JACKSON V AEGLIVE June 17

th
Please help us! To continue providing you transcripts
David Berman
(Executive/Attorney in Music/Record Industry)
Plaintiffs Expert Witness.
Direct examination by Mr. Bloss:
Q. Mr. Berman, just in a general sense, what have you done in your professional career?
A. I've been an executive in the music industry -- I've been an attorney or executive in the record
business or music business since 1969.
Q. And you're testifying here in what capacity?
A. As an expert.
Q. And I'd like to just start off briefly with your education. Can you summarize for the jury what your

education is?
A. I received a Bachelor's Degree in business administration from the University of Michigan in 1966,
and J.D. From Harvard Law School in 1969.
Q. And did you come to practice anywhere after you graduated from law school?
A. Immediately upon graduation from law school, I took a position as an associate, and later, partner
at the Los Angeles firm of Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp, k-n-u-p-p.
Q. And did you have to take any kind of a test or any kind of examination in order to become a
practicing attorney in the State of California?
A. The California Bar.
Q. How did you do on that?
A. I passed the first time.
Q. When did you become admitted to the California Bar, approximately?
A. It was either late in 1969 or January of 1970. I'm not sure.
Q. All right. And Mr. Berman, when you started to work at this firm, Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp, what
were your responsibilities?
A. I started immediately in the entertainment department, specifically, the music department. And we
represented all facets of the music industry: artists, producers, songwriters, music publishers, record
companies, production companies. We drafted and negotiated artist contracts, joint-venture
agreements, distribution agreements, management agreements. The clients included the Beach Boys,
the Temptations, Bordak and Buffy Saint Marie, A & M Records, Island Records, Al Roman Music
Publishing, 20th Century Fox Records & Publishing. I'm missing a lot, but that's an indication.
Q. I've got your resume, and it says the Doors, also.
A. The Doors. I forgot the Doors.

Q. Mr. Berman, is it fair to say that some proportion of your practice as a new lawyer involved
contracts?
A. Content?
Q. Contracts.
A. Contracts? Yes. Substantially, yes.
Q. And you represented all sides in terms of producers, promoters, record companies, artists?
A. Both sides, yes. Not at the same time.
Q. Of course. Not in the same transaction?
A. No.
Q. All right. Is -- did there come a time you left --
Mr. Bloss: I'm sorry. Withdrawn, your honor.
Q. You became a partner at Mitchell Silberberg?
A. Yes.
Q. What does that mean?
A. You have an equity interest in the firm.
Q. And did there come a time that you left Mitchell Silberberg?
A. I left Mitchell in April of 1976 to become the vice president and, subsequently, senior vice president
of business affairs for Warner Brothers records.
Q. And just generally, what does Warner Brothers records do? Or what did they do at the time?
A. Well, they were and are a major record company. You want the artist roster?
Q. No. Just, who are some of the artists you had direct involvement with?

A. I dealt with agreements with Madonna, Fleetwood Mac, Prince, Rod Stewart, Van Halen, Doobie
Brothers, George Benson, Pat Metheny. That's a very small list.
Q. Did you become involved in anything to do with the acquisition of record companies while you were
at Warner?
A. Yes. We acquired half-interest and subsequently an entire interest in Sire records. The same issue
with respect to Tommy Boy Records. We did -- we didn't acquire, but we had joint venture agreements
with Island Records and Chrysalis Records and Barris Hill Records.
Q. So while you were at Warner Brothers, did your responsibilities primarily involve around legal
issues or business issues, or something else?
A. The function of a music attorney is -- a no litigating music attorney, I was never a litigator -- is
substantially a transactional practice. It's really dealing with -- it's the deal. It's the business much
more than a narrow legal focus.
Q. Were you in part of what would be considered senior management at Warner Brothers at the time?
A. Very much so.
Q. And as part of senior management, what role, if any, did you have with the budgeting process?
A. I was actually very involved in the budgeting process, which began every year with -- the starting
point was, what record by which artist do you contemplate receiving this year? And I would
accumulate that information. I would start with the A & R department. That is artist repertoire. They're

