, but -- or them to, but, yes.
Q. Have you ever been in a situation where a show director is frustrated because an artist is not
rehearsing, in their view, enough?
A. Absolutely.
Q. Can you give us some examples?
A. Franco Dragone and Celine Dion for her show "a new day." it drove Franco Crazy that she wouldn't
show up for rehearsals.
Q. Did the show open?

A. Yeah. I mean, she knows her stuff. I wasn't worried about Celine, I was more concerned about
Franco and him having a nervous breakdown.
Q. So is that kind of thing common where a director wants an artist to show up more often?
Mr. Panish: Foundation.
Q. In your experience?
Mr. Panish: Foundation. Foundation.
Judge: Overruled. You may answer.
A. In my experience, people automatically want to think that rehearsals is about the artists themselves,
and in many, many ways it's more about the people around the artist. The artist knows what they're
going to do. It's all the people around them that need to learn everything, and what they're going to do
in their role in this big play that's going on.
Q. Another thing that has come up in this case is the use of teleprompters or other kinds of ways for an
artist to remember their words during the show. Have you ever seen that on any concerts that you've
worked on for AEG Live or others?
A. Yes.
Q. Again, is that something that, in your experience, is common or uncommon with the artists you've
worked with?
Mr. Panish: For the record, his experience should be expert testimony.
Ms. Stebbins: Your honor, it's not expert testimony.
Judge: Overruled.
The witness: Of all of the tours I have done, I would say that I've seen many, many teleprompters. I
might even say I've seen more tours with teleprompters than without.
Q. And I'm guessing you may not be able to give any examples of those for artist confidentiality
reasons?
Judge: Artists don't like to admit they're using a teleprompter?
The witness: Yeah. I'm just concerned about, you know, people I know using teleprompters, and
whether they want me to tell who they are.
Judge: Maybe you can give numbers.

Mr. Panish: How can he answer without telling us who? They give numbers, but -- I'll ask. That's
improper, "this is the answer, but I can't tell you."
Ms. Stebbins: Can you give us an estimate of how often it's happened? I'm not going to tell you --
A. You know, I mean, Barrack Obama uses teleprompters. It's very common to use teleprompters for
an artist. Teleprompters or ear monitors. I will tell you that on Celine, she uses both teleprompters, but
she also has her brother speaking into her ear the entire show. And so he is reciting words to her before
she sings them. One of the most amazing things I've ever seen. But -- like a newscaster or something.
But, yes, it's very common to -- we use teleprompters all the time on many, many tours, many, many
shows.
Q. Now, you mentioned that you saw Mr. Jackson only once during rehearsals. Did you speak to him
at all?
A. No, I did not speak with him once rehearsals began, no.
Q. Did you have any opportunity to observe how he looked or have any kind of interaction with him?
A. You know, I was at -- the one rehearsal I went to at the forum, Michael was standing out with
Kenny and a few other people, and they were watching the dancers and that. And, you know,
everything looked fine.
Q. Did you observe it closely, though?
A. No, I wasn't -- I was in and out of the production office relatively quick.
Q. You remember -- turning to another aspect of your business, you mentioned before that you were in
charge of AEG Live's residency business centered in Las Vegas.
A. Yes.
Q. Now, we've had some testimony on this, but can you explain to me what a residency is?
A. A residency is where an artist agrees to perform at one venue for an extended period of time,
preferably, you know, within some type of geographic protection. In other words, they can't play
anywhere else in North America, or anywhere else in the world, or anywhere west of the Mississippi, or
things of that nature. And their show is there.
Q. And I'm going to hold you up a second, because I didn't understand that last bit. "geographic
protection," what do you mean?
A. Yes. You want to say this is the only place in the world you can see them, or the only place in North
America you can see this.
Q. So if an artist is playing a residency in Las Vegas, they're not going to be simultaneously touring
somewhere else?

A. Correct.
Q. All right. What are some reasons that artists have given you for choosing residencies?
A. Well, it's -- to a lot of them, it's a lot easier than traveling from city to city all the time. For some
people, Celine specifically, it's about her children and that she's a mom and that she's at home, and she
only works when Rene-Charles is not in school. So it's a lot of factors like that, from a -- call it a
lifestyle side. From the economics side, it can be very rewarding. It can be what we call a "high artist
net" situation. And the reason we use that there is because in the venue, there is already sound and
lights and video screens. And we have hotel rooms and employee cafeterias, so they don't need buses,
they don't need trucks, they don't need hotel rooms, they don't need to pay their staff and crews per
diems. They don't need to worry about sound and lighting contracts and vendors and things like that, so
it generates a very high net situation for them.
Q. Which artists have you worked with for Las Vegas residencies? And I apologize if I asked you this
yesterday.
A. Let's see. At the Coliseum, it's been Celine, Elton, Rod, Cher, Bette Midler, Shania Twain, Jerry
Seinfeld. At the Hard Rock it has been Def Leppard, Motley Crew, Guns n' Roses, Santana. At Paris
Hotel it was Barry Manilow, and a couple other minor ones.
Q. What's the range of time that a residency lasts? Are all of those of equal length?
A. With the artists headlining?
Q. Yeah.
A. You know, Celine is the exception. The others are really, maybe, low of two, to a high of five years.
Q. So someone may stay in one place for two to five years?
A. Yeah.
Q. What's the longest?
A. Celine has been the longest. She did a five, six-year run, and now she's back again and has already
done 150 shows in the second run, second show.
Q. Have you had any shows that didn't work out and closed
in less than the two-year mark?
A. Do I have to answer that?
Q. Yes.
A. We had one show that did not sell tremendously well, and we ended up having to shut it down early.
Q. In your role of representing the AEG Live residency business in Las Vegas, have you had much

experience
In putting together the residency shows and schedules for artists?
A. Oh, yeah. I think we've -- it's really Cirque Du Soleil and us who have produced the lion's share of
the shows in the last decade.
Q. Do you know what a typical residency schedule looks like, or is there no typical schedule?
A. No, I know what a typical residency schedule looks like and probably what one should look like.
Q. What does it look like?
A. Four shows a week to maybe a maximum of five. If you go down to three, you can kind of pull it
off, but it gets really tight on the money. A. Three-week run is great. That's like 12 shows a run. And
do that four times a year, once each quarter, so that's 48 shows. That's, to me, the perfect residency, and
then you do that for a two- or three-year period.
Q. So you said four to five shows per week?
A. Yes.
Q. That seems -- well, we've heard testimony in the case that the "This Is It" tour was scheduled to be
about two, two and a half shows per week.
A. Could not do a residency if you're doing two and a half shows a week.
Q. Why not? A. You wouldn't generate enough revenue to pay -- well, not only would you not
generate enough revenue, the hotel wouldn't let you. The hotel wants -- the casino wants something
there every night, you know. So they're not going to let you take over an entire theater and only do two
and a half shows a week. They're going to say, "wait a minute. We need people on our property every
night." they can understand a couple nights off, but not five nights you're off.
Q. And you said you wouldn't make money. What do you mean by that?
A. Well, you just wouldn't generate enough revenue to make it worthwhile.
Q. Is that because of the size of the theaters or the prices or -- I guess I'm asking, why wouldn't it make
money at two and a half shows per week?
A. Well, if you're going to do a residency, you're talking about repeating, doing things over and over
and over again, so that's going to factor into your pricing. So you can't -- you know, if you've got
Barbra Streisand coming in and doing one show in a 4,000-seater, you can charge a ton of money for
one show. But when you're trying to do something over and over and over again, you need to bring that
ticket price down. So at the Coliseum, we always have a $50 ticket. That's very important to us, that
there's always a $50 ticket there.
Q. And at that price, you need to be more than two and a half shows a week to be viable,
economically?

A. Yes. I mean, we have -- we have our price as high as $250, but, you know, when you're only doing
-- you know, the average ticket price on a headliner basis, average is probably between 100 and $125 a
ticket. So in a 4,000-seater, it means you have a $400,000 gross, at best, if you sell out. And if you only
do two shows a week, that's only $800,000. That might not even cover your weekly operating expenses.
Q. I was going to ask: $800,000 sounds like a good amount of money. Where does that money go?
A. Well, you have to pay -- in residence situations, you have to pay your band members, you have to
pay your immediate staff, your band roadies. You have to pay your hairdresser and your wardrobe, your
doctor -- whoever you have out there with you, you have to pay for all of those people. So, you know,
again, he would be earning -- well, he wouldn't -- you know, of the 800,000, we'd first have to take out
the show costs. So --
Judge: Can I ask you a question? Are you talking about whether it's viable for AEG Or whether it's
viable for the artist?
The witness: Viable for the artist.
Judge: Well, you're saying the artist has to pay all this stuff. I'm a little confused as to who it's viable
for and who it's not.
The witness: It actually would be viable for the promoter, because we'd only have two shows a week,
so I wouldn't have any worry about selling them. It would sell, because he's only doing two shows a
week. So -- and the promoter makes money based on how many tickets you sell less the show cost. So
let's say the show costs were $100,000 a show at the Coliseum, and you grossed 800,000. You would
have 600 left. On a standard 90/10 deal, the promoter would make $60,000, and the artist would make
$540,000. Then out of his $540,000, he would then have to pay his expenses, the ones that are not
covered by the production that exists in the building; okay? So on tour, he'd have to pay sound and
lights. In a residency, he doesn't have to pay sound and lights. So he has less costs.
Judge: He has less costs on tour or less --
The witness: On residency.
Judge: -- on residency?
The witness: But he still has costs. I mean, he still has real costs he has to pay for.
Q. So if I understand you correctly, the promoter might make money at two shows a week, but the
artist is likely not to be able to cover the costs, even if the costs are lower for a residency than a
concert?
A. Correct.
Mr. Panish: Objection. Calls for expert testimony.
Judge: Overruled. Your answer was?

The witness: "correct."

Q. Now, you spoke a moment ago about an arena residency. You said you've done that with Prince and
somebody else, and I forgot who else already. What is an arena residency?
A. It's an ambitious step to kind of take that model of Las Vegas and say, "can we go to one city and
play in the arena?" so a much -- the Coliseum is 4,000 seats in Las Vegas. So you go to an arena that's
15, 16,000 seats. You're going to say, "okay. How many in a row can we do here?" because that's really
what a residency is. So you first have to say, "well, how many markets in the world is that even
possible to do it in?" and I think that -- just the numbers of markets in the world that that is possible in
is probably very small.
Q. Is London one of them?
A. London's probably number -- London is the first one you try, and the one we did successfully.
Q. And is the 02 an arena?
A. Yes.
Q. And you said the Prince tour was an arena residency -- or you did an arena residency with Prince. I
said that wrong.
A. We did a tour in North America with Prince, and then we went to London and did an arena
residency.
Q. An arena residency at the 02?
A. At the 02.
Q. And what was planned for Michael Jackson?
A. What was planned for Michael, meaning the number of shows?
Q. Meaning, was he an arena residency?
A. Yes. Exactly. Our plan was to go in and see if we could do an arena residency with Michael in
London.
Q. And you said 31 was the initial. Did that expand at some point to a larger number?
A. Yes. It expanded to 50.
Q. Did it ever expand beyond 50?
A. No.
Q. Now, there is an expert witness who testified in this case for Plaintiff named Arthur Erk, and he
talked about residency and Vegas shows, and he made projections on Michael Jackson based on A.E.G.

Numbers. And I wanted to ask you a little bit about that since you're the residency business person for
AEG Live. Did you ever propose a Vegas residency to Mr. Jackson while he was alive, other than the
one you told us about yesterday that he turned down?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever put together a tour budget for Mr. Jackson to do a Vegas residency during his lifetime?
A. No.
Q. So did you ever put together any kind of Vegas show idea relating to Mr. Jackson?
A. Yes.
Q. When was that?
Mr. Panish: Well, your honor, this is what we didn't address before. I would like a sidebar on this
whole issue. Deals with a motion in limine that's already been granted in the case.
Ms. Stebbins: Your honor, I'm happy to have a sidebar. I don't think it goes to the motion in limine.
We're talking about numbers that their expert relied on and used, and I'm explaining where the numbers
came from.
Mr. Panish: No. Deals with the motion you granted.
Judge: Well, we can go to sidebar.
(Sidebar):
Judge: First, what was the motion in limine?
Mr. Panish: The motion was about the Estate, and earnings and income and things dealing with the
Estate. And what I believe he's going to talk about is a proposal that he made to the Estate after the
death of Michael Jackson, and that's exhibit 13,129 that Ms. Bina gave us, and that deals with the
proposal to the Estate after the death of Michael Jackson. Am I correct in assuming that?
Ms. Stebbins: Yes, your honor, but it's not precluded by the motion in limine. The motion in limine
addressed collateral source, if you'll recall, and the idea that the Estate has made money and is paying
the expenses of Mrs. Jackson and the children -- which, by the way, she volunteered on the stand
yesterday in response to one of the questions from Plaintiffs' counsel. So that door may be open, but
I'm not going there. What I'm going into is the idea, your honor, that their experts got on the stand and
said, "I used AEG Numbers to predict this massive Vegas residency for Michael Jackson that would
make millions and millions of dollars." we have to be able to explain that that residency was not

something contemplated during Michael's lifetime; that it was designed as a tribute show after his
death; that it was not -- it was proposed to the Estate and rejected, and what exactly those numbers
were based on. You can't come in and say, "we're basing it on AEG Live's numbers," and then preclude
the introduction of AEG Live's numbers. And that doesn't go to collateral source. It's not talking about
any money the Estate actually made or
any money that went to the children. It's not within the motion in limine.
Mr. Panish: Because then she's -- first of all, number one, about Ms. Jackson, she didn't understand.
Just like when this witness violated a motion in limine and said that Brigitte Segal was Mr.
Gongaware's girlfriend; okay?
Ms. Stebbins: Sometimes witnesses blurt things out.
Mr. Panish: Mrs. Jackson is 83 years old. I told her that. She didn't understand the question. This
witness, obviously you should have told him. But whatever. He did -- he said it, as to try to make it
look like Mr. Jackson was so friendly with Mr. Gongaware that he mentions his girlfriend. So now he's
injected that into the relationship. Now this, what happened was -- first of all, you never cross-
examined Mr. Erk on anything related to Las Vegas, number one. There was no cross-examination. And
they cross-examined him for days. Number two, is what he is going to do is this was rejected, and the
Estate did their own thing with Cirque Du Soleil that's been very successful. So then that's going to
inject in money --
Ms. Stebbins: We're not going to comment on Cirque. I think the witness is going to need to explain --
part of where these numbers came from is, he was trying to compete with the cirque proposal, so he put
in numbers that would be competitive with another proposal that the Estate was offered. He's not going
to go into detail about the cirque proposal. He's not going to comment about -- he doesn't have any
foundation as to how successful the cirque show has been other than there's a small amount of it AEG
Is promoting. I guess he could comment on that. But what we're talking about here, your honor, is not
income that the Estate has earned but the proposal that was made to the Estate that the Plaintiffs' expert
witness has used as a foundation for projections made about Mr. Jackson's life, and what he could have
made. And he is basing it on, quote, "AEG Live's numbers." the witness has to explain.
Mr. Panish: That's not what he said.
Ms. Stebbins: Where the numbers came from.
Judge: I'm going to overrule the objection. I'll allow it.
Mr. Panish: Let me just state, for the record, once again, this is expert testimony on projections from
an expert by a non-designated witness. This witness can tell us about his experience and is giving all
kinds of expert opinions, which he was not disclosed to give. I've made this point continually; the court
continues to overrule me. I believe my ability to represent my client has been impaired. I cannot
effectively cross-examine this expert witness who was not designated on this fact; who did not produce
any of the documents that he's going to now talk about, and I have not -- can I finish?
Ms. Stebbins: You can.
Mr. Panish: You can ask him whatever you want. And I think that it's unfair under Bond vs. Roy, and
my client has been denied the opportunity to effectively cross-examine a witness who has now been

designated as expert opinion who has not been deposed in any of these areas.
Ms. Stebbins: First of all, your honor, this witness is an expert. I'm not offering expert opinion from
him, but Mr. Panish commenting, "since he's not an expert," I think if he had been designated as one, he
would have qualified as one. Setting that aside, your honor --
Mr. Panish: I don't dispute that. That's why I'm making my objections.
Ms. Stebbins: Setting that aside, your honor, Mr. Meglen created these documents, they were
produced, and Plaintiffs did question him about them. Plaintiffs brought this Las Vegas exhibit to his
deposition and questioned him about it in detail. They went through the page, the line. They asked him
where the numbers came from. And then they had an expert come in and say, "based on these numbers,
I'm going to go now produce this." they had every opportunity to ask any questions they wanted of Mr.
Meglen about documents he created about the business he has been in for 30 years and about decisions
he made relating to the "This Is It" tour or to other tours. They chose not to ask those, or they asked
them and then ignored them. And I'm allowed to explore that on cross-examination.
Mr. Panish: Okay. Well, for the record, we were not allowed to ask questions. We didn't know he was
going to give opinions on stadiums and seating and all that other stuff, so we didn't ask --
Ms. Stebbins: You were allowed to ask him anything you want.
Mr. Panish: We didn't know he was going to come in here and offer expert opinion. Now, had you
designated him -- there's no question that he's qualified as an expert in these areas. That's my whole
point. Now we've spent all this time on all those qualifications. Now he's giving all these expert
opinions, and you're not going to see their expert on this area show up, because he's taken over for their
expert, who they don't like his opinions.
Ms. Stebbins: Our expert, your honor, is Mr. Briggs.
Mr. Panish: Mr. Hom.
Ms. Stebbins: Mr. Hom was not designated at all --
Mr. Boyle: Tour industry expert.
Mr. Panish: Yes, he was your tour industry expert, and now he won't show up, your honor. And now
you can see why this was done.
Ms. Stebbins: Your honor --
Mr. Panish: You've allowed this witness to get up and give all these expert opinions, because they
don't like what happened in their expert that we deposed.
Ms. Stebbins: Your honor, Mr. Hom was designated in different areas of the tour industry and has
testified already at trial via video deposition in Plaintiffs' case. I don't know whether we're going to call
him or not. It depends on whether his testimony is duplicative of others. Mr. Meglen was -- Mr. Hom
was never questioned on the areas that Mr. Meglen has been questioned about. He was designated on
wholly different areas. The area of damages and rebutting Mr. Erk was the subject of Mr. Briggs's

testimony. Mr. Briggs is still testifying. Different issue, your honor, entirely from the fact that they
could have asked any AEG Live executive about their tour history, about the venues they performed in.
Instead, they had a guy come in and say, "AEG Live would have done these tours in these stadiums,
and these are their capacities." that was all done, Mr. Erk was designated, and he was deposed during
jury selection. All of that came into the case very late, your honor, and they had every opportunity to
ask, you know, witnesses at AEG Live who know facts, not expert opinion, not expert testimony, but
facts about venues they have worked in for 15 years.
Mr. Panish: This expert --
Judge: Sounds like to me you're not asking his expert opinion --
Ms. Stebbins: I'm not, your honor.
Mr. Panish: But --
Judge: But you're offering facts upon which Erk's opinion is based.
Ms. Stebbins: Exactly, your honor.
Mr. Panish: This witness has given standard-of-care opinions in the entertainment industries, such as
doctors on tour. That is an expert opinion.
Ms. Stebbins: Your honor --
Mr. Panish: That is not something someone can just talk about. You have to qualify as an expert in
that area. You allowed that.
Mr. Boyle: And discussing -- you know, for him to say, "it's common in the industry to discuss gross
numbers with artists, not the net" --
Ms. Stebbins: Your honor --
Mr. Boyle: Again, that's an expert opinion. It's also, probably, completely wrong. But that's an expert
opinion that's not, you know -- just, they said they qualified him --
Mr. Panish: That's not any foundational facts.
Judge: If you want to give up any of your foundational requirements, then I'll let her go directly into
the question and just ask the factual question. But if you don't require any foundation, then she doesn't
have to get into that. So it's one or the other.
Mr. Panish: It is. It's expert testimony, which it is. Is there a dispute --
Judge: I don't believe it's expert testimony.
Mr. Panish: You don't believe somebody testifying about what industry practices is, is not expert
testimony?

Judge: Not when it's his own experience. When he says, "in my experience" --
Mr. Panish: It's still an expert.
Judge: -- "this is what I have experienced."
Mr. Panish: He still has to qualify as an expert.
Ms. Stebbins: Your honor --
Mr. Panish: That's an expert. The definition is: Does a layperson know that; okay? Does a layperson
know what the industry practice is for artist's net and gross? Does a layperson know whether it's
common in the industry to take doctors on tour? Does a layperson know all these things? No. That is
clearly expert testimony. It doesn't matter whether it's based on his experience. The experience is
beyond the common experience of the trier of fact. There's no question. And for you to say it's not
expert testimony, I just can't understand that.
Ms. Stebbins: Your honor, he's not offering expert opinions. He's offering things based on his own
personal experience that he's personally seen in years. By the way, both of those two issues were
explored fully at his deposition by Plaintiffs' counsel. They asked him about gross versus net. They
asked him which was more common in the industry. They asked him, is it, you know, better this way or
that way. They didn't like his answer, which I get that. But they did ask him about it -- explore it fully at
his deposition. They also asked him about tour doctors. But what he's testified to, your honor, is his
own experience, tours he's been on, been involved with, personally observed, and that's not barred just
because it's based on his factual experience. He's not giving opinions on custom and standard and care.
He's talking about, "in my experience, I have seen this." and that is classic percipient testimony that is
allowed.
Mr. Panish:
He's talking about the standard in the industry.
Judge: Okay. I'm overruling your objection.
Mr. Panish: I know you are, but I'm making my appropriate record, because this is a big deal.
Judge: Can we make it at a later time?
Mr. Panish: We can, but if I could just make one more comment.
Judge: All right. One more.
Mr. Panish: And I do not --
Judge: We've got to go back
To the jury.
Ms. Stebbins: We've had a long record on this.
Mr. Boyle: So, the point --

Mr. Panish: On this gross versus net, we were asked to fully -- we asked him in the deposition. He
never -- he had no recollection of that memo. Now he's giving expert testimony on it, and you allowed
that. I mean, come on.
Ms. Stebbins: He gave pages --
Mr. Panish: How can we fully explore it when he says he doesn't remember it, never saw it?
Judge: That's impeachment.
Mr. Panish: But the expert testimony is already in.
Ms. Stebbins: Your honor, they can't impeach --
Mr. Boyle: I think the point for the record is simply that he wasn't disclosed as an expert. All they had
to do was put him down as a non-retained expert, and they didn't do that, so --
Ms. Stebbins: Again, your honor, he's not offering expert opinions in the sense of the kind of expert
opinions he has to disclose. He's talking about his own custom and practice, and his own personal
experience which was explored fully at his own deposition. There's no surprise here. Plaintiffs asked
him all these questions before. As for the arena figures, that was something their expert put in after Mr.
Meglen's deposition, and we're allowed to attack the foundational facts that their expert relies on.
Mr. Panish: It's just like a doctor getting up and saying, in his experience, this is the industry standard.
That's expert testimony.
(The following proceeding was heard in open court):
Q. So Mr. Meglen, I think where we left off, we were talking about the fact that you had done
something relating to Michael Jackson in Las Vegas at some point; right?
A. Yes, we did.
Q. That was not during Mr. Jackson's lifetime?
A. That is correct.
Q. Okay. Tell me what you did propose, generally.
A. We proposed to the Estate, John Branca and John McClain, a Michael Jackson campus at the planet
Hollywood hotel that would involve the artifacts that were in the Michael Jackson exhibit; would
involve items from the Neverland Ranch; would have two restaurants, a nightclub and a show, a
theatrical show based on Michael and his music, directed by Kenny Ortega.
Q. So let me make sure I understand this. You said, "the Estate." is that the Estate of Michael Jackson?
A. Correct.

