JACKSON V AEG LIVE August 6

th
2013
Important Notice:- This week will be the last week of transcripts as donations have run out, if you want
more please donate by Paypal to [email protected] Thank you
Kathy Jorrie(Outside AEG Live counsel)
Ms Bina direct examination of Kathleen Jorrie
Judge: Counsel, will you make your appearances?
Mr. Panish: Yes. Good morning, your honor. Brian Panish for plaintiffs.
Mr. Boyle: Good morning, your honor. Kevin Boyle for plaintiffs.
Mr. Bloss: William Bloss for the plaintiffs.
Ms. Bina: Good morning. Jessica Stebbins Bina for the defendants.
Mr. Putnam: And Marvin Putnam for the defendants.
Judge: All right. Thank you. You've laid a lot of paper on me in the last two days.
Mr. Panish: Your honor, can I make a suggestion?
Judge: Yeah.

Mr. Panish: I mean, this is probably going to take a little while. Maybe we should tell the jury to take a little
break or something. Because I anticipate -- I know there's a lot of stuff laid on you. We have a lot to talk
about, and it's going to take a while. That's just a suggestion I make to the court. They were told to come a
quarter of.
Ms. Bina: Your honor, I don't know how long this will take, but obviously we'd like to get started as soon as
we can once the argument is finished.
Judge: Let's leave the jury here for now.
Mr. Panish: Okay. This is an important issue. I don't want to be cut off.
Judge: I'm not going to cut you off.
Mr. Panish: Fair enough. Okay. I just raise that.
Judge: The next witness is Kathy Jorrie, right?
Mr. Putnam: Yes, your honor.
Judge: And plaintiffs, you want to -- you don't want to preclude her, but you have concerns that she may be
giving expert testimony.
Mr. Panish: Well, among other things. Expert testimony --
Judge: Well, let's start one thing at a time.
Mr. Panish: Okay.
Judge: Expert testimony.
Mr. Panish: Yes.
Judge: I looked at the defense response to your motion. It doesn't appear she's giving expert testimony.
What in particular do you consider expert testimony?
Mr. Panish: Well, first of all, your honor, I don't know if you looked at her declaration that she gave in
support of the motions for summary judgment, which I don't think it was attached.
Mr. Boyle: We should have attached it to our briefs. The defense didn't raise it, either. But she gave us a
lengthy declaration that she signed for summary judgment where she gives all kinds of opinions about what the
contract means, about --
Mr. Panish: Well, condition precedence, what they are, about whether there's completed agreements or not.
That's expert testimony.
Judge: Okay. I -- that's true. And she's not going to testify to what she said in summary judgment, is she?
Ms. Bina: Your honor, no. She's going to be explaining her own action, the proffer that is put into the brief
that we filed. I don't intend to elicit everything she elicited in that declaration or even everything plaintiffs
asked her about in her deposition. She may be asked as to specific changes she made to the contract in
response to, you know, comments from Dr. Murray or what her intention was in putting something in,

generally speaking, but she's not going to interpret it. She's not going to say, "this is a condition precedent.
'Condition precedent' means you, jury, absolutely cannot find there's an agreement. " she's not going to give
any expert opinion.
Mr. Boyle: Your honor, it was just stated, and I was going to raise this, too, what she stated in her declaration
for summary judgment, and they just stated it right there. They're going to have her testify about her intent on
putting terms in contracts. That is attorney impressions. That's a clear, under the law, implied waiver of
attorney/client privilege. I mean, this is making a mockery of the judicial system to have -- they have their
general counsel declared as the person most knowledgeable on every important issue in the case, including Dr.
Murray. They assert attorney/client privilege on some questions at his deposition. They have him testify -- or
we call him, and they cross him at length on the stand about every issue on the case. Now they're calling their
outside lawyer who prepared the agreements on Dr. Murray, Dr. Murray, who they're claiming they never
hired, they're calling the outside lawyer who actually prepared the AEG live agreement with Dr. Murray, who
had extensive communications with Mr. Trell, including the e-mail we did file as exhibit 1 to our motion, right?
The exact key e-mail in the case where they black out everything -- they're calling both these people to testify
about all issues related to Dr. Murray, and then they are asserting privilege when they don't like it. And it's a
selective assertion of the attorney/client privilege that they can't do. And now, for the first time, they're
articulating this new rationale, which is intent that it be kept confidential. So apparently now, under their
theory, if a lawyer never intended something to be kept confidential, then it was never privileged to begin with.
So anytime -- so if I ever get accused by a client of disclosing that, you know, "yeah, I told him to hide the gun
in a safe. Well, when I told him that, I never intended that to be kept confidential, because I always intended
on blabbing about it later, so I'm not waiving any attorney/client privilege. " I mean, that's what they're doing
here. They're having their general counsel and Kathy Jorrie be the key witnesses on all things Murray, and then
they're asserting privilege when they want to, and then allowing testimony on subjects when they don't want to.
I mean, that's -- if this happened in trials, I mean, every trial would just be lawyer witnesses only being able to
say certain things when they want to and privilege asserted when they don't want to.
Mr. Panish: But she just said she's going to testify about the intent. Her intent. That goes to the heart of
instructions from the client, communications with the client, back and forth. How can they do that?
Judge: I don't know.
Ms. Bina: No, it doesn't, your honor. Let me respond to each of those pieces in turn.
Judge: Okay.
Ms. Bina: First of all, Mr. Trell testified as the person most knowledgeable. He was designated as that. He
said at every point that he would not be testifying about privileged matters, that he would testify only about
matters that he learned through his investigation as p.m.k. He did not reveal any testimony. This court did not
find Mr. Trell waived any testimony. He was thoroughly cross-examined on every topic. So I think we can
set Mr. Trell aside and deal with Ms. Jorrie because that's what this motion is about. Ms. Jorrie is saying, "I
included this provision with the understanding that this communicated statement, and this was my intent in
communicating the statement," is not revealing any privileged communication, your honor. If that were true,
no lawyer could ever write a demand letter, no one could ever file a brief, no one could ever say, "hey, you
misunderstood this contract provision," because they would be waiving attorney/client privilege and work
product. Now, there may be times where you can't communicate something because you received it from a
confidential communication, but that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about things like Ms.
Jorrie saying, you know, "why did you ask Dr. Murray that? " "well, I asked him because I wanted to make
sure Mr. Jackson didn't have a heart condition. " that doesn't reveal any attorney/client communications.
Judge: She's not going to say that "as a result of my conversation with Mr. Trell" --

Ms. Bina: No, your honor.

Judge: -- "Mr. Trell told me to ask him, 'why are you asking for a CPR Machine? '"
Ms. Bina: No, your honor. Not revealing any privileged communication, and she never has.
Judge: Okay.
Ms. Bina: And, your honor, we've actually structured her testimony extremely carefully to avoid any
privileged issues or coming close. We want to make it as narrow as possible to address only the issues with Dr.
Murray. As to their argument about confidential communications, that's not a new theory. That's California
law. If you communicate something -- you know, attorneys can act both as advisors, but also as contractual
draftsman. If you tell your attorney, you know, "put this term in the contract" with the intent that they put it in
the contract and give it to the other side, and then they actually put it in the contract and give it to the other side,
none of that is privileged. None of this relates to legal advice. That was never intended to be a confidential
communication. It was intended to be put in the contract and passed to the other side.
Judge: You're not objecting to them asking that type of question?
Ms. Bina: No, your honor.
Judge: So if they ask, "did Mr. Trell ask you to put the CPR Provision in there," you would have no objection
to them asking?
Ms. Bina: No. Not to the question "did this term come from Mr. Trell? " I don't think that would be within
the privilege.
Mr. Panish: Then we should have the communications back and forth. See, we've been blocked from the e-
mails and the communications. So they want to assert it for one but not for the other, so how can we fully
cross-examine? So what they're doing is using it as a shield and sword, the attorney/client privilege. So, for
example, Mr. Trell's communication with Jorrie, we've been blocked on that, and their discussions and
communications about intent. For example, the e-mail --
Mr. Boyle: Yeah.
Mr. Panish: -- exhibit no. 350 (sic) is her communicating directly with Mr. Trell.
Mr. Boyle: No. 648-250.
Judge: So you're saying if you ask Ms. Jorrie, "did Mr. Trell" -- this is just an example, you know.
Ms. Bina: And, your honor, there may be questions that would reveal privilege, but that sort of question is --
Judge: If you ask Ms. Jorrie, "did Mr. Trell tell you to put in the CPR Machine term? " and she says "yes,"
you should be able to ask Mr. Trell, why did he request Ms. Jorrie to put in that term? Is that what you're
saying?
Mr. Panish: That's one thing. But I also should be able to ask her about communications. For example,
exhibit 648-250, which is a communication between her and Trell that they're relying on on the final contract is
all blocked out. So they're relying on the final contract being sent to Trell, but they're redacting. We don't
know all the communications. How can we adequately cross-examine?

Mr. Boyle: And, your honor --

Judge: You have to take it statement by statement, because just because he makes a statement about CPR
Machine doesn't open up all communications between Jorrie and Trell.
Mr. Panish: I didn't bring up CPR, you did.
Judge: I know. I'm using it as an example.
Mr. Panish: I'm going on the final version of the agreement.
Ms. Bina: Your honor, this is a perfect example, though. They were provided all of these e-mails last August
or earlier. That was the last production, was in August. They were provided a lengthy privilege log explaining
this redaction and others. They had a statutory time to move to compel to say, "hey, you know, this should be
produced. Your privilege log doesn't adequately describe the basis for the privilege," and your honor would
have reviewed it in camera or whatever. I think you would have found it did contain privileged information.
And that should have all been done months and months and months ago. Today is not the time to say, actually,
every communication is waived. Ms. Jorrie was deposed --
Judge: Well, that wouldn't happen -- it would have to be --
Mr. Boyle: Can we go back to the intent question?
Ms. Bina: Your honor --
Mr. Boyle: The intent. The intent.
Ms. Bina: Can we finish with one topic at a time?
Judge: Wait a minute.
Ms. Bina: I wasn't quite -- your honor --
Judge: Okay. Let her finish.
Ms. Bina: On the redaction issue, that really is an untimely motion to compel. There's no suggestion that
anything that Ms. Jorrie has said relates to that communication. It will not. You know, that is a privileged
communication issue, and she's not going to be testifying about any privileged matter. So I think it's -- you
know, they requested -- I think your honor has indicated you have no intention of doing this, that every
communication Ms. Jorrie has had with her client in 12 years is open season, or everything she had related to
"This Is It," and that's not right.
Mr. Boyle: Okay, your honor. So back to your initial question about "intent" so if they're going to have her
testify about her intent in putting terms into a contract, okay, apparently Ms. Jorrie just doesn't act on her own
and decide what AEG wants in a contract. What her intent is, is the client's intent. That was communicated to
her by the client. So therefore, by her testifying to her intent in putting terms in the AEG/Murray contract, she
is opening up all the communications she had with her client on what terms should or should not go in the
contract. They're trying to selectively offer which conversations she can testify about, and that's why we talked
about exhibit 648-250. And your honor mentioned selective redaction. Now, this is a lengthy e-mail that they
have blocked out the entire page (indicating), and "attached to this e-mail is the final contract" and all of her
communications with Dr. Murray. Clearly, she is telling Shawn Trell something about Dr. Murray.

Judge: Why didn't you bring this to my attention before?

Mr. Boyle: We didn't know they were going to call her.
Mr. Panish: Because we didn't know they were going to call her and try to do this.
Judge: Isn't she on the witness list?
Mr. Boyle: Along with 100 other people.
Mr. Panish: But there's 110 witnesses on the list. Do we make a motion? We didn't think they were going
to try to get this out of her at trial. We know it's inappropriate.
Judge: That's her only role, wasn't it? She did the contract and testified at the criminal trial. I find this to be
extremely late.
Mr. Panish: Your honor, there's no time limit on cross-examination of a witness in trial and documents.
This is not late. We didn't think they were going to do this with this witness at trial, otherwise, we would have
to make a motion in limine under Kelly vs. New west. We don't even know the substance of the testimony.
How can we make a motion?
Judge: Was she deposed?
Ms. Bina: Yes, in general.
Mr. Panish: And she was instructed not to answer many questions.
Judge: Then you knew exactly what they were going to assert.
Mr. Panish: No, that's not true.
Judge: From the testimony at the criminal trial.
Mr. Panish: No, it isn't, your honor.
Mr. Boyle: Well, your honor, on that note, here's -- there's something else. For the first time ever, they say,
on page 5 of their briefs, "facts conveyed to Mr. Phillips": "Ms. Jorrie's conversation with Mr. Phillips
conveying factual information about Dr. Murray is also non-privileged because it was not intended to be
confidential. "Ms. Jorrie's testimony will demonstrate the information was conveyed during a casual
conversation about an unrelated matter," blah, blah, blah. Okay. She never testified about any conversation
with Mr. Phillips regarding Dr. Murray. She was deposed at length, asked every possible question. They shut
us down on privilege a lot. Now she's going to come in here and testify for the first time ever about a
conversation she had with Randy Phillips, the CEO , so they're going to have -- I guess have her waive
attorney/client privilege on that, and we don't even know what she's going to say. So we, at a very minimum,
would like a proffer --
Mr. Panish: We'd like a 402.
Ms. Bina: Your honor, let me respond to that. First of all, Mr. Phillips testified at his deposition that -- he
was asked extensively about the basis of, you know, "we check everyone out," the e-mail we've seen over and
over again. He said, "I got information about his three medical practices and the fact that he was licensed in
four states from someone," and he listed a number of possibilities: it could have been Mr. Gongaware, could

have been Ms. Jorrie. He said that at his deposition. Shortly thereafter, Ms. Jorrie was deposed. Plaintiffs
asked her nothing about that conversation. I've gone back and checked the transcript three times. They never
asked a question that would have called for that conversation or -- even though Mr. Phillips had flagged to them
it was a possibility. He then flagged again at trial that Mr. Phillips conveyed that information.
Mr. Boyle: What information?
Ms. Bina: That Ms. Jorrie gave him that information.
Mr. Boyle: What information?
Ms. Bina: About Dr. Murray's practices and licenses. He testified at trial, and it's attached to the brief. So
that communication has already been described in court.
Judge: So, okay --
Mr. Panish: Isn't that hearsay?
Ms. Bina: It's not hearsay, your honor. It's not offered for the truth but for the effect on the listener.
Specifically, plaintiffs have made a huge issue as to whether Mr. Phillips was reasonable in making his
statement, whether he had any kind of basis for it. You know, they actually put him on the stand and said, "you
had no basis for that," and he said, "well, actually, Ms. Jorrie told me this. "
Judge: "we check everyone out. "
Ms. Bina: They asked: "what was your basis for 'we check everyone out? '" he said: "my basis was, I was
told that he was licensed in four states and had practices, and those practices brought in a lot of money. " "and
where did you hear that from? " "I was told that by Ms. Jorrie. " "do you know where Ms. Jorrie got that from?
" "I don't know what she did to get that information. " that's what Mr. Phillips testified to.
Judge: That sounds like a waiver of attorney/client.
Mr. Boyle: Right.
Judge: I mean, but that's not to say it's not -- a waiver for everything -- anything and everything.
Mr. Boyle: Everything related to Dr. Murray.
Mr. Panish: Everything related to Dr. Murray.
Ms. Bina: No.
Mr. Boyle: Yes.
Ms. Bina: Your honor, let me back away for a second. First off, had that conversation been privileged, the
privilege certainly would have been waived, because Mr. Phillips testified about it. Set that aside for a
moment. Had it been waived, the scope of any waiver would be narrow, it would be limited to that
conversation and the related conversation between Ms. Jorrie and Mr. Phillips. The privilege was not waived,
your honor, and I think Ms. Jorrie's testimony will make that clear, because this conversation did not take place
in the context of offering any kind of legal advice. Ms. Jorrie and Mr. Phillips -- and this will come out in the
testimony -- were in a conversation about another matter that Ms. Jorrie was handling on behalf of AEG live
completely unrelated to Michael Jackson, completely unrelated to "This Is It. " Mr. Phillips was not involved in

any way, shape or form with the draft Murray agreement or the negotiations of the draft Murray agreement.
Ms. Jorrie and he never discussed the Murray agreement at all. In that conversation that she had with Mr.
Phillips on another matter, she mentioned casually that she had spoken to Dr. Murray and said, "oh, by the by, I
talked to Dr. Murray. Did you know he has all this stuff? " so, your honor -- and Mr. Phillips then
immediately re-communicated that to Mr. Ortega. There was never any intention that the conveyor of facts
from a third party and facts that were available on the internet were confidential. In other words --
Judge: What do you mean, "facts available on the internet"?
Ms. Bina: So Ms. Jorrie's testimony will be that she had talked to Dr. Murray, he told her this stuff, and that
she also checked his Nevada llc, that she checked his medical licenses and found he was licensed in four states.
She then conveyed to Mr. Phillips, "he's licensed in four states, and he told me he has all these practices that
bring in all this money. " that is not a privileged communication. It was not made in the course of offering
legal advice, not ever intended to be confidential. It was just, "oh, by the way, I talked to Dr. Murray, and he
told me this interesting stuff. " so I think -- and --
Mr. Boyle: I didn't know about the "casual conversation" exception.
Ms. Bina: Your honor --
Mr. Boyle: If you're having dinner, it's not privileged?
Ms. Bina: Yes. If you have a conversation with your attorney -- I went out in the hallway and told Mr. Trell,
"hey, you know, I saw a good football game this weekend," that would not be privileged information.
Judge: But you're in the middle of negotiating a contract with a doctor.
Ms. Bina: Yes.
Judge: You're in the middle of legal negotiations.
Ms. Bina: Yeah. So, your honor, again, if this was privileged, it was waived, clearly. I still think it was not
privileged because it was never intended to be confidential. Neither party considered it confidential. It was
not made in the course of offering legal advice, and it was immediately reconveyed to third parties. So in that
sense, it was really never a confidential communication, anyway, to begin with. Even if it was --
Judge: Once it was communicated to Ortega, then it lost its confidentiality.
Ms. Bina: So it lost its confidentiality, had it ever had one, June 20th.
Judge: So it is free game.
Ms. Bina: Sure.
Mr. Panish: Then we should get all the communications with Murray.
Ms. Bina: Your honor, that doesn't open all communication Ms. Jorrie ever had with her client. She did have
communications with Mr. Trell in the course and scope of legal advice and confidential communications.
Those are not opened by a conversation she had with Mr. Phillips.
Judge: Mr. Phillips.

Ms. Bina: They can ask about the conversation with Mr. Phillips, the basis for it, the follow-ups to it. But
California law makes it clear that if there is a waiver, that is the entire scope of the waiver. There's no subject-
matter waiver in California, there's no "everything in your file is waived" in California.
Mr. Boyle: Your honor, he's the CEO Of the company. He speaks for the company. He's involved in
confidential communications with Dr. Murray that they're waiving, and then they -- I mean, I can't believe
they're calling Ms. Jorrie. I think it's crazy to call their own lawyer, but that's what they're doing. But if
they're going to do that, at a minimum, the court should take a look at what's under this big black box to
determine if there's a fraud being committed on the court or on the client. I mean, this is outrageous. I mean,
this is about Dr. Murray. They've waived privilege left and right on communications concerning Dr. Murray.
I mean, keeping the narrow scope of the waiver, it's about Dr. Murray.
Judge: This is with Trell or Phillips?
Mr. Boyle: With Trell.
Ms. Bina: Trell.
Mr. Panish: Trell.
Ms. Bina: Your honor, this was a single e-mail that was produced months ago, and this situation should have
been dealt with months ago.
Mr. Boyle: Why --
Ms. Bina: If Ms. Jorrie and Mr. Phillips had a call on June 19th -- let's assume it contained privileged
information, and that was revealed on June 20th by Mr. Phillips. That has nothing to do with Ms. Jorrie's
communications with Mr. Trell. There's no foundation that this e-mail has anything to do with those
communications.
Mr. Panish: How do we know?
Ms. Bina: You don't start conducting an in-camera review of privileged documents -- which would be
voluminous, by the way -- if there's not some sort of basis to believe that the communication has been waived.
Mr. Panish: We're starting with this one.
Judge: I think the privilege was waived with respect to Phillips concerning that narrow conversation and
information connected to that.
Ms. Bina: This e-mail is not connected --
Judge: I don't know if I've heard anything about Trell.
Mr. Boyle: It was also waived -- she also discussed and totally discussed communications between Jorrie and
Woolley. Woolley was acting as an agent to gather information to do the Murray -- so that's been waived,
right?
Ms. Bina: That was never privileged to begin with.
Mr. Boyle: Trell came up and testified at length about everything he knew about the Murray agreement and
all that stuff, which he only could have learned by talking to Jorrie.

Ms. Bina: No.

Mr. Boyle: Their whole defense is their lawyers talking about what things should mean, and then they do this.
And, I mean, come on.
Ms. Bina: As to Mr. Trell, we've already been through this. He was careful not to rely on any
communication with Ms. Jorrie in his testimony. He repeatedly stated he gathered --
Judge: What about Woolley?
Ms. Bina: Woolley, it's not privileged, your honor. The only thing that she's testifying about with regard to
Woolley is, Woolley gave her a list of contract terms that she put into the contract. That was never intended to
be a privileged communication. Mr. Woolley testified yesterday, your honor, his job was to gather terms from
Dr. Murray to give up the chain so they could be included in a draft contract. That draft contract was then
written and then sent back to Dr. Murray. That entirety of that communication was with Dr. Murray. Third-
party communication. The fact that you tell someone, "put these terms in a contract," without anything more,
without asking for legal advice, without saying "the terms are intended to do this" -- I mean, clearly, Mr.
Woolley gave her a list of terms that said, you know, a CPR Machine, TASI insurance. He testified to all of
that yesterday. Because that --
Judge: So why shouldn't Jorrie be questioned about that?
Ms. Bina: She can be questioned about that, your honor. It's a non-privileged communication.
Mr. Putnam: Non-privileged.
Mr. Panish: What about the correspondence?
Ms. Bina: She can be questioned about that communication. It was never privileged to begin with. "what
did Mr. Woolley say you should put in the contract to Dr. Murray and send to Dr. Murray? " that's fine. But
that's not a privileged communication. It doesn't waive the privilege as to every communication she had with
our client.
Mr. Panish: Your honor, first of all, we haven't even gotten to the huge hearsay issues yet that exist, which
she's going to try to do.
Ms. Bina: We're talking about privilege.
Mr. Panish: I know. I'm just saying there are multiple hearsay "who said," "they said. " but what they're
trying to do is limit our ability to cross-examine this witness, because we know that she was communicating
with Mr. Trell. She sent every draft to Mr. Trell. Those have been disclosed. She wrote this e-mail to Mr.
Trell regarding the final, asking for his comments. They refused to disclose that e-mail, yet they have the
document. And they're prohibiting our ability to question this witness -- they want to selectively decide what
we can ask, and that's not appropriate. Once they put it up there, and these specific areas, and the intent --
when she starts placing her state of mind at issue, and the cases are clear, her intent, that waives the
attorney/client privilege on the drafting of the contract, and that's clear. We've cited the cases on that. She has
placed her state of mind in issue by giving her intent.
Ms. Bina: Your honor --
Mr. Panish: And how do they get out of that?

Ms. Bina: First of all, the cases they cite -- I'm glad they brought that up -- they don't support their claim at
all. One, it is about tax privileges, and there's case law, your honor, that says this case does not apply in the
case of a statutory privilege of the attorney/client privilege. The second case, your honor, says that when a
party brings an action that places the attorney's state of mind in issue, for instance, they bring a claim that says
"my attorney committed malpractice by advising me badly," then it's placed in issue sufficiently to waive the
privilege. That's an action between a client and a lawyer. We're not talking about an express communication
with a third party. You know, "what did you mean when you said this to Dr. Murray? " that is never a
privileged communication, and her intent is not being placed at issue. There's no dispute in this case about Ms.
Jorrie's intent.
Judge: They can ask about it.
Ms. Bina: Sure, they can ask about it, but, your honor --
Mr. Panish: It's waived.
Ms. Bina: -- at best, that would be a work product kind of issue, not an attorney/client communication. She's
not communicating any communications with her client. She's not testifying as to any communications with
her client, and she's not waiving any attorney/client privileges as to her client. And just by saying, you know --
Judge: I guess the question would be, "so you just kind of made it up? You just decided you were going to
put those terms in the contract? "
Mr. Boyle: Right.
Judge: That's what makes it odd.
Ms. Bina: Your honor --
Judge: Normally, lawyers take direction from their client --
Ms. Bina: Your honor, I think --
Judge: -- not just making stuff up.
Ms. Bina: I think what Ms. Jorrie will testify, which she testified at her deposition, is that some of the terms
of the contract came from a list from Timm Woolley, some came from a prior precedent contract that she had --
Judge: To go by?
Ms. Bina: Yeah. That she had in place from a different agreement she had done for AEG live, and the
remainder came from her own, sort of, these are things that would be good to have, she put them in. Then
terms were changed as she spoke back and forth with Dr. Murray. She's already testified to all of that. None
of that was based on confidential communications with her client, and she's not going to give any more than that
here today. She's not going to say, "this is from my client. " she's not going to reveal confidential
communications with her client. So I think they should have no difficulty cross-examining her. If something
comes up where you think --
Judge: Okay. So if you ask, "where did you get the ideas to put this particular term in? " the response is
going to be, "I thought of it myself," "I had a prior to go by," so there won't be any waiver of attorney/client.

Ms. Bina: No, your honor, there won't be.

Mr. Panish: Your honor, she communicated everything to Mr. Trell before it was sent to Dr. Murray. It was
communicated -- and she took input from Mr. Trell in making changes. That was her testimony under oath.
So if she took input from Mr. Trell, and she testified about it, that opens up the communications with Mr. Trell
on the drafting of the contract. How more clear can it be, if she said in her deposition -- I'll show you the pages
-- that "I gave everything to Mr. Trell, and I made changes based on what Mr. Trell told me and Woolley and
Murray. " how does that not open up the communications with Mr. Trell?
Ms. Bina: Actually, your honor, what Ms. Jorrie testified to, she sent copies of the agreement to Mr. Trell
after she sent them to Dr. Murray, and, you know, she sent them for his review, but he had not provided a red
line to the agreement at the time of --
Mr. Panish: Not true.
Ms. Bina: She did say, your honor, that she included some of his input in the contract. That was the entirety
of her statement. Literally, she was asked, "did you incorporate his input? " in which she answered, "I
incorporated his input. " in and of itself, your honor, a statement like that does not waive privilege, it does not
reveal any substance of any privileged communication. If plaintiffs ask, "did this term come from Mr. Trell? "
I think she could answer that question, because she's talking about an express intent, where they came from.
But that doesn't waive the privilege as to confidential communications as to advice she provided to Mr. Trell as
to why a term should be in or not or vice versa. There's two different issues here: one is, where did the terms in
the contract come from, the other is, were there communications back and forth that related to legal advice?
And one is basically not -- never privileged. In other words, anybody can negotiate a contract. Whether you
have a lawyer do that or you do that yourself, that's a transactional process. But the attorney's impression and
advice back and forth to her client, those are privileged, those remain privileged, and there's no waiver of any of
those communications.
Mr. Panish: Your honor, here's what she testified to. Question -- this is at page 188: "my question is: did
you make any changes to any version of the agreement in response to direction by Mr. Trell? " answer: "I had
multiple communications with Mr. Trell about the form of the agreement. " question: "did you make any
changes to any version as a result of communications with Mr. Trell? " answer: "I did incorporate his input. "
and then we go on and ask --
Judge: So why can't --
Mr. Panish: Then we go and ask this: "oh. To what extent did you make the changes? " they object on
attorney/client privilege and instruct her not to answer the questions. And Ms. Bina was representing her at the
deposition, and she instructed her not to answer the question. So she says, "I relied on Trell's input," and then
we said, "where? " and she instructs her not to answer. That's exactly using it as a shield and a sword.
Judge: I think they should be allowed to ask that question.
Ms. Bina: If he asked, "what changes were made in response to Mr. Trell," I think, your honor, that is -- well,
let me back up. I don't think that Ms. Jorrie's statement that she included her client's input in the contract
waives privilege, and the cases we cited in our brief show that. They say that a general statement of, you know,
"I had conversations with my client on x topic" does not waive the attorney/client privilege as to
communications. So I think because she declined to go -- there has been no waiver on that issue at this point.
Just -- and I can cite --
Judge: But is that question calling for advice?