the ones who directly deal with artists. They sign them, they produce them. I would get that
information, and then, together with the financial people, would go over sales expectations. And that
was the starting point in creating the budget.
Q. Now, did you -- also, your work at Warner Brothers, did that also involve, to some degree,
contracts?
A. Very much so.
Q. What proportion of your work would you say involved contracts at Warner Brothers?
A. In one form or another, negotiating and drafting -- and as time went on, I did much less drafting -- it
started at 80 percent, probably. As I rose in management, by the time I left -- oh, I'm sure 60 to 70
percent of my practice -- my occupation was still dealing with contracts.
Q. All right. Did there come a time that you left Warner Brothers?
A. I left Warner Brothers in February of 1987 to become initially the president of Capital Industries,
Inc., and I believe it was six months subsequent to that, the president of Capital Records.
Q. And, again, just briefly, what does Capital Records do?
A. Capital Records or Capital Industries, Inc.?
Q. Let's start with Capital Industries.
A. Capital Industries was the North American Subsidiary of EMI, the parent company of Capital. And I
was responsible for -- on the corporate level -- manufacturing, distribution, music publishing, Canada,
international, human resources, finance and legal. And I had dotted-line responsibilities to the then
three labels: Capital, EMI and Manhattan.

Q. Dotted-line responsibilities are what?

A. I was involved in those senior decisions, but the labels did not specifically report to me.
Q. All right. And as president of Capital Records, what was your responsibility then?
A. To run the record company.
Q. What does that mean, "to run a record company"? Just in general. We're not writing a book.
A. To deal in all aspects of the record business. Involved in the signing of artists, in hiring people or
firing people, in supervising the promotion department, the marketing department, publicity
department, sales department, and all the various departments involved in running a record company.
Q. Did your work at capital industries and capital records also involve contracts?
A. Yes. It did. I was not -- the head of business affairs drafted and negotiated. Most of them
reported to me. I did get involved in the negotiation of major agreements, yes.
Q. Sure. All right. Now, and some of the artists at Capital Records, you were involved with?
A. While I was there, we signed Bonnie Raitt, the Beastie Boys, M.C. Hammer, Garth Brooks. And
obviously, already there, that we worked -- that I had dealings with was Queen, Paul McCartney.
That's what comes to mind right now.
Q. All right. And did there come a time that you left Capital Records?
A. I left Capital Records in September of 1989.
Q. What did you do?
A. Uhm, I took some time off, and then I believe early in 1990 -- I don't recall exactly the date -- I
went back to the law firm for approximately a year and practiced, essentially, music law.

Q. All right. And did you leave that law firm, the Mitchell Silberberg law firm?
A. Correct.
Q. And did you leave that law firm after a period of time?
A. Yes. I believe it was May of 1991, I left to become -- I didn't have a title -- I went to Geffen Records.
My title was senior executive in charge of business affairs and administration. Essentially, it was the
same role as I had at Warner Brothers. I was the head of the business affairs department, and I
subsequently took on the title of general counsel.
Q. What does it mean to be a general counsel of Geffen Records at that time? What were your
responsibilities?
A. You supervise all the legal aspects of the record company.
Q. Did that practice also -- that work also involve contract interpretation --
A. Yeah. The role of general counsel -- I just took on the title for various reasons. I mean, my function,
essentially, was senior management and head of business affairs.
Q. Okay. And you stayed at Geffen Records for a period of time?
A. Approximately seven years.
Q. What artists were you involved with?
A. Nirvana, Counting Crows, Don Henley, the Eagles. Guns n' Roses. Peter Gabriel.
Q. And others?
A. And others.
Q. Okay. And what did you do after you left Geffen Records?
A. In february, I believe, of 1998, I went to the Walt Disney Company, specifically, their music division
called the Buena Vista Music Group. And I became president of the Buena Vista Music Group. And