Q. So this is after Michael Jackson passed away?

A. Correct.
Q. And you're proposing a potential business deal to his estate?
A. Correct.
Q. Was this ever something that you proposed while he was living?
A. No.
Q. I'd like to show a copy of the proposal, which is trial exhibit 13,129.
Ms. Stebbins: And, your honor, this is one that has many tiny fonts, so I may give it to the jury. I
would rather put it on the screen because it's long, but if need be --
Judge: If it's hard to read --
Ms. Stebbins: It may be okay on the screen, but I have copies.
Judge: Okay. Some of these things at the back look like they would probably be hard to read.
Ms. Stebbins: Yeah. I don't know if I'm going to go through all of them, but I may. So if you could
zoom in on the top of the first page. You have a different first page than I do.
Q. So Mr. Meglen, first, let me ask: Do you recognize this document?
A. Yes.
Q. What is it?
A. It is an outline and -- both a structural outline that talks about the concept of the show; talks about
who the partners within the show could potentially be. Lays out a concept for a financial arrangement
and has some numbers to support it.
Ms. Stebbins: And if you want to scroll down a little bit, pam, so we could see the bullet points.
The witness: Right.
Q. Are these the things you were just talking about that -- the conceptual ideas that you had for this
space?
A. Yes.

Q. Stores? Nightclub?
A. Correct.
Q. The idea was to have a fairly substantial Michael Jackson kind of show?
A. Yes. I mean, we -- the shows at the Coliseum, or the shows at the hard rock, we have a boutique, we
have a merchandising boutique. Celine's boutique does very, very well. What we were thinking about
there is we wanted to take it to another level. I don't know if you want me to go into much of the detail
about it, but we were creating an entire campus as opposed to just a show and a boutique.
Q. And the idea behind this is -- was proposed after Michael Jackson passed?
A. Correct.
Q. Do you remember when you proposed this to the Estate?
A. I don't remember the exact dates. I do know that I became aware that the Estate was talking to
cirque du soleil about a Michael Jackson show, and that's kind of what triggered the urgency for us.
Q. So you heard that there might be another Michael Jackson show that the Estate of Michael Jackson
was considering?
A. Yes.
Q. And were you involved in that other show?
A. No, no.
Q. So was this created actually kind of as a counter-proposal?
A. Absolutely.
Ms. Stebbins: All right. I'd like to look at the top right-hand corner of the first page, that exhibit
sticker.
Q. Is that something that you put on this document?
A. No.
Q. Okay. Any idea where that came from? Actually, I don't want you to speculate. You didn't put that
on the document?
A. No.
Q. All right. Now, do you have -- do you know of any other numbers that AEG Live ever created that
relate to a Michael Jackson show in Las Vegas?

A. There may have been some variations on this model that would be standard and probably pretty
common. But the model that we would eventually give to John Branca, you know, would have been the
one that we had vetted out a few times and said, "okay. Let's put this one in."
Q. How far did you get with this proposal?
A. We got to one meeting with Branca in his conference room and got to do a b-/c+ pitch. And I think,
in my opinion, they were already down the road, and they wanted to do a show with cirque.
Q. So there's a lot of numbers in the latter part of this, the charts and projections for potential shows?
A. Yes.
Q. And I guess we can go ahead and look -- let's turn to page 10.
A. You have a magnifying glass?
Q. Well, that's what I'm going to see, if we can blow it up big enough on the screen. Still kind of small.
Ms. Stebbins: Can you zoom in on -- just on this part (indicating)? I don't know if it will make it
better or not.
Q. So can you give me a general idea of what this is?
Judge: I think you're going to need -- you're going to go through the numbers, then you're going to
have --
Ms. Stebbins: Not very much, but I can hand out copies.
Mr. Panish: The paper is not as good as that.
Ms. Stebbins: The screen is actually better than the paper, but I'm happy to give out the copies.
Judge: Oh, you're right. The paper is tiny.
Ms. Stebbins: I'm not sure the paper is an improvement.
Judge: Maybe it will help somebody.
Ms. Stebbins: I don't think we're going to spend a lot of time on the numbers. I want to explain
generally what they are, and where they came from, because they're the basis of the AEG Numbers.
Judge: We're looking at page 10 on the bottom. See the numbers?
Ms. Stebbins: 12129.0010.
Judge: That's the page you're looking at. It looks like the screen is better, but if you can see with the

document --
Ms. Stebbins: So pam will zoom in on anything we need to have zoomed in on.
Q. Mr. Meglen, can you give me a general idea what this document is?
A. Yes. This is a projection for a Michael Jackson conceptual show for up to as many as if it ran for up
to 10 years.
Q. Now, you told me before that most Las Vegas residencies run for two to five years.
A. With a headliner. This is not with a headliner. You could -- you know, honestly, you're either going
to run a short period of time, or you're going to have something that may last a little while.
Q. So I guess what I'm asking: Is 10 years optimistic?
A. Yeah. 10 years is -- you run 10 years, you hit a home run.
Q. So you're hoping to make 10 years?
A. Yeah. Our goal is always to get something that could run for a long time.
Q. And at this point in time, were you trying very hard to compete with the cirque proposal?
A. Absolutely.
Q. So would you have tried to make your proposal attractive or unattractive?
A. I would try to make my proposal as attractive or better than cirque's proposal.
Q. All right. Now, so this assumes -- these are figures assuming that a show is launched and runs for 10
years?
A. Correct.
Q. A post-death Michael Jackson tribute show?
A. Well, I think you've got -- if you can move that little thing there -- I think you have it if it ran for
one year, if it ran for five years, and if it ran for another five years.
Q. Got it.
A. So it really has three different projections there.
Q. Got it. I think I see that now.
A. Or, it actually has one that -- what it shows for a week. So you would look at this and say, okay.
Here's what it looks like for one year, and if it ran for five years, if you were lucky and got another five
years out of it, that's what it would be.

Q. And over here on the top row, it says, "producer's operations"?

A. Yes.
Q. What are those?
A. That is a -- you know, it's a number that we have in really all of our shows. It's really a catchall
number that covers our staff that works in the building at the Coliseum.

Q. And that's just staff payments?
A. It's just a catchall number. It's not a big number.
Q. What about the amount of sort of building and mounting of this production? Is that captured
anywhere here?
A. Yeah. You need to -- yeah. Get rid of that.
The witness: Can I move this or --
Judge: No, you can't.
The witness: You have to go down further for me to talk about the production costs. I've -- oh, no, no.
Hold it. You have -- let me just see.
Q. We need to go to the next page.
A. Okay. You do Need to go to the next page.
Judge: This is the next page; right? Page 11?
Ms. Stebbins: Yes.
The witness: Okay. If you go there (indicating), that's the -- right here (indicating). That's the -- the
$60 million is what we would offer the Estate as a guarantee on their share of the profits.
Mr. Panish: That says 60.
The witness: The 60; okay? So we're saying -- we're guaranteeing that you'd make at least $60
million over the 10 years; okay? The next number -- again, you're -- I can't read that next number.
Q. I think it's 48 million. You don't need to give me the specifics. I'm just asking --
A. I mean, I know. But you keep putting these boxes up in front of -- it's hard to read these numbers.
Q. It is.

A. Yeah. Go over one from that box and do the next one. I'm -- that should be $40 million, I believe.
Yeah. The $40 million is what we told the Estate that we would spend to create the show, rehearse the
show, get the show basically -- that $40 million gets you to opening night.
Q. And at that point had you started producing the show?
A. No. I got these numbers from John Branca. He told me that cirque was
Mr. Panish: Objection. Hearsay.
Judge: Sustained.
The witness: Okay. Well --
Q. What were these numbers?
A. These numbers were given to me.
Mr. Panish: Well, I move to strike this -- this is hearsay. No basis for him to testify to this.
Ms. Stebbins: Your honor, he's trying --
Mr. Panish: It's what he used is fine. That's fine. He can say that. But what they're trying to do is
backdoor hearsay, which is inappropriate.
Ms. Stebbins: Your honor, I'm trying to explain whether these numbers were created internally by
AEG Live or whether he was trying to meet someone else's target. I don't think that calls for hearsay.
Mr. Panish: Still calls for hearsay.
Judge: The way you were asking, it did call for hearsay.
Ms. Stebbins: Well, I can ask for it in a way that doesn't call for hearsay.
Q. Mr. Meglen, were these estimates based on real numbers created by AEG Live based on an actual
production budget?
A. These two numbers, the 60 and the 40?
Q. Yes.
A. No.
Q. Were they created for competitive purposes?
A. Yes.

Q. Is it possible that had this tour actually been created, production costs could have exceeded this
amount or this show been created?
A. Yes.
Q. And that kind of leads me to a bigger question about these figures. Obviously, you have a lot of
experience in Las Vegas shows when you've planned a tour; right?
A. Yes.
Q. Have you ever built an entire campus like this before?
A. No.
Q. And in putting this development deal together, did you have a firm sense of all of these numbers, or
were they somewhat on the speculative side?
A. Uhm, some of the theater operating numbers and that would be very accurate. The numbers for the
show creation are the ones that you just don't know. They're variable. And the weekly -- and the same
with the weekly operating expenses.
Q. So those might be somewhat different than projections?
A. Yes. We may have put in our projections that there would be, you know, 25 dancers; okay? But then
later when you got into the creation of the show, if they wanted 100 dancers, then your number is going
to be way off on your dancers.
Q. So at this -- fair to say these are fairly early projections?
A. Yes. Very early. This is a very formulative stage budget.
Q. And have you had other shows that had budgets at this stage and then budgets when they were
finally put into --
A. Yes.
Q. Are those budgets the same or are they different?
A. They're budgets. Budgets change constantly.
Q. All right. Now, you wanted to do this show; right?
A. Oh, yes.
Q. And you believed at the time that it could be a successful tribute to Mr. Jackson?
A. Yes, I did.

Q. Do you have any -- or let me ask you this: Did you have any way of guaranteeing that it would be
successful?
A. No. There's no on -- on our side of the business, there's no guarantees as to what's going to happen.
Q. And do you have -- did you have any idea -- had you ever done a show before for a deceased artist
before?
A. This would have been AEG's first step into actually creating a conceptual show, as opposed to doing
a show with the headliner in it in Las Vegas.
Q. And as between conceptual shows and headliner shows, which do you view as more risky?
A. Oh, conceptual shows are much more riskier.
Q. Why is that?
A. Well, with a headliner, you know -- you have a certain track record of how many tickets they're
going to sell. People are going to go see Celine or Elton; okay? But if you're going to do a show based
on Elton's music or Celine's music, it depends on how good the show is, I guess.
Q. All right. Let's look quickly at page 8. I just want to look at this provision that says, "holdback." this
is actually readable. Now, "Jackson" here, does that mean Michael Jackson or the Estate of Jackson?
A. That means Michael Jackson. No, I'm sorry. That would mean the Estate. If this was after Michael
had passed, this would mean the Estate wanted to do a competitive show with us.
Q. Okay. Explain that to me.
A. Their -- well, it goes back to the point of, if you're going to invest all of this money to put this one
show in Las Vegas, then you're not going to want -- and you're going to tell people this is the only place
in the world you can see this show, then they're not going to want them to reproduce one in London and
Macao and Tokyo and Singapore. And suddenly you have these everywhere, and it's not as special
anymore.
Q. So --
Ms. Stebbins: You can take that down.
Q. Did the Estate ultimately decide to do this project?
A. No. The Estate told us that they were not interested in doing this.
Q. Now, did you ever pitch any kind of Michael Jackson conceptual show before Michael Jackson
died?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever consider one?

A. No.
Q. Why not?
A. Well, I think, you know, when Michael was alive, your first thought, if you were working with him,
would be for him to perform live. So -- and in fact in our first meeting asked him if he was interested in
doing that and he said, "no."
Judge: Doing what?
The witness: Doing a residency like Celine was doing or like Elton was doing. And he said, "no."
Mr. Panish: When is this? Sorry? What year?
The witness: So the idea of just doing a show about his music and all that, that was not in the front of
our mind and wasn't -- it's not his -- you know, it's not as big as the real thing. I mean, of the artist
himself being there. And if you can have the artist himself being there, why are you going to do a
tribute show? Tribute shows are like pretty lower-level shows in the marketplace.
Q. So they're sort of second best if you can't get the artist live?
A. Well, they're -- there have been some great tribute -- there is one great tribute show that I consider
great, which is "love," which is the beetles. But the beetles cannot get together again. There was the
Elvis tribute show, but it failed miserably because it was a terrible show. I don't think it's any reflection
on Elvis. It was a terrible show. And if you don't build a great show, it can die, and that died really
quickly.
Q. Now, at the time you proposed this post-death tribute show, would you say you were optimistic or
unoptimistic about Michael Jackson nostalgia, and people would want to see the show because of
Michael Jackson's sad passing?
A. You know, yes. We thought that if we could create the -- you know, you're always trying to create
"the" show. You know, if we could create the show with Michael's catalog, that could be very
successful. But it's risky.
Q. And you didn't create it?
A. No, we did not.
Ms. Stebbins: Your honor, is this a good time to take a break?
Judge: I wanted to keep going. But what time did we start?
Ms. Stebbins: We started about 9:50. The clerk: That's what I have.
Judge: What do you want to do? Who wants a break? Raise your hand. Nobody.
Mr. Panish: Ms. Bina. How about, give her five?

Ms. Stebbins: I can just go out, your honor.

Judge: No. We'll do 10 minutes. Okay.
(The jury exits the courtroom)
Judge: Okay. 10 minutes.
Ms. Stebbins: Thank you, your honor.
(Break)
(The jury enters the courtroom)
Judge: Katherine Jackson versus AEG Live. Let's continue with the direct.
Q. Mr. Meglen, when we talked about this Vegas show, the tribute show that you proposed after
Michael Jackson's death, you proposed a fairly extensive show that would generate over time a large
amount of money; right?
A. Correct.
Q. Would you have ever proposed a conceptual show like this when Michael Jackson was alive?
A. No.
Q. No chance of it?
A. No. It wasn't -- wasn't even in our minds.
Q. Would it make sense to do?
A. No.
Q. So all of this proposal was based on the fact that Mr. Jackson had died tragically?
A. Correct.
Q. And that you now had an estate that was potentially looking at business ventures?
A. Correct.
Q. Does it make sense -- if someone came and said that they thought Michael Jackson could tour for
many years
while simultaneously doing a conceptual show in Vegas, would that have made sense to you?

Mr. Panish: Objection. Calls for expert testimony.

Judge: He wouldn't be doing a conceptual show; right?
Ms. Stebbins: That's why I'm asking. Let me ask something different.
Q. Would the AEG Live contract with Michael Jackson have permitted him to simultaneously do a
conceptual show in Las Vegas?
A. No.
Q. Would you have ever proposed a simultaneous conceptual show in Las Vegas?
A. No.
Q. All right. Now, I want to talk a little bit about some tours and arenas in the united states and
elsewhere.
A. Okay.
Q. As
Part of your work for AEG Live in the concert industry over the years, have you ever planned a tour
schedule?
A. Many, many, many times.
Q. And can you give me a ballpark of how many times?
A. I've probably done hundreds of tour routings and schedules.
Q. So you're familiar with places that tours go?
A. Yes. I've probably been to most of them numerous times.
Judge: Most of them around the world or --
The witness: Yes. More North America, but around the world, yes.
Q. Can you give me a sampling of places you've been to? Venues?
A. In the last month?
Q. Sure. Last month is good.
A. Staples center, MGM Grand arena, Anaheim pond, San Jose HP Pavilion, Oakland Oracle arena,
Toronto Air Canada Center, Chicago united center, Boston TD Bank Center, Philadelphia First Union,

Washington DC. Verizon, Hyde Park in London last month.

Q. That's the last 30 days?
A. Last 60 days.
Q. And is that typical for you?
A. No. I don't usually go out on a full tour, but because it was the Rolling Stones, I went on the full
tour.
Q. Got it. A. Question I had about the Rolling Stones, actually, you mentioned earlier they had a
doctor on tour with them?
A. Yes.
Q. Does that doctor treat everybody on the crew?
A. No, no, no. It's just for the band only.
Q. And what about Celine Dion's doctor?
A. Celine's doctor is only for Celine. If you need a doctor for, you know, your crew, and things like
that, those are usually doctors that are found on a local basis. The building usually has a doctor on call.
If your crew is sick or something, they can have them come in.
Q. Now, turning back to the subject of the Estate in generating this, Plaintiffs' expert, Mr. Erk, had
talked about some various stadiums and arenas and potential shows that Mr. Jackson, in his view, could
have done in those.
A. Okay.
Q. And I want to ask you about some of that and whether -- and your experience with those same
stadiums and arenas.
A. Okay.
Q. Now, first thing I want to do is look at exhibit 13,128. I heard from the peanut gallery that you are
hard to hear so --
A. Pardon me.
Q. I've had a comment that you're hard to hear, so if you could put that microphone a little bit closer.
A. Oh, sorry. Is that better? Is it on? There we go.
Q. I'm not going to ask about --
A. You'd think I would know about those things.

Judge: I need a copy.

Ms. Stebbins: I've given the witness a copy for you.
The witness: Oh, I'm sorry.
Ms. Stebbins: All right. Just want to make sure I get the right page here. All right. So put up page
13128.0011.
Q. And I'll represent to you, Mr. Meglen, that this is the proposed "This Is It" tour that Plaintiffs'
expert, Mr. Erk, thought that Mr. Jackson might do. Now, the first question I have is: Is this based on
any actual proposed "This Is It" tour created by AEG Live?
A. No.
Q. You've never seen this before?
A. No, I've never -- no, I haven't seen this.
Q. Okay. So I'm going to ask you a couple questions
Mr. Panish: Well, your honor, if he's never seen this or familiar with it, I would object to him even
using it.
Judge: Overruled.
Q. All right. The first set here, you'll note, is some potential dates in India. You see that?
Ms. Stebbins: Scroll down a little bit.
The witness: Oh, down in the big box? Oh that? Yeah.
Q. So the first question I have, Mr. Meglen: Did AEG Live ever propose that Mr. Jackson would do 60
dates in India, to your knowledge?
A. No.
Q. Have you ever proposed that an artist do 60 dates in India?
A. I've never, probably, proposed an artist go to India.
Q. Why not?
A. Nobody goes to India.

Q. Why not?
A. There's no -- I mean, there's been a few concerts there that I'm aware of. I've personally never done
a show in India, and I don't even know if there's -- I think there's a cricket field, but no arenas, and I
don't know if there's any real stadiums in India.
Mr. Panish: I object, move to strike. No foundation, since he doesn't know.
Judge: Sustained.
Q. Is India a place that you take tours to?
A. No.
Mr. Panish: So then I would move to strike all that testimony. He has no idea.
Judge: Sustained.
Ms. Stebbins: Your honor, I'm only asking has he taken shows to India. I think that's within the realm
of his testimony and knowledge. I don't think it should be sustained.
Mr. Panish: All that "cricket field" --
Judge: All that part is stricken.
Ms. Stebbins: Your honor, just for the record, I believe the witness can explain why he has chosen not
to make shows throughout India.
Mr. Panish: Can I Voir Dire him on his knowledge of India to show that he doesn't know?
Judge: No. I sustained your objection, so --
Ms. Stebbins: So let's move on.
Judge: The testimony is that he's never taken a show to India.
Ms. Stebbins: Yes.
Judge: That will stand.
Ms. Stebbins: Okay.
Judge: That's it.
Q. And then it suggests Japan. You see that?
A. Yes.

Q. And then it suggests that Mr. Jackson would do a total of 50 shows in Japan.
A. Okay. Yeah. I just saw the 10. Okay. Yes, I see that.
Q. Did you -- did AEG Live ever propose that Mr. Jackson would do 50 shows in Japan?
A. No. Not in Tokyo.
Q. Have you even taken an artist for 50 dates in Japan?
A. No.
Q. Now -- and then it talks about arena shows in the US
A. Okay.
Q. You see that?
A. I see that.
Q. And it says there that the average capacity of arenas is 19,000. You see that?
A. Yes.
Q. And then you see, it says, "stadium shows in the US"?
A. Yes.
Q. And there's actually a little footnote there. If you go down, it shows you a list of stadiums.
A. Yes.
Q. You see that?
A. Pardon me?
Q. Do you see that?
A. Yes, I see that.
Q. And then going back up to the main chart, it says 25 shows in the -- I can't pronounce French.
A. "Stade de France."
Q. You see that?
A. Yes, I do.