Ms. Bina: No.

Mr. Panish: She instructed her not to answer.
Ms. Bina: I think it's just saying which provisions of the contract came from Mr. Trell. That doesn't call for
advice, and she can answer those questions.
Mr. Panish: She instructed her not to answer in the deposition.
Judge: What was the question you asked?
Mr. Panish: Question was: "did you make changes to any version as a result of communications with Mr.
Trell? " I did --
Judge: What changes did she make?
Mr. Panish: Well, then she instructed her not to answer.
Judge: Why can't that question be answered?
Ms. Bina: The reason I instructed her at the deposition, frankly, was because I wasn't sure where we were
going with this. We were going to get into the substance of the attorney/client communications. If it's just
"what changes did you make," and "you put into a contract you sent to Dr. Murray," fine. But I don't think we
should get into legal advice that was provided back and forth, and I don't think there's any waiver or any
grounds for that.
Mr. Panish: Then we get back to the final version that she sends to Trell with the e-mail discussing, we
believe, his input and the changes --
Mr. Boyle: Yeah.
Mr. Panish: But we don't know, because we don't have it. This is exactly where we were going. She
precluded us from asking those questions.
Judge: And I'm saying that I think you can ask that question.
Mr. Panish: But, no. We want to have the document that was followed up where she says about the final
version. And then "this is the final version," and they black out the communication and the input that she's
responding to from Mr. Trell.
Judge: There may be some attorney/client.
Mr. Panish: So how can we effectively cross-examine? You see, what they're doing is prejudicing our right
to do a thorough and effective cross-examination of an attorney who's worked for this company since it began,
who's had numerous and numerous assignments, and a lot of money from AEG live. There's a serious issue
about bias, and we can't cross-examine because they've blocked that.
Ms. Bina: Your honor --
Mr. Panish: And she said in her deposition, the input from Trell, she sends e-mails, she instructs him not to
answer in the deposition.

Ms. Bina: Your honor, it would always be nice to know privileged communications. For instance, Paris
Jackson testified in her deposition that everything she knew about the lawsuit came from her attorneys. I
would love to be able to probe into that, but you can't do that because the attorney/client relationship is
protected by statute.
Mr. Boyle: That's a new position, because before she said you could.
Ms. Bina: No, your honor.
Mr. Boyle: I'm sorry.
Mr. Putnam: Sometimes the heckling makes it difficult.
Mr. Panish: Yeah. You should know that.
Mr. Boyle: You know, your honor, honestly, it's hard to sit here and listen to Ms. Bina make
misrepresentations to the court on her position on things for the past three years of litigation. Because they
have been fighting the whole time that our clients have to tell them everything about every contention in our
complaint because those are facts -- even though they were learned from lawyers, those are facts, and it's not
privileged. Now she's saying something different.
Ms. Bina: No, your honor. We're saying the exact same thing. If you learned facts from your lawyer, the
facts, those are not privileged.
Mr. Boyle: Okay.
Ms. Bina: The information and advice may be privileged, the facts are not.
Mr. Panish: Where's the e-mail?
Ms. Bina: The e-mail, your honor, conveys legal advice and is properly logged in the privilege log, that, by
the way, they haven't brought in here, and was described in August and September of 2009.
Judge: Okay. I want you to bring me that document. I'll take a look at it and redact it and decide what
should be turned over. I think it's appropriate to ask what changes were made as a result of Mr. Trell's
communication. But if they had a discussion about the importance of it, and what it meant, and that kind of
thing, I think that's privileged.
Ms. Bina: Thank you, your honor. I will get a copy.
Judge: If she made changes as a result of his instruction, then they can get into that.
Ms. Bina: And, your honor, I believe it's a privileged e-mail, and I don't think it will be helpful to the
plaintiffs. But I will get that and give it to your honor. Do we have to do that before the direct of Ms. Jorrie or
can I get that over lunch?
Mr. Boyle: I'm sure someone can e-mail it from your office in 12 seconds.
Mr. Panish: They're watching this live feed.
Mr. Boyle: So whoever is watching from O'Melveny, please e-mail --

Ms. Bina: It's going --

Mr. Boyle: I'll give you the AEG live number for the person at O'Melveny. Aeg Live 196449 --
Mr. Putnam: They can keep talking --
Mr. Panish: They have a live feed.
Ms. Bina: Your honor, there is a live feed in the office. It's not continuously monitored. It's there in case
someone needs to come in. In any event --
Mr. Boyle: -- through AEG live 196456.
Ms. Bina: Your honor, it would be nice to be able to finish a sentence without being interrupted. I can get
you the e-mail. I'd just like to start the examination. It seems like they need this for cross-examination. If I
give it to your honor at the morning break or right before lunch, you can look at it, decide whether it needs to be
disclosed to the plaintiffs.
Judge: This is what I suggest. I suggest you make a phone call right now.
Ms. Bina: I'll step out --
Judge: She can get started on that.
Mr. Panish: She doesn't have to do it.
Mr. Putnam: If I can talk to my team, that would be awesome.
Ms. Bina: If he steps out briefly, I think we can get the e-mail, then you can determine whether it's privileged
or should have redactions. But, again, your honor, just because -- I do think it's work that they should have
already had this argument. And they had time to move to compel on the privileged issues, and that time has
long passed.
Judge: I understand that.
Mr. Panish: We don't have to do that if the witness is here testifying. There's no obligation to do that.
Judge: Mr. Panish, I'm going to take a look at it, even though I do think the time has passed. I want to look
at it so I feel comfortable with my ruling.
Mr. Panish: Do I need to say why time hasn't passed, or can I let that go?
Judge: You can let that go.
Mr. Panish: All right. Well, there's more issues to discuss.
Judge: All right.
Mr. Panish: On the hearsay, okay? Huge hearsay what Woolley told her, hearsay what Phillips told her,
what Murray told her. I mean, what they're going to do through her is try to get in all this hearsay from
Murray, Woolley and Phillips. That's what she's going to try to do.

Ms. Bina: Your honor, I don't believe any of this testimony is offered for its truth, but rather to explain Ms.
Jorrie's conduct. So, for instance --
Judge: Why she put something in the contract? Why she didn't put something in the contract?
Ms. Bina: Exactly, your honor. Why she took the action she did. If at some point during the examination
you feel that's not the case, plaintiffs can make objections, you can sustain it. As regarding the
communications with Mr. Phillips, plaintiffs have put it at issue, and Mr. Phillips had no reasonable basis for
making this statement, his state of mind is put in issue. Her statements to him are not offered for the truth. In
fact, some things that she passed along to him, in retrospect, were not true, but they were based on
communications with Dr. Murray.
Judge: State of mind when he said, "we check everyone out. "
Ms. Bina: In other words, they were offered for the effect on Mr. Phillips, and Mr. Phillips had a good-faith
basis for making that statement.
Judge: All right. Overruled on the hearsay exception.
Mr. Panish: So all the hearsay is allowed?
Judge: Yeah. I'm overruling it.
Mr. Putnam: I'm getting the exact number so I can give it to them.
Mr. Bloss: Your honor, there are going to be some other discrete or less dramatic hearsay issues. For
example, statements that she testified to in her deposition about what Murray told her about Jackson's condition.
That is just garden-variety hearsay.
Judge: What Murray told her about Jackson's condition?
Mr. Bloss: Correct.
Judge: Okay.
Mr. Panish: All right. And I -- we can take that up when it comes, I suppose, but it is just flat-out hearsay.
Judge: It's irrelevant, is what you're saying?
Mr. Bloss: It's, at a minimum, hearsay. But to the extent that they did -- she did testify to this at the
deposition.
Judge: Okay. What did you want to introduce?
Ms. Bina: Your honor, what she testified about at her deposition at the criminal trial is that Dr. Murray
repeatedly told her, volunteered to her, that Michael Jackson was in good health, that he had just came out of
rehearsal, he looked phenomenal. Your honor, again, this is not offered in any way, shape or form for its truth.
I think in some ways Dr. Murray's statement's clearly a lie. So it's not offered for the truth, it's offered for the
effect on the listener, and, articulately, to explain --
Judge: What effect -- why would that have any effect on Jorrie?

Ms. Bina: It explains subsequent actions she took. In particular, her -- the fact that --
Judge: In other words, why is her state of mind concerning Jackson's health relevant?
Ms. Bina: Your honor, what it will -- it will go to the communications that she made to Mr. Phillips that she
passed along to him and --
Judge: All she said was that he had licenses in four states.
Ms. Bina: Right. And that he had all these medical practices, and she had a great conversation with him.
Judge: That's hearsay.
Ms. Bina: Well, your honor, hold on. Mr. Bloss, please let me finish.
Mr. Bloss: I thought you were finished. That's all.
Ms. Bina: Great. It's not offered for the truth. I think the statement that Michael Jackson was in good health
and had no medical issues is not offered for --
Judge: It's not true because he was in poor health?
Ms. Bina: Well, not that he was in poor health, but I think "no medical issues" clearly is not true. There's
been ample testimony -- so hearsay is only a statement if offered for its truth. So --
Judge: But it has to be relevant. It still has to be relevant to something.
Ms. Bina: So I think the question, your honor, is not whether it's hearsay, but whether there's a foundation for
it in being relevant to the issues in the case.
Judge: Right.
Ms. Bina: I think it's relevant to a number of issues in the case, not the least of which, there's been a lot of
questions in this case, why didn't AEG live undertake some sort of big investigation about Dr. Murray. Ms.
Jorrie was involved in negotiating with Dr. Murray. They said, you know, maybe she was concerned. She
should have been concerned if there was a CPR Machine. Part of why there was no additional investigation is
because Ms. Jorrie had conversations with Dr. Murray in which he was very professional, very confident,
repeatedly told her Mr. Jackson was in good health. All of that, your honor, relates to actions she took
regarding the contract. She's going to talk about certain diligence she did, like checking his licenses. It
explains her conduct, your honor, and her subsequent communications with Mr. Phillips and her subsequent
communication with Mr. Jorrie -- not Jorrie, Dr. Murray.
Judge: What were her conversations, though, with Phillips? She didn't say, "by the way, Mr. Jackson's in
great health." she didn't say that to Mr. Phillips.
Ms. Bina: No, your honor. But I think if she -- let's put it differently. If she had said -- you know, if she had
asked Dr. Murray, "why do you need a CPR Machine? " and Dr. Murray had said, "because he has a heart
condition, and he could die any day," then it might have been unreasonable for her not to, you know, stop the
drafting of the contract, or at least sort of put up a red flag of some sort. So I think her actions of continuing to
negotiate with Dr. Murray have been put into issue by the plaintiffs. They've repeatedly said, "why did you
keep talking to this guy? " and the fact that Ms. Jorrie was being given a certain impression by Dr. Murray is
relevant to her actions and why she continued to negotiate with Dr. Murray, unaware of any issues, unaware of

any problems. In other words, it's not to explain -- you know, it's to explain her actions in negotiating with Dr.
Murray because she was the agent of AEG live negotiating his contract. So her own actions are relevant.
They're imputable to the company in the sense of, you know, "why did you not shut this whole thing down?"
and the fact that Dr. Murray told her these things, they were statements he was making to AEG live to basically
bolster himself to say, "hey, I'm the best doctor ever. Everything is fine." It's basically similar to the kinds of
communications he made to Mr. Phillips and Mr. Ortega.
Judge: And I can see why those could be relevant, but I don't know about Ms. Jorrie.
Ms. Bina: Your honor, again, she --
Judge: She's not an executive.
Mr. Panish: She doesn't even work for the company.
Judge: She's a contract lawyer.
Ms. Bina: She was negotiating a contract --
Judge: I'm sustaining the plaintiffs' objection on that.
Ms. Bina: Your honor, again, I would ask we consider them when they come up.
Judge: No. It's too prejudicial to come up.
Ms. Bina: I won't have her elicit them. I'd ask that I be allowed to lay a foundation for them and ask your
honor if there's a reason to reconsider.
Judge: I don't see any reason at this point.
Ms. Bina: Right. But I'm asking, your honor, if during the testimony, the foundation is laid --
Judge: The question isn't whether a foundation can be laid for the statement. The question is whether it's
relevant.
Ms. Bina: For relevance.
Mr. Bloss: Let me just point out two facts, your honor. One is, Ms. Jorrie did not testify that -- the "Michael
Jackson's really healthy" comment came in connection with to the CPR Machine. She said Dr. Murray said it
was customary to have a CPR Machine on a tour of this nature, whatever that means. Second, Mr. Phillips
certainly did not testify that he got any information from Ms. Jorrie about Michael Jackson's health. So in
other words -- neither did any other AEG live executive. And at least, as I understood it --
Judge: Kind of unusual to solicit that information from a contract lawyer.
Mr. Panish: Right.
Ms. Bina: Well, your honor --
Judge: I don't know why you should solicit that --
Mr. Boyle: Ms. Bina, can Mr. Bloss finish?

Ms. Bina: I thought he was finished. I apologize.

Mr. Boyle: He wasn't.
Mr. Bloss: Frankly, I forgot what I was going to say. And at least as I understood the proffer earlier this
morning, Ms. Jorrie does not say to Phillips that she had this conversation with Dr. Murray.
Ms. Bina: Just to follow up on that, your honor, Ms. Jorrie was also involved in communications with Dr.
Murray relating to the medical insurance issues. In particular, she asked Dr. Murray on behalf of AEG live
and on behalf of Michael Jackson, "hey, there's this insurance issue that's outstanding. You're Michael
Jackson's doctor. You should get in touch with Bob Taylor, the insurance broker, and pass along the medical
records." it was in that conversation that he volunteered, "he's super healthy. I'm going to have a very small file
because it's extremely tiny." again, your honor, I think it's relevant because it was communicated -- there's a
chain of e-mails in which Ms. Jorrie had said, you know, "you confirm you're the physician for three years. I
think it's best that you get in touch with Bob Taylor directly. " these e-mails are already in evidence at trial. "
you confirm you're the personal physician, and he has no health issues." those were communicated to Mr.
Taylor, all of the insurers, Mr. Trell, Mr. Gongaware, Mr. Woolley, all of those folks. So I think that the
communication was forwarded to the client, as well as all of the insurers, in which Ms. Jorrie said, you know,
"you communicated to me that you were Mr. Jackson's personal physician of three years" -- or Mr. Taylor, I
think, confirmed that in a subsequent phone call. But Ms. Jorrie was involved in that process, and I think the
fact that Dr. Murray --
Judge: So are you saying --
Mr. Panish: She was not.
Judge: It's already in evidence, is that what you're saying?
Ms. Bina: What's already in evidence --
Mr. Panish: It's not in evidence.
Mr. Bloss: There is not a statement from Jorrie to anybody saying that "Dr. Murray told me that Michael
Jackson was healthy," and that is what the evidence is that they're trying to elicit.
Ms. Bina: Well, I'll check with it, your honor. I believe, actually, I was thinking it was Ms. Jorrie. I think
it's, in retrospect, Mr. Taylor's conversation with Dr. Murray that's already in evidence.
Judge: Well, that's different.
Ms. Bina: It is. And as I was thinking about it mid sentence, that's why I kind of scaled back, because I'll ask
her whether she ever conveyed --
Mr. Boyle: Maybe it's in the box.
Ms. Bina: -- to her clients during Mr. Jackson's lifetime, and then we can go from there. Is that fair?
Judge: I'm going to exclude it altogether. If you want to re-raise it at a break or something, that's fine. But I
don't think I want to hear anything related to it during the direct.

Ms. Bina: What about the statement, your honor -- because I think this is relevant and material -- that he told
her --
Judge: That she --
Ms. Bina: Dr. Murray told her, "I've only been the physician for three years, so I only have those years. "
and then she passed that on to Bob Taylor, the insurance broker, "he's been the physician for the past three
years. He can get you medical records for that part" again, your honor, that communication came back to AEG
live from Mr. Taylor.
Mr. Panish: That's not in evidence that she told Taylor anything.
Ms. Bina: It can come into evidence, your honor, because she e-mails Dr. Murray and Bob Taylor and says,
"you guys should speak to each other about this issue," and that, I believe, is in evidence. I can double-check
it. In other words, Ms. Jorrie was part of this process with the insurers. Her impressions did get conveyed,
and I think the fact that Dr. Murray is telling everyone the same story, which is, "I've been his physician for
three years," you know, "and I have records for those three years" is relevant. He's telling that to every agent of
AEG live he can find. He's also telling that to the insurer, Bob Taylor. They put in issue whether AEG live
had any good-faith basis for believing he was his physician for three years.
Mr. Panish: We never said that.
Judge: What about that particular --
Mr. Bloss: Well, I'm trying to find that e-mail, your honor. There is an e-mail where she is saying --
Mr. Panish: It's not in the ones that they gave us that they want to introduce, is it? They gave us three
documents they want to introduce.
Mr. Bloss: The one I have, your honor, is 648-146, where Ms. Jorrie sends an e-mail to Dr. Murray, although
it kicks back, she doesn't have the right e-mail address, and AEG is arranging to obtain cancelation insurance in
connection with the performance. Bob Taylor or Roberts & Taylor requires a five-year medical history. I
think that there were one other -- so that doesn't have any representation.
Mr. Boyle: Here's one, Bill, where -- 648-251 -- she thanks Dr. Murray for agreeing to assist in getting
insurance records. That's the only other one I know of.
Mr. Bloss: And also 347.
Ms. Bina: Again, your honor, other people are copied on these e-mails from the client. I can check with her
to the extent of her communications with the client on these issues. But she was involved in putting the parties
together in the insurance process. They've gone at length questioning witness after witness about this insurance
process. Since she was part of the process and was acting on behalf of AEG live, I think what Dr. Murray told
her as part of that process is relevant.
Judge: But if that wasn't communicated to anybody, I don't see how it could be relevant.
Ms. Bina: Well, it did get communicated --
Mr. Panish: To who?
Ms. Bina: To Mr. Taylor, Mr. Woolley. That's what I want to check.

Mr. Boyle: Maybe those are on the privileged log or something, but we didn't get those.
Judge: All right.
Ms. Bina: I don't know that it was communicated in writing. I think it was communicated orally, but I'll
check with her.
Mr. Bloss: 347-1 is an e-mail from Ms. Jorrie to Dr. Murray saying: "we'd like you" -- attaching the final
version of the agreement with Murray, who ends up signing it later on that day -- "also, thank you for agreeing
to assist in the efforts of the insurance company to complete his due diligence related to Michael Jackson's
medical history" but there's nothing about any statements by Murray on that and any oral statements by Murray
to her. Regardless of whether she puts them in an e-mail or something else, they're still hearsay. So that's, I
think, where we are.
Ms. Bina: Again, your honor, I think they're not offered for the truth but their effect on the listener. Ms.
Jorrie, as agent negotiating the contract, you know, her impressions and her understanding are relevant. In
other words, what she believed about Dr. Murray goes to issues that plaintiffs have put at issue in this case,
which is that AEG, including their outside counsel, acted negligently in hiring or retaining or supervising Dr.
Conrad Murray. Ms. Jorrie is part of that process. The statements that Dr. Murray made to her that form the
basis for her belief that he was a competent, professional doctor, are relevant and admissible, your honor.
Mr. Panish: So now she's giving opinions on the fitness and competence of Dr. Murray and her impressions.
Once again, now they're going to her state of mind, which opens up the communications on her state of mind,
and her impression is her state of mind.
Ms. Bina: Her impression --
Mr. Panish: What she's trying to backdoor all of this in -- it's going to be opened up. They're going to do it.
Dr. Murray's communication with her, she never told Mr. Taylor. There's no communication she had with Mr.
Taylor. Mr. Taylor, which they moved to exclude his testimony, didn't have any communication --
Ms. Bina: Because it wasn't in this case.
Mr. Panish: Well, no, but Mr. Taylor testified under oath. There's no communication with Ms. Jorrie in that
testimony. And so now Ms. Jorrie is going to come in. Your honor -- this is ridiculous, your honor, and
there's going to be a lot of issues. I know they're going to open this up, and I'm going to --
Judge: You better tread carefully.
Ms. Bina: I'm going to tread very carefully.
Judge: You better tread carefully in the area, because you don't want to inadvertently do something.
Ms. Bina: We're treading very carefully on all privileged matters. But that said, I don't see how Ms. Jorrie's
impression of Dr. Murray would have privilege. It's not a legal analysis, it's not a communication to her client.
A communication to the client about Dr. Murray --
Judge: I'm sustaining the objection.
Mr. Panish: Isn't that expert opinion?

Judge: What her impression of him, I don't see why that's even relevant.
Ms. Bina: All right.
Judge: I mean, what Mr. Trell thinks, what Randy Phillips thinks, what Paul Gongaware thinks, what the
executives think, that's relevant.
Ms. Bina: Your honor, let me make one last stab --
Judge: The only way it would be relevant is if she communicated that to the executives.
Mr. Boyle: And if she did, that's the waiver of privilege, if she's trying to testify about that.
Ms. Bina: I think the fact that she sent the agreement to Dr. Murray, which they've made a huge fuss about
and said, you know, "this is the agreement" "this is" -- you know, and then she continues to negotiate with him,
makes her understanding of Dr. Murray's relationship with Mr. Jackson relevant. Because if she had a
different understanding, her actions might have been unreasonable. In other words, if she knew, for instance,
that Dr. Murray, let's say -- and this is not the case, but let's say she knew Dr. Murray was not Mr. Jackson's
physician for three years, that Mr. Jackson wasn't in good health, then her actions to continue to negotiate with
him might be extremely unreasonable. But instead, she continues to negotiate with him, being repeatedly
assured by him and by her own sort of, you know, internet research, that he was Michael Jackson's long-term
personal physician. He made every effort with everyone to assure of that. And I think, your honor, that's why
it's relevant, because she continued to negotiate with him. And because she kept -- you know, she said, "why"
-- at every turn, she was reassured this was a person who had a long-term relationship with Mr. Jackson, that he
was intimately familiar with Mr. Jackson, that he --
Judge: So you're offering it for the truth, then.
Ms. Bina: Not for the truth, your honor, for the effect on the listener. For the effect that Ms. Jorrie continued
to negotiate, based on her belief in Dr. Murray's statement. In other words, it doesn't matter if it's true or not
true. In many ways it's more relevant if it's not true, because Dr. Murray is lying to Ms. Jorrie. But she's
continuing to negotiate with Dr. Murray as an agent of AEG live, based on her understanding and her
interactions with him. I think that that is relevant, your honor.
Mr. Boyle: I think your -- are you sticking with your ruling?
Mr. Bloss: You want a response to that?
Judge: If you have anything to add.
Mr. Bloss: What that means is that -- Ms. Jorrie is not a defendant, first of all, your honor. There is nothing
in the pleading that suggests that her actions are at issue in this case, and that's exactly what attorney Bina said,
that the only relevance of it is to explain and --
Judge: State of mind.
Mr. Bloss: -- determine whether Ms. Bina's actions -- Ms. Jorrie's actions are reasonable. Ms. Jorrie's actions
are not at issue in the case.
Mr. Boyle: That might be the next case. I don't know.

Ms. Bina: I don't know how that's possibly true. Ms. Jorrie is negotiating with Dr. Murray on behalf of
AEG live.
Judge: Well, according to you, all she's doing is pushing paper, and someone is giving her a list. She's just
writing things down and just passing the paper on.
Ms. Bina: Your honor, this --
Judge: They're not really negotiating, they're really not talking about the terms. That's what I'm hearing.
Ms. Bina: No, your honor. That's not the case. That's the case for the stuff from Timm Woolley. Then as
an attorney, she negotiated back and forth with Dr. Murray. In other words, the list from Timm Woolley was
just Timm Woolley passing paper along. But thereafter, Ms. Jorrie, as outside attorney for AEG, negotiated for
Dr. Murray. She was the only person negotiating the contract with Dr. Murray. No one from AEG live
negotiated this contract, you know. She was the one interacting with Dr. Murray throughout the month of June
on behalf of AEG live, and Dr. Murray presumably understood that his statements to her were statements to
AEG live. Plaintiffs have claimed, and the defendants have never disputed, that she was acting as an AEG live
agent in connection with negotiations of this agreement, and they've argued over and over again that AEG live
was unreasonable in continuing to negotiate. So I think they've put at issue Ms. Jorrie's interactions with Dr.
Murray, to the extent she served as the basis for her continued negotiations with Dr. Murray. In other words, if
he's totally failed the smell test, if he's a cad, fly-by-night -- said all kinds of crazy things to her, she might not
have continued to negotiate with him. So I think this is relevant, your honor, and admissible.
Mr. Boyle: Your honor, then what they're saying is all communications between AEG and Ms. Jorrie, all of
them, are open. Because what they're trying to say now is Ms. Jorrie conveyed her impressions to them, and
they somehow relied on that. So they are opening the door to all advice and everything Ms. Jorrie gave them,
and everything they've said back to Ms. Jorrie, but they don't want that.
Judge: She's an agent.
Ms. Bina: Your honor, that's not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is, regardless of whether she ever
conveyed any of this to her client, she was the one negotiating the contract, and the reasonableness of her
actions are at issue.
Mr. Bloss: Your honor, we're deep into the defense case. Has your honor heard any evidence from our side
in the plaintiffs' case-in-chief that we are contending, as a basis of liability, that attorney Jorrie acted
unreasonably?
Ms. Bina: Yes, your honor. They have repeatedly said it was unreasonable for AEG live to continue
negotiating with Dr. Murray, that it was unreasonable for them to enter into these negotiations, to continue
speaking with him, that they knew or should have known he was nightly administering propofol treatments to
Mr. Jackson. That's in their complaint. Ms. Jorrie, as the agent for AEG live, who was negotiating with Dr.
Murray, is the person they are blaming for continuing the negotiations.
Judge: Then I suppose it opens it up, then. I suppose it opens up the communications.
Ms. Bina: It doesn't open up --
Judge: I mean --
Mr. Panish: We want them all.

Ms. Bina: No, your honor. I'm not asking about communications Ms. Jorrie had with her client. I'm asking
about Ms. Jorrie's actions. In other words, if Ms. Jorrie is the one negotiating with Dr. Murray, then it's her
actions in continuing to negotiate or not that are reasonable or unreasonable. So her understanding is relevant
to those actions. In other words, they're claiming they're not blaming Ms. Jorrie, but they are blaming Ms.
Jorrie. They're saying --
Judge: I don't see she's a defendant. I don't see that they're blaming her.
Ms. Bina: She's an agent of the defendant, your honor, in connection with negotiation of the Murray contract,
and they've said that over and over again. And they asked us to admit that, and we did. So if you're an agent
of the defendant in connection with this contract, then your actions are necessarily at issue. Again, they're not
suing her in her personal capacity, but they're saying that her actions in not stopping contract negotiations are
attributable to AEG live and are part of your --
Judge: Are they imputed to them?
Ms. Bina: Yes. They're saying that the contract Ms. Jorrie sent to Dr. Murray is imputed to AEG live and
should be binding on AEG live. I don't see how they can have it both ways. How they can say that, you
know, Ms. Jorrie repeatedly sending him contracts and saying, "we're on behalf of the company," but her
impressions of Dr. Murray are irrelevant.
Mr. Panish: Well, then, if they're trying to say that, then it opens up all communications between her and
AEG live. I mean, which way do they want it? They're saying we're contending that -- we haven't contended
that, but they're saying that, therefore, all communications are open.
Ms. Bina: Your honor --
Mr. Panish: And we want to have them produced so we can effectively cross-examine this witness.
Ms. Bina: These are two different issues. One is Ms. Jorrie's communications and legal advice back and
forth with her client. The other is Ms. Jorrie's own actions as a negotiating agent for AEG live in connection
with Dr. Murray. We are not asking about the first version, we're asking about the second version, which is,
"Ms. Jorrie, what did Dr. Murray tell you as an agent of AEG live, and what effect did that have on your
interactions with Dr. Murray? " and that is the heart of this case, your honor. Their whole case is, "red flags,"
"why didn't you know? " "why didn't you do this? " and Dr. Murray went out of his way over and over again
to assure Ms. Jorrie and others, but Ms. Jorrie in this particular case, that he was a long-term, competent, you
know, physician of Mr. Jackson.
Judge: Well, I guess the question will be, are you going to ask her, when Dr. Murray asked for the CPR
Machine, would you ask Dr. Murray why he was asking?
Mr. Panish: No. They're going to bring it up, not us. They're going to ask that, and then they'll open it up.
Before we even get to it, they're going to bring it up.
Ms. Bina: Your honor --
Mr. Boyle: Right. They're going to ask, "did you think that -- was it your impression that Dr. Murray was
competent?"
Ms. Bina: No, I'm not going to ask that.