Buena Vista Music comprised of four different music labels and a publishing company.
Q. And in general, what were your responsibilities there?
A. I had direct supervision over the publishing company, and I was the no. 2 person in the Buena Vista
Music Group. There was a chairman. And I supervised, again, the business affairs department and
had involvement in all aspects: marketing, promotion, publicity, et cetera.
Q. And were you also involved in interpretation, drafting, signing, negotiating contracts?
A. I did some negotiating. By then, I was not doing any drafting.
Q. That's done at lower levels than --
A. I don't do that.
Q. Not anymore?
A. No.
Q. All right. In 2001, Mr. Berman, did you retire?
A. Essentially. I believe it was may. I essentially retired, but fairly quickly, I believe starting in early
2002, I started doing a fair amount of expert witnessing on music industry-related matters.
Q. And have you been retained by parties in music-industry matters before today?
A. Oh, yes.
Q. Approximately how many times?
A. I've been engaged approximately 38 times.
Q. And is there any distinction -- withdrawn. Is there any proportion between being engaged by
plaintiffs and being engaged by defendants?
A. It's been roughly 60/40 plaintiffs. 40 defendants.

Q. Now, are you also -- are you a member of any kind of professional organizations?
A. I am a member of N.A.R.A.S., which allows me to vote for the grammies.
Q. What is N.A..R.A..SN.A.R.A.S.?
A. National association of recording artists and sciences. And they run the grammy awards, as well as
other programs.
Q. Are you on any music-related boards or --
A. I'm --
Q. Sorry. Go ahead.
A. I'm on the board of a 501(c)(3) non-profit guitar foundation called the Crown of the Continent Guitar
Foundation in Montana, which every year holds a guitar workshop and music festival at a beautiful
location in Montana. And we've had performing and teaching, I mean, Pat Metheny, Steve Lucifer and
Joe Bonamassa and Lee Ritenour and a lot of great guitar players.
Q. In the course of your work in the music industry since 1970, sir, have you -- is it fair to say that
you've engaged in business with artists in the music industry?
A. Absolutely.
Q. How about, have you dealt with personal managers?
A. Probably the biggest single dealing is with music attorneys and personal managers.
Q. And, now, Mr. Berman, you were retained at some point by the plaintiffs in this case, is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Can you just -- do you remember when you were first contacted, approximately?
A. I believe it was december of last year.
Q. And when you were first contacted, did you agree to offer any particular opinions?

A. Not in the first contact. The first contact was, well, a phone conversation to set up a meeting. And
then the first face-to-face contact was just a conversation where Ms. Sterling -- Ellen Sterling was the
attorney I was contacted by -- described the case in broad terms and asked me what I thought of
various issues. So that we could both determine whether I was appropriate to give the opinions that
I'm giving.
Q and did you come to any opinions before you were provided with materials that had been produced
in the case?
A. Not -- no firm opinions, no. No.
Q. And were you provided with any written materials?
A. An inordinate amount of written materials.
Q. Just in summary, what types of materials were you provided with?
A. If my math is right, and I'm close, 26 depositions, declarations, an extraordinary amount of email,
pleadings. All of that.
Q. All right. And Mr. Berman, are you being paid for the consulting you're doing in this case?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. What is your rate?
A. $500 an hour.
Q. And is that standard both for your practice and in the industry?
A. It's not unusual. I know of others that charge more, and I know a few who charge less.
Q. Did you come -- withdrawn. Are the opinions that you intend to offer here today based on your
training and experience within the entertainment industry?
A. In large part.

Q. And relating specifically to what a reasonable music-related company would do under certain
circumstances?
A. That's correct.
Q. As we're going to talk about?
A. That's correct.
Q. All right. After you reviewed the materials that you were provided, did you come to any conclusions
at that point?
A. After I reviewed the material and had a number of conversations with Ms. Sterling, yes, I did.
Q. All right. And was it after you reviewed the materials that you agreed to testify as an expert
witness in this case?
A. It was not after -- I want to be clear. It was not after I reviewed all of the material that I just
described.
Q. All right. In some portion of the review?
A. Correct.
Q. And have you received also some additional materials since this trial started? Some excerpts of
trial testimony?
A. Oh, yes. I'm sorry. Yes, I have.
Q. Okay. Now, Mr. Berman, I want to ask you just a couple of questions about the understanding of
some of the parties in this case. Do you have an understanding of what the business of AEG Live was
in 2008, 2009?
A. Yes.
Q. And what was that?
A. AEG Live was a major concert promoter and had also -- was also engaging in concert tour
production.
Q. Can you just explain --