Q. Have you ever promoted or produced shows in Stade de France?

A. Yes, I have.
Q. When you promoted there -- it says seating capacity, 81,000?
A. I don't think that's correct.
Q. Why not?
A. Probably, like, full capacity, if you've got, you know, a soccer game or something going on. But
production doesn't allow us to sell the full capacity of a stadium, ever.
Q. And can you explain to me why that is?
A. Well, you have your stage out there on the field that takes up a good portion of -- a stadium stage is
very large. Much larger than an arena stage and your production and that. So you are building this
entire footprint of production onto the field, and, you know, you're only playing to that which is in front
of you here (indicating). So we standardly call it, you know, our sight lines. And sight lines can go from
180 degrees, which means, if you're standing on the front of the stage, and you stick your hands straight
out, it's everything in front of you. If you don't have a lot of stuff on the sides of the stage, then you can
maybe start selling the sides. And that's when you start talking about 200, 220 degrees. And only if a
show has, you know, virtually no production on the stage whatsoever, then potentially you can go and
sell all the way around back, and that's what we call the show selling 360 degrees. But this capacity is
higher than even selling 360 degrees.
Q. And have you personally promoted shows where you've sold 360 degrees?
A. Yes.
Q. Give me an example.
A. Some of the Bon Jovi shows, we've sold 360 degrees; Dixie chicks tour was 360 degrees; Prince
was center stage in the round, 360 degrees.
Q. Was the Michael Jackson "This Is It" tour contemplated to be 360 degrees?
A. No, no. That giant video screen, that kills everything in the back.
Q. You mean behind the video screen?
A. Yeah. Big old screen, so you can't sell seats behind it. Nobody can see.
Q. So on the "This Is It" tour, do you have a sense of where that would fall -- I know you weren't
involved, so you may not -- on the 360, 220, 280?
A. Probably within the 220 range.
Q. And that's based on the fact it had a screen in the back?

A. Had screens in the back, had a lot of production. You know, you can't sell a ticket to somebody on a
live show who can't see Michael. If they can't see him live, not just see him just on the screen, if you
can't see him live, then, you know, why would somebody buy a ticket?
Q. I'm going to show you a demonstrative and put it on the screen. So first thing I'd like you to do is
turn back to page --
Ms. Stebbins: Pam, can you put up the stadium demonstrative?
Q. Mr. Meglen, if you could take a minute just to review that.
A. I got it.
Q. Now, the first thing I'd like to do is take a look back at Mr. Erk's page 11.
A. Okay.
Q. And I want to see if some of these stadiums on the demonstrative --
Ms. Stebbins: Pam, you can take that off -- are you on Mr. Erk's page 11?
Q. So the first thing up here is the Dallas cowboys stadium. Is that one that Mr. Erk has at the bottom
of page 11?
A. Yes.
Q. What about the Georgia dome?
A. Yes. He has it on there.
Q. Okay. Lincoln financial field?
A. That's Philly; right? Yeah. He has it on there.
Q. Lucas oil?
A. Indianapolis? Yes.
Q. Metlife stadium?
A. Metlife. That's the new giants stadium. He has "East Rutherford." that's -- actually, two years ago
the new stadium opened. Really the same site. So he has giants stadium, they're all Metlife stadium
now.
Q. Has a new name?
A. A new name, and it is a redone building.

Q. But it's still on the list?

A. Yeah. It's still on the list.
Q. And reliant stadium?
A. Houston. Yeah.
Q. Okay. And soldier field?
A. Yeah.
Q. And university of phoenix stadium?
A. Yes.
Q. So all of these stadiums listed here are on the list of stadiums Mr. Erk proposed that Mr. Jackson
Would tour?
A. Yes.
Q. And you see his capacity on this chart?
A. Correct.
Q. And is that the capacity that's up here on the stadiums that claimed capacity?
A. Under "Plaintiff claimed capacity"?
Q. Yes.
A. Yes.
Q. Now, can you please tell me what the column called "performance capacity" represents?
A. That is the -- that's the saleable capacity, on average, of the shows that we have done in these
stadiums since 2008.
Q. So these are stadiums where AEG Live has actually performed concerts?
A. Correct.
Q. And you've been involved in routing them?
A. Yes.
Q. Is there any stadium on this list that you have not personally been to?
A. I haven't been to Lucas oil yet. That's the only one on here I don't think I've been to.

Q. Have you planned tours for Lucas Oil stadium?

A. Yes. I think Kenny Chesney and Taylor Swift. I know Chesney. I can't remember the other one.
Might be two others.
Q. So you know the performance capacity, even though you haven't been there personally?
A. Yes.
Q. And what's this column labeled "events"?
A. That's the number of shows that we have done in each one of these stadiums. So since 2008 we've
done eight shows at cowboys stadium.
Q. So if I understand this chart correctly, when AEG Live actually took concerts to Dallas Cowboys
stadium, and they did eight concerts there, the average saleable capacity was 48,998 seats?
A. Correct.
Q. And when I say, "saleable capacity," what does "saleable capacity" mean?
A. It's what we can sell to the public. It's really what I was talking about earlier. After you put the stage
in and figure out your sight lines, here's how many seats we can actually sell.
Q. All right. And then is it -- is sight lines the only restriction that you have on saleable tickets, or are
there other restrictions at stadiums, and things of that nature?
A. With stadiums, the most important thing is your egress on the floor. You know, the capacity of the
stadium floor has very little to do with how many people physically you can put there. It is more to do
with how many exits you have, and what the fire marshal will allow you to put on the floor, you know,
due to the exiting.
Q. Are there any seats you can't sell, like box seats, or things like that?
A. Both stadiums and arenas have suites that are taken off of the entire manifest of the stadium. And
neither the artist nor the promoter gets paid on those.
Q. So you have people in the seats watching the concerts that don't get charged for it?
A. Yes. That -- well, they have bought suites on an annual basis, but they get the tickets to the concerts
as part of their deal, but the promoter and the artist do not share in any of that revenue from suite sales.
Q. So somebody makes revenue on it, but not the promoter or the artist?
A. The building.
Q. But the artist's income is not compensated off of those seats, then?

A. No.
Q. It looks like that there's quite a big difference between the saleable capacity that AEG Live has
actually experienced at these stadiums and the numbers given by Mr. Erk.
A. Yeah. A. Big difference.
Q. So can you kind of walk me through some of those?
Mr. Panish: Can we get some foundation on this witness's -- what he did to prepare this chart and
such? What foundation is there for this?
Ms. Stebbins: I think the witness has given adequate foundation that these are shows AEG Live
actually performed in the arenas and the average saleable capacity for tickets.
Judge: I think he said he was personally involved.
Mr. Panish: No. He said he was never at Lucas oil stadium. I believe he said --
Ms. Stebbins: He testified that he routed concerts through Lucas oil stadium. He hadn't personally
visited there, as opposed to other stadiums he both routed concerts and attended.
Judge: Overruled.
Q. All right.
A. Yes. We have Bon Jovi playing at Metlife stadium Thursday and Saturday of this week. I was on the
phone with our team this morning. I asked them what our saleable capacity for the show was --
Mr. Panish: That's hearsay.
The witness: -- for Bon Jovi.
Judge: Sustained on hearsay.
Mr. Panish: It's all based on hearsay.
Judge: That's okay, but --
The witness: Well, I can have an audit sent, if you want.
Mr. Panish: Yeah. That would be great.
The witness: How many seats we can show.
Mr. Panish: For all those.
The witness: Okay.

Q. Let's step back a moment. It looks to me like, on average, it's maybe about 20 to 30 percent of the
seats have to be given up for these stadiums.
A. You know, these are football capacities; okay? Figures.
Q. What are football capacities?
A. Figure three-quarters, two-thirds of that is what we can sell for concerts.
Q. And let's now turn -- I want to look at --
Judge: Before you go on, I just have a question. Maybe it's just won my own curiosity. So if you have
box seats at staples, like Lakers season tickets or something --
The witness: Not season tickets, but the suites. The three levels of suites --
Judge: Right.
The witness: -- between those suites? Those suites are sold on an annual basis, and the promoter nor
the artist, they get zero revenue.
Mr. Panish: That's not true.
Judge: Anything shown at the staples, the people who have the suites get to see everything?
Mr. Panish: No.
The witness: Correct.
Judge: Okay.
The witness: You don't get the Grammies, and you don't get the all-star game. You have to buy those.
Judge: Okay.
The witness: But everything else, you get.
Judge: Okay. That's just how those work?
The witness: Yeah. That's how they work. Pretty much standard around the country.
Judge: Okay.
Q. And the building gets the money for those; right?
A. Correct. Correct.
Q. All right. I want to look now at another one of these charts. This is US Arenas. (indicating)

Judge: Did you give a number to these?

Ms. Stebbins: No. Let's give numbers to both of them. The first one, pam? There is one 13,469.
(Defendants' exhibit no. 13,469, a demonstrative, was marked for identification)
Ms. Stebbins: And the second one, 13,470. You're right to catch me. I put them way out and had to put
them in the next day. (Defendants' exhibit no. 13,470, a demonstrative, was marked for identification)
Q. Mr. Meglen, Mr. Erk didn't provide arenas where AEG Live might have sent Mr. Jackson in the US,
so I want to ask you: What is this list?
A. This is a list of the 20 most -- the 20 arenas that AEG Live has done the most shows in since 2008, I
believe.
Q. Okay. And the "events" column here, is that again the number of shows that AEG Live has actually
put on in each of these arenas?
A. Yes. Since 2008, yes.
Q. And have you been involved in routing shows through each of these arenas?
A. Yes.
Q. And any that you haven't been to on this list?
A. I haven't been to the Bok Center yet in Tulsa. That's a relatively new building. And Centurylink -- is
that Columbus or is that -- they change the names all the time in these buildings, names and titles. A.
Lot of times it's the same building with a new name on it. Is Centurylink Columbus or Louisiana? Oh,
no, no. I think that's the new Omaha building. So, yes, we ended the Celine tour there. It used to be
called something else, but now it's Centurylink in Omaha.
Q. And in fact, some of these names, "jobbing.Com," how do arenas get their names?
A. They're called name and title deals. It's a contract for -- a multiple-year contract, usually a 10-, 20-,
30-year deal for naming rights of the stadium.
Q. You can be an arena and -- be familiar with an arena, and then all of a sudden?
A. Provident civic center became the Dunkin Donut center. Can't forget that one.
Q. Does it sell Dunkin donuts there?
A. Still the Dunkin donut there.
Q. And, again, what is this average capacity column?
A. This is the average saleable capacity for concerts that we have done in there.
Q. Now --

Mr. Panish: Objection on the foundation again.

Judge: Overruled.
Q. And have you personally been involved in that?
A. I've been to all of these buildings except for the Bok center, and I've done many of these shows in
these buildings.
Q. And are these numbers consistent with your recollection and understanding of the shows that you've
done there personally?
Mr. Panish: Objection. Foundation.
Judge: Well, I'm not sure I heard that he did shows to all of these buildings or supervised the shows in
the buildings.
Q. Is there any building on this list where you have not either promoted or supervised the promotion of
a concert?
A. No.
Q. All right. And these are -- these average capacity figures are figures --
A. Yes.
Q. -- that you are familiar with?
A. Yeah.
Q. Now, I notice that in total -- what's the number at the bottom?
A. "12,026 average"?
Q.
Yeah.
A. That's the average of all of that above.
Q. So 12,000 is the average capacity for the top 20 US Venues that AEG Live does tours in?
A. Yeah. I think it means that we do an average of 51 events in these 20 venues a year, with an average
capacity of 12,026 tickets, is how I would read it.
Mr. Panish: Your honor, there's no foundation. I mean, they haven't laid a foundation that he even
knows what this says. Did he prepare it? Give the back-up for it?
Judge: Overruled.

Q. Mr. Meglen, in your experience is the average arena saleable capacity in the US 19,000?
A. No.
Q. Is it less than 19,000?
A. Much less.
Q. Is it, again, maybe about 30 percent less?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. Now, are the issues, in terms of saleable capacity in arenas, similar to the ones in
stadiums?
A. You mean in terms of sight lines, and things of that nature? Exactly.
Q. Are there any issues That come up in stadiums that don't come up in arenas, or vice versa?
A. There are production elements that you have to deal with in a stadium that you don't have to deal
with in an arena.
Q. Actually, that reminds me of something. If you have a show that you're routing to the united states,
do you generally play arenas and stadiums or just arenas or just stadiums?
A. No. It's -- you can't take the production that you have built for arenas and suddenly use that in
stadiums. You would need to really mount a new production.
Q. And why is that?
A. Because it's so much bigger. You know, it starts with your stage, and you make the stage itself
bigger, then everything else. The lighting becomes bigger -- everything changes.
Q. And any other issues?
A. It's just a lot more expensive to do stadiums than it is arenas.
Q. Do stadiums have roofs, on average?
A. Some do. But generally, the roofs in those stadiums are so high, very few of them you can hang
from the actual roof in the stadium. So you have to bring in an outdoor stage. And an outdoor stage is a
big scaffolding monster that you can hang sound and lights and things like that from.
Q. So is it fair to say that if you were holding a show, and you were going to do an arena tour, and then
you wanted to change that to a stadium tour, it would require substantial production costs to do that?
A. Yes, yes. You could use a lot of your same gags, potentially, but most of your -- 75, 80 percent of
your production is going to have to change.

Q. And then this is one more of these charts. (indicating).

Ms. Stebbins: This will be 13,471. (Defendants' exhibit no. 13,471, a chart, was marked for
identification)
Q. Now, Mr. Meglen, I believe you testified yesterday you promoted the Rolling Stones "Voodoo
Lounge" tour?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Do you do any shows in the Rose Bowl?
A. Yes. We did two.
Q. Now, what -- were you able to fill the entire Rose Bowl for the "Voodoo Lounge"?
A. We were able to sell everything that we could sell.
Q. What was that?
A. 59,000 people.
Q. Not 92,000?
A. No. Not a chance.
Q. And, again, the difference is?
A. Well, the Rose Bowl, the Coliseum, you know, Ann Arbor in Columbus are the four biggest football
stadiums in the country. And all those that claim to be 100,000-seat capacity, but when you do a concert
in those, you're lucky if you could hit 60.
Q. Is there any stadium or arena in the world that you've ever been able to fill to maximum capacity?
A. No.
Q. Maximum stadium capacity?
A. No. It's physically impossible.
Ms. Stebbins: Okay. You can put that down.
Q. Now, I'd like to turn to another page of Mr. Erk's document, and that is page 9, and it goes over onto
page 10.
Ms. Stebbins: And pam, the jury's already seen this. If you could put up the two pages together so we
can see all of those.

Q. Mr. Meglen, I'll represent to you that this is a chart that Plaintiffs' expert, Mr. Erk, testified about
the other day, and he testified that it is the list of highest grossing tours of all time, according to
Wikipedia.
A. Okay.
Ms. Stebbins: Ideally, if I can put them all --
Judge: The jurors have this handout?
Ms. Stebbins: They did the other day. I'm not sure if they have it now, but I can get it.
Judge: At least this page might be helpful, because I can read it.
Ms. Stebbins: I have it stapled, but I can pass it out, and it's pages 9 and 10.
Judge: Would you give Mr. Panish and Mr. Boyle a copy?
Ms. Stebbins: Yes, your honor. And this is the document produced and introduced into evidence by
Plaintiffs.
Judge: Okay.
Mr. Panish: Yeah. Actually, this is not the one we used the other day. This is not the one.
Ms. Stebbins: Presented at the deposition.
Mr. Panish: And it's not in evidence.
Mr. Boyle: Right.
Mr. Panish: And it shouldn't be passed out to the jury, and it's not in evidence.
Judge: It's not in evidence, then I need to get it all back.
Mr. Panish: Just not used by Plaintiffs with Mr. Erk.
Ms. Stebbins: I believe this was used in cross-examination with Mr. Erk.
Mr. Panish: No.
Ms. Stebbins: Plaintiffs -- I can check the record.
Mr. Panish: She said it was introduced by Plaintiffs. That's not correct.
Ms. Stebbins: I may be incorrect. This was produced by Defendants. This was produced at the
deposition. It's not the one produced at trial because he had changed numbers on certain pages, not --
Judge: If it's not introduced, then take them back.

Ms. Stebbins: Okay. I believe it was introduced. I'll double-check that, your honor.
Mr. Panish: He may have been questioned, I don't know about that, but it's not in evidence by the
Plaintiff, not introduced by Mr. Erk through the Plaintiff, like she said.
Ms. Stebbins: The chart, your honor, was, so we could put that back on the screen introduced by Mr.
Erk as exactly displayed here --
Mr. Panish: No.
Ms. Stebbins: -- and discussed extensively in court.
Mr. Panish: That's not the chart.
Judge: I do know we talked about --
Ms. Stebbins: Same exact chart used, your honor. Mr. Erk provided an updated set. He didn't change
any of these two -- this was with the witness --
Mr. Panish: Didn't have this exhibit number. If there is one that we used, that's fine. The one we used,
but not --
Judge: Okay. We should --
Ms. Stebbins: Your honor, same chart we used on cross-examination.
Judge: We'll let the jury go to lunch. See which one to go to.
Ms. Stebbins: I believe this is the right one, but I will double-check.
Judge: All right. So 1:30. Thank you.
(The jury exits the courtroom)
Ms. Stebbins: I'll double-check, your honor. I believe this was introduced by Plaintiffs. It might have
been introduced by defense. I'll make sure we have the right number. I'll check the transcript at lunch.
Judge: I think maybe what happened is there may have been a change in some of these numbers
during the testimony.
Ms. Stebbins: But not the Wikipedia numbers. Mr. Erk changed his own numbers when he realized he
overstated the capacity of staples center -- not the staples center, the 02. So he made modifications
based on that to some other of his numbers. This is some of his foundational fact numbers. Anyway, I'll
double-check which one was introduced.
Mr. Boyle: Didn't use the defense exhibit 1. We know that. We used a Plaintiffs' exhibit.
Ms. Stebbins: Been introduced by Ms. Strong because Plaintiffs had a demonstrative of it. In any

event, we'll make sure we have the right one.

Mr. Panish: I don't believe she introduced it because you wouldn't be able to introduce it on cross.
You can ask about it. But, also, your honor, the protocol, the way it works in a court, if counsel is going
to give exhibits to the jurors, they're given to the court attendant. Counsel, pursuit to the local rules,
does not interact with the counsel -- with the jurors, and that's inappropriate conduct by counsel. And
you don't walk over and hand exhibits to jurors. As when I did it, you hand it to the court attendant.
And that is not appropriate, to have that kind of contact with the jurors. That's why there's a rule on
that, your honor.
Ms. Stebbins: Your honor asked me --
Judge: There's an objection.
Ms. Stebbins: To the jurors, I will not do it again. I don't think I did anything improper, and if I did, it
was because I believe it was what your honor asked me to do. But I will not do it again.
Mr. Panish: When you asked me to do it, I didn't go hand it to the jurors.
Judge: I wouldn't have had a problem had you done it.
Mr. Panish: But that's the rule because of contact between jurors and counsel. But I guess -- all right.
If that's the way it works here, I'll start handing stuff to the jurors, too.
Ms. Stebbins: Your honor, do we need to talk about this?
Judge: No, not really.
Ms. Stebbins: Okay. Thank you, your honor.
Judge: Go back and find the correct version.
Ms. Stebbins: I will.
Judge: And verify that's been introduced into evidence.
Ms. Stebbins: I will confirm all of that.
Judge: Okay. All right. Thank you. So I will see you at 1:30.
Ms. Stebbins: Thank you, your honor.
Judge: Thank you.
Mr. Putnam: Thank you, your honor.
(Lunch)

Appearances for the defendants: O'Melveny & Myers LLP

Judge. Katherine Jackson versus AEG Live good afternoon.
Panish. Yes, your honor. With respect to these demonstratives on the stadium attendance and such,
I'm objecting to those. I don't know if they're being put into evidence, but I'm objecting to them on
hearsay and foundation for those documents. You've allowed this witness to testify, but we haven't seen
the... we served him with a subpoena for all the backup for this information. But I'm objecting to those
because I asked counsel if she's trying to put them into evidence, she said, "well, I showed them to the
jury." and I had objected already. And I further want to renew my objection to these documents being
admitted into evidence.
Ms. Bina. Your honor, I think that they should stay in evidence. They've been testified to,
discussed. I think they're helpful for the jury, they reflect evidence that has been testified to by a
witness, so I don't think there's any reason why they should not come in. If plaintiffs have some
objections, or if... they did serve Mr. Meglen with a subpoena about an hour ago. Obviously, we'll look
at that, but I don't see what ground there is for objecting to this at this point.
Judge. Okay. I can conditionally admit it until...
Ms. Bina. Sure. And then if plaintiffs have an issue with the numbers later, they can raise it.
Panish. I have an objection, I raised it on foundation basis.
Judge. So you've subpoenaed the backup for this?
Panish. All of it.
Ms. Bina. The subpoena, at first glance, looks a little overbroad, but I'm sure we can come up with
something workable.
Judge. Well, meet and confer before you bring it to me. You might be able to narrow it if it's too
broad.
Ms. Bina. And the other exhibit, your honor, it was admitted on July 16 during Ms. Strong's
examination. We also have another version of it that plaintiffs put in that was exhibit 744-1, so we're
just going to use theirs.
Judge. Plaintiffs'?
Ms. Bina. Yes. It's the same exact chart. Theirs is a little bigger font, so...
Judge. You ran it by them so they know which...
Ms. Bina. I told them which one it is. It's an exhibit they put in last week. I don't have a copy of it,
but I can put it on their screen first.
Panish. I thought we were breaking early...

Judge. Was it something written on it?

Panish. I have no idea.
Ms. Bina. It's an exhibit that plaintiffs' counsel prepared with their expert and used in evidence last
week. It is identical to the one we used, it's just the one...
Panish. I thought we were breaking early so they would show it to us so we wouldn't have this
problem.
Judge. Why don't you put it on the screen now.
Panish. I still haven't seen it. That's why I asked if I could see a copy.
Ms. Bina. You created it.
Panish. Well, I don't know...
Judge. Counsel, let him take a look... there's been a dispute as to whatever version of this document
is going to be used. Give him an opportunity to see what you're going to show to the jury.
Panish. Okay. Is this the only page?
Ms. Bina. There's two pages.
Panish. Just for the record, they were different documents. One was the preliminary he prepared for
his deposition, which was only for that purpose that they were trying to use, and this is what we
actually admitted at trial, so I don't know why they were trying to use the...
Ms. Bina. For the record, your honor, both documents were admitted at trial, both versions of the
same exact chart, which have no difference in numbers, have been shown to the jury. Both... the
exhibit I tried to use it before lunch has already been admitted into evidence and testified about
extensively on July 16, and this one, which is exactly identical to it but is in a larger font, was
introduced by the defendants during that direct of Mr. Erk.
Panish. The exhibit she showed the jury, these said, "here's the exhibit that plaintiff introduced with
that evidence for Mr. Erk." that was not true. I hadn't seen that. That's why I raised the question. So
now all I asked was to see the exhibit, which they finally have showed me. So I see it, it's the same one,
that's fine. That's all I've asked. I don't know why I'm attacked by multiple lawyers to ask to see an
exhibit.
Ms. Bina. Nobody is attacking you.
Judge. All right.
Panish. Come on.
Judge. You've seen it. Thank you. Let's call the jury in.