Mr. Boyle: She is going to say, "yes. Yes, I did. He was competent" and so to infer to the jury that, wow,
Kathy Jorrie checked him out, conveyed it to the client. So that's all what they're going to do. That's
impressions. If they want to do that, that opens up every communication between her and them about Dr.
Murray.
Ms. Bina: Again, your honor, "a" and "b" do not equal each other.
Mr. Panish: Well, it equals "c," a waiver.
Ms. Bina: Your honor, to back up a moment, they are alleging over and over again that AEG live and all of
its agents acted unreasonably, that there were red flags everywhere, that no one could have possibly thought that
CPR Machines, was reasonable. It should have been a huge red flag. The fact that an agent of AEG live --
Ms. Jorrie in this instance -- noted the CPR Machine, asked about it, was provided a reason for its inclusion by
Dr. Murray that allayed her concerns is relevant to AEG Live's conduct in continuing to negotiate with Dr.
Murray is reasonable. It's the heart of their case, which is whether or not AEG live acted reasonably. Ms.
Jorrie was acting on behalf of AEG live here.
Judge: That has to do with the contract terms. You just wanted to get in general statements about "Michael
Jackson's in good health." that's general statements that he made. If you're talking about a specific contract
term, then perhaps it's relevant.
Ms. Bina: The general statements, your honor, were in connection with gathering insurance. They weren't
just out of the blue. They were, you know, "I have records for three years. "
Judge: What does gathering insurance have to do with the contract?
Ms. Bina: There was a separate issue. Ms. Jorrie was involved in the contract. She was also involved --
because she was communicating with Dr. Murray, she was asked by -- and she's already testified to this. She
was asked, "hey, is Dr. Murray someone who could help with the insurance issue, because Michael Jackson
hadn't given up medical records? " so she became involved in the insurance process as well, separate and apart
from the work on the contract. She had two roles: one was to negotiate the contract, the other, which was to
follow up with Dr. Murray about insurance. Now, her involvement with that was briefer, but she was involved
in that process.
Judge: Yeah. But what happened was that Dr. Murray tells her, "oh, he's in good health. He's fine" what is
she going to do? What influence does she have in that regard? Is she going to somehow, "oh, well, Conrad
Murray says he's in good health, the insurance company's not going to do a medical examination of him"?
What is the whole point of that?
Ms. Bina: The point --
Judge: Seems to me the point is that you want to get in the fact that Dr. Murray said that he was in good
health.
Ms. Bina: Yes.
Judge: And that's it.
Ms. Bina: Well, your honor --
Judge: It really doesn't have any impact on the insurance decision at all.

Ms. Bina: It doesn't have impact on the insurance decision, but it has impact on the reasonableness of Ms.
Jorrie's actions in continuing to negotiate with Dr. Murray. So let me pause for a moment. It was not just
"he's in good health" it's also, "I have his medical records for the past three years" so that was a statement that
was consistent with the belief that he was his long-term medical practitioner, which they've argued that, you
know, we had no reason to believe that. The fact that Dr. Murray told Ms. Jorrie that is a reason for AEG live
to believe it.
Mr. Boyle: Just for the record, the only person who said that Ms. Jorrie was negligent is counsel for AEG
live. Just want to make that clear for the record.
Mr. Bloss: We have not offered any expert testimony relating to Ms. Jorrie's reasonableness or
unreasonableness under the circumstance, your honor, as I'm sure you're aware.
Judge: All right. I'm going to sustain the objection. But you can re-raise it if, for some reason, you think it
becomes relevant.
Ms. Bina: Okay.
Mr. Boyle: Thank you, your honor.
Judge: Katherine Jackson versus AEG live, bc 445597.
Mr. Panish: There's the jury, I think. It should be filed at least in an envelope or something in the court file.
Judge: Right. Which is what I was going to say.
Ms. Bina: Your honor, it's just the first e-mail and --
Mr. Panish: The second page is blacked out, too. Part of it.
Mr. Bloss: Your honor, can I suggest also that the witness be informed about the court's ruling so there wasn't
--
Ms. Bina: I was attempting to inform the witness, and they said, "the judge is back on the bench. You have
to come back now. "
Judge: If you need to take time with the witness --
Ms. Bina: So my understanding, your honor, is that the witness is to -- is allowed to testify, other than you
sustained an objection to the statements that Dr. Murray told her he was in good health. That Michael Jackson
was in good health.
Judge: Yes.
Ms. Bina: Is she allowed to testify that in connection with the insurance stuff, Dr. Murray said he had three
years of records?
Judge: I don't think the insurance is relevant at all.
Mr. Putnam: They made it relevant. We would agree with you, your honor. But they've had days and days
of testimony where they tried to show the reason there was insurance was the following, and you didn't handle it

correctly. And you put -- and they said that they had -- Dr. Conrad Murray was put at issue in getting the
insurance, which was not the case, and she explains why it's not the case, and how long we had the records for.
Judge: Didn't we go all over that with Trell already?
Mr. Panish: Yes, we did.
Mr. Putnam: This was the person who had the conversation, your honor.
Mr. Panish: No. Didn't we just argue about all of this --
Mr. Putnam: Not that part.
Mr. Panish: -- and you made a ruling?
Ms. Bina: I was asking what the ruling was so I could --
Judge: Keep everything about the insurance out. I'll reconsider it at a break.
Ms. Bina: Your honor, everything about the insurance, she can testify about she asked Dr. Murray to get the
medical records, can't she? I mean, that's -- I think that's -- there's --
Judge: Is it part of the contract?
Mr. Panish: It's not in the contract.
Ms. Bina: It's not part of the contract. It's a separate conversation that she had with Dr. Murray, but it was
on behalf of the client, and it's been the subject of testimony by other witnesses in the case that Ms. Jorrie was
the one who reached out to Dr. Murray and got him involved in the process.
Judge: Of getting the records?
Ms. Bina: Of getting the records.
Mr. Putnam: And just to be clear, your honor, we're now just into our defense of a wrongful-death action.
A wrongful-death action with the person who actually did the negotiations for the contract of the individual --
Judge: I'm aware of that, Mr. Putnam.
Mr. Putnam: But they have put at issue a number of things, including all the insurance --
Mr. Panish: She wasn't --
Mr. Putnam: And the response is the person who actually dealt with it.
Mr. Panish: She didn't deal with it. Mr. Trell's the one that dealt with it, and he was the person most
knowledgeable, and he testified about all the insurance. She wasn't involved in it at all. You already ruled on
this. Are we going to reargue all of this now?
Ms. Bina: Your honor, she was involved in the insurance. I'm kind of amazed to hear Mr. Panish say she
wasn't.

Judge: Let's keep that out. My understanding is we're talking about the contract and contract negotiations
and contract terms. That was her main function.
Ms. Bina: That was --
Judge: I will have a discussion with you later about that, perhaps on redirect.
Ms. Bina: Your honor, some of the e-mails we're intending to introduce between her and Dr. Murray
mention the insurance. Do those need to be redacted?
Mr. Boyle: That's okay.
Mr. Panish: Wait a minute. Which e-mails?
Mr. Boyle: Right there.
Mr. Panish: This exhibit 347-1?
Mr. Bloss: No.
Mr. Panish: You gave us four e-mails. 7779, right?
Ms. Bina: Right.
Mr. Panish: That has nothing to do with insurance. That's all right. 779, nothing. Where is it?
Ms. Bina: It's on --
Mr. Panish: 0801-7. But that's Woolley, that's not --
Mr. Boyle: Your honor, I don't think it's a problem. For example, 648-251 -- which has other numbers --
where she sends an e-mail to Murray saying: "also, thank you for agreeing to assist in the efforts of the
insurance company to complete his due diligence" that's not the problem. The problem is her trying to get in --
them trying to get in for the truth of the matter asserted statements like, "I've been his personal physician for
three years," and "he's in good health" the fact that she asked him to do work essentially for AEG to help get
insurance, that's fine. I don't have a problem with that.
Ms. Bina: Just for the record, those statements were not for the truth of the matter asserted. I think we
established that. Your ruling was that they were irrelevant, not that they were hearsay. But -- okay. So we
don't have to avoid the insurance subject all together, we just have to avoid the statements about him being in
good health and being his physician for three years?
Mr. Panish: No. The question was about the document. That's what you asked. The document, the
specific one that you gave us, exhibit no. 8284, that one is okay, okay? That e-mail. Okay? But that's the
only one I see that relates in any way of the four they've given us.
Ms. Bina: Again, your honor, I think it's a little odd to put in an e-mail discussing insurance and not allow the
witness to explain why that's in the document. If they have no issue --
Mr. Panish: Then take it out.

Ms. Bina: -- that Ms. Jorrie was involved with negotiating insurance, then -- and I don't see how they possibly
could, then I don't see the problem in bringing out that testimony.
Mr. Panish: Then take it out. We'll object. Then we'll go with the ruling. Take it out.
Mr. Bloss: The question simply is: did Ms. Jorrie ask Dr. Murray to help gather records? Period. Fine.
Ms. Bina: And why did she do that? Because she understood him to be his physician who had custody of the
records.
Mr. Bloss: That's the hearsay. That's the problem, your honor.
Mr. Panish: See, here you go.
Judge: I'm sustaining the objection.
Ms. Bina: Okay. So nothing --
Judge: I mean, with everything I do, you go too far.
Ms. Bina: No.
Judge: I give you an inch, you're going to take a mile. All right.
Ms. Bina: You have the binders of exhibits, your honor?
Mr. Panish: Wait a minute. We've only got four. How many are there?
Ms. Bina: I don't know exactly. I assume we gave your honor whatever we gave you.
Mr. Wexler: excuse me, your honor. Jeffrey Wexler, McKenna Long. We filed a motion to quash. I don't
know if you wanted to have that done before Ms. Jorrie testifies or not.
Judge: Okay.
Mr. Panish: Well, it's about all her money.
Judge: You wanted to use these documents on cross?
Mr. Panish: Yeah. For example, as to her bias and all the money that AEG's paid her, and all the projects
and everything she does for them for the last 12 years goes to her --
Ms. Bina: Jurors are coming in.
Mr. Panish: We can take it up at the break. We haven't looked at it.
JURERS ENTER THE COURTROOM
Judge: Good morning, everybody.

The jury: good morning.

Judge: Sorry I kept you waiting. We were having back-and-forth, so it happens sometimes. Defendants,
you wanted to call somebody?
Mr. Panish: Did you want --
Judge: I'm sorry, counsel. Yeah, make your appearances. How could I forget?
Mr. Panish: Good morning.
Judge: Usually Mr. Putnam reminds me of that.
Mr. Putnam: Sorry.
Mr. Panish: I thought I could do that today. Good morning. Brian Panish for the plaintiffs.
Mr. Bloss: Good morning. William Bloss for the plaintiffs.
Ms. Bina: Good morning. Jessica Stebbins Bina for the defendants.
Mr. Putnam: And Marvin Putnam for the defendants.
Ms. Bina: Your honor, I have to go out to get the witness, and I'll speak with her briefly on the discussion the
matters we were discussing. I'll be right back.
Mr. Putnam: May I approach, your honor?
Judge: Yes. Ms. Bina, who are you calling?
Ms. Bina: Kathy Jorrie.
Judge: Thank you. Ms. Jorrie, come forward.
Ms. Bina: Thank you, your honor.
Judge: Stand behind the court reporter, face the clerk to my right. Kathleen A. Jorrie, called as a witness by
the defendants, was sworn in.
Judge: Thank you, ma'am. You may begin.
Direct examination by Ms. Bina:
Q. Good morning, Ms. Jorrie.
A. Good morning.

Q. Tell us what you do for a living.

A. I'm an attorney.
Q. How long have you been an attorney?
A. Going on my 28th year.
Q. Can you tell us about your educational background?
A. Yes. I graduated from Gahr high school, locally. Went to UCLA. For my undergraduate, graduated
there in 1982. I then went to Hastings college of the law, which is a u.c. School, and I graduated from Hastings
with my JD In 1985.
Q. And have you been practicing law since you graduated?
A. I have.
Q. And where do you work now?
A. I'm a partner at the law firm of McKenna Long and Aldridge, and I work in their Los Angeles office.
Q. And is that right down the street from this courthouse?
A. It is.
Q. Can you tell me about your firm a little bit, just very generally?
A. Yes. McKenna Long and Aldridge is an international firm. We're located primarily in the United
States. We have 13, 14 offices globally. In California we have offices up and down the coast. My former
firm, Luce Forward, merged with McKenna Long in march of last year. So we now have over 500 attorneys
worldwide. And in Los Angeles we have close to 80 attorneys and about 146 people total in the Los Angeles
office.
Q. And do you hold any management positions in your firm?
A. Yes. I have at Luce Forward I was on the executive committee during part of my time there, and I was
the partner in charge of their Los Angeles office for quite a bit of the time there. And then here at McKenna
Long, because we changed our name from Luce Forward to McKenna Long when the offices merged, I was
asked to become the office managing partner of the Los Angeles office, and I started in that role on November
1st of last year.
Q. And just generally, very briefly, what do you do as a managing partner for the office?
A. It's -- briefly, I oversee the office, and I get to do the fun things, like hand out the bonuses to the staff and
appear at parties and -- holiday parties. And that's the part I really like. And I -- also, I handle some strategic
issues. I'm involved in the growth of the firm in Los Angeles in particular, and I'm in charge of partner
departures or partner arrivals, helping them with the transition, or assisting clients if a partner leaves in the
transition out to make sure the clients' needs are handled.
Q. And in your practice particularly, what kind of work do you do?

A. My practice is what I refer to as a split practice. I'm a litigator, meaning a trial attorney, like you. And
that's how I started. And over the years I also took on transactional work. And so I do both.
Q. And what's transactional work?
A. Well, transactional work is mainly doing deals, contracts. And I spend a lot of my time on deals,
negotiating contracts, and the like. And advising clients as well about the contracts, and resolving disputes.
Kind of the whole gamut.
Q. Can you give us a brief idea of the kinds of clients you work for? Not asking for names, just industries.
A. Yes. I'd be happy to. The focus of my clients over the last many years has been mainly on the
entertainment side. And in that realm, I represent the gamut, from motion picture studios to owners of motion
picture studios to television-content producers to movie distributors outside the united states, inside the united
states, to satellite providers to live entertainment promoters, et cetera. And I represent AEG live and AEG in
particular, AEG live in their live entertainment sector of their business. And I have done that for many, many
years.
Q. That was my next question. Have you ever done work for AEG live?
A. Yes. And I started working with AEG live when they were formed, because I represented their
predecessor company, a company called Concerts West. I started representing them in 1998. And I was
fortunate enough to be able to continue to work with AEG live when they acquired Concerts West, and that was
in about 2000/2001. And since then, I have been very much involved in representing them in particular -- I
guess the focus for my practice has been in the touring realm, where I'll work with general counsel, Shawn
Trell, on tour agreements with various artists. And it runs the gamut. I've probably negotiated, oh, more than
75 tour agreements with prominent artists, like -- recently Rolling Stones, we've -- I've done multiple tour deals
with Bon Jovi, Dixie Chicks, Britney Spears, Kanye West, Usher, Prince. Just really fascinating work and just
many, many blockbuster artists.
Q. Have you ever worked on any third-party vendor contracts on behalf of AEG live?
A. I have. Over the years, from time to time Mr. Trell has requested that I get involved in certain types of
vendor agreements. For instance, I assisted an affiliated company of AEG live called arts and exhibitions in
their King Tut exhibition and other similar museum touring exhibitions. And I was involved in a number of
vendor agreements there. And then on the touring side, I have also been involved. Usually it's something --
usually the in-house desk is very busy. Mr. Trell needs some support to assist him, and it tends to be some of
the usually bigger agreements where they want to pull an outside attorney, because I'm in a separate firm, and
they pay me to assist them. And so that way, if it's important enough to get me involved, Mr. Trell decides to
do that.
Q. And did you work on any third-party agreements in connection with the "This Is It" tour?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Briefly, can you recall what those were?
A. Yes. The third-party agreements I worked with, the vendor agreements, if you will, that I recall,
consisted of a merchandising agreement with a company called bravado international for the "This Is It" tour. I
worked on a vendor agreement with a company called Kaos. They do the l. e. d. Screens, and that was going
to be part of the "This Is It" tour or show. Another company called Deck Deck Deck llc 3D. I negotiated and

prepared the vendor agreement for the stage that was going to be part of the "This Is It" tour. And then finally,
I was requested to negotiate and prepare the contract with Dr. Conrad Murray that Michael Jackson requested.
Q. I'm going to --
Mr. Panish: Your honor, I'm going to move to strike that last statement, "requested by Michael Jackson. "
there's no foundation for this witness.
Judge: Motion granted. The last part is stricken.
Ms. Bina: I'm going to focus on the last one you mentioned, which is the agreement with Dr. Murray. Are
you familiar with the draft agreements sent to Conrad Murray on behalf of AEG live productions in the summer
of 2009?
A. I am familiar with them, yes.
Q. And how are you familiar with them?
A. I drafted them. I drafted the version that was sent to Mr. Woolley, who was providing services for AEG
live. And he provided my draft agreement to Dr. Conrad Murray.
Q. So you actually drafted the draft agreements that were sent to Dr. Murray?
A. Yes.
Q. Just very --
A. I had an associate involved in a little aspect of it, but I -- yes.
Q. You're familiar with every draft that was sent to Dr. Murray?
A. I'm very familiar with it -- well, as familiar as you can be after four years. But, yes.
Q. Do you recall when you first became aware of Dr. Murray?
A. To my best recollection, I received a call from Timm Woolley asking me -- telling me that he was hoping
I could assist in preparing the agreement. It would have been in mid to late may of 2009.
Q. And how long after your conversation with Mr. Woolley did you begin actually drafting a proposed
agreement with Dr. Murray?
A. Beginning of June sometime. June -- first two weeks of June, 2009.
Q. So your conversation with Mr. Woolley wasn't until late may, and you began drafting sometime in the
first half of June?
A. Correct.
Q. Just want to make sure I have the timeline right. Did you talk to Dr. Murray at all before beginning to
draft the agreement?
A. I did not, no.

Q. Tell me how you came to do the initial draft. Would it be helpful if you had the drafts in front of you as I
ask you these questions?
A. Most likely, yes.
Q. Let me just grab them. I have them all in a folder. Ms. Jorrie, what I'm giving you is not to introduce in
evidence, they're just your drafts of the document. It's just for your recollection.
A. Thank you.
Mr. Panish: What exhibit numbers are we referring to there?
Ms. Bina: They are exhibit numbers 7799, 8017 and 8375.
Mr. Panish: The last one was?
Ms. Bina: 8375.
Mr. Panish: Thank you.
Ms. Bina: So turning back to where we are -- and I apologize for that -- tell me how you came to put together
the initial draft agreement.
A. The initial draft of the agreement was based upon some basic terms that Timm Woolley provided to me.
And the terms he provided to me are set forth in -- mainly in paragraph 3 of the independent contractor
agreement that I prepared. And he told me the basic terms were that Michael Jackson had agreed to pay
$150,000 per month for the services of Dr. Murray, that Dr. Murray was Michael's personal physician, that the
-- in addition to providing general medical care for Michael during the tour, he would also be available in case
of emergencies, and we talked about that. And that -- going through the list of what I was told. The other
terms that he gave me for the contract would be that a nurse would be provided, as selected by Dr. Murray, and
paid for by AEG live. The doctor and -- the doctor would have airfare to and from London, the doctor and his
family would be provided housing accommodations in London. The doctor had provided a list of equipment
that he might request, and that was given to me by Mr. Woolley. And let me see if I forgot anything. There
was this type of insurance called travel accident and sickness insurance. It was to be provided to provide
insurance to Dr. Murray personally, I think, in case he got sick. And that's what I remember.
Q. So those terms were all provided to you by Mr. Woolley for inclusion in the contract?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you put all of those terms into the first draft that you prepared?
A. I'm sorry, Ms. Bina.
Q. One more?
A. I'm pretty sure that he also told me that the payments would commence as of March.
Q. March?
A. May 1st. Yes.

Q. Got it. So he told you that the payments would begin as of May 1st. Did he have a stopping point?
A. No.
Q. So you had part of a term, but not all of it?
Mr. Panish: Well, objection to the question of counsel.
Judge: What's the objection?
Mr. Panish: The objection is leading.
Judge: Sustained.
Mr. Panish: And calls --
Ms. Bina: Did you have an end point for the terms of the agreement by Mr. Woolley?
A. No. He did not tell me what the end point would be.
Q. Okay. So just to recap and make sure I got this right -- I was writing them down as you went -- there was
some general ideas of what the -- Mr. Jackson had requested that he be engaged at his expense?
A. Correct.
Mr. Panish: First of all, your honor, it's leading, and that's not what she just said, and no foundation.
Ms. Bina: Your honor, I'm really trying to recap the list --
Mr. Panish: It is --
Ms. Bina: Exactly what she said, what she put in the contract.
Mr. Panish: That's not a term of the contract. That's the point. She didn't say that. She asked what the
term was.
Judge: Well, that's not a term of the contract, but the terms that were initially provided by Woolley --
Mr. Panish: Right. Exactly.
Judge: -- which may or may not have ended up in the contract. Overruled. You may answer.
Ms. Bina: So was that one of the terms that Mr. Woolley gave you to put in the contract?
Judge: First draft?
Ms. Bina: The first draft, yes.
Ms. Bina: The purpose of the agreement that Dr. Murray was Mr. Jackson's personal physician and that Mr.
Jackson had asked for him to be on tour?

A. And that he paid for him?

Q. Yes.
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And did you put all those in the draft agreement that you prepared?
A. I did.
Q. And then also certain compensation that would be provided to Dr. Murray, the fee of $150,000 per
month?
A. Correct.
Q. Airfare to and from the United Kingdom?
A. Yes, for Dr. Murray.
Q. Housing for Dr. Murray in the united kingdom?
A. And his family.
Q. And then his travel insurance that would cover him if he got sick while traveling with the tour?
A. Correct.
Q. And the other thing is equipment and a nurse that Dr. Murray would select?
A. Yes.
Q. Any other term that you can think of right now that you were given by Mr. Woolley?
A. You mentioned the compensation would be retroactive to May 1st?
Q. Right.
A. I think that covers it.
Q. Did that include -- did that list I just gave you, repeated back to you, give you all the terms that you put
into the first draft of the agreement?
A. No. It was missing a whole bunch of the terms. Most of the terms he gave me you can find in one
paragraph, paragraph 3, paragraph 9, the signature for Mr. Jackson, and a little bit in paragraph 1. Some of the
information he gave me I put in the recitals. But everything else were terms that I prepared and put in this first
draft.
Q. And are there any terms that you can think of right now that you know specifically were not on Mr.
Woolley's list?
A. Yes. There were some important terms. The first draft that I sent out, I put the end date of the services to
be the end of the first run at the 02 arena in September of 2009. I put in a termination provision that provided

for those different events that could occur that would allow AEG live as the producer to terminate the services
of Mr. -- excuse me -- Dr. Murray. The indemnity, the independent contractor provision, paragraph 8, I put
that in. Indemnification, miscellaneous. Everything else.
Q. Got it. At the point you put together this first draft, had you talked to Dr. Murray at all?
A. I had not.
Q. Let's take a look at the -- and did you ultimately come to send a draft to Dr. Conrad Murray?
A. I did via Mr. Woolley. I sent it to Mr. Woolley and then asked him, if he was happy with it, to please
forward it to Dr. Murray.
Q. I'd like to briefly look at what I believe is the first draft that you sent.
Ms. Bina: And, Pam, can you put up exhibit 7799, which is already in evidence, on counsel and the witness's
screen?
Mr. Panish: It's okay.
Ms. Bina: Okay. You can put it up on the big screens.
Ms. Bina: Ms. Jorrie, this first e-mail, which you're not on, but I believe you've seen this e-mail before?
A. I have.
Q. And what is it?
A. This is the copy of the e-mail that Conrad Murray sent to Dr. -- strike that. I said that backwards. This
is a copy of the e-mail that Timm Woolley sent to Dr. Conrad Murray. And attached to this -- he was
forwarding my e-mail. So I forwarded my e-mail to Timm Woolley with the attached draft, and Timm
Woolley then took my e-mail and forwarded it on to Dr. Murray.
Q. And if we scroll down a little bit further on this page, maybe to the next page, is that an e-mail -- do you
see your original e-mail there?
A. Yes.
Q. And this was the e-mail that you sent to Mr. Woolley to forward to Dr. Murray?
A. That's right.
Q. And there's a draft agreement attached to the e-mail. Can you look at that and confirm that that's the
draft that you sent to Mr. Woolley for Dr. Murray's review?
A. (reviewing document. ) Yes, it is.
Q. Was this first draft the only draft that you sent to Dr. Murray?
A. No. There were two more drafts after this.
Q. Let's go ahead and talk about this draft a little bit.

Ms. Bina: If you can pull up the first page of the draft.
Ms. Bina: Now, Ms. Jorrie, you drafted this agreement. You said that a lot of the terms you had to put in
yourself. Did you get this off of any prior agreements?
A. What I did to prepare this agreement is I thought about what vendor agreement, or independent contractor
agreement have I used for AEG live or an affiliate that would be the most suitable. And so I selected an
independent contractor agreement that I had prepared during the king tut tour for one of the consultants who had
been retained to assist the company arts and exhibitions and AEG live affiliates as the base.
Q. You used that as sort of a template, for lack of a better word?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you just change the names, or did you make other changes?
A. Well, starting with the base, implementing the terms that Timm Woolley had provided to me. And then
thinking about the sorts of things that would be necessary for this particular agreement, I added a whole bunch
of revisions. I still worked off that base, but I added a whole bunch of provisions to the agreement.
Ms. Bina: Let's zoom in on paragraph 1.
Ms. Bina: And I'd like to -- I'd like to ask a couple -- not a couple. This first sentence here (indicating), is
that one of the terms Mr. Woolley gave you, or is that something that you provided?
A. A little bit of both.
Q. Okay.
A. And so the scope of services that I put in here, I started with what Mr. Woolley told me. He told me that
Dr. Conrad Murray was Michael Jackson's personal physician and had been for some time and that Michael
wanted to take him on tour with him. And so with that -- and discussing with Mr. Woolley the idea that he
would continue to provide general medical care and would be available in the event of an emergency. So I
prepared that. But I also added in here some other provisions I thought were important, where I stated in the
second sentence, that the services to be provided by Dr. Murray, he was contractually required -- legally
required, too -- "to administer those services professionally and with the greatest degree of care to be expected
from similarly-situated members of the medical field. "
Mr. Panish: Your honor, isn't that calling for expert testimony, what Dr. Murray was contractually obligated
to do? I would object to that, and the court's ruling what Dr. Murray's legal obligations were would call for
expert testimony.
Judge: Overruled. She's just describing what's a provision in the contract. Overruled.
Ms. Bina: And Ms. Jorrie, I'd like to ask you specifically about the next-to-last sentence: "Dr. Murray shall
also provide such services as are reasonably requested by producer from time to time during the term thereof"
do you know where that came from?
A. That sentence was part of the base. We eventually changed that, but that was part of the base contract
that I used that I mentioned from the King Tut time.

Ms. Bina: Okay. Let's turn to paragraph 4. 1 on the next page.