A. Their essential -- their primary function was as a concert promoter.

Q. Have you -- withdrawn. Can you explain what the difference, briefly, is between a concert promoter
and a concert producer?
A. Okay. A concert promoter promotes, I.E., markets, the tour or the concert. They secure the venue,
they are responsible for marketing and advertising, they're responsible for the district sales,
generally responsible for the tour merchandising. Whereas, a tour producer is responsible for the
physical production of the show itself. That's the main distinction.
Q. What do you mean, "the physical production"?
A. The staging, the lighting, the dancers, the choreography, the -- you know, producing the musical
event as opposed to marketing the musical event.
Q. Now, Mr. Berman, have you yourself ever been a concert promoter?
A. No, I have not.
Q. Have you yourself ever been a tour producer?
A. No, I have not.
Q. Have you hired a staff for a concert tour?
A. No, I have not.
Q. Have you worked with tour-related issues as a record company and a music company executive on
behalf of the company?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. And as an attorney on behalf of artists?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. And after reviewing the materials in this case that you just summarized, do you believe that, in your
view, the issues involved in the case involve the -- revolve around the issues of tour-production

mechanics and tour-promotion mechanics, or something else?

A. Something else.
Q. What is the "something else"?
A. The issues in this case are -- do not deal with the minutia or the intricacies of concert promotion or
tour production. The essential issues here deal with artist relations, and that is, what does a music
enterprise entity do to and with and for the artist? If I can expand on that, it goes without saying that
the artist is the critical function to any music-related entity. I've always been of the view that the
customer of a record company is not the record buyer, it's the artist. And the customer of a concert
promoter is not the ticket purchaser, it's the artist. Because, obviously, without the artist, you don't
have a record to sell, you don't have a concert to promote. So we do do a lot of things for, with and to
artists. Now, obviously, the more important the artist, the bigger the artist, the more leeway. But there
are certain things that we don't do. Certain things that are inappropriate.
Q. Well, let's talk a little bit about that right now. Do you have an opinion as to -- as a matter of
Artist relations within the music industry, whether a reasonable music entity, company, should hire a
personal physician for an artist at the behest of the artist?
Ms. Strong: Objection, your honor. Vague. "Music-related industry"? I mean, what are we
talking about? Hearing specific issues in this case and not --
Judge: Okay. Give more specificity.
Mr. Bloss: I can do that.
Q. Mr. Berman, you've reviewed an extensive amount of materials?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you believe, and you're aware what the business of AEG Live was in 2008, 2009?

A. That's correct.
Q. Do you have an opinion as to whether a reasonable concert promoter and producer within the
music industry should hire a physician to provide personal services for an artist at the behest of the
artist?
Ms. Strong: Objection, your honor. This witness is not qualified to answer that question and
does not have the expertise and is not qualified to speak to that issue. He's in no better
position than the jury is to that issue.
Mr. Bloss: Your honor ruled on this.
Judge: Overruled. You may answer.
A. The question is, do I have an opinion?
Q. Yes.
A. The answer is, "Yes."
Q. Tell us what your opinion is.
A. I believe it's highly inappropriate. It is highly unusual. Do you want me to go on?
Q. Sure. Why do you believe it's highly inappropriate?
A. All right. It's highly unusual. I have never done it, I have never heard of it being done, and indeed, it
is my understanding that up until this case, AEG Had never done it. The fundamental problem is that it
creates an inherent conflict of interest on the part of the physician. You have a situation where the
physician has dual obligations to both the patient, of course, and to the person that -- or the entity that
is engaging him. And that is just -- and who is paying his compensation. So that in and of itself is a
conflict. I believe, if you want me to expand, it is a more egregious conflict, given the facts and

circumstances of this case.