(Open court, in the presence of the jurors:)

Judge. Good afternoon, everybody. Okay. You may continue with your direct examination. Direct
examination by
Ms. Bina.
Q. Mr. Meglen, good afternoon.
A. Good afternoon.
Q. Where we left off, we were talking about exhibit 13128, and there was some confusion about
whether it was admitted. It was actually two different versions, so I'm going to actually switch to
plaintiffs' version because it's a little bit bigger font, and that's exhibit 774-1 and 2. So, Pam, if you can
zoom in on these. I'll represent to you, Mr. Meglen, this is a chart Mr. Erk introduced of data he
testified was from Wikipedia as the actual highest grossing tours of all time.
A. Okay.
Q. And I just want to go through this list and ask you which of these tours you either promoted all or
part of the tour.
A. You want me to go down through the list?
Q. Yes.
A. Okay. Number 8, the Rolling Stones Voodoo Lounge tour, I promoted. Number 11, the Celine
Dion taking chances tour, we promoted North America and Canada of that tour. And the Eagles long
road out of Eden tour, the company promoted a number of individual shows, but we did not promote
the entire tour. No one promoter promoted the entire tour. Pink Floyd Division Bell, I promoted the
North American stadium version of that tour. I did not do... which was 60 dates, I did not do the other
50 shows. Bon Jovi lost highway tour was a tour that we promoted the entire tour. Bon Jovi the circle
tour, we promoted the entire tour. That, I believe, is it on that page.
Q. All right. If we can go to the next page.
A. Michael Jackson "History" I did the two shows in Fukuoka, Japan, Pink, the Funhouse Tour, we
promoted North America and another AEG Division promoted the rest of the tour, Marshall Arts. Bon
Jovi Live, I think that's the wrong name of that tour, but we promoted that tour. Britney Spears the
Circus tour, we promoted that tour. Bon Jovi Have A Nice Day Tour, we promoted that tour. Paul
McCartney Driving World Tour, we promoted all of the North American dates on that, and then
Marshall Arts, the same company that did Pink, does the entire world for... for that. Oh, Justin
Timberlake Future Sex Love Show, I think... I'm pretty sure that was our... I'm sure that was our tour
and we... I'm not sure. On Soul2Soul, I'm not sure if we did any on that tour on the... on the Soul2Soul

one, I know we did quite a few shows on that, but I don't know if we did any on Soul2Soul tour, so I'd
probably leave that one out. I think that's it.
Q. I was trying to keep up. By my count you had roughly seven where you've done the whole tour,
three where you've done the North American, and it was either two or three where you've done just a
couple of shows or a part of the tour but not an entire continent or...
A. Correct.
Q. Does that sound right?
A. Yeah. I would also say that Bruce Springsteen on all of his tours, he does not sell his tour to one
promoter, so we get... we get dates in certain markets on Bruce Springsteen.
Q. And would that be more along the lines of what you did with Mr. Jackson, just a couple of shows
here or there as opposed to the whole tour?
A. Yes. For instance, Springsteen just played L.A. And we promoted the shows.
Q. So I want to set aside the ones where you only did a couple of shows and deal with the ones where
you either did the whole tour or an entire continent and just talk about some of those.
A. Okay. Do you want me to run by if I did the whole tour, or you got them?
Q. I have whole tour for Voodoo Lounge, taking chances, pretty much all the Bon Jovi's, Britney
Spears Circus.
A. Taking chances, we promoted North America and Canada.
Q. Got it. And there was an international component done by somebody else?
A. There was an international component, we did not do that.
Q. Okay. Any others where you did the full tour? Did you say Justin Timberlake, or that was another
one that was half and half with you and the other AEG Affiliate?
A. You know, it's hard to tell from this chart whether some of these are just the North American tours
or some of these include some of the other territories in the world, but, you know, Bon Jovi, we do
pretty much, you know, where we had... or we had done pretty much... most of the world with them.
The Rolling Stones, when we did those tours, these were worldwide tours. That's probably it.
Q. Okay. And for these tours where you promoted the, substantially, whole tour, or the vast majority
of the tour, would you say you were familiar with, you know, the kinds of endorsements and
sponsorship deals that were attendant to them?
A. Oh, yes, very much.
Q. And would you say that you were familiar with the rate of ticket sales for at least the ones where
you were responsible for...

A. Generally, yes.
Q. Any that you know you were not familiar with?
A. You know, tickets go on sale in different ways and that, so you may have... you know, I'll have an
overall feel for how a tour sold or how strong it was on the on sale, or something of that nature, but if
you were to ask me specifically for each city how many tickets we sold the first day, the second day, I
don't think anybody could, you know... that's why we have our computers.
Q. Got it. And I was asking just for sort of general familiarity, not specific.
A. Yes, I'm generally familiar with them, yes.
Q. Okay.
A. You're missing Pink Floyd Division Bell there.
Q. I think it was on the prior... did we not highlight it?
A. It's 13, yes.
Q. Now, some of these shows were sold back at the same time as Michael Jackson's "History" tour,
right? Around the same time in the mid '90's?
A. Yes.
Q. But you only worked on two dates for "History"?
A. Correct.
Q. Now the first thing I want to ask, obviously, there's been testimony about Michael Jackson's "This
Is It" tour selling tickets as
A. Very fast rate. Are you familiar with that?
A. Yes.
Q. Are there any other tours on this list that you've been involved with personally that you believe
sold at a comparable rate to the "This Is It" tour?
A. Voodoo Lounge, Division Bell were what we would almost call instant sell-outs.
Q. So they sold pretty much the second they went on sale?
A. Yes.
Panish. Objection, leading and suggestive. Also foundation and expert testimony again.

Ms. Bina. Your honor, I think the foundation has been made.
Panish. And contrary to Mr. Gongaware's testimony.
Ms. Bina. The last one is a subject for cross-examination. I'm not sure whether Mr. Gongaware
worked on these other tours. I asked Mr. Meglen if in his experience on these tours that he personally
worked on and promoted, he was familiar with their sales rates, he said he was. And I asked if they
were comparable. I think that's an adequate foundation.
Judge. Are you familiar with the ticket rate sales for those highlighted?
A. Yes, for those, I am.
Judge. Okay. Overruled.
Ms. Bina. So you said that the Voodoo Lounge and the Division Bell, in your... in your memory,
sold at... at a similar or comparable rate to the Michael Jackson "This Is It" tour?
A. Yes, because those were stadium tours, and they... when we put those tours on sale, in many cases,
we rolled into multiple stadiums. So that, you know... when you roll into multiple stadium dates, that's
about as big as it gets.
Q. Got it. So those were...
A. "Rolling" means one... you put a show up on sale, it sells out real quickly, so you add the next
show, you put press out, you get to the radio deejays and say, "second show added," and you put that
out through the internet and things like that.
Q. Is that like what happened with the "This Is It" tour when 31 shows were put on sale and it went
up to 50?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that something that happens when a tour is popular?
A. Yes. I think on "this is it," if I remember right, initially 10 were put on sale, and then we got up to
the 31 number, demand was still there, and we got an okay to increase the number to 50.
Q. And... and the demand for "This Is It" was substantial, right?
A. Oh, yeah. It was... it was very strong.
Q. Was it better than the demand for any other show you've ever seen in your life?
A. I mean, it was... no, because it was a relatively lower ticket price, so no. We've sold as many
tickets on Voodoo Lounge in one day, probably, as we sold on... on Michael Jackson. We were selling
them in multiple stadiums in different cities across the country as opposed to in an arena in one city, but
in terms of the number of tickets sold in a day, sure, we've done those kind of numbers before.

Q. You mentioned stadiums. There was something I had forgotten to ask you earlier. You mentioned a
couple of stadiums earlier, one was the Stade de France?
A. Stade de France.
Q. Have you personally promoted shows there?
A. I did the Rolling Stones there.
Q. What's the largest number of shows you've ever put in that venue?
A. Largest number of people?
Q. No. Largest number of shows, like dates back to back.
A. Oh...
Judge. With the same artist, right?
Ms. Bina. With the same artist, yes.
A. You know, I think if you go look at Stade de France history, you'll probably find that Johnny
Hallyday probably holds the record. I don't know if you know him, a very big French artist. But he'll
hold the record there, and that will be six, seven, eight shows, maybe. But the stones I think did two.
Ms. Bina. So the most you've done there personally is two?
A. Two.
Q. And what about the Tokyo Dome? What's the most you personally put there with one artist?
A. I think the stones did ten, maybe Michael did ten at one time.
Q. You...
A. I don't even know if any... I think... god. I was always told Celine held the record for most shows
for Tokyo.
Panish. It's nonresponsive. The question was how many has he put in there, not who did what.
Judge. Sustained.
A. On Voodoo Lounge, I believe we did six.
Ms. Bina. And six is, as you sit here right now, the largest number you can remember putting into
the Tokyo Dome?
A. Yes, I myself was involved in, yes.

Q. Now I want to ask about sponsorships for the tours that you were personally promoting.
A. Okay.
Q. Are you familiar with tour sponsorships?
A. Very much so.
Ms. Bina. And just remind us very briefly what tour sponsorship is. There's already been some
testimony about it so I don't want to take up too much time.
Panish. I'm going to object for the record. Again, calling for expert testimony of a non-designated
expert.
Judge. Overruled.
A. I have negotiated a number of tour deals back from the beach boys Sunkist Good Vibrations deals
to the heartbeat of America beach boy tours to the Rolling Stones Budweiser deals to Celine Dion's
Chrysler deal.
Ms. Bina. And what are those? What are the deals... what...
A. Those were tour sponsorship deals with the exception of Celine's was a show sponsorship along
with an endorsement deal.
Q. And can you briefly remind us of the difference between a sponsorship and the endorsement?
A. Sponsorship deal is where a sponsor puts his name on an event and is sponsoring the event.
A. Endorsement is when a product or a company associates their name with the artist, and the artist
may do commercials or things of that nature for that actual product.
Q. On any of those shows on the top ten tours of all time that you were personally involved in
promoting, and are familiar with the sponsorship deals, for any of those, did the sponsorship approach
42 percent of the gross?
Panish. I object, it's calling for hearsay.
A. I don't understand what you're...
Panish. He's not an expert.
Ms. Bina. He said he was familiar with the sponsorship deals on the tours, your honor. I'm asking...
the gross is on the chart.
Judge. Well, were you familiar with the sponsorships on those tours?
A. The tours that I'm aware of, yes. I'm familiar with the Rolling Stones, Celine, Pink Floyd, Bon
Jovi, sponsorships on those specific tours.

Ms. Bina. So let's just talk about those ones, then.

A. Right. Didn't have very many sponsors.
Ms. Bina. Do you have a sense of what the sponsorships were?
Panish. Again, that's calling for hearsay.
Judge. Overruled.
A. Yes. On... on...
Ms. Bina. Overruled. You can answer.
A. Can I answer?
Judge. Yes.
A. Yes. On Voodoo Lounge was, I believe, Budweiser. I'm not... yeah, I believe that was Budweiser.
Celine Dion taking chances tour, we did not get a sponsor. We tried. Pink Floyd, no sponsor. Bon Jovi,
I'm going to get... we... I can't remember who that sponsor... we had a sponsor on one of the Bon Jovi
tours. I can't remember...
Judge. Mr. Panish, please. You're shaking your head, making faces. Unnecessary. You'll get your
chance.
Ms. Bina. Mr. Meglen, what about the... the Rolling Stones tour that you were just on? Were there
any sponsors for that?
A. Yes. We had Citibank as a sponsor for the North American tour.
Q. Do you know roughly what the value of that sponsorship was?
A. Yes, I know exactly what that amount was.
Panish. Same objection.
Judge. Hold on. There's an objection. Stop speaking.
Panish. Same objection.
Judge. Which tour?
Ms. Bina. The one he just completed with the Rolling Stones, your honor, that he testified he went
on tour with them and traveled the entire length of the tour with.
Judge. Overruled. You may answer.

A. Yes, I know how much the Rolling Stones sponsorship was for that tour.
Ms. Bina. How much was it?
A. 2 and a half million dollars.
Q. And was that 42 percent of the gross sales on that tour?
A. No. It would be...
Panish. He answered the question.
A. No.
Ms. Bina. Is it anywhere close to 42 percent?
A. No.
Q. Have you ever heard of a sponsorship, in your experience, being anywhere near 42 percent of an
artist gross?
A. There's no correlation between an artist gross and a sponsorship deal, so no, I've never heard of
that.
Q. Now, do you know whether AEG Live had any sponsors for the Michael Jackson "This Is It" tour?
A. I know that our sponsorship division, which was called Global Partnerships, went out and sought
sponsors.
Q. Do you know if they were able to obtain one?
A. No, we were not able to obtain one.
Q. So at the time Mr. Jackson passed, were there any sponsors signed on for the "This Is It" tour?
A. No, not that I'm aware of.
Q. Were there any endorsement deals that you're aware of that were associated with the "This Is It"
tour for Mr. Jackson?
A. No.
Ms. Bina. Nothing further at this time. Thank you.
A. Thank you.
Judge. Cross-examination?
Panish. Oh, yeah.

Cross-examination by
Panish.
Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Meglen.
A. Good afternoon.
Q. Is Mr. Gongaware truthful?
A. Yes.
Q. Very?
A. Very truthful.
Q. And Mr. Phillips, is he truthful?
A. Very truthful.
Q. Would you agree with them that Michael Jackson was the greatest artist of all time?
A. I believe that's a personal opinion.
Q. My question was, sir, would you, John Meglen, agree with your boss, Mr. Phillips, and your
partner, Paul Gongaware, that Michael Jackson was the greatest artist of all time?
A. Would I believe that randy and Paul believed he was that? I would, yes.
Panish. Your honor, could you please ask the witness to answer the question.
Judge. Answer what he's asking you.
Panish. Do you agree with your boss's opinion and your partner's opinion?
Ms. Bina. Your honor, I'm just going to object, vague. Are they asking... I think the witness is
confused as to whether he's asking if Mr. Gongaware and Mr. Phillips were truthful or asking for his
own opinion on Michael Jackson's popularity.
Judge. All he has to do is listen to the question.
Panish. It's very simple.
Q. Did you not understand it, sir? You didn't seem to have a problem here...
A. I do not.
Ms. Bina. Objection, argumentative.

Judge. Overruled.
A. I don't know what their opinion was.
Panish. Why don't you assume that they testified to it in this trial, and that Mr. Phillips said it in TV.
Interviews. Okay?
A. Okay.
Q. Do you agree with that?
A. I believe that they believe that.
Q. Do you agree with that, sir?
A. Do I believe... are you asking me if I believe Michael Jackson was the biggest artist of all time?
Q. That's exactly what I've been asking you for the last...
A. No, I do not.
Q. Okay. And who is bigger now?
A. I think that Michael is very big in the pop world, but I think the Rolling Stones are bigger.
Q. Biggest one ever, Rolling Stones, in your opinion?
A. In my opinion, they're... the Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin are... I'm a rocker.
Q. Okay. You're a rocker. Okay. Sir, are you familiar with Billboard Magazine?
A. Very.
Q. Given a lot of interviews over there?
A. I've done a few.
Q. Okay. That's where they keep concert data, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you use that as part of your work as AEG?
A. I look at the numbers they report. I don't know if they're always accurate. I've kind of learned to
believe that they're not totally accurate.
Q. But you review them and use them as part of your job?

A. I use them for a general outline. I would not use it as specific information.
Q. Okay. Well, Celine Dion, is she honest?
A. Yes, very.
Q. And how many years have you been working with Celine Dion?
A. Celine, 12 years.
Q. 12 years. So you're very familiar with her career?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. And are you familiar with her history and her work and all the stuff she's done?
Ms. Bina. Objection, vague as to "all the stuff she's done."
Panish. As a musician and artist.
Judge. Overruled.
A. I don't think I'd be familiar with all that she has done. I'm familiar with a lot of what she's done.
Panish. Well, you, as her promoter... you'd be expected that you would know about her biggest
concerts, wouldn't you?
A. I would know about the biggest concerts that I was involved in.
Q. Okay. Well, wouldn't you know historically about her biggest concerts since you're promoting her
all the time?
A. Not necessarily. I wouldn't necessarily know about her Asian and European shows that I did not
promote.
Q. Well, sir, when you promote her on your AEG website, you have a link to her website, don't you?
A. I believe so.
Q. And...
A. Hope so.
Q. And you would expect Celine Dion to be honest and trustworthy and rely on the information she
puts on her website, wouldn't you, sir?
A. Yes, I would.
Q. Okay. And you testified here under oath that the maximum capacity for the stadium in Paris...

what's the name of it that you pronounce in French?

A. Stade de France.
Q. And the maximum capacity, your testimony under oath, is how much?
A. I don't believe it is 80,000.
Q. Sir, what did you testify was the maximum capacity in that stadium in Paris, sir?
Ms. Bina. I would object...
A. I'm not sure...
Judge. Wait. There's an objection.
A. I'm not sure I did testify to what the maximum capacity was.
Judge. Sir, there's an objection. Stop talking.
Ms. Bina. That was my objection, your honor. He did not give a maximum capacity, I think he gave
saleable capacities.
Judge. Overruled.
Panish. What you said was 80,000, it certainly was not. That's your testimony under oath, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And saleable, 30 percent at least, less than 80,000. That was what you said under oath this
morning, didn't you, sir?
A. I said generally 30 percent of the numbers that your expert projected are... you have to take out
because that gets you to a saleable number.
Q. I'm talking about the stadium in France. You were specifically asked it's not 80,000, and you said
it was 30 percent, at least, less under oath from that witness stand, didn't you, sir?
Ms. Bina. Objection, misstates the testimony.
Judge. Overruled.
A. I don't believe that those events were put together... those statements were put together in that
sequence that you just outlined.
Panish. Tell us, sir, under oath, what's the maximum seating capacity for that stadium in Paris?
A. I don't know the exact. I would say roughly 60... it's a big stadium, 60 to maybe 70,000.

Q. Sir, isn't it true that Celine Dion sold 90,000 tickets on June 19th and June 20th in 1999 at that
stadium?
Ms. Bina. Objection, lacks foundation, your honor.
A. I did not...
Judge. Overruled.
A. ... promote that show. That sounds like a two-show attendance to me.
Panish. Sir, each night, 90,000 the first night and 90,000 the second night.
Q. Isn't that true, sir?
Ms. Bina. Same objection.
A. No, I don't know if that is true or not.
Judge. Overruled.
A. I did not promote those shows. It sounds like too big of a number to me.
Panish. Okay. Well, let's see what Celine Dion says on her website that's linked to you, sir.
Ms. Bina. Objection.
A. That's fine.
Ms. Bina. A third party's website is hearsay, your honor.
Judge. Sustained.
Panish. It's linked to his website. He just said it's reliable. I am cross-examining the witness on
reliable information which, under the code, I'm allowed to cross-examine him on, your honor.
Ms. Bina. Your honor...
Judge. It's hearsay.
Panish. Everything he said was hearsay. That's the point.
Ms. Bina. Your honor, I would object to Mr. Panish's statements. Mr. Meglen testified about tours
he's been responsible for producing.
Judge. His personal, he's been involved in.
Ms. Bina. His personal experience, not something... I believe he said he thought Ms. Dion was
honest. There's no foundation that the numbers on her website are reliable or produced by her.

Judge. He can ask about them, but we're not introducing her website.
Panish. Do you think Celine Dion is honest, sir?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Okay. I'm going to show you a copy of a website that I just got during lunch, after your testimony.
And I want you to read that to yourself, sir, what she says on the first page of her website. Did you read
it, sir?
A. Yes, I read it.
Q. Does that refresh your recollection that Celine Dion, in two performances at that stadium, had
180,000 people in two nights?
A. That's what it says.
Ms. Bina. And I'm going to object and move to strike as hearsay, your honor.
Panish. Well, I asked the question, he answered it.
Judge. Overruled.
Mr. Putnam. Your honor, he didn't say his recollection, he said that what it says.
Judge. Overruled.
A. That's what the document says.
Panish. Okay. Well, let's look at your Rose Bowl slide, sir. What number was that?
Q. By the way, did you prepare these slides, sir, that you showed?
A. I worked with our attorneys with actual information from AEG Live of shows that we have
promoted in those stadiums.
Q. Okay. Where is that information, sir?
A. I don't know if you asked for it earlier, but I was subpoenaed at lunchtime.
Q. So you can easily bring that to court tomorrow, right? Since you just...
A. I can bring...
Ms. Bina. I'm going to object, your honor, to the extent he's asking about production. There may
need to be reviews or whatever of any documents.
Judge. Overruled.

A. If you want the audit from the Bon Jovi show this weakened, I can have it e-mailed to us right
now.
Panish. When did you meet with the counsel and prepare these slides, sir?
A. During my preparation.
Q. Well, how many times did you meet with counsel in your preparation?
A. Five days.
Q. Five straight days before you could come here and testify?
A. No, no. Four days, and then we took a day off, and then came in the day before I testified.
Q. So it took you five days to prepare to testify here, is that right?
A. We only did a couple of hours each day.
Q. Okay. So that... and when did you start, sir?
A. Monday or Tuesday. I got back from London on Sunday. Tuesday. Monday. Monday.
Q. So you started Monday. So it's been five days since last Monday, is that right?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. Is that a yes?
A. Yes.
Q. So that was five days before you came yesterday, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you meet yesterday?
A. We met in the morning prior to walking over here.
Q. What time did you come here? Didn't you come here at 3:30 yesterday?
A. No. I was at their offices early. I didn't know what time I would be called.
Q. So where is the... when did you prepare these slides, in the last five days when you were meeting?
A. Sure. This is relatively easy information to put together.
Q. Okay. So did you bring it over to the lawyer's office to prepare those... these slides?