Ms. Bina: This language here, 4. 1, seems similar to the one we just looked at in paragraph 1. Would you
agree?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. And where did this language in 4. 1 come from?
A. The same base form.
Q. So it was also sort of a holdover from the template from the King Tut exhibit?
A. Yes. It was -- I'd have to compare the two, but that's where it started. Whether it was identical or not,
I'd have to compare. But it started with the base.
Q. And I think you said eventually this provision was changed. And I'm going to ask you about that in a
little bit.
A. Okay.
Q. But first I want to ask you about a couple of provisions in the draft. And one of them is paragraph 9.
A. Yes.
Q. Ms. Jorrie, where did this paragraph come from?
A. Twofold. Mr. Woolley told me the background that I've already told the jury about, which is that the
doctor was being -- that Michael Jackson had asked for the doctor, his personal physician, to go on tour with
him and that Michael Jackson had indicated that he would pay for him. And this provision was put in by me in
order to ensure that the contract would not be valid and enforceable unless and until there was a written
signature by Michael Jackson himself approving that this contract would be entered. And I put a place for
Michael Jackson to sign at the end. You want me to stop?
Q. Just for a second. Ms. Jorrie, I want to make sure, you understand that the judge is going to instruct the
jury in ultimately determining whether or not any contract was created between AEG live and Dr. Murray,
right?
Mr. Panish: Yeah. And I'd object. Again, expert testimony, her saying what's enforceable, what isn't.
That's for the court to instruct the jury on. She's going beyond --
Judge: Sustained.
Mr. Panish: -- what we discussed.
Ms. Bina: I'm trying to clarify, your honor, that she's not trying to tell the jury, that she's just talking about her
own understanding.
Judge: She can talk about what she put in the contract.
Mr. Panish: Not --

Judge: Not the legal significance of it.

Ms. Bina: Exactly, your honor. That's what I was trying to clarify.
Mr. Panish: Your honor, we already had this discussion. Counsel was supposed to instruct the witness on
what they're allowed to testify to. I move to strike the last portion of this witness's --
Judge: Motion granted. The last answer is stricken. You can ask the question in an appropriate manner.
Mr. Panish: Maybe she should advise her so we don't have this again.
Ms. Bina: Your honor, I think she was trying to --
Mr. Panish: She's a lawyer. She knows.
Ms. Bina: Your honor, I'd like to continue the examination without comments from Mr. Panish, if at all
possible.
Mr. Panish: Well, I made a valid objection.
Judge: And I sustained it.
Mr. Panish: Okay. She's a lawyer. She knows.
Mr. Putnam: Again, move to strike, your honor.
Judge: Move to strike Mr. Panish is sustained.
Mr. Panish: I'm stricken. Okay.
Ms. Bina: Well --
Mr. Panish: She started it.
Ms. Bina: Would you be careful in talking about the contract that you're not -- you're the draft maker, but
you're not giving opinions on the legal effects? I know it's hard to do as a lawyer, because you think in that
way. I just want to know why you put that provision, what your thinking was in putting that into the document.
Witness: giving you an opportunity to object, Mr. Panish.
Mr. Panish: Yes. She knows. It's the same thing.
Judge: Sustained. Sustained.
Ms. Bina: All right. Did you put this provision into the contract?
A. I did.
Q. And it was based in part on communications with Mr. Woolley you just described?
A. Yes. And on my own, yes. Yes.

Q. Okay. And did you also put a signature block? I think you just mentioned that?
A. I did.
Ms. Bina: Okay. And let's just turn quickly to that on page 9.
Ms. Bina: Is this a provision -- where did this provision come from?
A. It came from me. I put it in here. It says what it says. It says: "the undersigned -- that would be
Michael Jackson -- "hereby confirms that he has requested producer to engage Dr. Murray on the terms set
forth herein on behalf of and at the expense of the undersigned" -- which would have been Michael Jackson.
Q. And were these provisions in the very first draft that you sent to Dr. Murray?
A. They were.
Q. And you mentioned that you had some conversations with Dr. Murray a moment ago, and I'm going to
get to those. But did he ever raise any issue with you about these two provisions, paragraph 9 or the signature
block?
A. He did not. He had no comments to those two provisions that he asked me to change.
Q. Were there any other provisions you put in this agreement relating to the idea that you conveyed -- that
Mr. Woolley made to you that Mr. Jackson was being -- Dr. Murray was being engaged at Mr. Jackson's
request?
A. Yes. Yes.
Q. Can you point out some of those for us?
A. Yes. Okay. In recital no. 1 -- well, actually, it's
A. Capital a.
Ms. Bina: Go back to the first page for that. Just zoom in on recital a, please.
Witness: so the part of this recital that relates to that question is the final sentence that indicates: "at the
artist's request, producer has agreed to retain the services of Dr. Murray for the benefit of the artist throughout
the duration of the concert series on the terms set forth herein. "
Ms. Bina: Any other provisions?
A. If you give me one moment, please.
Q. Sure.
A. Could you repeat the question?
Q. Sure. Anything else relating to the idea that you just told us about with this contract being on Michael
Jackson's behalf or Dr. Murray's engagement being on Michael Jackson's behalf?

A. I think those three cover it. So we have the recital a, paragraph 9, and the portion above Michael
Jackson's signature space.
Q. And in asking you about recital a, did Dr. Murray ever raise a concern with the language we just
highlighted with you?
A. As to that sentence?
Q. Yeah. The highlighted sentence.
A. Not at all. No concerns.
Ms. Bina: Okay. I'd like to turn to paragraph 7. And there's a number of subparts of paragraph 7, so just
pull up the first page there. You can pull up the entire paragraph.
Ms. Bina: Ms. Jorrie, I think you testified a moment ago -- and please correct me if I'm wrong -- that there
were no termination provisions in the terms Mr. Woolley gave you, right?
A. Correct.
Q. So were these provisions that you added?
A. Yes.
Q. And kind of walk through them briefly.
A. I'd be happy to.
Q. Sure.
A. To paraphrase.
Mr. Panish: Is there a question?
Witness: she asked me to walk through them briefly.
Mr. Panish: Oh, I didn't hear that. Okay. Sure.
Judge: Yeah, you may.
Mr. Panish: She did. Go ahead.
Witness: so this is a termination provision that allows AEG live productions, the producer, to terminate the
agreement with Dr. Murray under the following circumstances: first circumstance would be in the event there
was a default of the terms of the agreement by the doctor, AEG live productions. And if the default wasn't
cured, there was an opportunity for either side to terminate the contract, the second one was, in the event that
the series of concerts were postponed or canceled, there was an opportunity to terminate the contract, the third
was, if the artist decides for any reason whatsoever that the artist no longer wants or needs the services of Dr.
Murray, the agreement could be canceled, the next one was, if Dr. Murray failed to maintain all these licenses
and governmental approvals that he needed to have in order to practice medicine, that that was an independent
basis in which the contract could be terminated, the next is, in the event that Dr. Murray failed to submit
written evidence, proof that he was legally authorized to practice medicine in the united states, and the next

would be if he -- if Dr. Murray failed to present to AEG live, by no later than July 3rd, evidence that he was
allowed or authorized to practice medicine in the united kingdom.
Ms. Bina: Okay. So if there's a default, if the tour is canceled or postponed, if Michael Jackson no longer
wants Dr. Murray, or if Dr. Murray fails to have proper licenses in various sorts of cases or shapes?
A. Yes.
Q. Short, short version.
A. Thank you.
Q. I just want to be real clear on the timing of these. You placed these in the draft agreement, is that right?
A. I did.
Q. They were not given to you by Mr. Woolley?
A. They were not in the list given to me by Mr. Woolley, correct.
Q. And do you know when this first version was sent to Dr. Murray?
A. I sent it on -- yes. I think he received it on or around June 16. We can check.
Q. Maybe if we go back to the first page, we can check that out. I think you're right.
A. June 16, 2009.
Q. Is there any way that you know of that Dr. Murray could have seen these termination provisions that you
put in the contract before you sent it to him?
A. None. No way he would have known about them.
Q. Now, I notice that a couple of the provisions asked about Dr. Murray providing licenses and
documentation. Did Dr. Murray ever provide any of that documentation to you?
A. He did not provide the documentation to me, no.
Q. Now, after you sent this first draft agreement to Dr. Murray -- or rather to Mr. Woolley on the 15th, and
it was sent to Dr. Murray on the 16th --
A. Yes.
Q. -- did there ever come a time when you spoke with Dr. Murray?
A. Yes. He called me.
Q. And can you tell me when he called you?
A. Yes. He called me on June 18, 2009.
Q. So two days after this draft was sent to him?

A. Yes.
Q. And can you briefly tell me what the conversation was? And then we're going to go through it in detail.
Mr. Panish: Well, your honor, I'm going to object other than specifically to a term, otherwise, it's hearsay.
Ms. Bina: I just want to know generally, your honor, what the subject matter was. And then I can ask for
more specifics. I don't think it's going to call for hearsay.
Mr. Panish: Subject matter is okay, but I think she asked for the conversation. Subject matter is okay.
Ms. Bina: Ms. Jorrie, can you briefly tell me the subject matter of the conversation? And then we can go
through it briefly.
A. Yes. Three subject matters. We talked about Dr. Murray and Michael Jackson's relationship together,
we talked about some of the changes he wanted me to make to the draft agreement that was sent to him, and
then we talked about a couple questions I had of him.
Q. So changes he wanted to make, questions you had of him. Without telling me what was discussed, how
did the relationship between him and Mr. Jackson come into play?
A. It was part of the initial discussion with him. We talked about --
Mr. Panish: Well, your honor, excuse me. We had a ruling on this.
Judge: I'll sustain this.
Mr. Panish: Counsel is --
Ms. Bina: I'm not going there.
Mr. Panish: She should be admonished for violating the court order.
Judge: She hasn't done that.
Ms. Bina: Your honor, no one is going to be violating any court order. I'm trying to establish that there was
a particular thing that she said that was then included in the draft contract, in a non-leading way, so that's what I
was getting at. Not some other subject about --
Judge: Why don't you lead, then?
Ms. Bina: All right. I will lead, then.
Ms. Bina: Ms. Jorrie, this discussion you had with Dr. Murray about his relationship with Mr. Jackson, did
that -- was there anything in that conversation that caused you to change the draft contract?
A. No.
Q. Okay. In that case, I'm going to set that aside for now and ask you about the other two subject matters,
okay?

A. Yes.
Q. All right. So let's talk first about the changes that Dr. Murray had to the draft. The requested changes
that you made. Can you tell me very briefly what those were, and then we'll talk through them?
A. Yes. And the red line always helps, assuming you gave that to me.
Mr. Panish: What exhibit number is that?
Judge: Are we on the same one?
Mr. Panish: No.
Ms. Bina: I'm not actually using the exhibit, your honor. I'm just asking her the question. I think she's
referring to the exhibit to refresh her recollection.
Witness: the bottom says, "08017. "
Mr. Panish: Okay. I got it. What page?
Ms. Bina: One of the three I gave her.
Witness: Okay. So basically, the changes he mentioned to me during the call, he had mentioned that he
wanted his company, GCA holdings, to be the contracting party instead of him. He wanted to change as a
provision in the contract that -- and I'm not going to them. I'll go from memory. And then I'll look if I need to.
He wanted to change a provision where I had referred to a nurse, that a nurse could be provided as selected by
him. He wanted to change that so that it would be -- he wanted the flexibility to have the right to request a
physician, and he called it a qualified medical person.
Judge: I'm sorry. Called it a what?
Witness: "qualified medical person. " I put his terminology in. Oh, let me look at that. "qualified assistant
medical person. "
Ms. Bina: Okay.
A. Then he -- let's see what else.
Judge: Is that -- that exact language was put in the contract?
Witness: yes.
Judge: "qualified medical assistant person"?
Witness: let me read it -- look again, your honor, to make sure I have it right.
Judge: Okay.
Witness: "qualified assistant medical person" is what was written in here.
Judge: Okay.

Witness: and then another change he wanted, if I recall correctly, was to section 7. 7. That was one of the
termination provisions. And, Ms. Bina, you don't want me to go into each of these yet?
Ms. Bina: I will go into greater detail, but I want a list first.
A. Okay. These are material changes he asked for. He also let me know that he was licensed to practice
medicine in four states, and he gave me the states.
Q. Anything else that you can think of at the moment that you added -- that you discussed with Dr. Murray
based on changes he wanted to make to the contract?
A. Well, I don't think so.
Q. Okay. So the first one you mentioned was that he wanted his company, GCA holdings, to be the
contracting party. Tell me about that request.
A. Dr. Murray told me that he'd prefer to have GCA holdings, his company, as the contracting company,
and that company could act as employer and provide his services for providing the medical care to Michael
Jackson. Do you want my response as well?
Q. I was going to ask, did you agree to make that revision?
A. Well, we had a discussion about it. And what I told him was that I was okay putting his company in the
contract so that that company could behave as the employer and provide his services, and that company would
be the company that would be paid, but that I wanted him to stay on the contract, also.
Q. And then -- and did you make that change to the draft contract?
A. I did.
Q. And, actually, you know what? I'll hold off your revisions draft, and we'll talk about what you did to the
provisions.
A. Okay. Thank you.
Q. You also said that he asked you to change "nurse" to the term of "assistant medical person. " tell me
about that.
A. Yes. We had a discussion about that. I had asked him, "why would you need another physician as
opposed to a nurse? " and he told me that in the event he was not available, or he was tired, he wanted the
flexibility so that if he wanted to hire a physician in lieu of a nurse, that he would have that flexibility and
would be able to do that and that it would be paid for by AEG live productions.
Q. And did you agree to make this change ultimately?
A. Yes. Yes.
Q. And who was going to be responsible in terms of this change for selecting the medical person?
A. It would have been Dr. Murray. And it said that.
Q. Did Dr. Murray ever come to you and say he had

A. Specific medical person that he wanted to bring in?

A. Our focus was on London. He was very clear in London he wants flexibility either way. And he did not
identify anyone. In fact, he gave me the impression that it was something he had yet to consider.
Q. So he never asked you, never came to you and said, "I found this assistant medical person, and this is the
person I want to use"?
A. That's right.
Q. Okay. Anything else about that requested change that you can recall, sitting here today?
A. No.
Q. All right. And then you said -- and I'm going to take these a little bit out of order, because the first one is
simpler -- that he told you he was licensed in four states?
A. Yes.
Q. And was that something he wanted added to the contract?
A. Well, we had -- I had put a representation and warranty in the contract so that Dr. Murray would
represent and warrant that he was licensed to practice medicine. And he gave me the states in which he was
licensed so that I could modify the contract. And he had told me California, Nevada, Texas and Hawaii. Now,
I wrote "Honolulu," and I don't know why I wrote that. But clearly I knew you're licensed by states and not by
cities. So the first draft had that error, but we got it right in the next draft.
Q. So Dr. Murray told you that. Anything else about the four states that came up in that conversation
related to the contract?
A. Not in that segment of this conversation. It comes up.
Q. Sort of down the road?
A. Yes.
Q. Then you also said you discussed the termination provisions. What was that about?
A. There's a provision in the contract that he wanted to be modified. Section 7. 7 is a provision that says --
and we can turn to it. But if there's a termination of the contract, he wanted to make sure that if the reason the
contract was terminated was either because Michael Jackson decided he didn't want the doctor anymore, or
because the series of concerts or tour was postponed or canceled, and if, as a result of either of those, his
contract was terminated, he did not want to be in a position where he would have to refund any part of the
$150,000 payment that he would have received in that month. So that -- and we discussed that the payment
would be due to him on the 15th of the month once the -- once we were underway, and the contract was
implemented, the payment would come on the 15th of the month. And it would cover from the 1st of the
month to the 30th of the month. So if he was terminated, say, in the third week, and he had received a payment
for that month, and Michael decided he didn't want the doctor anymore and terminated him, the doctor did not
want to have to refund any portion of the $150,000.
Q. Got it.

A. And to which I said to him -- do you want that part?

Q. Let's talk -- it's a little bit complicated. Are what we're looking at here, part of the original 7. 7 on the
screen in the first draft you sent (indicating)?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay.
A. Let me look at this just to be sure.
Q. Sure. I think that's what I asked her to put up, but you should tell me.
A. (reviewing document. ) Yes.
Q. And so this paragraph, the original one, says that: "following any termination of the agreement, producer
shall only be required to pay to Dr. Murray or the nurse any compensation earned by Dr. Murray or the nurse
for any services satisfactorily performed by Dr. Murray or the nurse prior to the date of termination. " and if I
understand you correctly, you were saying that he might be paid in advance for some of his services?
A. Well, the payment would come due -- that's another provision. The first payment would be paid no
earlier than -- what was it? -- five business days after the contract was fully signed by everybody, including
Michael Jackson. After that, the $150,000 would come due on the 15th of the month, and it would cover his
services from the first of that month to the 30th of the month. So the way this was written, if he was terminated
after he received that payment --
Q. He might have to give some of it back?
A. -- it would be prorated so that -- the idea being, he wouldn't be paid for services he hadn't performed.
Q. And if I understand you correctly, he didn't quibble with that with regard to all of the termination
provisions, but only with regard to the two that you mentioned?
A. That's right.
Q. That it was -- if he was terminated because the tour was canceled or was postponed, or because Michael
Jackson decided he no longer wanted him?
A. That's right.
Q. And just briefly, can you tell me -- I don't know if we have time to go into it now -- your response to him?
A. My response was, "well, Dr. Murray, $150,000 is a lot of money. " and he said to me, he said, "well" --
Mr. Panish: Well, your honor, this is not related to the term, Dr. Murray's response.
Witness: it is absolutely related.
Mr. Panish: You're not the judge.
Witness: sorry.

Ms. Bina: Your honor, it's an explanation for the change that she ultimately made to the agreement. Not
offered for the truth but for its effect on Ms. Jorrie.
Judge: Okay. Overruled. You may answer.
Mr. Panish: She made the change. What does it matter?
Judge: Overruled.
Witness: he said that "my four medical practices bring in a million dollars a month and that it would not be
fair for Michael Jackson to decide for me to be terminated, or for the tour to be postponed and canceled, and for
me to be terminated" --
Mr. Panish: Your honor, we move to strike. This is not anything to do with the term, anything to do -- it's an
attempt to again --
Judge: Did she make some type of change as a result?
Ms. Bina: Yes, she made a change to the agreement.
Witness: yes.
Mr. Panish: A million dollars a month.
Ms. Bina: Your honor, there are other bases for this. We already talked about this issue.
Mr. Panish: No.
Ms. Bina: And it does explain the changes made in the contract. It also comes up later in a conversation with
Mr. Phillips we already talked about. I think there's --
Judge: There's no evidence that he actually did make the million dollars.
Mr. Panish: No. Not at all.
Ms. Bina: Not offered for the truth, your honor.
Judge: Overruled. Overruled.

Ms. Bina: All right. Can you finish the answer?
A. I can. So he explained to me that under those circumstances where he was leaving his medical practice
behind and going on tour for Michael Jackson, which he said he felt it would be fair and appropriate, given that,
if he were term- -- this contract was terminated because Michael Jackson no longer wanted his services, or the
tour was postponed and canceled, and someone made the decision to terminate it, he thought it would be fair
and appropriate for him to keep the whole $150,000 for that particular month, the month in which the contract
was terminated.
Q. So in those two circumstances, he would have a little bit of a cushion, is what he was asking for?
A. Absolutely.

Ms. Bina: Okay. Probably a good time for lunch, your honor.
Judge: All right. 1:30.
THE JURY LEAVES THE COURTROOM
Judge: Okay. We'll come back at 1:30, and we'll deal with this motion.
Mr. Putnam: Okay.
Ms. Bina: The motion to quash, your honor?
Judge: Right. And I'll give plaintiffs' counsel a chance to read it.
Mr. Panish: And, your honor, I'd like the witness and counsel be admonished. There's already been two
violations. We spent an hour-plus arguing these motions. You've ruled. They said they told the witness.
The witness is volunteering information that's in violation of your orders. I had to strike two times the
testimony that was in direct violation of the orders. And the -- she's a lawyer. She claims she's a trial lawyer.
She ought to know better. She shouldn't be arguing in front of the jury what's relevant and what's not.
Ms. Bina: Your honor, the witness, I think, is being very careful, and we are trying to comply with the order.
There's not been any intentional violation, and there's not been, I don't think, any violations of your honor's
order, other than attorneys sometimes phrase things in a way that sounds like a legal conclusion. So I think Ms.
Jorrie is very careful of that. She will continue to be very careful of that and make every effort to make sure
there's no objectionable testimony.
Judge: You have a discussion with her during lunchtime.
Mr. Panish: Two violations in 50 minutes.
Ms. Bina: There's also been a lot of unwarranted objections by Mr. Panish.
Judge: Thank you. You can step down
LUNCH ..
(The following proceedings were heard in open court, outside the presence of the jury):
Judge: Good afternoon.

Ms. Stebbins: Did you want to take up the motion to quash first?
Judge: I do. There's been a motion to quash. I'm going to give Plaintiff an opportunity orally to respond
because I know you didn't have an opportunity to put it in writing.
Mr. Panish: Sure. Ms. Jorrie and the other gentleman, Mr. Wexler, I just had an opportunity to speak to them
briefly. And all that we're really looking for is any additional documents relating to Murray that they have not
been produced. Ms. Jorrie said something about any non-privileged. I'm not aware of Ms. Jorrie producing a
privilege log. Maybe she did and I didn't see it.
Ms. Jorrie: Your honor, we're a third-party witness. We produced non-privileged documents that are
responsive. A large part of the testimony and discussion here was Mr. Panish making sure that I -- I stay on the
side of your honor's in limine rulings in part because there is an attorney/client privilege between me and AEG
Live. I have been their counsel for -- for a long, long time; and I represented them in connection with -- with the
tour, as you know, your honor, in connection with things in between, in connection with the probate
proceedings, all litigation, all kinds of things that are related to "this is it." which, of course, now it appears that
Mr. Panish has decided to withdraw that part of the subpoena. I appreciate that. So when we hone in on Dr.
Murray, what we're looking at is what's privileged and what's not. If it's not privileged, I believe he has
everything that's not privileged. If it's privileged, then -- then it's not my privilege, your honor, it's AEG Live's
privilege, and they have decided to stand on the privilege.
Judge: Right. They've asserted it already.
Mr. Panish: I haven't had a chance -- I was just starting out, and then she took over. Okay. First of all, I asked
for non-privileged documents; and if they're claiming a privilege, we'd like a log of it. I've never -- what I was
saying is third party or not, you still have to, if you're asserting a privilege, give a list. So my first question was
is there a privilege log of documents to which she's asserting a privilege. That was my first question that she
launched into her argument.
Judge: You mean in the less than 24 hours she's had to respond to the subpoenas?
Mr. Panish: No, no. She said that they had something --
Judge: All right.
Mr. Panish: -- before, which we have never been provided. So the first question I just asked, is there a
privilege log. That was my first question, and then she went off. My second thing is I wanted to know -- and I
asked her for a range of the amounts of money -- okay? -- that they've been paid by AEG Live. It goes to her
credibility and bias as a witness, doesn't have anything to do with any attorney/client privilege. I'm asking for
the range. They said they don't -- I asked her; she goes, "it's a lot." I go, "is it more than 10 million?" she doesn't
think so. "more than 5 million?" she doesn't know, you know. And if I could get some verification of that, then I
think we'd be okay. But I'm certainly entitled to that. Remember, I just learned she was coming to be a witness
on Sunday. I immediately served a subpoena on Monday. Counsel -- I've never met any of these lawyers. I don't
know them, they never contacted me. They came today, I just went and tried to approach them when I first had
the opportunity. So it's really limited to two areas, is what we're looking for, which I think are relevant to this;
and I haven't heard a response of why they couldn't give us a list of documents they've withheld claiming a
privilege, number 1, because she was subpoenaed before, and number 2, the financial compensation that this
witness has received as she's a partner, she says she shares in the firm, the managing partner. Certainly they
have access to that type of billing information. That's all.
Judge: I don't know who -- Ms. Stebbins stood up, and I have counsel for Ms. Jorrie.

Ms. Stebbins: We represented Ms. Jorrie and luce forward in connection with the original document
subpoena, so I only stood up in case they wanted me to address any of the things that Mr. Panish raised about
the history. Otherwise, it's their motion. That was why I stood up. So if Ms. Jorrie or her colleague would like
me to address that, I'm happy to. Mr. Wexler: Did you guys produce a privilege log with regard to the
documents that were provided by luce forward?
Ms. Stebbins: No, your honor. What happened in terms of the luce forward production was luce forward
produced files in January of 2012 in response to a subpoena done in 2011.
Judge: Who issued the subpoena?
Ms. Stebbins: Panish, Shea & Boyle. They served a subpoena on luce forward. She objected and responded
saying she would produce -- the firm would produce -- Ms. Jorrie didn't have anything in her personal capacity
-- responsive non-privileged documents. And as your honor is aware, you don't need to produce a privilege log
if you are a third party unless there is a motion to compel challenging the claim of privilege. There was never a
motion to compel; and, in fact, I understood from Ms. Jorrie at the time it would be incredibly burdensome to
produce a privilege log because she'd have to review all the files in connection with her case, 99 percent of
which are privileged. That said, all of the materials that were non-privileged that AEG Live had, you know --
for instance, any communications with AEG Live, those were actually reviewed subsequently by AEG Live and
were produced and included on AEG Live's privilege log. So this would only include anything that luce forward
had that had never been given to AEG Live or somehow was not still in AEG Live's possession. Otherwise,
everything else would have been included on AEG Live's privilege logs which were produced in august 2012.
But luce forward never had its own privilege log because it was never needed because there was never a motion
to compel their production. Now, two years and change later, they suddenly want one.
Mr. Panish: Your honor, first of all, we didn't know -- we thought she produced the records to us. Now the
first time we find in her declaration that she gave --
Judge: Stop. Back up. You didn't know that she --
Mr. Panish: We thought that the documents given to us were her production. Now we know by her
declaration that was filed today that she turned over all the documents to OMelveny & Myers. We were
unaware of that information.
Ms. Stebbins: Your honor, they knew we were representing her in connection with the subpoena. We
produced the documents on behalf of luce forward.
Ms. Jorrie: If I could jump in here -- thank you, your honor. We're dealing with a situation where Mr. Panish
has known about McKenna Long & Aldridge, Kathy Jorrie, luce forward for a long, long time.
Judge: Since the criminal trial.
Ms. Jorrie: Yes. And they had ample opportunity to conduct their discovery in the appropriate way. What
they did was they served a subpoena on us, we responded, we asserted objections and went through the whole
gamut. They chose not to bring a motion to compel. Then they took my deposition. They had ample
opportunities to ask me any questions they wanted to about biases and whatnot at the deposition. And, also, they
knew that -- that I -- clearly they understand just for -- just from the facts of the case that Ms. Jorrie has been
involved in this matter. They had plenty of opportunity, knowing that I'm on the trial -- trial list. They even
subpoenaed me to testify in their case, so for them -- but they chose not to call me. So for them to suggest that
they're just trying to pull this together to show bias -- I'm not denying that AEG Live is a very important client
of mine. They can ask me how many matters I've had over the years. I've put it in my declaration, we. Have

over 300 matters with AEG Live and AEG there's not any doubt that they're a client of mine, they continue to
be a client of mine, and Mr. Panish can argue that point as long as he wants. He doesn't need the dollars, number
1. And number 2, if he wanted the privilege log, he had ample opportunity to get the privilege log, but instead,
he walks in yesterday, knowing I've been involved in this matter forever, and knowing that I'm -- I'm a witness
in this case, and he slaps two overbroad subpoenas -- subpoenas that if you look at the face of the subpoenas,
they aren't presented the appropriate affidavit, he's provided no facts to support the material of why it is that
what it is he's seeking -- which, by the way, now what he's seeking is far less than he put us to task to to bring
our motion to quash. And instead of focusing on reviewing documents and preparing to give testimony to this
court, I was busy worrying about a motion to quash. And I didn't put my attorney's fees in our request for
attorney's fees; but, by golly, I should have. And we have brought a motion not only to quash this subpoena,
both of them, for our fees, your honor. We respectfully request that you grant both.
Mr. Panish: First of all, your honor, I don't have to make any motion to compel. Trial subpoenas are issued
every day for witnesses to come. Why should I go subpoena all these witnesses? I don't know if she's coming or
not. As soon as I found out, I do. I tried to work it out with them. Clearly, the bias issue exists. We've already
seen two instances --
Judge: Did you ask her about that in her deposition?
Mr. Bloss: We asked about the fact of representations, your honor. I did not -- I did the deposition. I did not
get into --
Judge: Compensation?
Mr. Panish: They're not going to let her answer that. They took attorney/client privilege numerous times in
the deposition.
Now she comes to the trial -- okay? -- and now she's giving testimony, her credibility is directly at issue in this
case. All I'm asking her for --
Judge: And it wasn't during the deposition?
Mr. Panish: No. We didn't know she was going to come testify at the trial.
Judge: Are you telling me that it wasn't at the deposition?
Mr. Bloss: Your honor, I did the deposition, to be -- to be --
Judge: Let's direct the question to you.
Mr. Bloss: That's correct. To be fair, I did not ask that specific question at the deposition. It wasn't a tactical
reason, it wasn't something else. I was tasked to do it in fairly short order before the deposition happened. But I
don't -- it certainly wasn't my intention to waive an area, if it's a valid area of cross-examination, by not
inquiring about it as to the -- at the time of the deposition.
Ms. Jorrie: But even what they're seeking, your honor, is confidential and way too broad. They're trying to
show bias; and if they ask me, I will testify that we have opened up 300 matters that I have represented AEG
Live. In fact, I've said it since its inception, I continue to represent AEG Live, I represented them in the probate
proceedings. There's just so many matters in which I have been involved, ample opportunity for this jury to
make a determination about my credibility based upon this bias argument that they apparently are making. But
for us to now -- I don't even exactly know what he wants. He just wants all the dollars ever collected of all the
matters for 15 years. Mr. Wexler: That is an improvement because they asked us for every single invoice for
300 matters over 12 years giving us less than 24 hours to redact all these privileged communications.