Q. And did you -- we'll talk about that in a minute. But I'd like to ask if you're aware of any documentary
evidence that you reviewed that indicated any AEG Live executives were aware of the nature of that
conflict?
A. Oh, yes.
Q. What is that?
Ms. Strong: Objection, your honor, to the extent it would call for hearsay. I just want to make
sure that the witness is not going to be speaking to hearsay issues.
Mr. Panish: Not talking about hearsay.
Mr. Bloss: It's a document that's in evidence, your honor.
Judge: Overruled.
A. Are you referring to the email from Mr. Phillips to Mr. Ortega?
Q. Right.
A. Right.
Q. Is that what you're referring to?
A. That's what I was referring to, yes.
Q. And that's exhibit 307.
Mr. Bloss: If we can bring that up, please.
Q. And I think, Mr. Berman, you have a copy of it in the folder there.
A. Yeah. But I am, sorry, going to have to change glasses.

Q. That's okay.
Mr. Bloss: Actually, if we can go down to the --
Q. Looking, Mr. Berman -- is exhibit 307 the email you were just talking about that describes the
nature of the conflict?
A. It is. Well, 307 itself is part of what I'm referring to.
Q. Right. I understand.
A. Yes.
Q. All right. And do you understand there was a communication -- did you consider this email in
coming to your opinions in this case?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And did you rely on this email in coming to your opinions in this case?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And what is it about this particular email, starting with Mr. Ortega's email on June 20th at 1:20 PM,
what is it about this that you considered material to your opinions, if anything?
A. Well, it is a disconcerting email from Mr. Ortega, the tour director, to Mr. Phillips where he explains
what he feels is a serious mental, emotional, health problem with Michael Jackson, and he concludes
that he needs professional guidance. And he is obviously extremely concerned about Michael's
stability and health.
Q. And to your understanding, who did Mr. Ortega send that email to?
A. And he sent this email to Mr. Phillips.
Q. All right.

Mr. Bloss: Now, for the record, I should say, your honor, this is 307-1 and -2, it goes on a few
pages.
Q. Now, on 307-1 you described a response of Mr. Phillips. And what is -- why is it that that response
is material to you, in your opinion, if it is?
A. The response, to me, is very telling on a number of levels. He is somewhat dismissive of Mr.
Ortega's concerns, telling him not to become an amateur psychiatrist or physician. He states that he
has had lengthy conversations with Mr. Murray, who he has more and more respect for. And then he
goes on to say that "the doctor is extremely successful, we" -- meaning AEG Live -- "check
everyone out, and Dr. Murray does not need the gig, so he's totally unbiased and ethical." and
there are serious problems with that statement.
Q. Okay. What is it about that statement, if anything, that you believe is indicative of Mr. Phillips
recognizing the conflict?
A. Well, because he recognizes the potential of the doctor not being ethical and unbiased if he
perhaps does need the gig and has financial problems. And certainly, an unethical or biased doctor
has a conflict. The problem is, it is my understanding that AEG Never did anything to check out Dr.
Murray, so it is an untrue statement. But it does indicate that they're aware of a potential for a conflict,
which they claim -- which Mr. Phillips claims doesn't exist, because they've checked him out, and he's
financially secure, and he doesn't need the gig, when in fact Dr. Murray was in dire financial straits at
the time and certainly did need the gig, which just enhanced that conflict, given that he was being
engaged under contract by AEG, not Mr. Jackson, and he was being paid by AEG
Q. Was he ever paid, actually, by --

A. He was never actually -- my understanding, he was never actually paid.

Q. All right. And is this the -- Mr. Phillips' statement in exhibit 307 about what you've identified as, what
you believe is a recognition of a conflict, potential conflict of interest? Can you explain just why -- what
this has to do with the prior opinion that a concert promoter or producer should not enter into a
contract to provide medical services to an artist in the first place?
A. Because of the -- it is -- I don't know what to do beyond what I've said, that it's an inherent conflict.
It's not unlike the team doctor, where the quarterback is injured, and the team doctor goes out and
comes to the medical conclusion that the quarterback should be taken out of the game for a period of
weeks. Well, the team that's paying the doctor doesn't want the quarterback out, and the quarterback,
being a professional athlete, doesn't want out. There is an inherent conflict there, and that is exactly
the situation with AEG engaging the services of Dr. Murray.
Ms. Strong: Your honor, I'd like to move to strike. This witness is not qualified to speak to
sports issues, conflicts of interest. He's not qualified for these issues.
Mr. Bloss: Just an analogy, your honor. That's all. Obviously, there is going to be additional
testimony.
Judge: All right.
Ms. Strong: It would be nice if the expert can stay to what he believes is his area of expertise.
He admitted he's not an expert in sports.
Mr. Bloss: I'm not going to go any further --
Judge: Understanding it's an analogy, but you're not an expert -- acknowledging you're not an
expert in sports?