A. No, they... our lawyers worked with me and the other people at AEG Live to get this information.
Q. Okay. Did you provide this information that you're testifying about or did somebody else, sir?
A. I worked with our lawyers.
Ms. Bina. And I'm going to object, your honor, to the extent this is calling for privileged
information.
Judge. You should not be disclosing any information or comments on conversations with your
lawyers.
A. Okay.
Panish. Your honor, he has testified about these exhibits. That has been waived, any attorney/client
privilege.
Judge. No, it has not.
Panish. Okay.
Q. Sir, did you provide the information to the lawyers or did somebody else?
Ms. Bina. Your honor, I'm going to object to the extent this calls for work product or if he was
working with house counsel or anything along those lines. The witness has testified the numbers are his
and they came from him. I think anything further than that is intruding into privilege and work product.
Judge. What's the basis for him knowing if somebody else...
Panish. Because he knows that he didn't get this information, somebody else from AEG...
Q. How many people from AEG Were working on preparing these slides, sir?
A. Two, I think.
Q. And who are they?
A. Rick Webking, our C.F.O.., and his assistant.
Q. And they're the ones who retrieved the information, isn't it, sir?
A. They retrieved some of the information, we looked at actual settlements and I edited some of the
stuff out of it that... they had one venue in there that wasn't an arena, and I said that should be taken
out.
Q. Okay. So you made these slides, then? Is that your testimony?
A. No, I didn't make these slides.

Q. Did you give all the information to make these slides?

A. I assisted in the information.
Q. And you have all the information at the lawyer's office?
Ms. Bina. I'm going to object to the extent this calls for privilege or work product, your honor.
They subpoenaed Mr. Meglen at lunch. We will, obviously, responds to the subpoena, but I don't think
it's appropriate to ask about what's at his lawyer's office.
Panish. Your honor, there's no work product when you put up an exhibit like this. There's no work
product.
Judge. You're asking him whether documents exist in their lawyer's files, so I'm sustaining the
objection.
Panish. Okay, sir. Now, the Rose Bowl.
A. Yes, sir?
Panish. You said the maximum capacity is 59,570, right?
Ms. Bina. Objection, misstates testimony.
Panish. Per show?
A. The maximum capacity for the shows that I have done in the Rose Bowl... the maximum capacity
as stated for Voodoo Lounge was 59,570.
Q. You're not trying to tell us that you can't have a concert with more people there, are you?
A. If you made your stage smaller, you could maybe have a few more people, but I do not believe
you can put significantly more people into that venue.
Q. Well, isn't it true, sir, that the group U2 had a single-day concert at the Rose Bowl where 97,000
people attended?
A. That's not true.
Ms. Bina. Objection, lacks foundation.
Judge. Overruled.
Panish. Okay.
Q. Well, have you seen Billboard Magazine reporting how many people showed up to the U2 concert,
sir?

A. I wouldn't believe it.

Q. Okay. So you don't believe it. Well, let me show it to you. Okay. 97... how many people went to
the super bowl when Michael Jackson performed, sir?
A. The super bowl is a football game. Every seat can be sold.
Q. How many people had to leave when Michael Jackson came out to perform at half time at the
super bowl at the Rose Bowl?
A. They rolled a stage out onto the middle of the field that was a very minor production that he
played in.
Q. So how many people had to leave, sir? Could you answer my question?
A. None had to leave.
Q. Okay. Now we're back to the U2 concert. This is, for the record, Billboard Magazine, U2's...
Judge. So read it to yourself.
Panish. You see the title of that, sir?
Mr. Putnam. Your honor, if he could move away from him, please. Yesterday I was instructed to do
the same in terms of pointing out something to Mrs. Jackson. I'd appreciate...
Judge. Don't hang around.
Panish. I just wanted to show...
Q. Do you see how many...
Judge. Hold on. Read it to yourself, let us know when you're ready.
Panish. First question, sir, when you're ready...
Mr. Putnam. Can he have a chance to read it, your honor?
A. I've read it.
Panish. Okay, sir.
Q. Now, do you know that U2 had a concert in October of 2009 at the Rose Bowl?
A. Yes, I went there.
Q. Okay. And do you know what the reported attendance was at that time?
Ms. Bina. Objection, hearsay.

A. It looks like there they reported 97,000.

Judge. Okay. It is...
A. I'm sorry. I didn't hear...
Judge. You're volunteering hearsay. Overruled.
Panish. What was the record for the largest concert before that, sir?
A. I do not know.
Q. You told us you knew what the maximum attendance was at Fed Ex Field in Washington, DC,
didn't you, sir?
Ms. Bina. Objection, misstates the testimony.
Judge. Overruled.
A. I don't remember talking about Fed Ex Field in Washington, DC, at all. I can only tell you that I
have done both Pink Floyd and the Rolling Stones at the Rose Bowl. We always try to sell the most
amount of seats that we can, and we got to roughly 60,000 tickets. And every show I've ever seen in the
Rose Bowl, that's about what you get.
Panish. Move to strike that and ask you to answer my question.
Judge. Motion granted, the answer is stricken.
Panish. I asked you about Fed Ex Field.
Q. That's not in Washington, DC, is it, sir?
A. Fed Ex Field?
Q. You said you're very familiar... I'll withdraw that. You're very familiar with all the stadiums
around the United States, right?
A. I also told you that they change the names quite frequently with name and title, so there's a couple
Fed Exes. There's one in Memphis, I think, Fed Ex Arena.
Q. That's an arena. That's not a stadium, sir.
A. And... I don't always keep track of the name and title of every venue.
Q. Well, tell us what... well, tell us where the Washington Redskins play, sir.
A. It used to be RFK Stadium and I think... isn't that Fed Ex Field now?

Q. It sure is.
A. That's what I said, Washington, DC Earlier...
Panish. Landover, Maryland, sir.
Ms. Bina. Your honor, I'd ask that the witness be permitted to finish the answer before Mr. Panish...
Judge. Yes. Let him finish.
Panish. Okay.
Q. Fed Ex Field is not located in Washington, DC, is it, sir, where . Stadium was located?
A. Are we disputing suburbs of a town?
Q. Can you answer the question, sir? You said you're the expert on all the stadiums, didn't you?
Ms. Bina. Objection, misstates the testimony.
Judge. It's argumentative. Sustained.
Panish. Are you an expert on all the stadium attendance, sir?
A. I think I am pretty much an expert on stadiums. I've been to most of them numerous times doing
concerts.
Q. Okay, sir. And would you tell us, sir, where is the Fed Ex Field located?
A. Well, I think Fed Ex Field is where the Washington redskins play, and that is in the Washington,
DC, marketplace.
Q. Okay. And are you familiar that U2 sold 84,754 seats for a concert at the Fed Ex Field in
Landover, Maryland, in 2009?
Ms. Bina. Objection, lacks foundation.
Judge. Sustained.
Panish. The question is do you know that fact, sir?
Judge. Assumes facts not in evidence.
Ms. Bina. It assumes facts not in evidence. It appears he's quoting from newspaper articles that
may not have accurately reported figures, and there's no foundation that the witness is familiar with any
of these concerts.
Panish. Sir, you're an expert on attendance as concerts, aren't you, sir?

A. Yes, I am.
Q. And the largest sell-out of a concert was at the Rose Bowl for U2, wasn't it?
A. Not that I know of. I've seen an article you have given me, but not that I'm aware of.
Q. What is the largest that you're aware of as an expert working for AEG?
A. At which venue?
Q. At any venue, sir.
A. We've done a million people in the mall in Washington, DC, for the beach boys on the 4th of July.
Q. Stadium.
A. Okay. To me, the biggest stadium capacity that we ever played on a tour was in Columbus, Ohio,
at Ohio state university.
Q. Ohio state university, that holds over 80,000, doesn't it, sir, for a concert?
A. For a concert, we got in over 60, and that was one of the only ones we ever got in over 60.
Q. Well, let me show you... I'm going to approach the witness here, and I want to see if this refreshes
your recollection of how many seats the maximum... or at least the highest that they could have at
Ohio state university field.
Ms. Bina. I'm going to object.
Panish. Does that refresh your recollection, sir, that it's a lot more than 60,000?
A. You're assuming that I believe and agree with these numbers because they are in Billboard
Magazine.
Q. So Billboard... so you don't agree, Billboard makes a lot of mistakes, then, is that right?
A. Absolutely.
Q. Okay.
A. I mean, they... these types are numbers are often inflated. They're not deflated, they're inflated.
Q. Okay, sir. And you didn't... and your capacities, those are AEG Capacities, those aren't for
everyone else, are they? That's just AEG, correct?
A. I do not believe there is a... that a building is going to say AEG Only gets this capacity and
someone else gets this other capacity.
Q. You said the way you stage the concerts this is what the capacity is, right? Didn't you testify to

that this morning?

A. Yes, I did.
Q. And you don't know what other people are staging the concert at, do you, sir?
A. Actually, I do, because I'm... it's a very small industry, and, for instance, the guys doing the U2
show at the Rose Bowl invited me down. I didn't stay for the show. I went down that morning, helping
out, saw their production for a few hours, spoke with them, and then left. So I am familiar with what
other people do, yes.
Q. Did you congratulate them for selling 97,000 tickets?
A. No. I seem to remember their representative telling me they did not sell out.
Q. That wasn't my question, sir. You're a pretty loyal...
A. Well, that's what he told me.
Q. ... employee of AEG, aren't you, sir?
A. Yes, I'm an employee of AEG
Q. You're a loyal employee of AEG?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. And you'll do whatever you can to help AEG won't you?
Ms. Bina. Objection, argumentative.
Judge. Overruled.
A. I'm here to tell the truth.
Panish. Sir, will you do whatever you can to help AEG?
A. Not if it is something that is illegal or immoral or something like that, no.
Q. Are you on a five-year written contract with AEG, sir?
A. Yes.
Q. And you want to be paid under that contract, don't you, sir?
A. Of course.
Q. And how much do you get paid a year, sir, by AEG

A. Can I answer that?

Ms. Bina. It invades the witness's privacy, it's irrelevant to any issue in this case.
Panish. It goes to bias of the witness.
Ms. Bina. We've had this issue come up, your honor, and we did not go into it.
Panish. Not with an employee that's just given all this testimony.
Ms. Bina. We've had this testimony about the fact of payment demonstrating bias. There's no need
to go into... plaintiffs made the same objection with a number of witnesses when they were asked how
much they were paid. We've had sidebars. We did not go into that testimony, and I don't think there's
any reason to go into it now.
Panish. Your honor, this man is employed by the defendant. He's just come up here to give three and
a half hours of testimony which I hadn't known before, I objected to, the court allowed it. It goes to his
bias as a witness. I'm allowed to ask those questions to let the jury decide whether this man is worthy of
belief or not and whether he has a bias to help one side or the other.
Ms. Bina. Again, your honor, all of that is true, but there is case law, and I can get it at a break if
need be, that the fact of bias is shown by payment, the fact that he stated it is his employer, and the jury
can evaluate that without knowing the amount that he's paid, which is an invasion of his privacy. It also
could affect his business and future salary negotiations and any of those things. There's no need to go
into that, your honor.
Panish. If he's paid 50 cents it's a lot different than being paid $50, and I think it's a lot of money, and
I think is it goes to why he would say certain things in this case.
Ms. Bina. Your honor, Mr. Panish was making the exact opposite argument when it was his
witnesses and you prohibited me from asking those questions.
Judge. Which witness was that?
Ms. Bina. There are a few different ones. Ms. Chase is one, and Mr. Taj Jackson was another. There
have been a number of witnesses where this issue has arisen and I have not gone down that road per
your honor.
Judge. Sustained.
Panish. Oh, come on. Your honor...
Judge. I do recall the Taj Jackson...
Panish. Taj Jackson works with the estate.
Judge. Don't argue with me. I've made my ruling.
Panish. Sir, you're paid a lot of money by AEG?

A. I'm paid sufficiently.

Q. Are you paid a lot of money by AEG, sir, yes or no?
Ms. Bina. Objection, vague as to "a lot." and, your honor, this is getting into the same thing he just
tried to ask that you sustained the objection to.
Judge. Overruled.
A. "A lot" may be some to one person and not to another.
Panish. What's a lot to you, sir?
A. I don't know how to answer that question.
Q. Well, you just told me it's different to others, so I'm asking you, sir, how much is a lot to you?
A. A lot to me is a million dollars a year.
Q. Okay. Are you paid a lot by AEG?
A. I'm not paid $1 million a year.
Q. Okay. Are you paid close to it?
Judge. Sustained.
Panish. Are you paid... are you paid on performance, sir, on how you do?
A. No, actually, I'm not.
Q. You don't get bonuses?
A. I get bonuses, yes.
Q. And the bonuses are determined on how the company decides you should be paid, right?
A. My bonuses are discretionary.
Q. Right. In other words, it's based on your performance, right?
A. If I did well, yes.
Q. And who... and who decides your bonuses, sir?
A. Dan Beckerman, the C.E.O. Of AEG
Q. Right. So the C.E.O. Of AEG Decides what your bonus is, based on how you do, right?

A. How I perform promoting my concerts and doing my work, yes.

Q. Okay. And you're an employee of AEG Live, but the C.E.O. Of AEG, Inc., decides how much you
should get for a bonus, right?
A. I report to the C.E.O. Of AEG
Q. Could you answer the question, please?
A. Yes.
Q. All right, sir. Now let's talk... you told us yesterday that you work with animals, didn't you, sir?
A. I told you yesterday that the people that I work with, we are like animals.
Q. You didn't say, "we are like animals," did you, sir?
A. I said I still work with animals.
Q. Right. You work with animals. And the animals you work with are the artists, aren't they, sir?
A. No. I was referring to the crews and the guys that work with me that go into an empty building at
8:00 o'clock in the morning with 20 trucks and put up a show, load it out in three hours, and travel 500
miles and do it again. I think we're animals by doing that.
Q. Okay, sir. And, sir, do you respect artists?
A. Very much so.
Q. Do you refer to artists as freaks?
A. No, I do not.
Q. Is that appropriate at AEG, for employees to refer to artists as freaks?
A. I think that people will use terms about an artist that other people have used before.
Panish. Sir, could you answer my question. Your honor, could I ask him to please start answering the
questions?
Judge. Listen to the question, answer the question that is asked.
Panish. I ask you, sir, as C.E.O. Of concerts west and an executive of AEG Live under
A. Five-year contract in writing with discretionary bonuses given by the C.E.O. Of AEG, Inc., is it
appropriate to refer to an artist that you're working with as a freak?
A. No.

Q. Is it important... or strike that. Is it appropriate to refer to an artist that you're working with as
creepy?
A. You know, it would depend on who I was talking to.
Q. Well, how about if a lawyer from your company... would you expect a lawyer from the company
to have respect for the people that you're working with?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Would you expect a lawyer not to refer to some client or person you're working with as a freak or
creepy?
A. It would be a personal conversation with somebody, and if somebody either heard that name
before or felt, you know... I think we've all had times in life where people have made us feel, quote,
creepy.
Q. Okay. So in other words, as far as you're concerned at your company, that's okay, to say that
behind the artist's back, correct?
A. No, I did not say that.
Q. Well, my question was it appropriate, yes or no, for a lawyer in your company that you're in the
management of to refer to someone as a freak or creepy, yes or no, sir?
A. I don't think it's a simple yes or no answer because I think it depends on the situation that person
may be in.
Q. Okay. So in some situations, then, it's okay for lawyers that work for your company to talk about
artists like that, is that right, sir?
A. I did not say that, either.
Q. You just said it depends on the circumstances. You said you can't say it's not always inappropriate,
so sometimes at AEG Live, it's okay for their lawyers to refer to artists that are under contract as freaks
or creepy, is that right, sir?
A. I did not say that.
Ms. Bina. Objection, argumentative and asked and answered.
Judge. Overruled.
Panish. Is it right or wrong... strike that. Is it authorized by your company for your lawyers to refer
to people that you have written contracts with as freaks or creepy, yes or no, sir?
A. I do not believe, Mr. Panish, that it is a simple yes or no answer. I believe that if somebody is
communicating with someone on a personal level, they may use different words than they may use in a

more formal situation.

Q. Okay. So if one of your lawyers is communicating to another one about company business, is that
appropriate?
A. I would have to ask you the context.
Q. Sure. Talking about meeting with Michael Jackson to sign a contract for him to work with AEG
Live, is it appropriate for your general counsel and another lawyer in your firm to refer to him as a
freak?
Ms. Bina. I'm going to object, misstates the evidence. Mr. Trell did not refer to Mr. Jackson as a
freak no matter how many times he said it.
Panish. General counsel said it.
Ms. Bina. No, he didn't.
Panish. Fikre, do you know who that is? Mr. Fikre, is he the general counsel of AEG Inc.
A. Ted Fikre is general counsel of AEG
Q. Okay. Is it appropriate for ted Fikre, when communicating with a lawyer from AEG Live about
A. Meeting to sign a contract with Michael Jackson, to refer to him as a freak?
A. It would not be appropriate if it was in a public fashion.
Q. But in private, it's okay, then, right?
Ms. Bina. Your honor, I would object to this entire line of questioning as irrelevant. We've had...
this is someone who does not even work for AEG Live. He's being asked to give an opinion on what
someone who works for the company he works for said in
A. Private e-mail that has no bearing on whether AEG Live negligently hired, supervised or retained
Dr. Conrad Murray.
Panish. It absolutely does, your honor. It goes to their state of mind.
Judge. Overruled.
Panish. Can you answer the question now, sir?
A. Can you repeat the question?
Panish. I'll ask the court reporter to please read it back, and if you don't understand it, please let me
know and I'll rephrase it. (the record was read as follows:
Q. But in private, it's okay, then, right?

A. I don't think there is a simple yes or no answering to that question.

Panish. So let me ask...
A. I think that somebody... when someone is having a private conversation, you know, and then later
if that private conversation becomes public, that can change things.
Panish. Sir, you're in the management of AEG Live, aren't you, sir?
A. Excuse me?
Q. In management of the company?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. You're a manager... managing agent of your company, aren't you, sir?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. Okay. And you're involved with setting policy in the company, aren't you, sir?
A. I don't see that as anywhere in my job description of setting policy. I think you... no, I don't... I
don't set policy.
Q. Okay. Well, sir, I'm going to ask you one more time. Under any circumstances at your company is
it appropriate from one lawyer e-mailing another about
A. Business meeting to refer to the artist that they're doing business with as a freak?
Ms. Bina. I'm going to object, asked and answered and misstates the evidence as to both lawyers
being with the company.
Judge. Overruled.
A. I think in reference to ted Fikre's e-mail regarding that, the term "the freak" had been used
numerous times prior to that...
Panish. Sir...
A. ... and I do not believe, probably, an appropriate term for him to use, but I would say it was a term
that... that had been used in the prior...
Panish. Can you answer my question? Was it appropriate or not?
A. No.
Q. Okay. Is it appropriate for Mr. Trell to refer to him as creepy, Mr. Jackson?

A. I think that many people...

Q. Sir...
A. I think "creepy" is not that bad of a word.
Q. It's okay. So as far as you're concerned...
A. I've had people make me feel creepy before.
Q. People call you freak all the time behind your back?
A. I probably have had people call me freak, too. I'm sure we both have.
Q. You know that, people called you freak behind... I haven't had it, sir. No one would say it to my
face.
A. Well, you don't know that.
Q. Yes, I do, sir.
A. Okay. All right.
Q. Yes, I do. Now, sir, let's... all right. So we talked about working with animals. Let's talk about
your job at S.F.X.
A. Okay.
Q. You told us all about that yesterday, didn't you, sir?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And you started there in the '90's, and you left in '97, right?
A. No. That was B.C.L., and I think I figured out I left it in '96.
Q. Okay. But then S.F.X. Eventually became part of live nation, right?
A. S.F X. Was... was sold to clear channel radio, who then spun off live nation entertainment.
Q. Was pace acquired by S.F.X.?
A. Yes, it was.
Q. And you didn't work there long after it was acquired by S.F.X., did you, sir?
A. No, I did not.
Q. And you told us all about that yesterday, didn't you, sir?

A. Yes, I did.
Q. And you said the reason you left, because you had fundamental differences with the people
running the company, correct?
A. Correct, I did.
Q. And you testified yesterday that it's always been raised in business when you do a tour, you always
do what's in the best interest of the artist, right?
A. That is how I was raised in the business.
Q. Right. And that... that's in all aspects of business with the artist, correct?
A. Yes. I will say that we always strive to do what's best for the artist.
Q. Is that a yes, sir?
A. That's a yes.
Q. Okay. And when you were there, you didn't think the bosses at S.F.X. Were doing what was in the
best interest of the artist, correct?
Ms. Bina. Objection, misstates the testimony.
Panish. I have the trial testimony right here if you want to see it.
Judge. Overruled.
A. I... I had a specific...
Panish. Let's just go to the testimony...
A. ... meeting happen that that was discussed.
Panish. Sir, you brought it up yourself yesterday that Mike Farrell, who was the C.E.O. Of the
company... you believed he wasn't doing what was in the best interest of the artist, didn't you, sir?
A. I believed that what he was asking me to do with my business division was contrary to the way I
believed in doing business for an artist.
Q. Well, let's see what you said yesterday, sir. That's on page 11310, line 28, to line 24 on the next
page. Okay? So we don't have any mistake here, let's see what you said. Okay? Let's see the whole
page first. This was your lawyer questioning you, right? Is that right? Do you remember that
testimony?
A. I see that.