Mr. Panish: You didn't do anything. I was just trying to ask for a reasonable estimate. Let's see how the
questioning goes, how she does in answering the questions, and then we'll see whether we need to further
compel this evidence.
Ms. Jorrie: This --
Mr. Panish: Excuse me. She's already twice blurted out things in violation of the motion; she's already, you
know, arguing the objections to the questions with me. I've never had a witness doing that from the stand with
me.
Judge: I'm sure Ms. Stebbins spoke to her about that.
Mr. Panish: Well, I mean, it's already been twice, a violation twice trying to argue with me. All I'm trying to
do is make an objection. A witness responding to counsel?
Judge: Let's address the motion.
Mr. Panish: It goes to her bias. Let's see how she does in the cross-examination. Okay? They don't have any
documents, they brought no documents in response to the subpoena. Have you, counsel?
Ms. Jorrie: No. We've brought a motion to quash.
Mr. Panish: There you go. So you haven't got anything, you haven't redacted anything, and let's see how it
goes.
Judge: Let's see. Motion to quash is granted.
Ms. Jorrie: Thank you.
Mr. Panish: Without prejudice, subject to the testimony?
Judge: It's granted.
Ms. Jorrie: Your honor, our motion for fees, please.
Judge: Denied. Okay. Now, on this -- on this redacted agreement, I'm going to find that the redactions are
appropriate and protected by the attorney/client privilege. I'm going to return the redacted -- I mean the
unredacted version to defense counsel. However, in order to preserve the appellate record, you do need to file
the unredacted version in camera under seal with the court.
Ms. Stebbins: We will, your honor. Briefly, your honor, before we call the jury back in, I wanted to briefly
raise one issue that came up this morning. And I will be brief. Plaintiffs' counsel made a representation that they
had not put at issue any of Ms. Jorrie's understanding or communications about the insurance matter, and they
said, you know --
Judge: Are you arguing this again, Ms. Stebbins?
Ms. Stebbins: Very briefly, your honor.
Mr. Panish: Come on.

Judge: Ms. Stebbins, how many times are you going to argue this issue? Is there something new?
Ms. Stebbins: There is, your honor. There's specific testimony that they elicited from their expert to put at
issue. I just want to put it into the record. They said that they had not put it at issue. Their expert, Mr. Berman,
testified on page 7449 of the trial transcript. He actually referred to Ms. Jorrie's email where she talked about --
where she specifically asked Dr. Murray provide insurance records, and he testified that it was part -- that in his
view, Ms. Jorrie asking Dr. Murray for the insurance records was evidence that AEG Live, through its agent,
Ms. Jorrie, was instructing Dr. Murray on how to perform services under the agreement. And he's further
testified that that was part of the basis for his opinion that AEG Live had a conflict of interest because they were
-- they were asking Dr. Murray for individual services. So I ask that Ms. Jorrie be allowed to talk about that
email and to explain why it was that she asked Dr. Murray for -- for insurance --
Judge: So you'll be able to ask her if she got direction from any of the AEG executives concerning --
Ms. Stebbins: That's fine.
Mr. Panish: And then I'll want the correspondence and communication -- first of all, the witness -- is she
outside? Okay. I want the correspondence now that this is going to be opened up, the emails back and forth.
And I still don't have a privilege log. They say they filed one. I would like a privilege log for the luce forward
documents, or at least directly to which luce forward documents they're asserting a privilege to so when I get
my opportunity to cross-examine, that I may be able to hone in on those specific documents by date, which the
privilege log should have.
Judge: Presumably you turned that over, already.
Ms. Stebbins: Yes. To be clear, what I said a moment ago is we did not produce a privilege log on behalf of
luce forward. However, AEG Live produced a privilege log that includes a number of communications with Ms.
Jorrie; and as with all privilege logs, she's clearly identified, the date of the communication, the general subject
matter. The privilege log includes Ms. Jorrie's name on the communication. So that was provided to Plaintiffs
last September. They have had ample opportunity to review that log, look for any communications involving
Ms. Jorrie; so I'm not quite sure what that issue is.
Mr. Panish: That issue is, if you'd like to know --
Ms. Stebbins: No. I'd like to finish responding, if that's possible. All I'm asking, your honor, is since they've
put at issue and said Ms. Jorrie, as the agent of AEG Live, in asking for this, was performing services under the
agreement, I'd like her to testify what she thought she was doing, which was asking Michael Jackson's personal
physician, and the email makes that clear, for material that was relevant to an insurance policy issued to both
AEG Live and the Michael Jackson company. And I --
Judge: And her answer will be?
Ms. Stebbins: Her answer will be that she reached out to Dr. Murray because she understood that the
insurance policy that was in place required further medical records, and that the policy benefited both AEG Live
and the Michael Jackson Company.
Mr. Panish: She doesn't know that.
Ms. Stebbins: She does know that. And that she had been asked to reach out to Dr. Murray as a person who
would have custody of Michael Jackson's medical records, not to provide them to her, but to provide them to the
insurance company for the benefit of the insurance policy.

Mr. Panish: Who asked her that?

Ms. Stebbins: I'm not actually certain. It's probably someone at AEG Live, and she can testify to that.
Judge: Well, why don't you find out.
Ms. Stebbins: Your honor, in that instance, I don't think there was any -- she was literally acting as a go-fer.
But I'll find out who that was. I'll step out and ask her and come back.
Judge: Because this could be opening a can of worms.
Ms. Stebbins: But the issue is she was acting as an agent so her independent understanding is irrelevant
regardless. The clerk: Your honor, can we clarify the title or exhibit number of that document that's supposed to
be filed under seal?
Judge: The in camera under seal?
Mr. Boyle: Do you still have the one up there, your honor?
Judge: I have the redacted one.
Mr. Panish: We'll just call it the same exhibit unredacted.
Mr. Boyle: It should have the same number.
Mr. Putnam: No. This has no number, your honor. I literally pulled it off the computer to give you.
Mr. Panish: Why don't you put an "a" on it, then, that, exhibit a, so we have a record of it. Obviously, we're
not able to argue that because we haven't seen it, and --
Mr. Putnam: I'll let you know what it is first thing in the morning. That way we can provide it under proper
seal, you'll have the proper -- the clerk: Your honor, I would need the information for today's minute order.
Mr. Putnam: Okay. Fine.
Mr. Panish: Just take the exhibit -- hold on.
Judge: We'll find it.
Mr. Putnam: 1344 -- 13484.
Judge: Thank you.
Ms. Stebbins: I spoke to my client, your honor.
Mr. Panish: Your client?
Ms. Stebbins: I confirmed -- not my client. Sorry. You're right. It's Ms. Jorrie. She was my client up until --
during your deposition, you're right. She confirmed that the instruction came from Mr. Trell, but that it was not
in course or scope with any kind of legal advice, that she was literally acting as a broker in that case. Mr. Trell
knew she was negotiating the Murray agreement, said, "While you're talking with that guy, can you see if you
can help us out with the insurance issue?" she can testify to that.

Mr. Panish: That opens up the whole communication with Trell, then.
Ms. Stebbins: I guess I would like, having made a proffer on this point, to know what they believe it would
open up.
Judge: The insurance issue concerning Murray, and --
Mr. Panish: Trell's emails and everything about it.
Ms. Stebbins: Again, waiver of any privilege -- again, I don't think this was a privileged communication.
Judge: If it's not privileged, they can have at it. You keep saying this isn't privilege. Then they can have at it.
Mr. Panish: We can get information about it, all communications and everything.
Judge: You keep saying that it's not privileged. Okay. It's not privileged, they can ask all the questions they
want --
Ms. Stebbins: Exactly, your honor.
Mr. Panish: -- about Trell's communications and everything.
Ms. Stebbins: The concern I have, your honor, is that Plaintiffs -- every time I say a communication is not
privileged, and they can explore an area freely, they then say, "we want all of Mr. Trell's communications with
Ms. Jorrie," and that's what I'm trying to avoid becoming an issue. She can testify freely about this, but I don't
believe that would open up all of her communications on whatever topic with her client.
Mr. Panish: We'll see.
Ms. Stebbins: Thank you, your honor. May I go out and explain to the witness that she is going to be allowed
to testify to that? And I will also make sure, just so I'm clear -- I understand your honor is not revisiting the
other issues about the statements of Mr. Jackson -- Dr. -- because, they relate to the insurance issue, that she's
still not supposed to talk about the representations Dr. Murray made about Mr. Jackson's health.
Judge: Yes, just generic chit-chat conversation about Mr. Jackson's health that have nothing to do with the
provisions that were negotiated in the contract.
Ms. Stebbins: What about the fact, your honor -- because it's related to the insurance issue, and I want to
make sure that my instructions to Ms. Jorrie are clear -- that Dr. Murray told her that he could only give three
years of records because that was how long he'd been treating Mr. Jackson?
Mr. Panish: That's offered for the truth of the matter asserted.
Mr. Boyle: This is fifth time they've tried to get this in.
Ms. Stebbins: All I'm asking, your honor, is whether that's in or out.
Judge: It's out.
Ms. Stebbins: Thank you, your honor. I'm not trying to reargue it. I want to make sure I understand the scope
of what's in so there's no issues.

Mr. Panish: We've already had two, so --

Mr. Boyle: Your honor, just to be clear on the document that was redacted that you asked -- you're saying that
you believe that's privileged and that's why we're not --
Judge: Yes.
Mr. Boyle: Okay. Got it. Thank you.
Mr. Panish: But, now, if the witness testifies and the witness -- remember, now, that -- you made a --
Judge: I don't think it is.
Mr. Panish: Pardon me.
Judge: I'll keep it in mind, but --
Mr. Panish: Well, that was the final agreement that was sent on.
Judge: I know. I have it in mind. In fact, Mr. Putnam, why don't you give it to me so I can keep it in -- not
only keep it in mind, but have the full text with me.
Mr. Putnam: I'm going to get you a clean one, since I wrote on it. I'm putting a post-it on it, your honor, what
the exhibit number is, and I'll put it together with a paper clip.
Judge: Thank you.
(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jurors):
Judge: Katherine Jackson versus AEG Live. Good afternoon, everybody. And, counsel, good afternoon. Ms.
Jorrie, good afternoon. I think we have a new counsel you want to introduce.
Ms. Biscay: Cameron Biscay for the Defendants.
Judge: Thank you. And let's continue. Ms. Jorrie, you're still under oath
The witness: Yes, your honor.
Ms. Stebbins: Thank you, your honor.
Continued direct examination by Ms. Stebbins:
Q. Ms. Jorrie, just to turn back to where we were right before lunch, you were telling me about your first call
with Dr. Murray and some changes that he had requested to the draft agreement. And I believe we had gone
through a couple of them, including the fact that he had given you the specific states where he was licensed, and

you had changed -- that he had asked that GCA Holdings be added as a contracting party, that he had asked for
a change in the payment provisions, and that he had asked for a qualified assistant medical person instead of a
nurse. Does that correctly summarize what we talked about just before the break?
A. Sounded right to me.
Q. All right. And we hadn't quite finished up, I think, with this idea of the change in the payment provision.
Can you just briefly explain to me in laymen's terms what it was?
A. Yes. To clarify -- may I --
Q. Uh-huh?
A. -- request clarification? When you say "payment term," are you referring to section 3 of the agreement and
the $150,000, or are you referring to something else?
Q. I'm referring to the change in paragraph 7.7 that you talked about just before the break?
A. Oh, yes. Thank you. 7.7 is a provision that said what happens if there is a termination; and so all the
different bases for terminating the agreement are set forth in 7.1 to 7.6. If -- if any of those things occur,
depending on what occurs, there could be -- one of the parties could -- to make a decision to terminate the
agreement, it has to be within the confines of those sections. So in 7.7, what Dr. Murray asked me to do was to
limit 7.7 in the event there was a termination of the agreement either because Michael Jackson decided he no
longer wanted Dr. Murray to be his -- his doctor or because AEG Live productions made a decision to terminate
the agreement because of a postponement or a cancelation of the tour, essentially -- in those instances, and only
those two instances, he had asked that he be allowed to retain the full payment that he had received in that
month, the month in which the termination occurs. So if it were august, then he would have received 150,000 in
may, 150,000 in June, 150,000 in July, and then in august, if the termination occurred on august 16, he wanted
to keep the whole $150,000 for august 16. And he said that he thought that would be fair and appropriate under
the circumstances, given what I previously told you he said about leaving his established medical practices.
Q. And am I correct that it was only in those two contractual termination situations where the extra financial
cushion that you've identified would kick in?
A. Correct. Otherwise, he wouldn't get to keep the whole month.
Q. All right. Have we covered now all the changes that Dr. Murray asked you to make in the call on June 18?
A. I believe so.
Q. And then you also said that you had some questions for him.
A. I did.
Q. Tell me about those.
A. Well, in particular, I wanted to ask him about the C.P.R. machine. He had provided a list to Mr. Woolley,
and Mr. Woolley provided it to me. And on that list, in one of the provisions, it says that Conrad Murray may
request equipment, and including -- and it gave a list of equipment that he could request, in which case that
equipment would be provided, and if the cost was mutually agreed, it would be paid for by AEG Live
advancing the money. And I asked him, "Dr. Murray, why do you need a C.P.R. machine?" and he said he
needs -- he needs it in London during the performance; Michael Jackson puts on a strenuous performance, and

that he did not want to take a chance that should anything go wrong, should there be an emergency, et cetera --
he wanted to have that. I said, "well, wouldn't the 02 arena have a C.P.R. machine available on hand that would
be available to you for your use?" and he said that he did not want to take a chance; that in the event that C.P.R.
machine was not available or was in use or what have you, he wanted to have it on hand. He also told me that
having it on hand, he thought was customary, and that's how he explained it.
Q. So you asked about whether there would be a C.P.R. machine at the 02. When you say "C.P.R. machine,"
can you describe what you meant in that conversation?
A. Yes.
A. C.P.R. machine that I understood was one of the things you see on the wall where if somebody has
A. Heart attack and -- and -- and needs to have his heart, you know -- I don't know the correct -- I'm not
A. Medical person, but a defibrillator, basically, that would be available in the event he had a cardiac arrest or
he had a problem.
Q. And did you convey that understanding to Dr. Murray?
A. I'm not understanding the question.
Q. Sure. It was probably a bad question. Did you tell Dr. Murray that you thought the -- did you in any way
kind of describe to Dr. Murray what machine you thought he was talking about?
A. Well, I certainly asked him, "won't they have it at the 02 arena?" I don't know what other type of medical
equipment would be similar to a defibrillator at the 02 arena.
Mr. Panish: I'll just object. It's not responsive to the question. "Did you describe to Dr. Murray the machine
you thought he was talking about?" Was the question.
Ms. Stebbins: Your honor, I think the witness answered the question. She didn't describe it directly, she didn't
describe it indirectly, that it was the kind of thing that would be at the 02 Arena.
Judge: Sustained. The answer is stricken.
Ms. Stebbins: Ms. Jorrie, did you make clear to Dr. Murray that the machine you had in mind was something
that would be on the location at the 02 arena?
A. What -- what I said was what I related before my stricken answer, which is that I asked him wouldn't they
have that at the 02 arena.
Q. And he just -- and what did he tell you in response?
A. He -- he said they would, but that he didn't want to take a chance. He said given Michael's age -- he also
mentioned that; given his age, and that he puts on a strenuous performance. And we talked about his
performances. I'm not sure if I'm allowed to talk about that. But we did talk about his performances and how
extraordinary they are, and how strenuous it is, and he just didn't want to take a chance given his age and how
strenuous it is, he wanted to have that on hand.
Q. And after that conversation with Dr. Murray, were your concerns about the C.P.R. machine allayed?

A. Yes.
Q. And did
You make any changes to that portion of the contract?
A. I don't think so, no.
Q. Now, you mentioned there was some other equipment in the draft agreement that Dr. Murray could have
requested?
A. Yes.
Q. And what was that?
A. There's other equipment -- let me find it. My recollection is the sorts of things you'd have for dehydration;
a catheter, saline. Let me find it.
Judge: By the way, which agreement are we talking about, the first one or the second -- which draft?
Ms. Stebbins: Your honor, I believe this didn't change through any drafts; but I guess any of the drafts
mentioning they changed, I would ask Ms. Jorrie to clarify what draft she's referring to.
The witness: I'm looking at the -- the -- one of the revised drafts, the June 19 one. Counsel, it's number
08017. And so the list says -- it says "producer shall provide Dr. Murray with his use during the term of medical
equipment requested by Dr. Murray to assist him in performing his services as -- as approved by producer," and
that's called "equipment." "the equipment will include a portable cardiopulmonary resuscitation unit, saline,
catheters, needles, a gurney, and other mutually approved medical equipment necessary for the services," close
paren.
Ms. Stebbins: Thank you.
Q. And did that list ever change, to your recollection?
A. No, I don't think it did.
Q. Did you ask Dr. Murray about any of the other equipment listed other than the C.P.R. machine?
A. No, nothing -- I asked about nothing else.
Q. Now I wanted to ask, that provision you just read said "selected by Dr. Murray"?
A. Yes.
Q. Did Dr. Murray ever ask you to provide him
A. C.P.R. machine in Los Angeles?
A. Our conversation focused on London, and he never -- he told me he needed it in London.
Q. So he specifically said he needed the equipment in London?
A. Well, that's the -- those words, no. Substance, yes.

Q. Got it. To the best of your recollection, what did he specifically say?
A. When I said why, "Do you need the C.P.R. machine?" he said, "I'll need it in London in case something
goes --" You know, and then the rest of my conversation.
Q. Got it. I understand now. All right. Is there anything else other than -- anything else that you talked about
with Dr. Murray on June 18, other than any areas that we're not going into?
A. I think I've covered the gamut of the conversation, best I can recall.
Q. After your conversation with Dr. Murray on June 18th, what -- what did you do next?
A. I took the information I learned from Dr. Murray and I went online and I checked it out. I went to the -- he
had told me that his company was GCA Holdings. It was an LLC, and it was based in Nevada. So I went online
to the Nevada secretary of state and I looked to make sure that it was a valid company and wasn't revoked, if
you will. It was actually a company with an address. And it also identified -- in Nevada, it identifies the -- the
manager. This was a limited liability company. It identified Dr. Conrad Murray as manager. And I took some of
that information, wrote it down. That's one thing I did. I'm sorry. I'm rambling. I did several things. I looked
online to the Nevada secretary of state, I checked the -- the state websites to see if he was licensed as a
physician in the states that he told me that he was a physician, and I Googled him. I Google everybody.
Q. Let's take this one at a time. You've already told us about the first one. You said you went to the Nevada
secretary of state's website to look up his company.
A. I did.
Q. And was the company a real company?
Mr. Panish: Objection; no foundation.
Ms. Stebbins: Based on what you saw on the website.
Mr. Panish: Still.
Judge: That's kind of vague, "a real company." Do you mean were they licensed? Was their license current?
Ms. Stebbins: When you checked it out, was there anything to suggest that the company was not licensed and
not in good standing?
A. No. It was a -- looked like it was a proper company with an address in Nevada.
Q. And you said that you noted that Dr. Murray was the manager of GCA Holdings LLC; is that right?
A. That's what it said.
Q. And did you do anything with that information?
A. I took the information I had and I -- I put it into the draft, so in a redline form, or I sent it to him in a
redline form so he could see the changes. So I added the address, I said it was a Nevada limited liability
company, which I had checked out, I put "manager." I think that's it for that. So if you look at his signature, I
had added "manager."

Q. Got it. We'll get to the next draft in a minute.

A. Okay.
Q. The next thing I want to ask about, you said you checked on the licenses from the state websites?
A. I did.
Q. Can you break that down a little bit?
A. It's -- it's actually pretty easy. You just go online, you just look, verify he's licensed to practice, and -- so I
gave myself the comfort that he was, in fact, licensed to practice as he said he was, and I did it for every state.
Q. And are these websites maintained by the states that you were looking at?
A. The medical boards of the respective states have online access to third parties who want to see if
A. Doctor is licensed, and there's places where they talk about disciplinary action. In his case, there was
nothing, no disciplinary action identified.
Q. Okay. So you checked in which four states?
A. In the four states he mentioned. He said that he had -- he was licensed in Nevada, Texas, California and
Hawaii.
Q. And then you also said you Googled Dr. Murray?
A. I did.
Q. Why did you do that?
A. Well, just -- just to -- I just Google people. In this case, I just Googled him to see what came up and, you
know, did he have offices. And he did. He had -- he had clinics in, if I recall correctly, Texas and Nevada.
Q. And those came up in your Google search?
A. Yes.
Q. And then did you do anything else in terms of that kind of internet searching that you were talking about
just now regarding Dr. Murray?
A. I don't think so. It was a spot check, if you will.
Q. And did you do this right after your call on June 18?
A. I did it on June 18. I couldn't tell you for sure that it was immediately after the call.
Q. And then did you make any changes to the agreement draft?
A. I made a number of the changes that we've discussed today to the draft.

Ms. Stebbins: All right. Let's go ahead and put up exhibit 8017 first for counsel. Okay? No objection?
Mr. Panish: Well, which page? The first page is okay.
Ms. Stebbins: Do you have an objection to any of the pages? I might scroll through the document.
Mr. Panish: I didn't see a redline in 8017.
Ms. Stebbins: It may not be this one with the redline. No, there's a redline here.
Mr. Panish: Okay. That's okay.
Ms. Stebbins: All right. Ms. Jorrie, I'd like to show you what appears to be an email from Timm Woolley to
Dr. Murray on June 19th, copying you.
Q. Can you tell us about this?
A. Yes. I -- okay. So I -- I revised the agreement, I emailed it to Dr. Woolley, and --
Q. "Woolley"?
A. I'm sorry. Dr. Conrad Murray. I revised the agreement, I emailed it to Conrad Murray. Thank you. And it
bounced back, the email; so I asked Timm Woolley if he could forward the email I just sent to -- I tried to send
to, if I remember correctly -- let me double check this. Yes, if he could forward this to Dr. Murray and provide
me with his correct email address because I had the wrong address. And so Mr. Woolley, if you can see, it says
that "I have the pleasure to be the conduit of revisions made by Kathy Jorrie." so Mr. Woolley took my email
again and -- because he did that the last time, and he forwarded it to Dr. Murray, and Dr. Murray received it.
Q. Got it. So likely the first time, you didn't actually send the email -- the draft contract directly to Dr.
Murray, Mr. Woolley sent it for you?
A. I tried, and then Mr. Woolley sent it.
Q. So the first time you sent it to Mr. Woolley on purpose -- on purpose; and then the second time, you just
didn't have Dr. Murray's email address correct; is that right?
A. Essentially I sent an email to Mr. Woolley saying "I must have the wrong email address. Please provide me
the correct one; and meanwhile, please forward it," because I didn't know, you know, what time zone Mr.
Woolley was in, didn't want to wake him.
Q. There's a number of attachments here. Can you briefly tell me what they are?
A. Yes. And you're not talking about the subject line, just the attachment?
Q. Well, tell me about the whole thing.
A. Okay. So where it says "subject --" let's see. Double check that. The subject line is a subject that I put on
my email to Dr. Murray, and that carried forward when it was forwarded. Did I do it again? Yes. No, I didn't --
when Mr. Woolley sent it to Dr. Murray, the subject line carried forward. It says "Michael Jackson revised
agreement with GCA Holdings, Dr. Murray." the other two documents are the names of the attachments that
were attached. So what I did was I revised the agreement in clean form and I attached a redline. In this case, I
compared the two electronically -- it says "W.S. Comparison" -- so that he could see my changes. I compared it

with -- my original draft with the new draft so that he would see each and every change that I made to help him
in his review.
Ms. Stebbins: Okay.
Judge: What does "W.S." stand for?
The witness: "W.S. Comparison," your honor, the -- I think we had work share, if I remember correctly. It's
like --
Judge: It's a program?
The witness: It's a software program, yes.
Ms. Stebbins: And is that software that compares two versions of a document and shows the changes?
A. That's right. You put -- you say compare this document with this document, and it generates a redline.
Q. Got it. You and I, I think, are very familiar with redlines; but there may be some people in the room who
don't use them as much in the work --
Judge: Like me.
Ms. Stebbins: Yes. So I think it's worth making sure we're all on the same page. Can we turn to the next page
here.
The witness: Yes.
Ms. Stebbins: I want to see your original email to Dr. Murray.
Q. And, Ms. Jorrie is, is this the email that you sent to Dr. Murray that initially bounced?
A. I -- I didn't hear you, the last part.
Q. I'm sorry. I said is this the email that we were just talking about that you initially sent that then bounced?
A. Yes.
Q. Got it. And you say here "Dr. Murray, it was a pleasure to speak with you today. Please find attached
A. Revised agreement in word, along with a redline edition of the changes and a final P.D.F. Version."
A. Yes.
Q. Was this a final P.D.F. Version?
A. No, it wasn't. But when I -- it's generally my practice.
Q. I was going to say why did you call it that, then?
A. Because it's generally my practice that when I put a contract in a P.D.F. Format, that I call it final because
it might be signed. I sometimes call it clean P.D.F., sometimes I call it execution version. But when I save it on

my system, I save it and I put the words -- it tells me I've issued this document to P.D.F. If it gets signed, I want
it printed in P.D.F. So that everybody who prints it prints it on the same page, because sometimes different
machines -- less so today than before, but sometimes different machines, you print a word version, and it comes
out a little different, and it looks like people signed different documents. Once I turn it into a P.D.F., I put an
indicator, "final," telling me this has been delivered, and if -- if it's not revised, if all of the parties accept its
terms, and if all of the parties sign it and it's fully executed, then it then becomes final and I save it on my
system as the fully executed agreement.
Q. Do you always have just one final version of a contract that you're drafting?
A. No. There's many times that I have a final whatever the agreement is. Then I have sometimes "final
corrected agreement," or "second final agreement." there are times when one of the parties makes a decision to
make a change, which is what happened here. I referred to it as a final P.D.F. In the email, but we ended up
making changes
Q. Right. And, actually, the next sentence is "please let me know if you have any additional comments"?
A. That's right.
Q. Did Dr. Murray have additional comments?
A. He did.
Q. We'll get to those in a moment. I want to ask about another part of this email here. You can go back out,
pam. The next paragraph says "also, AEG is arranging to obtain cancelation insurance in connection with the 02
performances, and the insurance company, Bob Taylor at Robertson Taylor, requires a five-year medical history
for Michael Jackson."
Mr. Panish: Excuse me, your honor. Ms. Jorrie just testified, if I'm reading this right, "but when a document
becomes final and fully executed and in force and effect," which would again violate your order.
Judge: I don't know if she said "in force and effect." she's talking about her final version. So she has a "final,"
"almost final," "I was almost sure it was final," "it could have been final," "not quite final."
Mr. Panish: Then she says, "when the parties sign it, it becomes an executed, enforceable document."
Ms. Stebbins: Your honor, I think she was testifying as to her own practice that she has one set of documents
called final and one set called fully executed. I don't think she was giving an opinion as to the finality of this
contract.
Judge: If anybody --
Mr. Panish: "if all the parties execute terms and sign it, then it becomes fully executed, final executed
agreement."
Ms. Stebbins: Again, your honor, I think she's just describing her own practice, which is that if everyone
signs it, then it becomes what she considers an executed agreement and calls it that.
Judge: Right. Because -- okay. But that doesn't have any legal consequences.
Ms. Stebbins: No. She was just describing her own practice.