Mr Berman: Yes, I am.

Judge: Overruled. Thank you.
Ms. Strong: Thank you, your honor.
Q. Mr. Berman, in your over 30 years as an executive, as an attorney in the music industry, did you
yourself ever become involved in retaining a physician for an artist on behalf of any entity in any music
business?
A. No, I did not. No, I have not.
Q. Are you aware of anybody else in the music industry retaining an artist -- withdrawn. It's possible for
an artist to retain his own physician?
A. Absolutely.
Q. Have you ever heard of a company retaining an artist on behalf of -- withdrawn. Have you ever
heard of a music company retaining a physician on behalf of an artist, whether at the artist's behest or
not?
A. No, I have not.
Q. And were you provided with the transcript -- withdrawn. You're aware that the defendants in this
case hired an expert named Marty Hom?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. And what do you understand his experience is in the music industry? Just generally.
A. I believe he is an experienced tour manager.
Q. Manager?

A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And are you aware -- did you review the transcript of his testimony?
A. Yes, I did. Of his deposition testimony?
Q. Correct.
A. Yes.
Q. Right.
Mr. Bloss: I'd like, if judge please, to play page 133, lines 17 to 24, of his deposition. I think it
was already done earlier in the case.
Judge: We did have something played.
Mr. Panish: Right. Already in evidence.
Ms. Strong: If it's part of what was played, your honor, otherwise, it's hearsay.
Judge: Okay. Hopefully it's the same thing.
Mr. Bloss: That's my understanding.
Mr. Panish: An expert can rely on hearsay.
Judge: True. All right. Let's play it, if it's the same. Thank you.
Mr. Bloss: 133, line 17.

(video clip of Marty Hom's deposition is played)

Q. All right. Mr. Berman, is that consistent with your experience within the music business as well?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. Now, Mr. Berman, I want you to assume, for the purposes of your opinion for what we're going to
talk about, that AEG Live did hire a physician for Michael Jackson at Michael Jackson's behest.
A. Right.
Q. Would that be a reasonable practice within the industry?
A. Not in my opinion.
Q. Why?
A. Because of the conflict that I've described.
Q. How can the conflict be avoided?
A. By, in this case, AEG Not hiring the doctor but having Michael Jackson hire his own physician.
Q. Without any relationship --
A. Without any relationship with AEG
Q. Now, was AEG Live, at various times here -- and specifically with respect to the doctor -- acting
More as a concert promoter and producer or more like a personal manager?
A. Well --
Ms. Strong: Objection. Again, lacks qualifications. He's never been a producer, he's never been
a promoter, he's never worked for a promoter, he's never worked for a producer. He doesn't
have the qualifications to speak to these issues.

Judge: What was your question?

Mr. Bloss: I'll rephrase it, your honor.
Judge: Okay.
Q. Are you familiar with what the roles and responsibilities of personal managers are in your industry?
A. Very much so.
Q. And how is that?
A. I've dealt with dozens and dozens of personal managers. They perform a critical and vital role in the
career of musical artists.
Q. Just very briefly, what is the role of personal managers for artists?
A. Personal manager is involved in not only every aspect of an artist's career, but, quite frequently, in
every aspect of the artist's life.
Q. And is part of the job responsibilities of a personal manager, as you understand it, Mr. Berman, that
if the artist wants a physician, to retain a physician?
A. If an artist wants a physician, it would not be usual for the manager to get involved in that decision
and to help the artist achieve his wishes.
Q. And have you seen any record -- of all the materials you've seen, have you seen any documentary
evidence that any personal manager for Michael Jackson was involved in any way with negotiating the
contract between AEG Live and Conrad Murray?
A. No. Not at all.
Ms. Strong: Objection. Misstates the evidence.
Judge: Overruled.