Q. Did you tell the truth there, sir?

A. Yes, I did.
Q. And the question was, "why did you leave?" and you said, "I had some fundamental differences
with a couple of the new... my new boss, bosses." did I read that right?
A. Correct.
Q. And then the question from your lawyer was, "and what were these differences about?" and your
answer was... why don't you read it for me, sir.
A. (reading) I'd always been raised in the business that when you do a tour, you're always doing
what's best for the artist. When we started pace touring, I asked a question of Allen Becker, who was
the original founder, Brian's dad, and I gave him
A. Specific example. I said, "if you guys own an amphitheater in Philly, but if I'm doing this tour and
the right place for this artist to play is the spectrum, the arena... " used to be the arena "-- and not your
amphitheater, where do I go?" and his response was, "John, we're investing in you because of your
business, so you do what's right for your business. I would like to think that on a jump ball, you would
use our facility." I asked that same question of
A. Man named Mike Farrell who was either the C.O.O. or C.E.O. Of the newly formed S.F.X.
Entertainment...
Q. Slow down.
A. (reading)... and his answer to me was, "I think you know where your bread is buttered," meaning
"we're paying you and you'll play our place."
Q. And then read the rest of what you said.
A. (reading) and I remember that conversation very clearly. It happened at the four seasons hotel the
night of the academy awards. And I just looked at him and said, "then you and I come from a different
place."
Q. "your bread is buttered" means who's paying you, right?
A. Yes.
Q. Correct? And just because someone is paying you doesn't mean you're supposed to do what they
want you to do if it's not in the best interest of the artist, right?
A. You're going to have to repeat that one.
Q. Sure. You told us that your disagreement was because they wanted you to do something that wasn't
in the best interest of the artist, correct?
A. They were telling me that they wanted me to take their tours to only S.F.X. Facilities.

Q. And you didn't think that was in the best interest of the artist? We just read your testimony, didn't
we?
A. Correct. It may not... it could... I mean, I said when there is a jump ball. Okay? But if there's, to
me, an obvious difference in the marketplace, then I'm going to do what's best for the artist
Q. Exactly. So you... your obligation as the promoter is to do what's in the best interest of the artist,
right, sir?
A. Correct.
Q. And whether someone is buttering your bread or not, you do what's best for the artist, right?
A. Correct.
Q. And whether someone is paying you or not, you do what's best for the artist?
A. I would say that most times, yes.
Q. Well, sir, that is the standard of practice that you live by? Isn't that what you told...
A. I try to, yes.
Q. And you would expect AEG Live to live by that same standard of practice of doing what's best in
the interest of the artist, not what's best for the person that's paying you, wouldn't you, sir?
A. No. I'm talking about artists touring. I'm not talking about the entire company. There are divisions
of the company that own and operate real estate, and, obviously, what's in their best interest is going to
be to get as many shows into their building as they can.
Q. Sir, is Mr. Gongaware your partner?
A. Yeah.
Q. Would you expect Mr. Gongaware to do what's in the best interest of the artist?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you expect Mr. Gongaware to do what's in the best interest of the artist when it comes to
the artist's health?
Ms. Bina. Objection, vague as to "artist's health."
Judge. Overruled.
A. We are not in the business of the artist's health condition. It's not one of the things that we
supervise or are responsible for.

Panish. So then you shouldn't tell

A. Doctor to... you shouldn't tell anyone at your company to remind a doctor who's paying him and
what's expected of him as it deals with the artist, right, sir?
A. Ask that... I'm not sure what the question is.
Q. Sure. I want you to assume that Mr. Gongaware wrote an e-mail and said "tell Dr. Murray...
remind Dr. Murray that it's AEG That's paying him, not MJ" do you understand that part of the
question, sir?
Ms. Bina. And I'm going to object that that misstates the evidence and assumes facts not in
evidence. That's not what any e-mail said.
Panish. Well, let's put the e-mail up, then, if you object.
Judge. Why don't we do that.
Panish. Let's do that. Let's put it right up there. That's exhibit number...
Ms. Bina. Your honor, I also object to lack of...
Panish. They just objected. Which way do you want it?
Ms. Bina. I'm going to object, your honor, to the extent that Mr. Panish wants to go through every
e-mail that Mr. Gongaware or Phillips wrote with this witness who has no foundation to discuss any of
them. It's irrelevant, it's unduly cumulative, a waste of time. He went through each of these e-mails in
depth, he spent an hour on this e-mail with Mr. Gongaware, he's had weeks with Mr. Ortega, Mr.
Phillips, Mr. Trell. There's no foundation.
Judge. It's cumulative?
Ms. Bina. It's cumulative and no foundation that this witness has the foundation or context to opine
on the appropriateness or inappropriateness of e-mails he was not copied on, had no involvement with,
written four years ago by colleagues of his.
Panish. This witness testified on direct exam how important it is to do what's in the best interest of
the artist. They brought that out, your honor. And that's why he left the company, to leave some
inference that the company is doing what's in the best interest of the artist. And he's already told us...
Judge. Overruled. You may...
Panish. Let's put it up. 361.
Boyle. 263.
Panish. Here we go. All right, sir. I'm going to read you this, sir. "we want to remind him... " that's
Dr. Murray "-- that it's AEG, not MJ, who is paying his salary. We want him to understand what's
expected of him." have you seen that before, sir?

A. Yes, I... I have. It's been in the news, it's been everywhere.
Q. Who showed it to you?
A. I think I saw it in the newspaper.
Q. Okay. And, sir, paying a salary, as you say, is where your bread is being buttered, right, sir?
Judge. You'd better be careful.
A. Can I see the whole e-mail for a second, get rid of the other stuff here so I can see who this was to
and et cetera?
Panish. Sure. Absolutely. Let's get into them all. Right here, Paul Gongaware, Kenny Ortega.
Ms. Bina. I'm going to renew my objection to lack of foundation. Throughout this entire trial we
have not permitted witnesses to be asked about e-mails they have not been copied on. Mr. Meglen
testified about a specific instance in a specific context where he said he left a company about touring
decisions.
Judge. What's in the best interest of the artist. I think that's open for debate, so...
Ms. Bina. Again, your honor, it was as to their touring income and venues. He had nothing to do
with this, and it is really, I think, beyond the scope, a waste of time. Mr. Panish has had weeks with
each of these e-mails, and there's no foundation for this witnesses with them.
Judge. Overruled.
Panish. Okay, sir. Now I want you to assume that Mr. Gongaware is telling Mr. Ortega to tell Murray
where his bread is being buttered.
Q. Do you understand that, sir?
Ms. Bina. Objection, misstates the document.
Judge. Well, that's not exactly what the document says.
A. It doesn't say that.
Panish. Okay. Who's paying his salary. And you told me that who's paying the salary is where his
bread is being buttered.
Q. Didn't you say that when your lawyer questioned you yesterday?
A. I...
Ms. Bina. Misstates the testimony.

A. I don't understand the question.

Judge. Overruled.
Panish. Let's go back to his testimony.
Q. You're the one, sir, that said "bread is buttered," not me. You said it. So let's go back and let's look
at that.
A. No, I remember that. You don't need to go back to that. That's fine.
Q. Okay. Well, bread being buttered means who is paying you, right, sir?
A. Yes, in the reference of my conversation with Mike Farrell, that is what he meant.
Q. No. You said that you don't do anything that's contrary to the artist's best interest because
someone's paying your salary or buttering your bread, right, sir?
A. No. I said that Mr. Farrell said to me that, "I think you know where your bread is buttered."
Q. And, sir, you wouldn't want Mr. Gongaware to go tell a doctor who's trying to treat one of your
artists to do something inappropriate because AEG Was paying him, would you?
Ms. Bina. Objection, lacks foundation that anyone ever told the doctor to do something
inappropriate, your honor. Misstates the evidence.
Panish. Is there a grounds...
A. Where does it say anything about asking a doctor to do anything inappropriate here?
Judge. Overruled.
Panish. Answer the question, sir. If you want to ask me later, you can ask me, but right now, it's my
turn to ask questions.
A. I'm not sure what the question is.
Panish. My question is, sir, is it appropriate for one of your executives to tell a doctor to remind him
who's paying him?
A. In the context of this e-mail... now, again, I was not copied on this, so I would only be speculating
on what Paul was doing here.
Q. That wasn't my question, sir. Is it appropriate for a management person to tell another to do
something based on who is paying their salary?
A. Ask that one more time, please.
Q. Sure. Celine Dion, did you hire her doctor, sir?

A. No.
Q. Does the production company pay that doctor?
A. Celine's company pays her doctor.
Q. Okay. Did AEG Negotiate a contract with Celine Dion's doctor?
A. No, we did not.
Q. Can AEG Terminate Celine Dion's doctor at any time they want?
A. No, we may not.
Q. Can AEG Tell Celine Dion's doctor what's expected of him?
A. No, we do not.
Q. The Rolling Stones, did they hire their doctor, sir?
A. Yes, they did.
Q. They're in their 70's, many of them, is that right?
A. A couple of them.
Q. Did you, AEG, negotiate the contract with the Rolling Stones' doctor?
A. No. It was requested by their tour producer... it was negotiated by their tour producer.
Q. Okay. So it's producers that negotiate contracts with doctors, is that right, sir?
A. In... in the case of the Rolling Stones, the tour producer negotiated the doctor's contract.
Q. And isn't that common, sir, in the industry, that the producer negotiates contracts for people like
doctors, chiropractors, massage therapists and others?
A. If they are hiring somebody in that position... okay?... it is all approved and... and the terms of
that person's employment will be dictated to us by the artist who is handling it.
Panish. Can you answer the question now, please, sir? Could you read it back, please. And please
listen. If you don't understand it, sir, I'll repeat it. But please answer it. (the question was read.)
A. They can be one of the people that do.
Panish. Okay.
Q. Well, sir, didn't you testify in your deposition it's a producer's responsibility to do that?

A. It can be the producer's responsibility to hire the doctor if there is a doctor on a tour, and if...
Q. Sir...
A. ... the artist requests them to do that through the tour production.
Q. Okay. Well, let's see what you said in your deposition, sir.
A. Okay.
Q. Page 36, lines 14 to 17. Isn't it true, sir, many times it's the producer's responsibility to hire the
doctor, massage therapists...
Ms. Bina. Are you reading out loud without me reading it?
Panish. No, I'm just asking a question while you get ready.
Ms. Bina. Sorry. I...
Panish. Sir, isn't it the producer's responsibility, many times, to hire people like the doctor, the
chiropractor, and the massage therapist?
A. Sometimes yes, sometimes no.
Q. Many times, sir?
A. I don't know if... I don't know if I can answer that for many. I can tell you that sometimes it will
be the... a doctor could be hired through the producing arm of the tour, sometimes a doctor can be
hired by the individual artist. Either way is possible.
Panish. Well, let's play 36-7 to 17 of your deposition, sir, and see what you said about "many, many."
Ms. Bina. Your honor, I would ask, for completeness, that it start at line 7 and go through 17.
Panish. Whatever you want. Just play it.
Judge. Okay. That's fine.
(the following videotaped deposition testimony was played:)
Q. Well, is it... is it standard in the industry to have a tour doctor on a... working on a
concert?
A. No concert production really has a word like "standard" there, but it is not uncommon to
have doctors, physical therapists, massages, chiropractors, dietitians, et cetera, on tours.
Q. And is it the producer and promoter's responsibility to hire them?

A. It's the producer's responsibility many times, yes.

Panish. Now, sir, who was the producer of the "This Is It" tour?
A. AEG Live, I guess.
Q. Do you know who the producer was, sir?
A. Yeah, I'm trying to find a... you know, the producer was AEG Live. Okay? And the person in
charge of that was Paul Gongaware.
Q. Okay. Now, sir...
A. So I could either say Paul or AEG Live. That's why I paused.
Q. And you would expect if someone from the producer's side was negotiating a contract with the
doctor, it would be Paul Gongaware, right?
A. Well, no, not necessarily. We have attorneys that... that work on these contracts, there are
accountants that work through contracts, et cetera.
Q. Okay. All for AEG So you have attorneys like Mr. Trell and Ms. Jorrie. Do you know Ms. Jorrie?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And you have accountants like Mr. Timm Woolley, right?
A. Correct.
Q. And you have producer people like Mr. Gongaware, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And if they're... a contract could be negotiated with a doctor, any three or all of them together,
Gongaware, Jorrie and Woolley, could be involved, correct?
A. Correct, but it could only be done with the approval of the artist. Nothing can be... you can't hire
people in those positions without the artist's approval.
Q. Have you seen... do you know that Mr. Jackson requested Dr. Murray? Did you know that?
A. I was told that he did.
Q. Who told you that?

A. I probably heard it in our executive meeting. Maybe somebody at AEG I don't know. I can't
remember.
Q. So someone from AEG You think told you that Mr. Jackson wanted Dr. Murray, right?
A. I was told that Michael wanted to bring his doctor on the tour. I don't know when I heard that his
name was Dr. Murray.
Q. Okay. Were you told that Paul Gongaware, Kathy Jorrie, and Mr. Woolley were involved in
negotiations of Dr. Murray's contract on behalf of AEG Live?
A. I... I don't know who was involved in doing the contracts. I was not involved in that detail.
Q. Okay. Did you know that Dr. Murray signed the contract before Michael Jackson died and faxed it
back to AEG?
A. Like I said, I... if... when it comes done to the contracts and that, you should talk to Shawn Trell
because I don't get involved in the details of those contracts.
Q. Okay. But you know generally how it works, and you've told us that, right?
A. I have told you that there are different ways it can be done, and the way you described is one of
them.
Q. One of them which you would not be surprised if a doctor's contract was negotiated by
Gongaware, Jorrie and Woolley on behalf of AEG Live, correct?
A. The contract was on behalf of Michael.
Q. I thought you didn't know anything about it, sir.
A. Well, no. I'm just saying that... I'm just saying we don't... the doctor... we don't hire doctors.
Q. Oh, you don't?
A. No.
Q. Well, sir, did you know that AEG Live negotiated and drafted a contract for Dr. Murray? Did
anyone tell you that?
A. The production...
Panish. Sir, please answer the question. Your honor, would you ask him to please... I know you want
to give a speech.
A. I don't know... I can't answer that
A. Simple yes or no.

Panish. Well, I'm going to ask it again.

A. Okay.
Panish. Do you know... do you understand that, do you know?
A. Do I know...
Ms. Bina. Your honor, he's being argumentative.
Judge. Overruled.
Panish. That Kathy Jorrie drafted a contract, several drafts to her final version, Mr. Woolley
discussed it with Dr. Murray, and Mr. Gongaware agreed on an amount of the term, the amount he was
to be paid? Did you know that?
A. No, I was not part of that.
Q. You've never been told that before today?
Ms. Bina. Object to the extent this calls for any privileged communications.
Panish. I don't want to know what your lawyers told you.
Q. No one from AEG In this entire time has ever told you that as a management person of the
company?
A. There was much that I learned after Michael's passing of things that were done. That does not
mean they were things I was aware of prior to them doing that.
Q. Sir, my question is real simple. As you sit here today, other than your lawyers, has anyone from
AEG Ever told you that Paul Gongaware, Kathy Jorrie and Mr. Woolley were involved in negotiating a
contract for Dr. Murray that he signed?
A. No, I don't think anyone ever told me that.
Q. So the first time you heard it, other than your lawyers, is here today, is that right?
A. I had heard about some of the requests that the doctor had in our executive meetings. I do not
know who was doing the contracts, who was negotiating with the doctor. I just simply heard that the
doctor had requested, you know, money.
Q. Okay. In fact, sir, the executive committee meetings... who is on the executive committee at AEG
Live?
A. Paul Gongaware, randy Phillips, Shawn Trell, Miserendino, rick Webking, Larry Vallon and
myself.
Q. And, sir, before Michael Jackson died, how often would the executive committee of your

corporation meet?
A. Executive meetings were scheduled for every Tuesday, but they probably happened half the time.
Maybe, you know, twice a month, maybe even once a month sometimes.
Q. Okay. One to two times a month, all those executives get together in an executive committee
meeting, right?
A. We get together, yes.
Q. And you talk about company business, right?
A. Correct.
Q. And during those meetings, Dr. Murray was discussed, wasn't he, sir?
A. During one of the executive meetings, it was brought to our attention that the doctor was asking
for $5 million.
Q. Okay. Who... who brought that to your attention, sir?
A. Paul Gongaware.
Q. So in an executive meeting of all the top executives of your firm, Paul Gongaware told everyone
that Dr. Murray had requested $5 million to be the doctor for "This Is It", isn't that true, sir?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And did you say anything to Mr. Gongaware about 5 million being an outrageous sum of
money?
A. I... I think it was understood that that was never going to happen.
Q. Okay.
A. We have heard... we... we see many, many unusual requests in our business. Okay?
Q. How much... how much does Celine Dion's doctor get paid, sir?
A. You know, I don't know.
Q. It comes out of the production budget, doesn't it, sir?
A. She's paid a per-show operating budget and they spend the money out of that.
Q. Sir, isn't Celine Dion's doctor paid out of the production budget for the show in Las Vegas?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And you told us how familiar you are with that show and the budgets for that show, didn't
you, sir?
Ms. Bina. Objection, misstates the testimony.
Judge. Overruled.
A. I'm not going to tell you I know what every single person on her staff makes. Nobody...
Panish. I only want to know the doctor, sir.
A. Well, that's not one that's ever been high on my list.
Q. Well, sir... how many budgets for Celine Dion... you've told us all about it. How often do you
review the budgets?
A. The operating budgets?
Q. Yes, where you're paying out doctors like Celine Dion's doctor?
A. I pay Celine Dion an amount of money to which she pays the doctor out of that money. I don't
know how much she pays the doctor out of that money.
Q. Right. So that's how you would expect normally it would be done if the artist has their doctor, you
would give the money to the artist and the artist would pay the doctor, right?
A. Celine has her own in-house production company called C.D.A. Productions. Other artists do not
have the luxury of having that. If they had that, they would not... if they had that, they wouldn't need
us.
Q. Sir, can you just answer the question?
Judge. Mr. Meglen, would you answer the question.
Ms. Bina. He's trying to answer the question. He's explaining that there are different ways it could
be done, and Mr. Panish is interrupting him and not letting him answer the question.
Panish. Your honor, he has not been answering the question.
Judge. Listen to the question, answer the question that is asked.
Panish. Did Michael Jackson have his own production company, sir?
A. Not that I was aware of.
Q. You told us you reviewed the contract, didn't you?
Ms. Bina. Objection, misstates the testimony.

Judge. Sustained. I don't think he reviewed the contract.

Q. You told us yesterday about the percent and who got what and how it was determined. You told us
all about that yesterday, didn't you?
A. That doesn't mean... I didn't need to review the contract to know that.
Q. You didn't tell us you reviewed a summary of the contract yesterday?
A. I've... I've reviewed summaries prior to...
Q. Okay. Who were the parties to the contract?
A. Again, if you want information on the contract, I'm not the contract guy.
Q. But you talked all about it yesterday, sir?
A. I know the deals.
Q. Okay.
A. That doesn't mean... when you understand an overall deal, it doesn't mean that you know
everything specifically in the contract. That's why we have lawyers.
Q. All I want to know is generally who are the parties to the contract?
A. I do not know that.
Q. Was magic Johnson a party to the contract?
A. I do not know.
Q. Could have been, right?
A. I don't know whether magic Johnson could have been because I don't know what magic Johnson
had to do with it. It could have been Michael and the doctor. I don't know.
Q. I'm talking about Michael Jackson's contract with AEG Live. I'm not talking about the doctor's
contract with...
A. I thought you were talking about the doctor's contract.
Q. Didn't you tell us yesterday you reviewed Michael Jackson's contract with AEG Live, and you told
us all about the percents and how it worked?
Ms. Bina. And I'm going to object it misstates the testimony. He reviewed a summary, I believe is
what the testimony was.
Judge. Sustained.

Q. Did you review a summary?

A. Do I answer now or not?
Judge. Yes, you can answer.
A. I'm sorry. I... I don't know if there's a formal document called a summary. I would say that I was
summarized as to the deal.
Panish. Sir, did you testify under oath yesterday that you reviewed a summary of Michael Jackson's
contract with AEG Live?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay.
A. Okay.
Q. That summary, who prepared it?
A. A summary could be somebody sitting with me and summarizing the deal for me. It could be a
contract summary that was done up. I can't remember whether... sometimes they're done, sometimes
they're not.
Q. Sir, you told us that you specifically reviewed, not talked to, reviewed a summary of the contract,
didn't you?
Ms. Bina. Your honor, objection, misstates the testimony.
Panish. I'll get the testimony at the break and show it. I heard what he said.
Judge. Overruled. He just said he reviewed
A. Summary.
A. Yes.
Panish. Right.
Q. So who prepared the summary that you reviewed?
A. It could have been Kelly Destefano, could have... I'm telling you the summary could have been a
verbal summary.
Q. So now you're telling us you don't remember what's in the summary, is that right?
A. These deals... the deal is not that complicated of a deal. It's very easy for me to understand the
deal. I don't need someone to write me

A. Long summary on the contract.

Q. Sir, could you please answer my question. Do you remember the details of the summary or not?
It's very simple.
A. I remember the deal.
Q. Who was the deal between?
A. The deal was... I don't... you know, you're asking me for specifics on contracts when I'm not
specifically involved in the contracts. I'm sorry. I don't...
Q. All I want to know, sir, is who...
A. ... do that stuff, you know, I don't... I ask if we have a contract done, if these contracts follow our
normal standards and that.
Q. You've been here today talking all about other artists' contracts. Don't you remember that, sir, your
testimony? "this contract compared to this contract," you talked all about it here, didn't you, sir?
Ms. Bina. Objection, misstates the testimony.
Judge. Sustained.
A. I don't quite remember that. I can... you know, don't confuse the term "contract" with deals. Okay?
I know what the deals are for the artists that we are...
Judge. Let's take a break. It's 3:00 o'clock.
15 minute break
Judge. You may continue.
Panish. Yes.
Q. Did you get a chance to meet with your attorneys on the break, sir?
A. Pardon me?
Q. Did you get a chance to meet with the attorneys on the break?
A. For maybe ten seconds.
Q. You didn't review anything?
A. No.
Q. Okay, sir. You told us about the executive committee, and I wanted to make sure yourself, you

were on it, John Meglen, randy Phillips, Paul Gongaware, Shawn Trell, and then you mentioned some...
I didn't know the name.
A. Rick Webking.
Q. Rick Webking. And he's the C.F.O.?
A. Correct.
Q. And who else?
A. Larry Vallon.
Q. What's Mr. Vallon's position?
A. He is the head of national booking.
Q. Okay. And who else?
A. I'm missing somebody.
Q. Yes. Let me look here.
A. I think that's everybody.
Q. Okay. So there's one, two, three, four, five, six people.
A. There's a couple more.
Q. I think... so we got you and Mr. Gongaware are the co-...
A. Me, Gongaware, randy, Shawn, Tom Miserendino... that's who we're missing... rick Webking and
Larry Vallon.
Q. That's seven.
A. Seven.
Q. So you've got the C.E.O., the two Co-C.E.O.'s of concerts west, the general counsel, the chief
financial officer, right?
A. Correct.
Q. And then Mr. Miserendino, his position is what?
A. Chief operating officer.
Q. C.O.O.?