Judge: The jury has to understand that. Okay.

Ms. Stebbins: Your honor, I think -- and if there's any confusion, your honor will instruct on the law
regarding the finality of contracts for the jury.
Judge: Right. I've said that over and over. I think they understand that.
Ms. Stebbins: Perfect. I don't think -- I don't think Ms. Jorrie was trying to comment on that, I just wanted to
make sure we were clear. All right.
Q. Ms. Jorrie, turning to the next paragraph, what's this paragraph about?
A. I had been asked by the general counsel of -- of AEG Live to facilitate the efforts to get cancelation
insurance, and the insurance company was in the process of getting medical information from Michael Jackson,
and he asked if I would ask Dr. Murray if he would, as -- if he would assist Michael in the efforts to provide the
five-year medical history.
Q. Why were you asking Dr. Murray about this?
A. Because Dr. Murray had told me that he had been Michael Jackson's physician for a specified period of
time.
Mr. Panish: Wait a minute, your honor. This is, again -- that question there is violating the order that you
issued. The first answer was fine. Now she's gone beyond it again, an inch to a mile.
Ms. Stebbins: Your honor, I think she was very careful, actually, not to go beyond your honor's order, and I
believe this is within what we just discussed when I --
Judge: The answer is stricken.
Mr. Panish: Please, your honor, could we have some admonition to counsel and the witness to follow the
court orders?
Judge: Okay.
Ms. Stebbins: Your honor, I'm doing my best. I honestly didn't see the issue with that answer.
Judge: Well, I can see it. If I can see it, you should see it.
Ms. Stebbins: I will -- I will -- Ms. Jorrie, maybe -- can I lead here for a moment, your honor, just to make
sure that there's no concerns with answers?
Judge: Why don't you lead.
Ms. Stebbins: Okay.
Q. Ms. Jorrie, did you send this email because you -- you believed that Dr. Murray was Michael Jackson's
physician?
A. Yes.
Q. And as Michael Jackson's physician, did you believe he could help with the cancelation insurance process?

A. Yes.
Q. And did this have anything to do with the contract that you were negotiating with Dr. Murray?
A. No.
Q. Was it an entirely separate issue?
A. Yes.
Q. And I'd like to ask about the last sentence here. Why did you include this? Without telling me about any
conversations you had with Dr. Murray, just why did you include it?
A. I included that to ask Dr. Murray whether -- if he wasn't the right physician to gather and find the medical
history, could he please let us know what physicians would be -- can be of assistance.
Q. Were you negotiating an agreement with any of Mr. Jackson's other physicians?
A. No.
Q. And did you ever talk to Dr. Murray about whether he would be willing to help in this process?
A. I did.
Q. And did he tell you he would be willing to help?
A. Yes.
Q. I think we can take this down. Okay. Now -- actually, put that back up for a second, just quickly go
through the redlines so we can see the changes that you made. If we can turn to page 12, pam.
Mr. Panish: 17799?
Ms. Stebbins: We're on 8017.
Mr. Panish: Page 12. Thank you.
Ms. Stebbins: Are you good, Mr. Panish?
Mr. Panish: Yes. Go ahead. Page 12 is okay.
Ms. Stebbins: Ms. Jorrie, I turned to the page that I believe is the redline you were just telling me about, but I
want to make sure I'm right.
The witness: You're right.
Ms. Stebbins: So this is a redline showing the changes between the first draft that you sent Dr. Murray and
the second draft you have sent to Murray, the one that you called the final P.D.F. Version?
A. I actually called this one a final P.D.F. In my email, just to clarify.

Q. Right. Sorry. Got it.

A. But the -- this is -- I have three -- three drafts. This is the second one.
Q. Okay. And is this the redline comparing the first and the second?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And I just wanted to take a moment and walk through those changes that you told us about based on
the phone call with Dr. Murray and where you put those into the agreement based on the phone call and the
research you did afterwards.
A. Yes.
Q. So can you do that for us?
A. I can. So at the very top of the agreement there, I added "GCA Holdings LLC, a Nevada limited liability
company" at the top. I also added other -- there's a few changes that I added that I saw needed to be changed.
Do you want me to talk about those or not?
Q. You can if you'd like, but I'm interested in the changes that were made as a result of your conversation with
Dr. Murray.
A. All right. Then the next change arising from that conversation, adding GCA resulted in a change down in
paragraph 1. So paragraph 1 -- yes. There. So now it says "Producer hereby engages GCA," so we're engaging
his company to provide the services of Dr. Murray. So we have -- and then it goes on and it talks about GCA
and Dr. Murray hereby agree that Dr. Murray will provide -- and then it continues, "general medical care to the
artist throughout the duration of the term."
Q. And this is the idea you talked about where GCA would be the employer of Dr. Murray, but they would
both be parties to the contract?
A. Yes. And GCA would actually provide the services of Dr. Murray.
Q. What's the next change?
A. So that change -- let's see. Let's go to 3, please. So the other -- the other thing about this is the money was
going to -- to -- to be paid, so once -- this is the provision -- if you see, it says 150,000 per month to be paid on
the later of the 15th day of the month or five business days after the execution and delivery of the agreement. As
soon as that happened, the $150,000 was payable not to Dr. Murray but to GCA Holdings; and I put that in.
Q. So this is another place where you changed Dr. Murray to GCA?
A. That is correct.
Q. Okay. What's next?
A. Well, and that -- you know, that led to the other changes, like services rendered by Dr. Murray -- let's see --
so if -- do you want to go through each and every one? There's several places in the agreement where I took -- I
added GCA, or I added -- had them both.
Q. I think

-- I think we've got the idea. So you added GCA either in place of or in addition to Dr. Murray in a number of
places in the agreement?
A. Correct. And they're all redlined.
Q. Let's focus, then, on other changes that you made.
A. Okay. So the next change was -- let me check. 3.4. So here's the change I made changing it from a nurse to
a qualified assistant medical person, and then that's defined to be assistant. So any time you see "assistant" --
instead of nurse, it now says "assistant."
Q. And what's the next one? Again, skipping over any of the Dr. Murray GCA --
A. Of course. I'm sorry. I'll move faster.
Q. Oh, no, no. I'm not trying to rush you. I'm just --
A. Others might be. Paragraph 7.7, please. So this is the provision where now -- now how it reads is that if
there's a termination, and it's under 7.2 and 7.3 -- do you see the reference there? So 7.2 is -- let's see. Which
one is which? 7.2 is -- I don't want to misstate it. So 7.2 is the one where the agreement might be terminated in
the event the concert series is canceled or postponed, and then 7.3 was the one where the agreement would be
terminated in the event Michael Jackson changes his mind about his personal physician.
Q. Got it.
A. And then the change that I made here is so now it says following any termination of the agreement,
producer shall only be required to pay to GCA or the assistant any compensation earned by GCA or the
assistant for any services satisfactorily performed by Dr. Murray or the assistant prior to the date of termination.
And then here's the exception, where it starts "provided, however, in the event of a termination under section
7.2, 7.3 above, GCA shall have no obligation to refund any portion of any installment due and payable before
the effective date of such termination, even if the termination is effective before the end of the applicable
month, I.E., there will be no proration of amounts paid or payable during such months." so that's what I
explained earlier.
Q. Okay. Next?
A. There's some more GCA additions. I put in the four states, but I made a mistake. I don't know how or why
I did that, but I typed "Honolulu" for "Hawaii." but that was corrected the next time. It's on section -- I'm sorry.
Section 19. In section 19 is the section where Dr. Murray represented and warranted that he is licensed in -- and
now it specifies the four locations, to practice medicine. And then it goes on "and to perform any and all
services required to be performed by him in the United States under this agreement."
Q. Okay. And there at the bottom of that page, are there changes there?
A. If you see the bottom there, I put "Dr. Conrad Murray," and I put "title, manager" right there.
Q. And was that block for GCA Holdings there before?
A. No. That's new, too.
Q. And were those the changes that we just talked about made in response to your call with Dr. Murray?

A. Yes.
Q. Now, did there comes a time where you made additional changes to the draft agreement based on further
conversations with Dr. Murray?
A. Yes. Dr. Murray called me again on the 23rd of June to ask me to make some additional revisions to the
agreement.
Q. And I'm going to ask you about those in a minute, but first I want to turn to a slightly different subject,
which is you had talked about sort of looking on the internet about Dr. Murray in -- on June 18, after talking
with him, and checking his licenses and checking his company. Do you recall that?
A. I do.
Q. Did you ever have a conversation with Mr. Phillips that conveyed any of that information?
A. Yes. Q. Tell me about that and how it came about.
Mr. Panish: Just vague as to time. When was this?
Judge: Okay. Sustained.
Ms. Stebbins: Sure. I -- starting with when it occurred.
The witness: It occurred on June 19.
Ms. Stebbins: Okay.
Q. And how did it come about that you and Mr. Phillips were discussing Dr. Murray at all?
A. It was at the end of a -- a call dealing with an entirely unrelated matter that I was engaged in, and Mr.
Phillips was involved in. And it was -- I -- I told him, "Randy, by the way, I spoke to Dr. Murray yesterday,"
and then I relayed what I had learned to him. And I said to him, I said, "Dr. Murray -- I spoke to Dr. Murray
and, in substance, he told me that he's licensed to practice in four states. I checked that out," or "I confirmed it,"
I can't remember the terminology I used. But "I confirmed it," and that he -- and then I relayed he appears to be
very successful in his practices. And I may have -- I think I did, but -- tell him about the million dollars a
month. But I definitely told him he's very successful in his practices, and it -- that was it. It wasn't much more
than that.
Q. So what you conveyed to Mr. Phillips was based on your discussions with Dr. Murray and on those
internet searches that you've done after that?
A. Both of them, yes.
Q. Did you have any discussions with Mr. Phillips about that subject in that call, or while you were
negotiating with Dr. Murray?
A. No, not that I remember.
Q. Okay. Have you told us everything you can remember about that conversation?
A. As best I can recall.

Q. And as best you can recall, you told Mr. Phillips that Dr. Murray was licensed in four states, had a number
of practices, and he was successful in those practices or words to that effect?
A. Yes; and that I confirmed he was licensed to practice in four states.
Q. Okay. What happened next in terms of your communications with Dr. Murray?
A. I -- let's see. I revised the agreement, which we just discussed, and I attempted to forward it to him. It
bounced back, and then it was forwarded by Mr. Woolley to Dr. Murray, and then he subsequently called me --
now we're up to June 23rd, and he called me with some additional revisions.
Q. So you sent him the revised draft, if I recall correctly, on June -- well, you sent them on June 18th and it
got forwarded to him on June 19th?
A. That's my -- that's what I see, yes.
Q. Right. And then four days later, on June 23rd, he called you?
A. Yes, he did.
Q. All right. And tell me briefly about that call. What were the subjects?
A. He called me to say that he had additional revisions; that he had had someone else also look at the
agreement for him. I can't remember --
Mr. Panish: That's hearsay. She has no basis on what the changes are. Move to strike that.
Judge: Motion granted, that portion is stricken.
Ms. Stebbins: Your honor, I don't think it's offered for the truth, but just for the --
Judge: It's irrelevant, stricken.
Ms. Stebbins: Okay.
Q. Go on.
A. Can you ask the question again?
Q. Sure. Just tell me briefly what the subjects were of the June 23rd call with Dr. Murray.
A. He called with changes to the agreement.
Q. And we had talked very briefly earlier today about some changes you ultimately made to paragraph 1, the
"scope of services" provision. Is that one of the changes that you discussed on June 23rd?
A. If we look at the -- the redline, I made the changes we discussed, and that --
Q. You know what? Let's do that. Pam, can we see exhibit 8375, to counsel first?
Mr. Panish: did you give us that one?

Ms. Stebbins: I think so.

Mr. Panish: Wait a minute. I don't think you gave us that.
Ms. Stebbins: I think we did, but let's just --
Mr. Panish: Which page are we on?
Ms. Stebbins: Starting on page 8.
Q. And is exhibit 8375 one you have in front of you, Ms. Jorrie?
A. 8375, page 8?
Q. Yes. Actually, let's turn to page 1 first, just so we can all be on the same page as to what we're talking
about here.
A. Yes, page -- page 1 is 8375.
Ms. Stebbins: Any objection, Mr. Panish?
Mr. Panish: Yeah, there is one issue that I have. Can I talk to her about it?
Ms. Stebbins: Talk to?
Mr. Panish: You.
Ms. Stebbins: Sure.
Mr. Panish: Is that okay, your honor?
Judge: You mean consult right now? That's fine. (Mr. Panish and Ms. Stebbins confer sotto voce.)
Mr. Panish: Subject to that, I think it's okay.
Ms. Stebbins: It's just an unredacted email address, your honor. We're fixing it right now.
Q. While we're waiting, Ms. Jorrie, you said that you were speaking with Mr. Phillips about an unrelated
matter --
A. Yes.
Q. -- when the subject of Dr. Murray came up?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you just briefly give me an idea of how many matters you've handled for AEG Live over the years?
A. Myself and my firm, quite a few matters. We started representing them in 2000. AEG Live has been a
consistent client of mine since that time. For AEG Live, approximately 300 matters have been opened
throughout all of those 12 years.

Q. So fair to say you have a long-term client relationship with them?

A. I have a long-term client relationship with them, yes.
Q. And was the matter you were speaking with Mr. Phillips about related to the "this is it" tour at all?
A. No, it had nothing to do with the "this is it" tour. It was a -- it was another matter.
Q. All right. We can put that up. I want to make sure that the version we file has the redaction. All right. Ms.
Jorrie, I think -- you just referred to the document as a redline, and we're about to talk about a conversation you
had with Dr. Murray on June 23rd. This email is dated June 24th, right?
A. Yes, but my -- if you scroll down, you'll see when I sent it. Oh. Oh, you know what it is? Whoever prints it
-- Mr. Woolley was in a different time zone, and I was in Los Angeles, so if you were to look at my copy that I
print from my computer, it would have had an earlier time.
Q. So you don't think you sent it at 1:00 in the morning, you think you sent it sometime earlier?
A. In this case, that's right.
Q. Okay. So is -- when do you recall sending the -- the --
A. It was quite a bit earlier than that.
Q. Maybe six, seven hours?
A. Yes, yes. It was in late afternoon, I recall, evening.
Q. Okay. But you did send the email to -- you did send this email to Dr. Murray?
A. I did.
Q. Okay. And what is this email forwarding?
A. I'm sorry. What is this email forwarding?
Q. Sure. Let me back up a little bit.
A. What's attached to it?
Q.
Yeah.
A. What's attached to it is a redline and what I call a final is a PDF Version.
Q. Okay.
A. The redline is -- shows the redlines. There's no clean word version on this one.
Q. And would the redline be the document you just said it would be helpful to look at as you discussed your
call with Dr. Murray on June 23rd?

A. Yes.
Q. Okay. So let's turn to that. And that's page 8. And just to make sure I understand you correctly, Ms. Jorrie,
are you saying that this redline would show -- would help you walk the jury through the changes Dr. Murray
requested on June 23rd that you then put into the draft agreement and sent to him on June -- later in the day?
A. Yes. I mean, I can remember, but I'd be struggling a little bit to make sure I remember everything. So
rather than go through that, let's just --
Q. All right. And let's just go through them. It looks like there was a change to paragraph a. Was that one of
the changes that you discussed with Dr. Murray?
A. Actually, the first change was in the first paragraph.
Q. Paragraph 1?
A. Yes.
Q. Oh, all the way up here. Yes.
A. So this change, Dr. Murray had called and he had said that he wanted to change the date from June to May
1st. And I quizzed him about it, and he said that he had been promised that when the agreement was signed, that
his pay would be retroactive to May 1st, and he wanted the agreement to say as of May 1st so there could be no,
you know, confusion about that. And I -- I told him that we can make it may 1st, and then I added the date of
signature of when I thought it would be signed. On the last page, the June 24 date was the date I kind of
assumed that people would review, comment and, if they liked it, sign it.
Q. Got it. And then just turning quickly to paragraph 3 for a moment --
A. Yes.
Q. Did you make any changes to the paragraph that said that Dr. Murray would be paid on the later of the 15th
day of the month or five business days after execution and delivery of the agreement?
A. No. That still worked out. That worked out fine.
Q. It was just that when the agreement was executed, it would have -- it would have -- I'm trying to think of --
what exactly did Dr. Murray ask you to do?
Mr. Panish: Regarding paragraph 3?
Ms. Stebbins: Regarding the first paragraph.
Mr. Panish: She asked and answered that already.
Judge: Are there any changes in paragraph 3?
Ms. Stebbins: Paragraph 1, your honor, is what I'm asking about. I want to make sure I understand what Dr.
Murray asked her to do because I was a little confused about it.
Mr. Panish: She just testified to it.

Judge: I'm confused, too. Paragraph --

Mr. Panish: A.
Ms. Stebbins: Above a.
Judge: There was a change to the beginning, the introduction, this independent contractor agreement, right?
Ms. Stebbins: Right. And I was just trying to make sure I understood what Dr. Murray had asked Ms. Jorrie
to do regarding that --
The witness: To clarify, he had -- when we talked about it, we talked about the top; and then you really have
to look at paragraph 2, as well. So paragraph -- what we discussed was paragraph 2 says the term of this
agreement shall commence as of may 1st, 2009. So that would trigger the -- the term, and I'm --
Ms. Stebbins: You just wanted to make those two dates the same? Is that --
A. Well, and he wanted it to be effective as of May 1st. And so we discussed that, and the -- the fact that we
then would have to -- I'm trying to
be careful, your honor. I then added the date of signature because that was key, also, in determining when the
money would be due because the money is never due until the parties sign --
Mr. Panish: Wait, wait. Once again, now --
The witness: Well, that's what it says. Excuse me.
Mr. Panish: Excuse me. Could I object, please?
Judge: Yes, you may.
The witness: I'm sorry.
Mr. Panish: Again, money due, obligations, she's again trying to get expert testimony.
Judge: Right. You can't interpret the contract. Sustained.
Mr. Panish: Again, your honor --
The witness: My apologies.
Mr. Panish: That's the fifth time.
Judge: Sustained. I'm going to strike entire testimony if you keep getting into areas that -- she's not
interpreting the contract.
Ms. Stebbins: She caught herself and went back to the language in paragraph 3, and I think that's all. Let's
move on from the subject of payment, Ms. Jorrie. Let's talk about --
Judge: Lead her, I mean, if you want to --
Ms. Stebbins: Let me just ask it this way.

Q. Did the change of May 1 in the first paragraph have any effect of -- or did you make any changes to the
effect that paragraph 3 still says Dr. Murray would not be paid until five business days after the execution and
delivery of the agreement?
A. Paragraph 3 continues to say that. I did not change that.
Q. And did you add a date on the last page to reflect when the document would actually be signed as opposed
to before it was sent?
A. The date I thought it would be signed.
Q. Okay. Let's move on to paragraph A.
A. Yes.
Q. Was this a change you discussed with Dr. Murray?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. So let's go ahead and blow that up, paragraph A, Pam. Tell me what you can about the conversation
that caused this change.
A. One of the things Dr. Murray wanted to do was to extend the time period in which he would continue to
receive payment. I originally drafted this so that the term, which is the time he would receive this payment,
would go through September. He wanted the term to go to the end of the London run. And there was a period of
time where there was a break between September 30th, 2009, and the beginning of 2010; and then the shows at
the 02 arena would start up again, and they would go through march 6, 2010. So he asked -- he wanted to
extend by about five months his engagement. And I asked him, "Did you speak to Michael Jackson about that?"
And -- and he said he had. And I said, "And did Michael Jackson tell you that he's willing to pay you the
$150,000 for the remaining five -- for that extended period of time?" Including over the period of time in which
the -- the shows were on break; and he said yes.
Q. And based on that, did you go ahead and make the change to the agreement?
A. I -- I made a change and redlined it for it to go up.
Q. Okay. And then did -- did Dr. Murray have anything to do with the change of -- in paragraph b? Is that a
change you discussed with him?
Judge: B or 8?
Ms. Stebbins: B.
The witness: I assume so, yes.
Q. Do you not recall that specifically?
A. It had to have been.
Q. As you sit here today, do you recall discussing that change with him at all?

A. I do not.
Q. And it looks like the next change is in paragraph 1. Was that a change you discussed with Dr. Murray?
A. Oh, yes.
Q. Tell me about that one.
A. Okay. Paragraph 1 -- this is a paragraph that describes the services to be performed. And the part there that
says Dr. Murray shall also provide such services as a reasonably -- I'm sorry -- as are reasonably requested by --
it said "Producer from time to time during the term hereof." Dr. Murray said, "We need to change that to artist.
It's the artist who is my patient." And I said, "Absolutely right, it should be the artist. The artist is your patient,
not -- not the producer," And I made the change from "producer" to "artist."
Q. So that was a change specifically requested by Dr. Murray?
A. Yes.
Q. And -- and we had talked earlier today about similar language in paragraph 4.1.
A. Yes.
Q. Did you discuss paragraph 4.1 with Dr. Murray on your June 23rd call?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever change the language in paragraph 4.1?
A. No, I didn't make the change. I'd be happy to explain.
Q. Sure.
A. Paragraph --
Mr. Panish: Well, she answered the question did she make a change or not.
Ms. Stebbins: Why did you make the change?
Judge: Overruled. She may explain why she didn't.
The witness: Paragraph 4 says the same thing paragraph 2 did, essentially.
Mr. Panish: That, again, is her interpreting.
Ms. Stebbins: Your honor, I don't think she's interpreting. She's saying the two paragraphs contain similar
language.
Mr. Panish: She said it says essentially the same, is what she said.
The witness: Essentially.
Judge: What is the other paragraph you're referring to?

Ms. Stebbins: Paragraph 1 or paragraph 2, Ms. Jorrie?

The witness: Paragraph 1 and paragraph 4.1. So if -- if I can explain --
Ms. Stebbins: Well, there's an objection pending, so --
Judge: Hold on.
The witness: I'm sorry.
Judge: Overruled. Go ahead.
The witness: So paragraph 1, where it says Dr. Murray shall also provide such other services as are
reasonably requested by -- I put in "artist." then 4.1 says -- I'm going to go to the very top. So the top part above
4.1, which you haven't highlighted, but I'll read, it says, without in any way limiting any other term or provision
of this agreement, or any obligation of GCA or Dr. Murray hereunder, GCA and Dr. Murray shall perform the
services reasonably requested by producer. So I didn't change it to artist because I didn't -- one, Dr. Murray
didn't draw my attention to that; and I didn't remember that it read the same way. I would have changed it had I
seen it.
Ms. Stebbins: So you just didn't recall that the language was in there twice?
A. That's correct.
Q. But you did change paragraph 1 when Dr. Murray asked you to?
A. I did.
Q. Is there any reason other than you didn't remember it that you wouldn't have changed paragraph 4?
A. No reason at all.
Q. Okay. Let's look at the next change. Or I guess the next thing you can remember talking to Mr. Murray
about on the phone. Let's go through it that way, because going through this a page at a time might take a while.
Do you remember discussing any other changes with Dr. Murray that day?
A. We -- we fixed the -- the Hawaii reference. I -- I don't remember anything else. Those were the key points
that I recall.
Q. So the major things you talked about with him on June 23rd were the changes to the term starting may 1,
the effective date,
And then also extending through march 2010, and the scope of services changing from producer to artist that
we just discussed?
Mr. Panish: Vague. Paragraph 1?
Ms. Stebbins: Yes, the change in paragraph 1 from producer to artist.
The witness: Yes.
Ms. Stebbins: Did you talk about anything else in the call with Dr. Murray on June 23rd?

Mr. Panish: Well, relating --

The witness: Not that -- not that I'm permitted -- no, not that I'm permitted to --
Mr. Panish: First of all, anything unrelated to changing the term of the contract would be hearsay, so she
shouldn't be asking that question.
Judge: Right. That's why I said maybe it would be best if you lead her so that she just doesn't launch into
something. Asking that kind of catchall question, she might launch into something that's been prohibited, and
she's not meaning to do it, it's just you're asking her a general question.
Ms. Stebbins: You know, your honor, on direct examination you're always trying not to be leading.
Judge: That's why I've repeatedly said I've given you permission to lead so you won't end up in that situation.
Q. On June 23rd, did you and Dr. Murray discuss the request that he help collect Michael Jackson's records --
medical records for the insurance company?
A. Yes.
Q. And had you discussed that with him at all prior to that, other than the email that you sent on June 18?
A. I had not.
Q. And was it in the June 23rd call that Dr. Murray indicated to you he would be willing to help in that
process?
A. Yes, he said he would work with Michael.
Q. Okay. Have we now covered the basic subject of the June 23rd call?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. After your June 23rd call, what did you do next?
A. I revised the agreement to reflect the revisions that we had discussed, and the ones I recalled, some I didn't
necessarily recall, and I sent it out.
Q. And let's go back to that first page of exhibit 8375. We were just looking at that a moment ago. Just blow
that up. Ms. Jorrie, we were just looking at this a moment ago, and I think you testified that this is the email
where you forwarded the -- you sent the revised version reflecting Dr. Murray's changes to him.
A. Yes. The email says a clean PDF. Version at the bottom, yes.
Q. Right. And here you call it a clean PDF. In the email, but you call it a final in the title of the document.
A. Yes.
Q. Was it the same kind of final that you were talking about in the last email?
A. It was.

Q. Now -- and I think you said the time on this is wrong, and you believe it was some hours earlier under
California time?
A. Yes.
Q. At this point in the process, and this is late in the evening on June 23rd -- not late -- at some point in the
evening on June 23rd, had you sent this draft to Mr. Jackson or any of his representatives?
A. No.
Q. And had you sent this draft to your client, AEG Live?
A. Yes.
Q. So you had sent the final -- the third version to them?
A. I did, forwarded it to AEG Live.
Q. Had you received any comments on the draft from Mr. Jackson?
Mr. Panish: Well -- Mr. Jackson?
Ms. Stebbins: Or that you understood came from Mr. Jackson.
Mr. Panish: She didn't send it to him.
Ms. Stebbins: That's why I'm asking did she otherwise receive comments. I'm asking did he send anything
back to her.
Judge: But there's no foundation that it was ever sent to Michael Jackson.
Ms. Stebbins: I think the answer is going to be no, that she wasn't in touch with him at all.
Judge: Assumes facts not in evidence. Sustained.
Ms. Stebbins: She did testify, your honor, that Dr. Murray told her he talked about the agreement with Mr.
Jackson, so I wanted to make sure she hadn't received any comments from Mr. Jackson.
Judge: Through Dr. Murray, which would be hearsay.
Ms. Stebbins: Or from any -- from any other source. It was a yes or no question.
Judge: Sustained.
Ms. Stebbins: All right.
Q. In any event, you had not been in communication with Mr. Jackson about this agreement?
A. Correct.
Q. All right. And is it possible that either Mr. Jackson or your client might have had further comments to this

agreement?
A. Of course.
Mr. Panish: Calls for speculation, no foundation.
Judge: Is it possible? Anything is possible, I suppose, but --
Ms. Stebbins: That's all I'm asking.
Judge: All right. Overruled. I'm sorry. What was your answer?
The witness: Yes, it's possible that I -- both AEG Live and Mr. Jackson could have had comments to the
draft.
Mr. Boyle: Your honor, I'm going to move to -- move to strike from the audience here that if the agreement
was never sent to Mr. Jackson, how is it possible that he would have comments on it?
Ms. Stebbins: Was it your understanding, Ms. Jorrie, that the agreement was at some point sent to Mr.
Jackson?
Judge: Sustained.
Mr. Panish: I object now to this next question. There's no foundation.
Ms. Stebbins: Was there a signature block on the agreement for Mr. Jackson?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you expect at some point that Mr. Jackson would look at the agreement and potentially sign the
signature block?
A. Absolutely.
Q. All right. At this point, did you have any comment from Mr. Jackson?
A. Not yet.
Q. Okay. And this is, I think, the third draft that you sent to Dr. Murray?
A. Yes.
Q. And this is on June 23rd, 2009?
A. That's correct.
Q. Did you have any further conversations with Dr. Murray after you sent him this draft agreement on June
23rd?
A. I did.
Q. Did that relate to the agreement?

A. No. It related to --
Mr. Panish: Well, your honor --
Ms. Stebbins: Your honor, there's no issue here.
Q. Did it relate to the insurance issue?
A. Yes.
Q. And did he call you to get Mr. Taylor the insurance broker's phone number?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, in discussions with Dr. Murray about collecting Mr. Jackson's medical records, was it ever your
understanding that the records were going to be sent to you, Ms. Jorrie?
A. It was never my understanding that the records would ever be sent to me.
Q. Who did you understand the records would be sent to?
A. To Mr. Taylor or the underwriters at the Lloyds of London.
Q. And did you ever see any of Mr. Jackson's medical records?
A. No.
Q. Now, you sent Mr. Jackson -- excuse me -- you sent Dr. Murray the third version of the agreement that we
were just discussing on June 23rd, right?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Did he ever sign that draft?
A. I believe he did.
Q. And why do you believe that?
A. Well, late in the evening on the 24th, I received a fax and it bore a signature of -- that purported to be Dr.
Murray's signature.
Q. So someone faxed a signed version of the agreement to your office?
A. Yes.
Q. And what did you do with the agreement once you received the signed copy by Dr. Murray?
A. I forwarded a copy of it to Mr. Trell.
Q. Did anyone from AEG Live ever sign the agreement that Dr. Murray signed, to your knowledge?

A. No.
Q. And what about Mr. Jackson? To your knowledge, did he ever sign the draft?
A. He did not.
Q. Now, we talked a moment ago about the fact that your -- that this draft had not been sent by you to Mr.
Jackson, correct?
A. We did talk about that.
Q. In connection with any other tours where you negotiated vendor agreements, have you ever negotiated
agreements for an artist's approval that you did not send to the artist at the first stage of the negotiation?
Mr. Panish: Well, I'm going to object as to irrelevant, others. If it's a physician's agreement, fine.
Ms. Stebbins: Your honor, I'm just trying to establish her general practice. It's been put at issue by Plaintiffs
in this lawsuit in any number of ways that there was something wrong with not sending it to Mr. Jackson's
representatives.
Mr. Panish: It also goes to expert testimony, what she's done on other occasions, what her standard of
practice is. She has no practice as to doctors, she's never done it.
Judge: Overruled. You may ask. You can cross on that.
Q. Have you ever -- have you ever negotiated vendor agreements in connection with other artists or other
events where you did not initially send the agreement to the artist.
A. Yes.
Q. Tell me about that.
A. Well, where -- where we understand the terms, we negotiate with the vendor and get the contract to a place
-- it's been very rare where -- well, there are occasions with different types of contracts where in my role
representing AEG Live there have been negotiations with third parties to negotiate the terms of an agreement
that might -- that needs to be approved by the artist. This -- I'll just leave it at that.
Q. Okay. And --
Judge: I'm not sure you answered the question.
Mr. Panish: Now it's opening up, just so we're clear, other negotiations and attorney communications, I'd be
able to cross-examine.
Judge: I don't know about attorney communications, but I'm not sure she answered the question.
Ms. Stebbins: I'm trying --
The witness: Please restate it.
Ms. Stebbins: I think it's a little confusing, Ms. Jorrie.

The witness: Yes.

Q. Have you ever negotiated a third-party vendor agreement in another tour?
A. I have.
Q. Or another matter?
A. Yes.
Q. For AEG Live?
A. Yes.
Q. In any of those instances, did you negotiate with a vendor several times before presenting the agreement to
the artist?
Mr. Panish: It's vague and ambiguous as to specifics; when, who.
Judge: Overruled.
The witness: Yes.
Ms. Stebbins: Why would you do that?
Mr. Panish: That's also irrelevant.
Judge: Overruled.
The witness: I -- the reason is, is the artist's representatives, attorneys, will then have a document that
hopefully is exactly what they want.
Q. And by that, what do you mean?
A. Well, one that has the terms that they would expect to see that would protect the interests of their client, to
the extent there's a need for their client to approve it.
Q. And is that unusual or improper, in your understanding?
Mr. Panish: Objection; that's a legal conclusion, what's proper and what's improper.
Judge: Sustained. But the question I have is if you don't talk to the artist, how do you know that it's in the
form
That would be approved by the artist? In other words, you say, "I hope by the end of it it's something that
contains all the terms they want." how down if you're not talking to the artist? Is it something that's maybe
talked about ahead of time, or --
The witness: Your honor, the types of --
Judge: Is it standard?
The witness: The types of vendor contracts are sell-offs or related agreements that an artist might be involved

in, would be something where we know -- know something about what the artist wants ahead of time. We get
information about that. Sometimes, for instance, in the case of a -- a stage or something that's production related
--
Judge: Like the LA Kings game, for example?
The witness: That would be a good example, except what I'm thinking of is the rare occasions where the artist
actually gets to approve the agreement. Sometimes we enter into agreements they never see. The idea is we
usually have a relationship with the attorney for the artist and we know what it is the artist wants, whether it's a
particular stage or lots of details. So that gets provided to me by my client; and in those instances when I have
been involved, I then know what it is that at least my client thinks the artist wants, and then also what I would
want, I guess, if I were them. And a lot of times we have worked with the various representatives of artists
depending on the type of agreement. This is my only doctor's agreement, though.
Mr. Panish: I would just object it's not this case.
Judge: Pardon?
Mr. Panish: It's not this case. In other words, what she's saying is not this case here.
Judge: Okay. Overruled.
Ms. Stebbins: Ms. Jorrie, in this instance, did you have, at the beginning, a general idea of what you thought
the terms of this agreement were supposed to be?
A. I did.
Q. And did you put those into the drafts?
A. I did.
Q. If Mr. Jackson had wanted changes, would you make those changes?
A. Of course.
Ms. Stebbins: Now, let's pull up the version of the agreement that I believe Dr. Murray ultimately signed.
And that is exhibit 168. I assume Plaintiffs have no issue with this, since it's been used dozens of times.
Mr. Panish: Is it in evidence?
Ms. Stebbins: Yes.
Mr. Panish: If it's in evidence, it's okay.
Judge: Which number is it?
Ms. Stebbins: Exhibit 168, your honor.
Mr. Panish: It will also be 343, I think.
Ms. Stebbins: By the way, are we taking --

Judge: We are. We started kind of late, though.

Ms. Stebbins: I'm happy to keep going. I just wanted to check in.
Judge: Let's go another ten minutes.
Ms. Stebbins: Okay. Ms. Jorrie -- let's turn to the last page of this document, pam, and let's just make sure
we're all on the same page.
Q. And do you have a copy of this one?
A. I don't, but I -- thank you.
Ms. Stebbins: Your honor should have one in a binder. The court: I have it.
Ms. Stebbins: I was going to say I can grab another one if I need. Ms. Jorrie, I've handed you exhibit 168.
Q. Do you know what this document is?
A. Yes. It's the version of the agreement that I last sent to Dr. Murray, signed by Dr. Murray.
Q. And so this is the version that you sent him on June 23rd that he then faxed back to you on June 24th?
A. Correct.
Q. And I just want to go through a couple of the provisions of this draft that we haven't already talked about.
A. All right.
Q. And I think we've actually covered a lot of it, but I'll just -- I just want to make sure. If you can turn to
paragraph 1, pam, on the first page. Ms. Jorrie, you testified a bit about this earlier. I want to ask you about the
middle of this paragraph. Well, actually, a couple of parts of it; the part at the top where it says Dr. Murray will
provide general medical care to the artist, and then the part in the middle where it says tending to the artist's
general medical needs and assisting and treating the artist in the case of a medical emergency.
A. Yes.
Q. Now, you testified earlier, if I understand correctly, that this came in part from a communication that you
had with Timm Woolley about terms that were to be included in the contract?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you ever talk to Dr. Murray about the specific care that he was providing to Mr. Jackson?
A. I did not.
Q. Did he ever tell you any kind of specific treatments that he was giving Mr. Jackson, or anything like that?
A. He did not tell me anything about what he was doing to treat Michael Jackson.
Q. Let's move down to paragraph 3. And I think we've talked a lot about this provision already. In the middle
of the paragraph, it says "Production managers shall remit payment to GCA in the amount of 150,000 per

month to be paid on the later of the 15th day of the month or five days after the execution and delivery of the
agreement." Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. And we've talked a bunch about that already today, right?
A. Yes.
Q. My question here is, did Dr. Murray ever ask you to change this provision?
A. Never.
Q. Did he ever raise any issues about it with you?
A. Not at all.
Q. And did he ever ask you for payment?
A. Never.
Q. Let's turn to paragraph 4. We talked a bit about paragraph 4.1 already. Actually, let's take a step back.
Generally what is paragraph 4? What did it cover?
A. Paragraph 4 is the provision that sets forth any additional responsibilities of, in this case, GCA or Dr.
Murray or the consultant, whoever is being --
Q. So these are sort of Dr. Murray and GCA's obligations, that's what this was supposed to relate to? I'm just
trying to figure out who we're talking about in the paragraph. I'm not trying to offer a legal conclusion.
Judge: Overruled. You may --
Mr. Panish: I didn't object.
Judge: You didn't. You looked like you were about to. We were reading your mind. All right. Just continue.
Ms. Stebbins: This refers to Dr. Murray and GCA Holdings, what they're supposed to do, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And we talked about 4.1 already. I want to briefly have you walk through the other provisions in this
paragraph.
A. Yes.
Q. First off, were the other provisions that were carryovers from that form agreement, or did you write these?
A. Some of both.
Q. Which is which?
A. Well, so 4.2, that's standard, so adhere to the laws, policies, rules and regulations applicable to the services

as provided by Dr. Murray. Then 4.3, pretty standard, also, obtain, maintain, comply with any licenses,
approvals. Whatever is necessary for him to do the services that he's doing, he needs to comply with, you know,
everything, just to say -- he needs to make sure that he complies -- obtains, maintains, complies with all licenses
and government approvals in any way, shape or form. And then 4.4, this one is not standard. This one, I put in.
And it provides that he was to provide documented proof of any and all licenses required by Dr. Murray to
practice medicine in the United States and to perform the services under this agreement. And then 4.5, he was to
present by no later than July 3rd, 2009, documented proof that he had obtained any and all licenses required for
Dr. Murray to practice medicine in the united kingdom, and to perform the services under the agreement.
Q. And did you ever discuss the requirement with Dr. Murray that he become licensed -- obtain whatever
permission was required to practice medicine in the United Kingdom?
A. I did.
Q. Do you remember when you discussed that with him?
A. It was either on the 19th or the 23rd.
Q. And he said it wouldn't be a problem? What did you discuss about that?
A. So sorry. If you could speak up a little bit.
Q. I'm very sorry. Let me make sure -- I'm having a little trouble hearing you, as well. If I understood you
correctly, you said that you raised this provision with Dr. Murray, and he said it would not be a problem.
A. That's right.
Q. Was there anything else discussed about this provision?
A. Just July 3rd was the date he was planning to go to London with Michael.
Q. Did Dr. Murray ever raise any issues with paragraph 4.2, 3, 4 or 5?
A. No, not at all.
Q. And we talked a little bit earlier about paragraph 7. Let's turn back to that for a second. It looks to me like
paragraph 4 and paragraph 7 address some of the same issues, and I was just going to ask is that correct.
A. I'm not following the question, Ms. Stebbins.
Q. Sure. Let me ask it differently. In paragraph 7, does it provide that Dr. Murray could -- the agreement with
Dr. Murray could be terminated if he did not provide proof of licenses and maintain -- comply with all those
things we were just talking about in paragraph 4?
A. Yes.
Q. Let's turn briefly to section 8. Ms. Jorrie, where did this come from?
A. Two places. It came from our standard independent contractor vendor agreement, and then I made some
changes throughout.
Q. Do you recall what changes you made?

A. If I read it all, I would find them -- Dr. Murray, referring to his family -- there were some changes
throughout.
Q. Did you ever discuss this provision with Dr. Murray?
A. He did not request any revisions to this provision.
Q. Did you ever talk about it at all?
A. Only to the extent it overlaps with things that I've told you about.
Q. And did he ever raise any issues with this provision; suggest that there was any problem with it?
A. None at all.
Ms. Stebbins: Let's turn to section 9. I may have already asked you this question.
Mr. Panish: You did.
Ms. Stebbins: Ms. Jorrie, did you ever discuss paragraph 9 with Dr. Murray?
A. Only in the context I've relayed, the conversation I've relayed to you so far.
Q. And in which conversation are you referring to there?
A. When he wanted to date the agreement as of May 1, and I drew his attention to needing to date the
signature.
Q. Got it. Did Dr. Murray ever raise any concerns or ask you to change any part of this provision?
A. He did not.
Judge: Okay. Let's take our break now. Ten minutes.
(Break)
Judge: Katherine Jackson versus AEG Live. You may continue.
Ms. Stebbins: Ms. Jorrie, we were leaving off discussing the last version of the independent contractor
agreement that you sent to Dr. Murray. And I'd like to turn to the last page of this document. And blow up the
bottom half. Ms. Jorrie, I want to draw your attention to a couple of things on this page. The first one is the date
of June 24th, 2009.
A. Yes.
Q. Did you put that in?
A. I did.
Q. And where did that date come from?

A. It's the date that I presumed would be the date of signature if all the parties identified reviewed, approved
and decided to sign it.
Q. And did you have any knowledge at that point as to whether Mr. Jackson would or would not actually sign
the document on June 24th?
A. I had no knowledge whatsoever.
Q. And was that date given to you by your client or by any representatives for Mr. Jackson?
A. No.
Q. Is it -- as we sit here today, do you know whether if Mr. Jackson had not passed, he would have signed this
agreement on June 24th?
A. I do not know if he would have signed it or not.
Q. And then the other thing I wanted to ask about is this provision at the very bottom that we talked about a
couple of times. And you testified earlier that you put this provision into the draft agreement.
A. I did.
Q. Have you ever put a similar provision in any other independent contractor agreement that you've drafted in
connection with a tour or an artist?
Mr. Panish: It's not relevant.
Ms. Stebbins: That was sent to a third party.
Mr. Panish: It's not relevant.
Judge: "have you ever put in this particular provision?"
Ms. Stebbins: Yes, a provision like this on an agreement -- I'll limit it to AEG Live.
Mr. Panish: It's not relevant to what she's done in other cases as to this case.
Ms. Stebbins: Your honor, I think it's relevant.
Judge: Overruled. You may answer.
The witness: I have not ever put this provision in any other agreement on behalf of AEG Live with a third
party, pertaining to a third party.
Ms. Stebbins: Why did you include it here?
A. Because we're talking about Michael Jackson's personal physician.
Q. And then, Ms. Jorrie, after Dr. Murray faxed the signature page back to you on June 24th, did you ever
have any further communications with him?
A. No.

Q. So just to recap briefly to make sure I've covered everything, you first became involved in negotiating this
agreement with Dr. Murray in late May or early June 2009; is that right? Or mid to late May 2009?
Mr. Panish: this is cumulative, asked and answered. We went over this.
Judge: Is this your last --
Ms. Stebbins: Your honor, I'm briefly recapping the timeline and I'm going to pass the witness. I just want to
make sure we've got the whole story in.
Judge: Overruled. You may.
The witness: I didn't start negotiations with Dr. Murray until I spoke to him for the first time on June 18.
Ms. Stebbins: And you sent Dr. Murray the first draft on June 15, slash, 16th? 15th is when you sent it, 16th
is when he got it?
A. Yes.
Q. And no drafts of this agreement were sent to Dr. Murray before that time?
A. Correct.
Q. And then on June 18, you spoke to Dr. Murray?
A. Yes.
Q. And then on June 19th, you did some -- June 18th, you did the internet research on Dr. Murray?
A. I did.
Q. Including verifying that he was licensed in all four states where he claimed he was?
A. Yes.
Q. And that his company was in good standing?
Mr. Panish: Every question is leading. Counsel is testifying.
Judge: Overruled. She's just recapping.
The witness: Yes.
Ms. Stebbins: And then on June 19, you spoke to Mr. Phillips and conveyed that information to him?
A. Yes.
Q. And then on June 19th, you also sent another version of the agreement to Dr. Murray? Or 18th, slash, 19th
I think is another one where it got forwarded.
A. It was right before midnight, if I recall correctly, in Los Angeles.

Q. And then on June 23rd, Dr. Murray called you with some further requested revisions?
A. Actually, I'm not sure about the time I just said. I'd have to look to refresh my recollection because of the
time difference.
Q. So either the 18th or the 19th?
A. No; I just mean the time of day.
Q. Oh, gotcha. You're not sure whether it was right before midnight or not?
A. Correct. I think it says midnight. Do you want me to look?
Q. No.
A. Okay.
Q. June 18; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And on June 19, you had your call with Mr. Phillips; and then on June 23rd, Dr. Murray called you about
the June 18th revisions?
A. On June 23rd, yes.
Q. And then on June 23rd, you sent him a third draft; and on June 24th, he signed that third draft?
A. Yes.
Q. Is there any communication that you had with Dr. Conrad Murray that -- any time that you spoke or
emailed Dr. Conrad Murray that we have not talked about today?
A. Subject to the court's rulings, yes.
Q. Just any time you spoke with him.
A. Oh, yes, there's no other time that I spoke to him.
Q. So the phone calls and the emails that we discussed today?
A. That's correct.
Ms. Stebbins: Nothing further.
The witness: Excuse me. If you're asking an email, there was an email that I forwarded to him with some
instructions or -- if you --
Ms. Stebbins: Relating to the insurance matter?
A. It was something that followed up on a conversation I had with him regarding insurance, and he wanted to
know what the insurers needed for medical insurance. There's an email that provides some information, and

then a follow-up email that provides him with the phone number to the agent at Lloyds of London.
Q. And were those at about June 23rd?
A. The -- right about the same time. It all occurred June 23rd, yes. Sounds correct.
Q. And with that addendum, have we covered all the times that you spoke to or emailed Dr. Conrad Murray?
A. Yes.
Ms. Stebbins: Nothing further at this time, your honor.
Judge: Thank you. Cross-examination?
Mr. Panish: Yes.
Direct examination by Mr. Panish:

Q. Good afternoon.
A. Good afternoon.
Q. You're not here as an independent witness, are you?
Ms. Stebbins: Objection; argumentative.
Judge: Overruled.
The witness: What do you mean by that, Mr. Panish?
Mr. Panish: You don't know what an independent witness is as a trial lawyer that you've told us about?
Ms. Stebbins: Objection; argumentative.
Judge: Overruled.
The witness: What do you mean by that, Mr. Panish?
Mr. Panish: Well, are you being paid for work that you've done in this case, ma'am?
A. I'm not being paid as I sit here today.
Q. Ma'am, you've been paid millions and millions of dollars, your law firm, by AEG Live, haven't you?
A. Since 19- -- I mean 2000?
Q. Ma'am --
A. Yes.

Q. -- could you answer -- if you I don't understand the question, please let me know. You know how this
works because you've been in trials like this questioning witnesses, haven't you?
A. I have been.
Q. In fact, you've represented Paul Gongaware and Randy Phillips when they've been sued before, haven't
you?
A. I have.
Q. And they're friends of yours, aren't they?
A. I like to think all my clients are friends of mine, Mr. Panish.
Q. I'm only asking about these two.
A. They're business friends, I suppose would be appropriate. They're clients.
Q. So if Mr. Gongaware or Mr. Phillips testified in this case that they've never been sued, that would be false,
wouldn't it, ma'am?
A. I don't know what they testified to.
Q. My question was if they testified under oath from that witness stand that they've never been sued, you
know that's not true, don't you?
A. I actually, just to clarify my answer, sir, don't recall ever representing Randy Phillips in his individual
capacity.
Q. Okay.
A. But I do remember representing Paul Gongaware.
Q. Right. So if he said under oath he's never been sued individually, that would be a false statement under
oath, wouldn't it, ma'am?
A. I don't know what he said, so --
Q. You -- I'm asking you to assume that he said that.
Ms. Stebbins: Objection; improper hypothetical.
Judge: Overruled.
The witness: Mr. Panish, I am aware that Mr. Gongaware, I believe, was sued once; but I'd want to double
check that to be absolutely certain.
Mr. Panish: Well, you've testified in other matters that you represented Mr. Gongaware, haven't you?
A. Yes.
Q. Under oath?

A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Now, you, in this case, brought -- did you bring that contract that you copied the -- the language for
in this case? Did you bring that with you today?
A. No.
Q. Did you bring documents with you today?
A. Other than the ones I produced previously, no.
Q. Okay. Because you brought a big briefcase with you, didn't you?
A. I did.
Q. Did you review documents to refresh your recollection to testify here today, ma'am?
A. I did, and I -- I misunderstood. I thought you meant did I bring documents to give to you, Mr. Panish.
Q. I didn't say -- we've never met, have we?
A. I don't think so.
Q. Okay. You seem to know my name well, though.
A. Yes, I do.
Q. But we've never had the pleasure of meeting, have we?
A. No, we haven't.
Q. So you reviewed documents to refresh your recollection to testify here today, didn't you?
A. I did.
Q. Okay. And you reviewed your time sheets to look at the specific dates on which you did work, didn't you?
A. I reviewed -- no. I did review a time sheet to identify -- a time record to identify when I had the call with
Randy Phillips.
Q. And that refreshed your recollection to testify here, didn't you?
A. That time entry definitely refreshed my recollection.
Q. Because professionals keep itemization of the time they work and what they do, don't they?
Ms. Stebbins: Objection; lacks foundation as to professionals outside the legal profession, your honor.
Mr. Panish: No, no, no. She knows.
Judge: Sustained.

Mr. Panish: Oh.

Q. Do you hire expert witnesses all the time, ma'am?
A. I do, on occasion, sure.
Q. And you do that on behalf of clients? You retain expert witnesses to work on cases where you're
representing a client, right?
Ms. Stebbins: Objection, your honor. All of this is beyond the scope.
Judge: Overruled.
The witness: I -- I missed part of your question, but I think the gist was do I hire experts. Yes. Do I keep track
of my time? Yes. Do other attorneys keep track of their
Time? Yes. That's not unusual in my profession, to keep track of time if you're billing your client by the hour.
Mr. Panish: Okay. I haven't finished my question, but that's -- thank you for that.
The witness: You're welcome.
Mr. Panish: Okay.
Q. And you told us in your direct examination that you're a trial attorney, among other things, right?
A. That's true.
Q. And a trial attorney, that's someone that comes to court like this representing a client and does
A. Trial like this, right?
A. I don't know if anyone could say they've done a trial just like this, Mr. Panish; but yes.
Q. Okay. And when you're representing clients, you hire expert witnesses, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And as a trial attorney, you monitor what the expert witnesses do, don't you?
A. Depending on the expert and the arrangement, yes.
Q. You pay the experts for the work they do, don't you?
A. Again, it depends; but normally, yes.
Q. Do you usually hire experts that work for free?
A. No.
Q. Okay. And the expert submitted to you --

Ms. Stebbins: Your honor --

Judge: Hold on.
Mr. Panish: -- bills --
Ms. Stebbins: -- I'm going to renew my objection that all of this is beyond the scope.
Judge: Even if I sustain the objection, he can call her in his case or rebuttal and go through this all over again,
so I'm going to shortcut this process and allow him to go into it on cross.
Mr. Panish: So you hire experts and you want to make sure that they're billing you for work they do, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And your experience is the experts write down specifically the work they did and the hours they spent so
you can see it before they pay their bill, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And that's the experience that you've had with professionals that are expert witnesses that you've identified
in cases, they give you itemization of the work they've done and the charges, correct?
Ms. Stebbins: I'm going to object; vague as to "professionals," your honor.
Mr. Panish: Expert witnesses.
Ms. Stebbins: Your honor, there's all different kinds of expert witnesses in the world; and I don't think they
all bill in the same way.
Mr. Panish: Is that -- I'll rephrase the question.
Q. Ms. Jorrie, you hire expert witnesses, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Have you ever paid an expert $700,000?
A. I have not.
Q. Have you ever paid an expert $500,000 with no itemization of the specific work they did?
A. No.
Q. You wouldn't do that, would you?
A. Depends on the situation.
Q. Okay. Well, now, Ms. Jorrie, the contract that you copied that you compared, do you have a copy of that,
ma'am?
A. I do.

Q. Okay. And where is it?

A. It's at my office.
Q. So you can bring it tomorrow for us, no problem?
A. With a proper subpoena.
Q. So without a subpoena, you won't give it to us; is that right?
A. The -- Mr. Panish, there's nothing to hide in that except the particular privacy concerns of the individual
who was involved in that contract. Otherwise, you'd be more than happy to see it.
Q. So you can bring it tomorrow for me, then. You can take out the names, because you've told us how you
compared it to that document and when you wrote this document, you used that as a template, right?
A. I did.
Q. And you can easily bring that so I can question you about that tomorrow, right?
A. I could, yes. I could.
Q. Are you refusing to bring that?
A. For you, Mr. Panish, no.
Q. Thank you. Now let's talk about the materials that you reviewed. A. May I ask a question? I would like to
redact the personal private information of the individual involved. Do you have any objections to that?
Q. Absolutely not.
A. Thank you.
Q. Now let's talk about the work -- the materials that you reviewed in this case to prepare you to testify. How
many times have you met with Ms. Stebbins to prepare your testimony?
A. I met with her on Friday and I met with her on Sunday.
Q. Two days only?
A. And her assistant, Cameron Biscay.
Q. So you met with the lawyers from OMelveny & Myers at least twice; is that right?
A. Two times.
Q. Did you meet with them -- by the way, they were your lawyers representing you at your deposition, weren't
they?
A. Yes, they were.

Q. And did you meet with them before you gave your deposition in this case?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. So you had three meetings only with them in this case?
A. Ever? They -- yes, I think so.
Q. So is that a yes?
A. Yes, that I recall.
Q. Well, your time sheets would accurately reflect all the times you met with them, wouldn't they?
A. I don't know.
Q. Well, what is your hourly rate --
Ms. Stebbins: Objection; relevance.
Mr. Panish: That you charge AEG Live for all the work that you've done in the last -- now? What is your
hourly rate?
Judge: Overruled.
The witness: $595 an hour, sir.
Mr. Panish: Okay.
Q. So let's get back to the -- so they're not paying you -- you're not going to bill them for this testimony in this
case?
A. I am not.
Q. Okay. How much have you billed them so far for all the work you did on the Michael Jackson "this is it"
case, the work for the concert -- you drafted the document for Mr. Jackson's contract, right?
A. The tour agreement -- yes, I --
Q. You drafted Dr. Tohme's agreement, didn't you?
A. I did, with the assistance -- you know, I supported Mr. Trell and --
Q. But I think you told us that you get involved with Mr. Trell for important or significant contracts. Is that
your testimony today?
A. That tends to be the case, or contracts that his in-house staff can't accommodate.
Q. But you said important or significant contracts, didn't you?
A. I said that tends to be the case, yes.