A. C.O.O.
Q. And Mr. Vallon is national booking?
A. National booking.
Q. Now, Mr. Vallon, did he stop being on the executive committee?
A. No.
Q. He's still on it right now?
A. Yes.
Q. Did anyone stop being on it?
A. Paul Tollett was on it for a while, and then he stepped off.
Q. Mr. Tollett was on it when you discussed Dr. Murray, wasn't he, sir?
A. I can't remember.
Q. Okay. And these meetings, they would be held at your corporate headquarters?
A. They would be held at our AEG Live offices.
Q. That's your corporate headquarters for AEG?
A. For AEG Live, yes.
Q. AEG Live...
A. AEG Corporate headquarters are downtown.
Ms. Bina. I'm going to object for the record that AEG Live is not a corporation, so the question is
somewhat vague as to "corporate headquarters."
Panish. What is AEG Live, sir?
A. A division... a wholly owned subsidiary of AEG I guess. I don't know exactly.
Q. You don't know what it is?
A. I don't know the formal structure. I think it is a wholly owned company by AEG
Q. Inc.
A. By AEG, Inc.

Q. Okay. And that's a company that Mr. Leiweke was the C.E.O. Of and now Mr. Beckerman is,
right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And that's run by the T.A.C., right? The Anschutz group?
A. The Anschutz corporation.
Q. Okay. And you know Mr. Philip Anschutz?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. You've interacted with him?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. And he's familiar with your businesses, is he not?
A. On a very high level.
Q. Well, sir, that e-mail that we saw earlier that you talked about, Mr. Anschutz was on that e-mail,
wasn't he?
A. May I look?
Q. Certainly. Go ahead. It's the only e-mail that you talked about.
A. He is on part of this e-mail. On the top part, he is not.
Q. Okay. But the part that you were referring to, he's on that, isn't he, sir, the one that you're c.c.'d on?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And what does it say? Does it say Mr. Anschutz was involved at a high level? Or how does
it describe his involvement in that e-mail that you talked about earlier?
A. It says Phil is copied on this since he has been actively engaged through colony.
Q. Mr. Anschutz was actively engaged in meeting with Mr. Jackson to set up the "This Is It" tour,
wasn't he, sir?
Ms. Bina. Objection, lacks foundation.
Judge. If he knows. Overruled.
A. I... there was one meeting, I believe, that Mr. Anschutz had with Michael Jackson, and I did not
go to that meeting.

Panish. Well, sir, who wrote... let's put that e-mail up. What number is that? 31-1. This is the one
that you told us all about, right?
Ms. Bina. Objection, misstates testimony.
Panish. Well, let's start with this. I'll withdraw that question.
Q. This e-mail, sir... when you gave your deposition under oath, you didn't even recall anything
about this e-mail, did you, sir?
A. I do not remember being shown this e-mail in my deposition.
Q. Okay. Well, let's look at your deposition.
A. Okay.
Q. First of all, do you have his original so we can show it to him? If you don't mind, I'm going to
walk up and hand you your deposition, sir.
A. Okay.
Q. And I'm showing you first, sir, exhibit 5 to your deposition, and then exhibit 5 to your deposition...
first let's just confirm. I don't want to get too close. That's you, right?
A. That's fine.
Q. When did you give your deposition?
A. When did I give it?
Q. Yeah.
A. It looks like Tuesday, January 22nd.
Q. And did you read it?
A. My deposition?
Q. Yeah.
A. I tried to a few times.
Q. You signed it under penalty of perjury?
A. Yeah.
Q. Made any changes you felt were appropriate?
A. Yeah.

Q. Okay. So now first confirm for us whether or not you saw... were you shown that e-mail during
your deposition?
A. Like I said, I'm not remembering it, but I'm... according to this, I guess I was shown it, yes.
Q. Well, is that your deposition, sir?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Do you dispute that you were shown that e-mail in your deposition?
A. No, no, I'm not disputing that.
Q. Okay. Well, let's, then, see what you said... what exhibit number is that, sir?
A. Exhibit 5.
Panish. Okay. And let's go to first... let's start with page 113, line 1, through page 114, line 2, play
that.
Ms. Bina. We're playing it? I thought we were refreshing...
A. 113?
Panish. 1, to 114, 2. It's the depo of a party employee.
Ms. Bina. You're playing it under that...
Panish. I'm playing it under both.
Ms. Bina. I just need to know if I need to review...
Panish. No, you don't need to review it.
A. Okay.
Panish. Let's play it and see what you said in your deposition about this document, sir.
(the following videotaped deposition testimony was played:)
Q. And Mr. Gongaware, on September 26th, 2008, sent Mr. Phillips and Mr. Leiweke and
copied you on a Michael Jackson first draft worldwide tour projection, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Okay. And the e-mail outlines various financial aspects of the upcoming tour, correct?

A. Correct.
Q. Including how much Michael Jackson would make and how much AEG Would make?
A. Got it.
Q. Is that a fair assessment of this e-mail?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And in the fourth paragraph down in Mr. Gongaware's e-mail, he states in the last
sentence "maybe gross is a better number to throw around if we need to use numbers with
Mikey listening." Mr. Meglen, does that refresh your recollection in any way that it was Mr.
Gongaware's suggestion to use gross numbers instead of net figures with Michael Jackson
listening?
A. Oh, I don't recall the e-mail. I'm kind of just reading it again now.
Panish. Now, sir, you were asked whether that e-mail... whether seeing it refreshed your
recollection, weren't you, sir?
A. Yes.
Q. And you testified under oath that seeing it did not even refresh your recollection, isn't that true?
Do you remember?
A. When you're saying... repeat your question, I guess.
Q. I'll just play your deposition.
A. No, no, no. Go ahead.
Q. You were asked whether... when you saw it, whether your memory was refreshed that you'd read
the e-mail. Do you remember those questions?
A. Yes.
Q. And you... it didn't even refresh your recollection then, did it, sir?
A. I get a lot of e-mails.
Q. Sir, could you answer the question?
A. I... I guess it didn't... that specific e-mail did not, you know... I didn't recollect reading that one.
Q. And you didn't recollect anything about it for every question you were asked about it in your

deposition, did you, sir?

Ms. Bina. Objection, misstates the deposition.
Judge. Overruled.
Panish. Well, let's just...
A. Repeat that question.
Panish. Sir, you didn't remember anything and said anything you would say would just be
speculation because you don't remember, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Okay. Now, since that deposition, you've had at least five days of meeting with the lawyers, right?
A. Correct.
Q. And now you came in here today and the only e-mail that you talked about was that e-mail, right,
sir?
A. I think that e-mail was brought to my attention. I don't... I didn't come in openly talking about that
e-mail.
Q. When the lawyer questioned... did you bring that e-mail to the lawyer and say, "here's the e-
mail"?
A. No, I did not.
Q. It was brought to your attention?
A. Correct.
Q. Okay. And that was the only e-mail you were questioned about the whole time you testified when
your lawyer questioned you, right?
A. No, I think there were some other e-mails that she questioned. But this was one of them, yes.
Q. Okay. What other e-mails were there, sir?
A. I'm trying to remember. Wasn't there a couple of other e-mails? Maybe not. Maybe I'm getting e-
mails with all these different documents confused.
Q. Well, sir, here are all the documents. Why don't you go through them and tell us what other...
A. This is the only one that's an e-mail.
Q. Okay.

A. Okay?
Q. So now was my question right? The only e-mail that you testified about was the one you didn't
remember anything about in your deposition, right?
A. Did not remember getting this e-mail in my deposition, yes.
Q. Didn't have your memory refreshed when you read it, did you, sir?
A. Whether I got it or not, no. If you're asking me about the subject matter of the e-mail...
Q. Okay. We'll get to that in a second, sir.
A. Okay.
Q. Now, after your deposition, now we are five months later, right? Right?
A. I'm trusting you on that one.
Q. Don't trust me on the math.
A. Okay.
Q. It's actually six months.
A. Me either on dates.
Q. That's why you don't trust me.
A. On dates, I'm...
Q. You're very bad on dates, aren't you?
A. I'm bad on dates. I'm great on numbers but bad on dates.
Q. Okay. We'll get to that, too.
A. Okay.
Q. Six months.
A. Okay. Great.
Q. Okay. And since those six months, how many times have you met with the lawyers?
A. Just the last few days prepping for... five days.
Q. Okay. And now you remember the e-mail, right, sir?

A. Well, I remember it now because we've talked so much about it.

Q. Well, but, sir, when you went back and you read your deposition and you signed it under penalty
of perjury, you had that exhibit right there, didn't you, sir?
A. Yes, but you're asking me if I remember receiving this specific e-mail, and I don't remember
specifically, you know, receiving this e-mail, but... and I'm not saying I didn't receive this e-mail...
Q. Sir, the question was, in your deposition, you couldn't testify about the e-mail because you
remembered nothing about it, isn't that true?
Ms. Bina. I'll just object to that. It misstates the deposition.
Judge. Overruled.
A. I'm not... I don't... I don't know if that's exactly what I said. You were showing it, and I think I
said that I did not specifically remember this e-mail.
Panish. Okay.
Q. And now you remember, right?
A. I've seen it a few times.
Q. And after five meetings with the lawyers, your memory has been refreshed, right?
A. No, I don't... I don't think that it is because of five... I think because of this ongoing process, I'm
getting more and more familiar with it each minute here.
Q. What else... what other e-mails... we're going to get way into it.
A. Okay.
Q. So at the point that we first started up with was you said that Mr. Anschutz was involved at a high
level, right?
Ms. Bina. Objection, misstates the testimony.
Judge. Overruled. If it's not, he'll say it's not. Overruled. Is that your testimony?
A. I don't remember what I specifically said a few minutes ago. I think I said that Mr. Anschutz was
involved at a very high level.
Panish. That's what I thought you said, but somebody didn't agree with me.
Q. But Phil, according to Mr. Phillips, your boss, was actively engaged regarding the MJ Worldwide
tour projection, wasn't he, sir?

Ms. Bina. Objection, calls for speculation.

Judge. Overruled.
A. No, you're... I don't think it says that Phil is involved in the negotiations or that...
Panish. Oh, it doesn't say Phil has been actively engaged through colony? It doesn't say that?
A. I would question the word "actively." I know that he knows Tom barrack at colony and it could be
referring to that Phil knows Tom barrack, and so actively engaged means that Tom barrack may have
called phil. That's... that is active.
Q. Sir, you didn't even remember the e-mail. You said you'd be speculating.
A. I'm reading it right now and telling you that.
Q. Okay. So now you're telling us that Mr. Anschutz was not actively involved, is that right?
A. I am answering your question on the specific sentence in this e-mail that says Phil is copied on this
since he has been actively engaged through colony, and I am trying to answer your question as to what
"actively engaged through colony" could mean.
Q. Okay. I don't... you don't know what it means, do you, sir?
A. I'd be... I'm speculating.
Q. Exactly. Okay. In fact, sir, this was talking about a Las Vegas show for Mr. Jackson, wasn't it?
A. No, I do not believe it was.
Q. Okay. Let's read it. Read the parenthetical. Do you know who Richard Nanula is, sir?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And who is he?
A. He's one of the guys that works for Tom barrack at colony.
Q. You're sure about that?
A. When I met him, he worked for Tom colony... or Tom barrack at colony.
Q. My question is do you know what he does now, sir?
A. No. I've not spoken to Mr. Nanula in a while.
Q. Okay. So why don't you read what it says. "Richard Nanula," read that sentence.
A. "Richard Nanula is a partner with Tom barrack at colony capital, which holds the note on

neverland and owns the Las Vegas Hilton where they want to do a Beatles cirque-style 'love' show
using MJ's catalog."
Q. Okay. Is that referring to a Las Vegas show, sir?
A. That is Mr. Nanula... it's stating that Mr. Nanula is interested in a Beatles cirque-style show using
the MJ Catalog.
Q. And that document that you went through that had the AEG Numbers for the Las Vegas show,
that's a Beatles cirque-style "love" show, isn't it, sir?
A. If you go to the subsequent pages here, this is not talking about Las Vegas.
Q. Sir, could you... we'll get to that. Could you please try to answer my question?
A. I'm trying.
Q. The proposal that you made that you talked all about with your lawyer dealt with a Beatles, slash,
cirque-style "love" show, didn't it, sir?
A. The one that I talked with the attorney about was for a Michael Jackson Beatles-style cirque show
after Michael had passed.
Q. Okay. Exactly. So let's go back now to the executive committee. Was anyone from AEG, Inc.,
involved in the executive committee?
Ms. Bina. Objection, vague as to executive committee. You're asking about the AEG Live
executive committee?
A. I lost that question. Does anybody from...
Panish. Was that not clear?
Judge. It wasn't clear.
A. Does anybody from downtown sit on our executive committee? No.
Panish. I'll rephrase the question.
Q. You guys have these executive committee meetings, it's supposed to be every week, you say it's
once... or it's one or two times a month, right?
A. Yeah.
Q. Yes?
A. Yes.
Q. The upper management of your company attends those meetings, right?

A. Yes.
Q. You, while Michael Jackson was alive, proposed a Las Vegas show, didn't you?
A. No, we did not.
Q. You never proposed to Michael Jackson a Las Vegas show while he was alive?
A. Other than a conversation I had with Michael if he was interested in doing a Celine-type show, and
his answer was no.
Q. Did you propose to Michael Jackson doing a Las Vegas show before he died?
A. No.
Q. Okay. So when you ask somebody if they're interested in doing a show, that's not proposing that to
them, is that right?
A. Correct.
Q. Okay. So let's go back to the committee. So you're in this committee, and weren't you meeting
pretty often when you had the "This Is It" project going on?
A. I don't know if that necessarily changed the schedule of our executive committee meetings. We try
not to get our executive committee meetings to focus on just one piece of business.
Q. Okay. Well, how many...
A. There may be times when we've said let's not put it on the agenda because we didn't want it to take
up all the time of the executive committee.
Q. Do you have written agendas for those executive committing meetings?
A. Yes.
Q. Where are they?
A. Tom Miserendino usually prepared them.
Q. So if you talked about "this is it," it would be on the agenda?
A. It may say simply "MJ" or "MJ Tour" on the agenda, yes.
Q. Did anyone ask you for those in this case?
A. No.
Q. Okay. So when you're having these meetings, Mr. Gongaware brought up the $5 million for Dr.

Murray, right?
A. So we are no longer talking about Las Vegas?
Q. I'll rephrase the question. You didn't understand the question? You can tell me that, I'm happy to
rephrase it.
A. Okay.
Q. All right. So you didn't understand it, I'll ask it again. In these executive committee meetings, the
ones that happen at least once or twice a month at your corporate... or your subsidiary office... okay?
A. Okay.
Q. ... did Mr. Gongaware come to these meetings?
A. Yes.
Q. Were all the people, the managers, supposed to show up?
A. Yes, they tried to always be there, unless they're traveling. And even if they're traveling, they try to
call in via phone.
Q. So it would be like a conference call?
A. Can be.
Q. Could be. All right. And so Mr. Gongaware was the first one that brought up Dr. Murray, correct?
A. I do not remember who was the first one to bring it up. I do remember Mr. Gongaware bringing up
that Dr. Murray had asked for $5 million to do the tour.
Q. Okay. Was that a point of discussion in the meeting with all the higher-ups in your company?
A. I don't know if everyone participated in it or just a few of us made comments.
Q. Okay. How many people made comments that you recall?
A. I don't recall who made the comments in... I mean, you're asking me to remember an executive
meeting which is one out of hundreds that I don't necessarily remember who specifically said what.
Q. Okay. How many executive committee meetings have you been to where it was discussed for a
doctor wanting 5 million for an artist who died?
A. Probably just one. Maybe it was brought up twice in two executive meetings. I don't know.
Q. Okay. So this discussion of Dr. Murray, it didn't end with one meeting, did it, sir?
A. The... the conversation about what he asked for and then what Michael told Paul to offer him was

all in the same meeting.

Q. Really?
A. Yeah, because Paul just simply told us the story that the doctor asked for 5 million, he went back
to Michael, Michael said no, that's crazy, offer him 150,000 a month. Paul went back, offered him
150,000, and said, "this is coming directly from the artist," and he said, "I'll take it."
Q. Okay.
A. That was Paul's story. I remember that story very specifically.
Q. And Mr. Gongaware told you that he made a deal with the doctor, didn't he, sir?
A. He... he presented to the doctor what Michael told Paul to present to the doctor.
Q. Just like producers do when they're producing shows, right, sir?
A. You cannot do... you cannot complete the deal until you have the artist's approval.
Q. Well, Michael had approved 150 because he told Mr. Gongaware to do it, didn't he, sir?
A. He told him to offer him 150.
Q. So he had approved it, hadn't he, sir?
A. Michael said, "this is what to offer him."
Q. So that doesn't mean he approved...
A. It takes two people to make a deal.
Q. And Dr. Murray accepted, right?
A. I do not know that. I mean, our policy is we don't have a deal until we have a signed contract with
someone.
Q. Sir, you just told us that Paul Gongaware told you at first he wanted 5 million, then Michael said
offer him 150, and Dr. Murray accepted 150, didn't you, sir? Didn't you just say that?
A. I said Michael... Paul told Dr. Murray that this offer is coming directly from the artist, 150,000, to
which doctor Murray said, "I'll take it."
Q. Right.
A. That does not mean...
Q. Just like you said...

A. ... a deal is consummated.

Panish. Sir, you're not a lawyer. Okay?
Ms. Bina. Your honor, I'd like the witness to be able to finish his testimony before he's interrupted
by Mr. Panish. It happened on three questions in a row.
Judge. Let's hear the rest of the answer.
Panish. Sir...
Judge. Let's hear the rest of the answer.
Panish. Come on, your honor.
A. I am not an attorney. On a deal, as I said, we do not consider a deal done until there is an executed
contract.
Panish. Okay.
Q. Did Dr. Murray sign the contract, sir?
A. I do not know.
Q. Okay. But you just told us that somebody has to make an offer and somebody has to accept, right?
A. That is part of the process of negotiating
A. Deal. That does not mean that you have a contract with someone.
Q. Oh, really? How many contract classes have you taken, sir?
A. Well, you know, that's why I said earlier to discuss whether or not there was a legal contract with
that, you should speak with our attorneys.
Q. Because they're the ones that drafted the contract, right?
A. They are the ones who can answer the questions properly on whether a contract exists or not.
Q. Who drafted the contract, sir?
A. I do not know.
Q. Okay. So Mr. Gongaware, when he said that Mr.... Dr. Murray accepted the offer to be the doctor,
did you say, "that's great"?
Ms. Bina. Objection, misstates the testimony, your honor.
Judge. Overruled.

Ms. Bina. These are argumentative questions.

Panish. It's not...
A. I do not recall what I said, if I said anything at all.
Panish. Did anyone say anything when Mr. Gongaware said Dr. Murray accepted the 150,000?
A. I don't recall.
Ms. Bina. Objection, misstates the testimony.
Judge. Overruled.
Panish. Okay.
Q. And so how many meetings was Dr. Murray discussed in, sir?
A. I only remember that one executive meeting when Paul told that story.
Q. Okay. Did anyone say... well, did you know that AEG Was going to pay the doctor?
A. No, I don't think anyone ever said that.
Q. Well...
A. Why would they say that in the meeting?
Q. What was the reason that it came up in the meeting?
A. Because it was a point that Paul was bringing up saying that there was a doctor who had asked for
$5 million and we went back to Michael and said this is crazy, to ask for $5 million, and Michael said
offer him 150,000, and Paul went back and said, from the artist, he's... this is directly from the artist, he
is offering you $150,000.
Q. Is it common in executive committees that you talk about the artist's doctor?
A. No, it... it is... it is not common.
Q. Tell me the last time you had an executive committee where you discussed payment of a doctor.
A. Probably never happened.
Q. And you told us there were three doctors, I think you said, on different shows that you were aware
of. You told us the Rolling Stones, and you told us Celine Dion, right?
A. Correct.

Q. And the other one was John Denver, wasn't it, sir?
A. Yeah, I remember John still.
Q. And John Denver... now, did AEG... strike that. AEG wasn't even around when Mr. Denver died,
were they?
A. No.
Q. Just like a lot of those concerts that you talked about, AEG Wasn't around when they were done,
either, were they?
A. Oh, no.
A. Lot of those were AEG Concerts.
Q. Was AEG Around in 1994?
A. No, but Britney Spears and Bon Jovi and Pink, those are all AEG Concerts.
Q. Okay. Sir, all I asked you, was AEG Around in' 94 and '95. If you understand the question, let me
know and I'll repeat it.
A. You asked two questions in a row, if you'd like to repeat that. You asked me if they were around
during that time period, and then you asked... you asked two questions, so I was trying to answer both
of them. I'm sorry.
Panish. Your honor, can I have my last question read back? Let's see what it was, sir. (the record was
read as follows:
Q. Was AEG Around in 1994?)
Panish. Can you answer that question, sir, my last question?
A. AEG Was not around in 1994.
Q. Okay. So the only three times that you know of where a doctor... strike the question. Only two of
them were involving AEG, Rolling Stones and Celine Dion, right?
A. Yes.
Q. The other one, John Denver, was before, that was in your concerts west business?
A. That was... that was back in the concerts west management three days.
Q. Was that when Jerry Weintraub owned concerts west?
A. He was one of the owners.

Q. Yeah. And did you say that you worked directly for Jerry Weintraub?
A. I worked for concerts west, which was partially owned by Jerry Weintraub, and there was a couple
of times where you could get transferred from the promoters side to the management side. John Denver
happened to be one of those that I went out as a management rep, not as a promoter rep.
Q. Now could you answer my question? Did you work directly for Jerry Weintraub, yes or no?
A. I looked at him as my boss. I don't know if I worked, you know, for Jerry... there were times that,
yes, he would directly contact you.
Q. So it's yes, you worked directly for Jerry Weintraub?
A. I worked directly for Tom Hewlett, who was Jerry Weintraub's partner. So if that is... if you want
to call that working direct, you may, but I call it I worked for Tom and Jerry was the big boss.
Q. All I asked you... do you understand what it means to work directly for someone?
A. I think that sometimes you can work directly for someone and sometimes you cannot within the
same company, and if you are familiar with management three, that was the way that worked.
Q. So the answer is that you worked directly for Jerry Weintraub, correct?
A. At times.
Q. Okay. Now, John Denver, did he have a contract... his doctor, did your company negotiate a
contract for his doctor?
A. I have no idea.
Q. Did your company pay...
A. I was...
Q. ... John Denver's doctor?
A. I have no idea.
Q. Okay. So let's take the two that you know about. Celine Dion. Celine Dion did not have a... her
doctor did not have a contract with AEG, correct?
Ms. Bina. Objection, asked and answered.
Judge. Overruled.
A. AEG Did not have a contract with Celine's doctor.
Panish. AEG Did not negotiate the price that the doctor was going to get to pay... get paid, did they?

A. No, they did not.

Q. AEG Didn't have the term... didn't negotiate the terms under which the doctor was to work, did
they?
A. No, they did not.
Q. AEG Couldn't fire the doctor at any time, could they?
A. No, they could not.
Q. Did the doctor arrange the rehearsal schedule for Celine Dion?
A. I do not know the answer to that question.
Q. Okay. Now... and AEG, as far as you know, wasn't paying the doctor to set the rehearsal schedule,
were they?
A. AEG Was not paying the doctor directly on Celine Dion.
Q. Were they paying the doctor indirectly?
A. The... AEG Paid the weekly operating... or, actually, it was a per-show operating expense to
C.D.A. Productions, who, in turn, paid the doctor.
Q. Oh, so you know that they paid the doctor? You've seen...
A. No. I'm assuming they paid the doctor. I don't think the doctor worked for free.
Q. Put it this way.
A. .e.g. Never paid the doctor, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Okay. And you don't know who paid the doctor, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And you don't know how much the doctor got paid, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Okay. Let's take the other artist. That was the Rolling Stones. And that doctor worked for the band,
you said, right?
A. That doctor worked... yeah.
Q. That's what you said.

A. Yeah, worked for the band.

Q. And where is that doctor from?
A. That means he work for the principals and also the band members that are in the band.
Q. Where was that doctor from?
A. You know, I don't know where he was from.
Q. Did you meet him?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. What's his name?
A. Brad.
Q. Do you know his last name?
A. No. Brad. That's all I know.
Q. Dr. Brad. Okay. Had you met Dr. Brad before this AEG Tour?
A. No.
Q. Now, did AEG Negotiate a contract for Dr. Brad?
A. No.
Q. Did AEG Negotiate how much Dr. Brad could get paid?
A. No.
Q. Did AEG Have a right to fire Dr. Brad whenever they wanted?
A. No.
Q. Did Dr. Brad set the rehearsal schedule for the Rolling Stones?
A. I do not know.
Q. Okay. Did AEG Pay the doctor to set the rehearsal schedule?
A. No.
Q. Did AEG Give money to the Rolling Stones, an advance?

A. Yes.
Q. How much did they give them?
Ms. Bina. I'm going to object. This is confidential business information and not...
A. I can't...
Ms. Bina. ... relevant to this lawsuit.
Panish. Actually, it's already been testified in this case.
Judge. Sustained. I don't remember the amount being testified.
Panish. Yeah.
Ms. Bina. I don't remember it, either, your honor, and I don't think we need to go there right now.
Panish. 18 million, is that right?
A. There was an advance and some other securities for the entire...
Q. For 18 million?
A. I don't remember the specific number.
Q. So you couldn't tell me anyway because you don't even know?
A. I know that the advance was within our reasonable business practices, so it's not like I need to
know exactly how much that was.
Q. All right, sir. The Rolling Stones had the obligation of paying the doctor, right?
A. I cannot answer that because we simply paid the Rolling Stones and how... who and how they
paid out that money, I don't know.
Q. Fair enough. Was the Dr. Brad on the AEG Budgets for the Rolling Stones tour?
A. We did not produce the Rolling Stones tour, we only promoted the Rolling Stones tour.
Q. Okay. So my question was, was Dr. Brad on any of the budgets... AEG Budgets for the Rolling
Stones tour?
A. There were no AEG Budgets that would include a doctor done by AEG
Q. Okay. How about Celine Dion's budgets? Were you producing Celine Dion?
A. Yes, we termed it producer there.

Q. Okay. Was Celine Dion's doctor on your budgets?

A. Celine's doctor was on the original operating budget.
Q. Was he taken off?
A. No.
Q. So it's still on the budget, then? Because when I asked you before...
A. Well, it's... not today.
Q. I asked you before how much was for the doctor, and you said, "we don't have it on the budget. We
just give the artist money," because that's why you couldn't tell me the amount. I said, "don't you
review the budgets?" now you're telling me that it was in the budget. So what is it?
A. He was listed as a person that would be paid for out of their weekly operating expense, and that's
what I mean by he was on... he was an area that they were responsible for.
Q. Who is "they"?
A. C.D.A.
Q. Celine's company?
A. Correct.
Q. Okay. Not AEG?
A. Correct.
Q. Okay. But you can't tell me that amount, right?
A. No, because they wouldn't disclose the amount that was in there, they would simply say that the
operating budget covers these items.
Q. Right. Because AEG Wasn't paying the doctor, so the doctor shouldn't be on AEG's budget, right?
A. AEG Does not pay doctors.
Q. Okay. That would be unusual, that AEG Would ever put in their budget, then, it paid money to
A. Doctor? Is that what you're telling us?
A. No. We do not hire doctors. We could... we could advance on behalf of an artist.
Q. Did you know that Mr. Phillips said on sky t.v. That AEG Hired Dr. Murray?
A. I don't know what randy said on sky t.v.

Q. Who do you think would be in a better position to know whether AEG Hired Dr. Murray or
doctors, you or randy Phillips?
A. Honestly, I think I know how our operating budgets work better than randy does.
Q. Okay. So you know better than randy Phillips whether or not Dr. Murray was hired for the "This Is
It" tour? Is that your testimony?
A. No, that is not my testimony.
Q. Okay. Who knows better...
A. I said I know our budgets.
Q. I'm not talking about budgets, sir.
A. Okay.
Q. I said who would know better whether AEG Hired Dr. Murray, you or randy Phillips?
A. I don't know who would know it better. I know that we do not hire doctors.
Q. Well, sir, you weren't even involved and didn't know anything about Dr. Murray, right?
A. Correct.
Q. So Mr. Phillips was in charge of the whole "This Is It" project, wasn't he, sir?
A. No. I thought Mr. Gongaware and Mr. Phillips were equally in charge of the project.
Q. Okay. Mr. Phillips and Mr. Gongaware equally in charge of the project. Not you. You weren't even
involved from 2008 on, were you, sir?
A. I was not involved in day-to-day details.
Q. Okay. Who would know more about a day-to-day detail of hiring a doctor, Mr. Phillips and
Gongaware or you?
A. Oh, Mr. Phillips and Gongaware would know more about hiring Dr. Murray.
Q. Have you seen what Mr. Phillips said on TV. About who hired Dr. Murray?
Ms. Bina. Objection, asked and answered.
Judge. Overruled.
A. Which... I don't know what he said on TV.

Panish. By the way, are you friends with Mr. Phillips?

A. Yes.
Q. Have you talked to him about had his testimony in this case?
A. No, I have not.
Q. Have you talked to him about this case?
A. No. We were told not to talk to each other about this.
Q. Who told you that?
A. Our attorneys...
Ms. Bina. I will object...
Panish. Don't tell me...
A. ... to not talk about our testimony.
Panish. No, no. About the case. Were you... don't answer that.
Q. So as far as you go, you've never spoken to Phillips or Gongaware about this matter, is that right?
A. I have... of course I've spoken to them about this case.
Q. That's what I just asked you, sir, and you said you were instructed not to.
A. I thought you were asking me if I asked about their testimony in this case. Sorry.
Q. So Mr. Gongaware, you've been working with him for 38 years, right?
A. On and off.
Q. Did you ask him about...
A. 35.
Q. ... that e-mail that he sent about reminding Dr. Murray who is paying him? Did you ask him about
that when you saw it in the newspaper?
A. No, I did not.
Q. Did you ask Mr. Gongaware about his testimony... or strike that. Did you ask Mr. Gongaware
about his deposition?
A. No, I didn't.

Q. Did you ask Mr. Phillips about anything in this case?

A. I did not ask them about their depositions or their testimonies.
Q. Okay. Did you ask about any of the e-mails they wrote that you read about?
A. Not that I recall.
Q. When you have these executive meetings every once or twice a month, do you discuss this case?
Mr. Putnam. It would call for attorney/client, your honor. Shawn Trell is in these meetings.
Judge. No. Sustained. I mean overruled. Sorry.
Ms. Bina. And I would just object, your honor. To the extent they're seeking legal advice from their
in-house counsel, that would be privileged.
Judge. If they are. But just because he attends every meeting doesn't make every meeting privileged.
Ms. Bina. I want to make sure that we're careful in this area.
Judge. Do you understand the parameters?
A. Not really.
Panish. Have you ever discussed this case in the executive meetings?
A. Yes.
Judge. Other than with your attorney about...
Panish. Have you ever discussed it with Mr. Trell?
Judge. Hold on. I want to make sure he understands that I'm excluding...
Panish. I'm going to re-frame it.
Q. Have you ever discussed it when Mr. Trell was not present?
A. No. Mr. Trell is usually always at our executive meetings.
Q. So every time you've ever discussed this case, Mr. Trell has been present? That's your testimony?
A. In the executive meetings, yes.
Q. Okay. All right. Have you ever discussed it with Mr. Anschutz?
A. I asked him a question on how he thought the trial was going in Chicago, when I was in Chicago.

Q. Oh. Has he been following the trial, Mr. Anschutz, to your knowledge?
A. Not to... I just asked him a simple question, it was a very simple conversation.
Q. What did he tell you?
A. He said, "I think it's going fine, we have not presented our case yet."
Q. Did Mr. Anschutz tell you whether he was going to come here and testify?
A. No, he did not. We didn't... that was the entire conversation regarding the trial.
Q. So it was your impression that Mr. Anschutz is following this case, is that right?
A. I asked Mr. Anschutz how he thought the trial was going, to which point he said fine.
Q. Well, you just told us very well before.
A. We had not... he said fine. I said exactly fine. "fine" is the word he used. "I think it's going fine,
and remember, we have not presented our case yet."
Q. Did that leave you the impression that Mr. Anschutz knew exactly what was going on here?
A. No. It means that he may have been briefed by somebody of what's going on, but it doesn't mean
to me that he knew everything that was going on.
Q. Well, you knew that he was actively involved with colony, right?
A. No. That was your interpretation of randy's e-mail here.
Q. Well, sir, did you ask Mr.... strike that. Do you know if... Mr. Anschutz comes to L.A. All the
time, doesn't he, sir?
Ms. Bina. Objection, lack of relevance to any issue in this lawsuit.
Judge. Yes, it's starting to get a little far afield, whether he comes to Los Angeles. Sustained.
Panish. All right. Let's go... let's talk about your prior work with Michael Jackson.
Q. Did you tell Mr. Anschutz that you were going to testify here in this trial?
A. No, I did not.
Q. Now, you told us about your work with Michael Jackson. Do you remember that?
A. Fukuoka, Japan.
Q. Is that a yes?

A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And you told us that you were a consultant to assist the promoters, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. So you weren't the actual promoter, you were a consultant, right?
A. Correct.
Q. And when you say you promoted the show, the accurate thing would be to say you consulted with
the promoter who promoted the show, correct.
A. Correct.
Q. Now, that... and then you told us that you met Mr. Jackson on that show. Do you remember that?
A. Very... met him very briefly.
Q. Okay. Less than two minutes, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And you told us... you were asked about how his health was when counsel asked you about that.
Do you remember those questions?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. So the total time that you observed him was less than two minutes on which you could give your
opinion about how Mr. Jackson's health was, correct?
A. I don't think I gave an opinion on how... I said he looked fine to me.
Q. Okay. Well...
A. If I... you could read back...
Q. I have it. Don't worry.
A. Okay.
Q. Well, sir, you told us when you met with Mr. Jackson in Las Vegas he looked great, right?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Well, and then... let me show you 8-54. I'm going to show you a photograph and ask you if
this is how Mr. Jackson looked when you saw him when you said he looked great. Is that how he
looked, sir?

A. No. Well... no, that... I think that's a bad picture.

Q. No kidding.
A. Yeah.
Q. Are you a photographic expert, too?
A. No.
Q. Do you know when that picture was taken, sir?
A. No.
Q. Does that person look like they're not doing too good?
A. No, I mean, he looks a little, you know... he looks skinny, that's all. Skinnier than when I saw him.
Q. As far as you're concerned, he looks fine in that picture, right?
A. Well, I mean, you know, I'm not a doctor. It's not for me to decide whether, you know, being
slender is healthy or not healthy.
Q. Okay. All right, sir. Now, when you were in Las Vegas, you told us yesterday... and correct me if
I'm wrong... that the first time that you met with Mr. Jackson... the first meeting, what was discussed,
sir?
A. I said that what we did was we showed Michael the sizzle reels on AEG, three... three different
sizzle reels.
Q. And so, sir, there was no... there were no specific projects discussed? You didn't testify about
that, sir?
A. I asked Michael when we were showing the
A. .e.g. Live sizzle reel whether he was interested in doing something like what Celine was doing, to
which point he said, "no, we're not now, but... " turned that down.
Q. So would you consider that discussing a project?
A. No.
Q. Okay. So then your testimony is that no projects were discussed, right?
A. Yeah, I don't think that's discussing a project.
Q. So you agree with me, right? No projects were discussed?

A. Nothing specific.
Q. It was just a meet-and-greet kind of meeting, telling him about the company, right?
A. Basically, yes.
Q. And it was your hope that Michael would work with your company live, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. These three sizzle reels, one sizzle reel was AEG Live, right?
A. Yes.
Q. One sizzle reel was AEG Live, Inc., correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And one sizzle reel was Walden films that's owned by the Anschutz company, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. So you had the big AEG, you had the concert division, and you had the movie division sizzle
reels?
A. Correct.
Q. Right?
A. Correct.
Q. And you knew that Mr. Jackson was very interested in making movies, correct?
A. How would I know that?
Q. So I guess you didn't know, right?
A. No.
Q. Mr. Gongaware never told you that?
A. Not that I recall.
Q. Okay. Your purpose for being there was to show about the company, right?
A. Correct.
Q. And it was your intention to entice Mr. Jackson to work with AEG, correct?

A. Yeah. I don't know if I would use the word "entice," but similar to that, yes.
Q. Okay. Well, let's look at what you said in your deposition, page 56, lines 8 to 10.
A. Did I say "entice"? You can just tell me.
Q. You said you wouldn't use it. Let's see what you said.
A. It doesn't seem like the right word today.
Panish. Let's see what you said under oath.
(the following videotaped deposition testimony was played:)
Q. And it was your intention to entice him to work with the company?
A. Yes.
Panish. Okay.
Q. And when you were there, sir... well, strike that. Sir, when you went there, you were bragging
about all the different AEG Assets and how that would really be helpful to Mr. Jackson, right?
A. By the way, I didn't use the word "entice."
Q. Okay.
A. Your attorney did.
Q. You answered yes, didn't you, sir?
A. Yeah. But you said did I use the word "entice." I did not use the word "entice." I used the word
"yes."
Q. Sir, do you understand when a lawyer asks a question, it's nothing until the witness adopts the
question? Did you know that?
A. I'm a concert promoter, you're the lawyer.
Q. Let's get back to your bragging about the assets of AEG
A. I don't think I was necessarily bragging about the assets. I was... I'm very proud of the assets of
AEG, so I was showing him the assets of our company.

Q. Well, tell us about the assets that you told Mr. Jackson about.
A. I told... I showed him the AEG Live sizzle reel, to which he saw the prince musicology tour, and
he saw the Celine in Las Vegas project, and he saw the king tut exhibition. And as I testified, he got
very excited about the king tut exhibition.
Q. Okay.
A. Then I showed him the corporate sizzle reel of AEG He saw staples center, the Lakers, David
Beckham and the L.A. Galaxy, and he got very excited about David Beckham.
Q. You told him all about the worldwide stadiums that was on the sizzle reel for AEG?
A. I showed him on the AEG... there's not many stadiums, there are a lot of arenas. And then I
showed him the Walden sizzle reel that had a number of films that Walden had produced.
Q. And you told us that Mr. Jackson wasn't really interested in movies as far as you knew, right? You
said, "how would I know that?" right?
A. Well, I mean...
Q. Is that... sir...
A. You're asking me what Michael Jackson was interested in. How do I know?
Q. Well, let's look at 31-1, the e-mail that you received.
A. The e-mail that I received.
Q. Yes, the only one that you talked about here today.
A. Oh, this one again.
Q. Yeah, that one. And why don't you review that, sir, the e-mail that you received, and see whether
you were told whether or not Michael Jackson was really interested in movies. Next page.
Ms. Bina. I'm going to object, vague as to time. You're asking about meetings that took place
before this e-mail.
Judge. What is the objection?
Ms. Bina. I'm just confused as to the time period. I thought they were asking about conversations
that took place before this e-mail string.
Panish. I asked him whether Michael Jackson was interested in movies, and he told me, "how would
I know that?"
Ms. Bina. I think he asked about at the first meeting, he said, "you went in knowing Michael
Jackson was interested in... " I'm just trying to figure out the time frame.

Judge. Maybe we should just be clear on the time frame.

A. I don't know where this says anything about movies.
Panish. Sir, you never knew anything about whether Michael Jackson was interested in movies, did
you? As you said, "how would I know that?" right?
A. The purpose of our meeting...
Q. Sir, could you answer the question?
A. What...
Q. The question...
A. Did I say how would I know whether Michael was interested? Yeah, without Michael telling me
he was interested in movies, I guess...
Q. You would never know, right?
A. ... I wouldn't... yeah.
Q. But your company sent you an e-mail and told you that, didn't they, sir?
Ms. Bina. Objection, your honor.
Judge. Sustained. Let's be clear on the dates here.
Panish. He said he would never know. That's what I asked him.
A. Well, I... my response is you're taking that totally out of context because this is in reference to
Michael meeting with Phil, and it was Paul saying that Michael were will want to talk to Phil about
movies, not touring. This is in reference to Michael's meeting with phil.
Panish. Exactly, sir.
A. Okay? This was...
Panish. And that's how you would know?
Judge. Let him finish.
A. This was well after Paul and I had met with Michael, the meetings that I had with Michael. So I...
you know, if Paul puts in here Mikey will be... will be all about movies, because he's meeting with
Phil, that's not something I was involved in. I was not involved in the meetings that Michael had with
phil.
Panish. Sir, you would have brought... you brought the Walden films because you knew that Michael

was interested in movies, isn't that true?

A. No. I brought the Walden sizzle reel because we had produced the movie "ray" and we had
produced the movie "Narnia" and I thought those were types of projects that Michael would like.
Q. Film projects?
A. Not because he was into... but they're projects. Not because he was into film. It showed the
quality of our work.
Q. Sir, did I just ask you...
A. I would not go to have a meeting with somebody about films. I'm not in the film business.
Q. Exactly my point, sir. Mr. Anschutz went directly to meet with Michael Jackson, didn't he?
A. Mr. Anschutz was asked, to my understanding, to have a meeting with Michael Jackson. Okay?
Q. And Mr....
A. It may have been in that meeting. I do not know who would have asked for him to have that
meeting. It could have been Dr. Tohme, it could have been Peter Lopez. It could have been many
people. I was not part of that meeting, nor was I part of organizing that meeting.
Q. It could have been Tim Leiweke, couldn't it, sir?
A. I don't know who it could have been.
Q. Exactly. Just like you said, it could have been Tohme, it could have been Peter Lopez, it could
have been Tim Leiweke?
A. It could have been Michael saying, "I'd like to meet with Phil Anschutz."
Judge. We've only got a couple of minutes.
Panish. Is this a good time to stop?
Judge. Let's stop.
(The following proceedings were heard in open court, outside the presence of the jury:)
Panish. I would say have the other witness come. I'm not being held to that, but I'm telling you my
best estimate. I'm going to give you my best estimate.
Ms. Bina. No one is holding you to it, just trying to get a sense of schedule.

Judge. What are we discussing tomorrow in the morning?

Ms. Bina. The designations, your honor, and we know you have been working on the Dr. Sasaki
designations. I just want to get a sense on when those might be finished.
Judge. I'm hoping to finish them tonight. I've already worked up at least half of them.
Mr. Putnam. Thank you very much, your honor.
Judge. I'm hoping to finish them tonight. I thought you were meeting and conferring. You couldn't
come up with agreed...
Boyle. I'm trying to think exactly where we last left it. We tried, so...
Ms. Bina. My understanding is there might be further conversations. I don't know if you've had
further conversations with her since then. I don't think there's a lots of disagreements. My
understanding is it's a small number of things that are all kind of on the same topic so that both Mr.
Boyle and Ms. Cahan thought it would go quickly. I don't know if it's true.
Boyle. I do not want to throw Ms. Cahan under the bus, but I made proposals for each one and she
said we would have to go to the court.
Ms. Bina. We may have similar issues with Sasaki. The issue, your honor, is we've got a half day at
the end of the week, and plaintiffs have a witness who they were representing, and now they're not sure
if they represent her.
Judge. Is that grace rwaramba?
Ms. Bina. No. That's a different one. This is Rebbie Jackson.
Panish. You have enough video to do... it's not going to be a problem to have video.
Boyle. I put a call in to Ms. Rebbie Jackson to see her availability. I'm going to call her as soon as
we get finished today and hopefully get her in here. I know we have three of half days in a row Friday,
Monday, Tuesday. I would assume she would prefer to be done in one day, if possible, but it is what it
is.
Ms. Bina. And we think she's a half-day witness, your honor. But that's the reason for the rush on
the videos, we don't want to be left with nothing for the jury.
Judge. I'm working on them. I probably should be done with them by tomorrow. See you tomorrow
at 9:30.