Q. So how much have you billed AEG Live since you first came to work for the "this is it" project?
A. On "this is it" related matters?
Q. Yes.
A. Well, that work started in October of 2008. And would you include litigation that arises out of --
Q. Everything that you've done for AEG Live, how much?
Ms. Stebbins: I'm just going to object, vague and potentially relevance and potentially some 352 issues as it
relates to other litigations.
Judge: I don't think you're asking for other litigations.
Mr. Panish: I want to know what she's billed them for any work for "this is it," anything -- all-encompassing
that her law firms have billed the Defendant that she's been called to testify on behalf of here today.
Judge: So including the Lloyds of London litigation.
Mr. Panish: She's not in Lloyds of London.
Ms. Stebbins: Your honor, there's a number of issues that might be better addressed in a sidebar.
Mr. Panish: It doesn't matter, your honor. The only question is how much has her law firm been paid --
Judge: I know what you're asking.
Mr. Panish: -- by the Defendants. That's all. I don't need to get into specific lawsuits.
Ms. Stebbins: It may relate to a number of different matters. I'm trying to limit it to the "this is it" tour, I
guess, and I don't want to open the floodgates to things Plaintiffs have moved in limine not to discuss.
Judge: I'm assuming if you've moved in limine that you don't want them discussed, you're not going to ask a
question that's going to elicit that.
Mr. Panish: I just want to know a number. I'm asking how much.
Q. Can you give us an estimate?
A. The better way for me to try to answer your question is not separate matters up because I don't have in my
head how much was billed on this matter, this matter, this matter.
Q. Just the overall estimate?
A. Of all matters, of all matters, I'm just -- yes?
Q. Can you answer?
A. Is it all matters, Mr. Panish? I want to --
Q. How much have you been paid by AEG Live for work that you've done related in any way to "this is it"?

That's all I'm asking.

A. So just limited to "this is it"?
Q. Well, anything related to "this is it." just give a -- was it more than 20 million?
A. No, no. Of course not.
Q. Was it more than 10 million?
A. No.
Q. Was it more than 5 million?
A. No.
Q. So what's your -- what's your total?
A. On "this is it" related, so -- the reason I'm saying this is because we have different matters, and you expect
me to have memorized it.
Q. No. The easy way to do that would just to be to get your billings that you have, right? You have summaries
in the computer of the matters and the amount that have been billed, right?
A. We have bills, and I do many matters with AEG, and I charge them for it. And I can have many matters in
the same month, and we send out bills for all those matters, and it adds up to a lot of money.
Q. Well, I just want you to answer my question, please.
A. I don't have in my --
Q. You're the managing partner of the law firm, are you not?
A. I'm the office managing partner of the Los Angeles office of McKenna, long & Aldridge.
Q. And you keep computerized track -- you have
A. Separate billing department in your law firm, don't you?
A. We have an accounting department.
Q. And you keep track of all of the hours that are billed by the attorneys, don't you?
A. Yes, Mr. Panish. I'm not trying to be evasive. I just can't separate -- I don't have in my head the precise
amount that was billed on matters related to "this is it." for one, I'm not entirely sure if you're including the
probate matter where I represented, AEG, if you're including --
Mr. Panish: Your honor, could she please answer the question? It's very simple.
Judge: It sounds like she doesn't know.
Mr. Panish: Okay.

Q. So the best way to know, then, would be to go to the computer and print out all that information, wouldn't
it, Ms. Jorrie?
A. The best way to know is first to determine what it is you're talking about, what matters; and number 2, to
ask my accounting department to provide a spreadsheet that would give the information on the -- on the matters.
Q. And you could easily do that, it's all computerized?
A. Just lump it all together, figure out everything that's "this is it" related, Michael Jackson related, other
litigation related, and put it all in one sum, and I would hand it to you.
Q. So you can do that?
A. A dollar amount?
Q. Easily do that?
A. Could I do it? I suppose, if --
Ms. Stebbins: I would just object to relevance, your honor. I think that there's -- the witness has testified she
has many, many matters for AEG Live. I'm not sure that we need to know the specific amount that she's billed.
Judge: Overruled.
Mr. Panish: So can you do that for us?
A. To give you one figure --
Q. Yeah.
A. -- for that which I think is related? Yes.
Q. Okay. So let's go back now to this -- you said you've had 300 matters for AEG Live, correct?
A. Yes, just about, 300.
Q. Okay. And you went and looked somewhere and found out that you had 300 matters, because you wrote
that under oath, didn't you?
A. I did.
Q. So how did you determine that you've had 300 matters for AEG Live?
A. Because I'm up to matter number 297 for AEG Live.
Q. Oh, so you keep track, then, each file has
A. Number, a specific number, a general number in the firm, and then a specific number for the client, right?
A. Yes.

Q. So you can tell that now you've had 297 matters for AEG Live, correct?
A. That's right.
Q. And it has a specific file number in your office, right?
A. That's right.
Q. And all you have to do is search the software for all AEG file numbers, 1 through 297, and that will be all
printed out, right?
A. That's not all related to "this is it."
Q. No. I'm just saying AEG Live in general.
A. I could tally it all up and ask the accounting department to give me a total.
Q. Well, all you have to do is -- strike that. So how many matters have you had for AEG?
A. The firm? In the teens or 20's --
Q. So you've had 297 --
A. -- would be my best estimate.
Q. -- for AEG Live, and in the 20's for AEG; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. How many matters for concerts west?
A. Concerts West is a touring division of AEG Live, and so that would fall under AEG Live.
Q. But you told us that you represented concerts west before they were acquired by AEG Live, didn't you? A.
Yes, there's -- there's two -- two companies. There's Concerts West limited, which was owned by the
predecessors; and then that company got bought; and then AEG Live was created in 2000, 2001. From that
point in time on, it was AEG Live.
Q. I'm not asking --
A. AEG Live's tour division goes by Concerts West.
Q. I'm talking about concerts west before AEG Live bought them. You worked for them, didn't you?
A. I did, yes.
Q. How many matters did you have for them?
A. I would -- somewhere between 5 and 20, probably.
Q. And those -- that was Mr. Gongaware and Mr. Meglen, correct?

A. They were -- yes, they were involved in that company.

Q. And you represented them when they were sued as concerts west? That's how you first met them, correct?
A. No; but you're close.
Q. Well, they were accused of stealing the name, the trademark concerts west, and there was a lawsuit, and
you represented them, didn't you?
Ms. Stebbins: Your honor, I would object that that mischaracterizes the lawsuit, and that case was dismissed,
so to imply that Mr. Gongaware or Mr. Meglen were guilty of stealing anything is inappropriate.
Judge: Sustained. Did the D.A. bring the case?
Mr. Panish: No.
Judge: Then it's not stealing. Refrain from using the word "stealing." there's a civil description of it, it's a civil
case. Accurately describe it.
Mr. Panish: Did somebody sue Mr. Gongaware and Mr. Meglen for violating the trademark of the owner of
the name Concerts West, and you represented them?
A. Somebody made such an allegation.
Q. And you were paid to represent them, weren't you?
A. Yes.
Q. And you did a lot of work on that case, didn't you?
A. I did.
Q. And you were paid by Mr. Gongaware and Mr. Meglen to represent them in that case, correct?
A. Yes, I was paid by the parties I represented to do the work that I did, concerts west limited.
Q. Is that a yes?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. So let's go now -- the 300 matters -- excuse me -- 297 for AEG Live, 20 something for AEG, and the
matters for concerts west with Meglen and Gongaware -- how much have you received in compensation, you
and your law firm, for those matters?
A. We're not -- for everything?
Q. That's right.
Ms. Stebbins: Just to preserve the record, your honor, I would object to relevance. I don't see why the total
amount she's billed over 12 years is -- and her firm has billed -- other attorneys in her firm has billed is --

Judge: Overruled.
The witness: I don't have the number, Mr. Panish; but it has been a sizable sum of money.
Mr. Panish: Can you give us a -- would it be in the millions of dollars?
A. Yes, for all of those matters over -- now we're talking 15 years, it would be in the millions of dollars.
Q. Well, AEG Live has been in existence since when, ma'am?
A. 2000, 2001. Originally it was called AEG Concerts LLC
Q. So in the 12 years since AEG Live has been in existence, you and your law firm have received millions and
millions of dollars in legal fees; isn't that true?
A. I believe you're right, but your earlier question also included a few years before that.
Q. Could you please answer my question? I'll answer (sic) it again.
Ms. Stebbins: Your honor, the witness did answer the question.
Judge: She did.
Mr. Panish: My previous question wasn't the question I asked. It's very simple.
Q. Since AEG Live --
Judge: She's answered the question.
Mr. Panish: -- came in existence --
Ms. Stebbins: Your honor, the witness has answered the question. She said, "I believe you're right." I think --
Judge: Yes. Sustained.
Mr. Panish: How many multi-millions of dollars have you and your law firm been paid?
A. I don't know the full amount.
Q. Give me -- give me your best estimate within 5 million.
A. Oh, boy. From 2000, right? Not including Concerts West limited?
Q. That's right.
A. Gosh. It could be over 5 million over that period of time.
Q. It's well in excess of 5 million, isn't it?
A. That, I don't know. But 5 million is a lot of money.
Q. Well, you can find that out for us, though, can't you?

A. If you need to know the answer, I could find that out.

Q. All right. So let me ask you this. You were telling us about all the documents you reviewed to prepare for
your testimony. Please tell me what they are.
A. Okay. So I reviewed quite a bit. I reviewed the -- the trial testimony.
Q. Trial testimony of whom?
A. Of Dr. Conrad Murray. I testified, so my trial testimony.
Q. Oh, your testimony. Okay.
A. Yes. I reviewed the deposition I gave you, one of your attorneys in this case.
Q. Okay. Right.
A. All the exhibits that you presented to me, all the drafts of the tour agreement and -- that went to Michael
Jackson's representatives.
Q. So you have the drafts of the tour agreements? You reviewed those to refresh your recollection?
A. I -- I reviewed them.
Q. Okay. Do you have those with you?
A. I wasn't required to bring those.
Q. Well, next -- keep going on.
A. Okay. So the -- the drafts of the tour agreement that went to Michael Jackson's representatives, the emails
that went to his representatives, the drafts of the Dr. Murray agreements, the emails that went to Dr. Murray. I
reviewed the time entry that allowed me to identify the timing in which I spoke to Mr. Phillips.
Q. Anything else?
A. I'm thinking. That's what I recall. It seems -- let me think.
Q. Well, if you think of something, you can tell me. Okay?
A. Okay.
Q. Those documents you reviewed, they refreshed your recollection as to the events that you testified about
when Ms. Stebbins questioned you, right?
A. Only a couple of them refreshed my recollection about the matters in which I testified, sir. Not all of them.
Q. Well, the time sheet did, right?
A. The one time entry did.

Q. Okay. That time sheet you reviewed. How many times sheets did you review?
A. I reviewed a single time entry.
Q. Okay. Did you bring that with you?
A. I did.
Q. Can I see it?
A. Sure.
Q. Is that another lawyer from your firm?
A. It is.
Q. Is he holding some of the documents that you reviewed?
A. No, not that I know of. I have to look at what he has.
Q. He wasn't holding this?
A. No. I gave him that I asked him to hold it in case you wanted it, Mr. Panish.
Q. Because you know as a trial lawyer if a witness reviews documents to testify, you have to turn them over,
right?
A. I disagree with that.
Mr. Putnam: Objection, your honor; misstates the law. You don't have to turn them over. It has to be
requested.
Judge: If it's requested.
Mr. Panish: Upon request, you have to turn them over, right.
The witness: If something refreshed my recollection about testimony that I gave in these proceedings, and
you requested that I turn it over, I absolutely agree with you, with that change.
Mr. Panish: Okay.
Q. So you were telling us about Dr. Murray and the length of his contract. You knew, did you not, that
Michael Jackson was going on a two- to three-year worldwide tour? Isn't that true?
A. That's not true.
Q. Do you remember meeting with the Los Angeles Police Department in this case?
A. I do.
Q. Do you remember going with Mr. Putnam to the Los Angeles Police Department to be interviewed?

A. Yes.
Mr. Putnam: Objection; lacks foundation, "Going to the Los Angeles Police Department."
The witness: Right, true.
Mr. Panish: Well, Mr. Putnam and you were present when you were interviewed by a detective from the Los
Angeles Police Department; isn't that true?
A. That's true.
Q. And before coming here today, did you review your statement that you gave to the police department when
Mr. Putnam was present?
Ms. Stebbins: Objection; misstates the record that Ms. Jorrie gave a statement to the police department. There
is a summary of Ms. Jorrie's statements to the police that was created by the police department, but it was not
created by Ms. Jorrie, so that's just a misstatement of the record.
Mr. Panish: That's a speaking objection.
Judge: I don't understand that objection.
Ms. Stebbins: It's not her statement, your honor.
Mr. Panish: It's bogus.
Ms. Stebbins: We've seen police statements where there's actually a transcript of what the witness said, or the
witness gave the statement to the police, and we've seen statements where the witness was interviewed and the
police made a statement. With Mr. Gongaware, there were errors in that.
Judge: What was that, a recorded interview or something like that?
Mr. Panish: Did you go and meet with the police department and discuss whether or not Mr. Jackson was
going to do a worldwide tour?
A. No. The police came to my office, and they had questions, and I answered the questions that they posed to
me.
Q. And did the police department ask you whether or not the European tour was just the beginning?
A. I don't know if they asked that or if that's -- came up in the conversation. I don't recall it.
Q. Well, let me show you your police statement, see if this refreshes your recollection. Do you remember the
name of the detective that came -- strike that. When you were with the detective, did you tell the truth?
A. Of course.
Q. Did you know that it was important to his investigation that you be truthful?
A. Absolutely.
Q. Did you discuss the contract that AEG -- that you were negotiating for Mr. -- Dr. Murray?

A. Yes.
Mr. Panish: Okay. I'm going to show you now your police statement.
Ms. Stebbins: Your honor, again, I would object to his characterization as her police statement. This is a
statement created by the police.
Mr. Boyle: For the record, your honor, trial exhibit 5, dash, 1268 through 1269, entitled "Los Angeles Police
Department Ivestigative Action," slash, "Statement Frm."
Judge: Okay. That's what it will be called, the statement form. Thank you, Mr. Boyle.
Mr. Panish: Do you see that, Ms. Jorrie? You've reviewed that before, haven't you, ma'am?
A. I've seen it before.
Q. You reviewed that before you came here to testify, didn't you?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Okay. And isn't it true --
Judge: Have her read it to herself. She's refreshing.
The witness: It does not refresh my recollection of anything that I said.
Mr. Panish: Well, we'll bring the police officer in. But let me ask you this.
Q. Did you tell -- did Mr. Putnam tell the Los Angeles Police Department that Michael Jackson was going to
do a world tour that would last two to three years?
A. Not that I recall, sir.
Q. Did you tell the Los Angeles -- did Mr. Putnam and Ms. Jorrie tell the Los Angeles Police Department that
the European tour was just the beginning, and that Michael Jackson was going to do a world tour that would last
two to three years?
A. Not that I recall.
Q. So do you deny making that statement to the Los Angeles Police Department?
A. That's not my statement, and I did not say that. It doesn't refresh my recollection of any such conversation.
Q. Ms. Jorrie, did you tell the Los Angeles Police Department that Mr. Jackson, when he finished the
European portion in London, was going to go on a two- to three-year worldwide tour, yes or no?
A. No.
Q. Okay. So you deny making that statement; is that correct?
A. In that way, yes.
Q. Okay. And you're as sure of that as anything that you've testified here when Ms. Stebbins was questioning

you, correct?
A. Pretty sure I wouldn't have said it quite like that, sir.
Q. Did you tell the Los Angeles Police Department that Mr. Jackson was going to go on a worldwide tour
after London?
A. I'd be happy to tell you what I said to them if you'd like to hear it.
Q. Can you answer my question, please? Did you tell the Los Angeles Police Department -- first of all, let's
start with Mr. Putnam. Did Mr. Putnam tell the Los Angeles Police Department that Michael Jackson was going
to do a world tour that would last two to three years?
A. I don't think so, sir.
Q. So you deny that he said that, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And you deny that you told the Los Angeles Police Department that when -- that Michael Jackson was
going to do a world tour that would last two to three years, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you deny telling that to Officer Smith, correct?
A. That's right.
Q. And so do you -- you're as sure of that as all the testimony you've given here today, correct?
A. I'm pretty sure I -- yes.
Q. Okay. So if detective smith were to come in here and say you made that statement, then he'd be lying,
right?
Ms. Stebbins: Objection; calls for speculation as to Detective Smith's mental state, and lacks foundation that
he's going to come in and testify to anything of the sort, your honor.
Mr. Panish: He's gonna.
The witness: He would be mistaken, Mr. Panish.
Judge: Overruled.
Q. Can you tell us did detective smith not like you?
A. No. He was -- he was quite friendly, actually.
Q. Could you tell us the reason why -- that you know of why detective smith would fabricate a statement
made by Mr. Putnam and yourself and put it in an official report of the Los Angeles Police Department?
A. Yes, because he -- he misunderstood what it was I was saying to him about

the tour agreement.

Q. Well, did you call him up and say, "You misunderstood what I told you"?
A. I didn't even receive that report for some time.
Q. When you testified in the criminal case, you reviewed it, didn't you?
A. I'd have to remember if I had it.
Q. The district attorney met with you and showed you this police statement before you testified; isn't that true?
A. I don't think that's true, Mr. Panish.
Q. So you never reviewed -- let me -- let's get to that one, then. You never reviewed this Los Angeles Police
Department investigative action statement form attributed to you before you testified under oath in the criminal
case; is that correct?
A. It -- I have reviewed that document, I don't -- it's -- it's not my statement, but I have reviewed that
document.
Q. How many times have you reviewed it?
A. A couple times at least.
Q. Did Ms. Stebbins show that to you when you were meeting with her preparing for your testimony?
A. No, no. But I had it. I had requested it earlier, and I --
Q. Who did you request it from?
A. From O'Melveny.
Q. And the lawyers for AEG gave you that statement to review in preparation for your testimony here in this
trial, correct?
A. Not in this trial, sir.
Q. Well, which trial were they preparing you for?
A. For my deposition. I asked if they would send it to me, to my best recollection.
Q. Did you bill for your deposition?
A. I didn't bill for the time I testified during my deposition, sir.
Q. Did you bill for the time you prepared?
A. I'd have to check.
Ms. Stebbins: Your honor, I would object to relevance.

Judge: Overruled.
Mr. Panish: Did you tell the Los Angeles Police Department that Dr. Murray told you that he was earning $1
million a month?
A. I sure did. And the way I said it, though, if I could clarify -- you don't want me to.
Q. I'll do it for you. Excuse me? Did you tell the Los Angeles Police Department that Dr. Murray took in over
$12 million a year?
A. I said that Dr. Murray's practice -- that he told me that his four medical practices brought in more than $1
million a year gross.
Q. Okay. Well, let me ask you to review what the police department wrote down here as to -- Dr. Murray,
right here. And could you tell me did the Los Angeles Police Department write down that Dr. Murray -- that
you told them that Dr. Murray was bringing in $1 million gross a month?
Ms. Stebbins: Objection, your honor; improper impeachment.
Judge: Sustained. Improper impeachment. You know how to prove that up. It's not this way.
Mr. Panish: that's fine. I will. Don't worry. Please review that and see if that refreshes your recollection.
The witness: Which sentence, Mr. Panish?
Mr. Panish: The one where --
Judge: Well, he can't read it.
Mr. Panish: Three up from the bottom, where it starts with a d. Okay? Read that. I think that's just one
sentence, if I'm not mistaken.
The witness: Well, this reads the way that -- you didn't read it this way, sir. This reads the way I was trying to
explain to you.
Q. Did you tell the Los Angeles Police Department that Dr. Murray took in over 12 million a year?
A. That's not what this says.
Q. Well, that's exactly what it says.
A. It says -- and what I told them is Dr. Murray had four practices that took in over -- and I told them $1
million a year, and he added it up to 12.
Q. Did you put "gross"? Is "gross" in there?
A. That's what I meant, though, was gross.
Q. You meant. Okay. And you also told them about the tours two sentences down, didn't you?
A. I spoke to him about the tour agreement and -- and how it was supposed to work.

Q. Did you tell him about the worldwide tour, you and Mr. Putnam in the presence of the Los Angeles Police
Department?
A. I explained how the tour agreement would work.
Q. Did you tell them that Mr. Jackson was going to go on a two- to three-year worldwide tour, yes or no?
A. No.
Ms. Stebbins: Objection; asked and answered at least four times, your honor.
Judge: The answer is no, so -- let's take
A. -- let's adjourn for the day.
Mr. Panish: Okay.
Judge: I'm going to ask you to come at 9:30. I hope I don't have to keep you waiting this time. Okay? 9:30
tomorrow.
(The following proceedings were held in open court, outside the presence of the jurors):
Ms. Stebbins: Just for planning purposes, your honor, I'd like to know how long Mr. Panish expects to have
with Ms. Jorrie. I understand it's only an estimate, it might change; but we might have some other witnesses
with tight time schedules, so I want to get a sense --
Mr. Panish: Who are the witnesses that have tight time schedules?
Mr. Putnam: Mr. Ortega.
Ms. Stebbins: Mr. Ortega is the one I'm worried about, your honor.
Mr. Putnam: We're trying to reach his counsel. We understood he had a limited amount of availability this
week. He's scheduled to be our next witness. He's traveling through august 27, and then returning. So what
we're attempting to do, when it became clear that Ms. Jorrie might go long, is reach out to his counsel and found
out his availability.
Judge: I want to know who the others are --
Ms. Stebbins: Mr. Ortega is the one I'm asking about, your honor. I'm concerned -- he had some availability
this week, and then he's traveling through august 27. We're trying
To confirm that with his counsel now so that we know whether that's a real deadline or the kind of thing that
could be moved.
Judge: he can be here tomorrow?
Ms. Stebbins: Yes, your honor; but only if Ms. Jorrie is finished.
Judge: I don't think -- you'll be done tomorrow, won't you? You're not going to go on all day tomorrow, are

you?
Mr. Panish: I don't know. She's been on all day today.
Ms. Stebbins: My direct was about two and a half hours.
Mr. Panish: It doesn't matter how long the direct is -- number 1, she's not answering the -- can I ask the
witness to go outside?
Judge: Yes. Come back tomorrow at 9:30.
Mr. Panish: The first thing is Ms. Stebbins told us just now again that they have several witnesses that have
limited availability. That was the statement. Who -- and the court asked her who are those witnesses, and she
didn't answer. Who are the witnesses --
Judge: Ortega was one.
Ms. Stebbins: The other one is -- is Debbie Rowe, your honor, who is not at present -- we're working with her
counsel regarding her appearance, and she has to travel quite a distance. Those -- again, your honor, we're just
asking for an estimate.
Judge: She's in Palmdale.
Mr. Panish: She's under subpoena, no issue.
Mr. Putnam: Literally all we asked, your honor, is how long they thought they'd go.
Judge: I'm asking you because we've had issues with witnesses who tell you one thing and then they're --
Mr. Putnam: Since I talked to them, that's why I wanted to intercede to give you clarity, your honor. And
Mr. Ortega indicated he could be here tomorrow and the next day, that he absolutely could not be here Friday,
and so what we want to do --
Judge: Why can't he be here on Friday?
Mr. Putnam: I called at lunchtime to say, "is there absolutely no way?" they told me in an email that he was
traveling previously. So at lunchtime I said, "can you please let me know about Friday?" that's where I am at the
moment.
Mr. Panish: They told us --
Mr. Putnam: Let me finish, Mr. Panish. What I'm trying to ascertain, your honor, is what exactly to do with
him. That's all I'm asking, is for length because as you know, right now we have him on cross; and if I'm able to
finish him in that little window this week, then I would want to be able to do so. If we can't, then I'm looking to
what he can do on the 27th, which is the only reason I was asking the question, your honor.
Mr. Panish: They told me this morning that there was two days for Mr. Ortega. When I asked them for the
witnesses, they said Mr. Ortega will be two days. That's what I was told. So -- that's what you told me this
morning when we had to tell them, "who is the witness for Thursday?" "it's Mr. Ortega." so it's obvious that Mr.
Ortega is going to be at least two days. So --
Ms. Stebbins: Your honor, sometimes you do modify your examinations based on time available. We're

trying to get through this trial, get this jury out of here. All we're trying to figure out right now is at what point
Mr. Ortega will start tomorrow, if at all, when should we have him here, that kind of thing, what should we tell
his counsel.
Mr. Panish: At 7:00 o'clock, I'll go back, review what I have; and just like with the other witness,
Laperruque, I will email you and give you a time. But I think I'm going to have extensive cross-examination
with this witness. I will try to cut it down, but she covered a whole swath of issues and documents, and there are
many more documents that she has, and we're going to get to it. So --
Ms. Stebbins: Just for the record, your honor, she's covered four emails over a period of two and a half
weeks. It was not extensive. We actually deliberately limited her testimony to address some of the privilege
issues and also, frankly, to try to move this thing along and focus this trial on relevant material.
Mr. Panish: They asked the same question five times and then she does a 15-minute wrap-up where she leads
through everything they've already done. If they really wanted to speed it up, they wouldn't have to do a final
argument at the end of the questioning of each witness and keep repeating the same question under the guise of
they didn't understand the answer.
Mr. Putnam: In any event, your honor, I think I now have the answer, which is that at 7:00 o'clock, we'll hear
how long. He definitely doesn't have to be here tomorrow at 9:30, I can let his counsel know that.
Mr. Panish: I think that's a fair assumption.
Judge: I want to know why Ortega can't be here Thursday and Friday.
Mr. Putnam: He can, Thursday.
Judge: But you said you need him for two days.
Mr. Putnam: But I can also shorten it since it's just the cross, your honor. If I need to get the rest of anything
I wanted in our case, I can do so.
Judge: And how long is Rowe?
Ms. Stebbins: I expect, your honor, she'll be about
A. Day; but we don't know what the cross-examination will be. As with Ms. Jorrie, we're endeavoring to limit
our testimony to about a half a day; but I can't speak for the other side.
Judge: Okay. So I think Ortega, we should have all day Thursday and tell him all day Friday.
Mr. Putnam: If he can. And, again, I will ask --
Judge: Well, you know, I don't know what his travel is, and why it's so important that he can't be here. We
keep people here for all kinds of reasons.
Mr. Putnam: I understand, your honor. I don't --
Judge: He's a busy man, but so are our jurors and everybody else in this courtroom. So, you know --
Mr. Putnam: I certainly -- if you'll recall, your honor, it wasn't me who brought him to the stand and was
unable to finish him by any stretch of the imagination. They took him for over three days and left me less than

30 minutes to do my cross; and announced on that day, without telling anybody, that he couldn't be here any
longer. We did not do that in their case. I'm now trying to remedy that, your honor, so I can get him here and get
a cross.
Mr. Panish: That's false, that I had him for three days.
Judge: All I'm saying is "I'm busy" isn't going to be -- I'm busy, too. I haven't taken a single day off of this
trial. Not a single day for any reason.
Ms. Stebbins: Got it, your honor. We'll pass along the message and try to get a better sense of what this
conflict is.
Judge: He needs to be here Thursday and Friday. Pass that along. And extremely good cause not to be here
on Friday. And then Rowe next week. And, Mr. Panish, I still want you to communicate with them tonight.
Mr. Panish: I will. I said I will.
Ms. Stebbins: Your honor, one more brief thing. I know that you've been extraordinarily busy with papers.
Have you had a chance to look at the Marcus briefs? Do you have any sense of when that might be coming
back?
Judge: I've done my own research on it, so -- well, let me ask you this. Is he available to come in and testify?
Ms. Stebbins: He's a resident of another state, your honor, I believe.
Mr. Panish: He'll voluntarily come, I believe.
Ms. Stebbins: I have no understanding of that. He's a resident, I believe, of Arizona, your honor. I can find
out.
Mr. Panish: That's the whole purpose of the objection, because -- anyway. I don't want to really argue it right
now. It's 4:30.
Judge: That's one of the things --
Ms. Stebbins: That's one issue.
Judge: Okay. You'll get my orders. All right. Thank you. Why don't I return this to you because I don't want
anybody to come up and look at it.
Ms. Stebbins: We'll give it to you in a sealed envelope tomorrow.
Judge: Let me return it to you and you can give it to me tomorrow. Thank you.
Ms. Stebbins: Thank you very much.
(Court adjourned to Wednesday, August 7, 2013, at 9:30 AM)