Q. Does the amount of money -- withdrawn. If a doctor is being considered to be hired, hypothetically,
by a concert promoter, producer, does the amount of money -- you believe that the amount of money
that the doctor is seeking is material to your conclusions?
A. If it's exorbitant. If the doctor, as I understand it in this case, initially states that they want $5 million
to be engaged, that's some kind of red flag that -- that's a pretty bizarre amount. It is my understanding
that that was summarily turned down.
Q. By whom?
A. By AEG without, as far as I'm aware, even going back to Michael Jackson and asking if this was an
appropriate amount, because it's patently not an appropriate amount. Then even an amount of
$150,000 a month, which was ultimately what was agreed to by the parties, is an exorbitant amount. It
is, first of all, more money per month than any other individual with respect to the tour was being paid.
And it's even more of a red flag, since AEG Was aware of the fact that there was another physician,
who they had knowledge of, who was willing to take on the function of being the physician for Michael
Jackson at the rate of $40,000 a month.
Q. So what does that indicate as, within your industry, as a matter of reasonable management
practices? What does it indicate?
Ms. Strong: Objection, your honor. This witness already testified that he knows nothing about
doctors' salaries, no expertise of what's an appropriate doctor's salary or not, and what
salaries are appropriate on tours or not. He's not familiar with that.
Mr. Bloss: If I can just clarify?

Judge: Yes.
Q. Is it important to you, Mr. Berman, the differences between the two numbers you just talked about?
A. Yes.
Q. And specifically, the 150,000 was for Dr. Murray, and 40,000 a month for the same services by --
A. Dr. Finkelstein.
Q. All right. Do you have any evidence that Dr. Finkelstein's offer was ever passed along to Michael
Jackson or his personal manager?
A. No. That's part of what troubles me, that if there was an alternative to Dr. Murray at a fraction of the
price, it seems to me that should have been -- that piece of information should have been turned over
to Michael Jackson and/or his representatives, which it's my understanding, it never was.
Q. Now, what was it -- is it your understanding that Mr. Gongaware is doing the negotiating with Dr.
Murray, and the inquiry with Dr. Finkelstein?
A. That's correct.
Ms. Strong: Your honor, objection. If we'd like the expert witness to make assumptions about
the evidence, that's one thing, but if we're asking the expert witness to actually evaluate the
evidence, that's left for the jury to do.
Judge: Well, that's leading.
Mr. Bloss: I'll ask it a little more narrowly, if judge please.

Q. Who, as you understand it, was discussing the issues with Dr. Murray and Dr. Finkelstein?
A. Mr. Gongaware.
Q. And he worked for?
A. AEG
Q. All right.
A. Live.
Q. Live. Okay. And in coming to your conclusions, your opinions, Mr. Berman, did you review certain
email communications between Mr. Gongaware, Mr. Woolley, Kathy Jorrie, and Dr. Murray?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Did you rely on them for the purposes of your conclusions, in part?
A. Yes.
Q. Why did you do that?
A. They were, in my opinion, indicative of the fact that it was -- AEG Was in the process of negotiating
and concluding an agreement between themselves and Dr. Murray to become the physician for
Michael Jackson.
Q. And you've stated that your -- for the purposes of your opinions here today, you're assuming that
AEG Live did hire Dr. Murray. Are these emails part of the basis for that assumption?
A. Exactly.
Q. Now, Mr. Berman, I'd like to first show you, if I can, exhibit 175. (shows document) You have that in
front of you, sir?
A. Yes, I do.

Q. What is it that you understand this to be, for the purposes of your opinions?
A. This is the initial acknowledgment that the essence of a deal between AEG and Dr. Murray has
been struck at the rate of $150,000 per month. Mr. Gongaware is advising Mr. Jackson --
Ms. Strong: Objection, your honor. I'm sorry to interrupt, but to the extent this witness is
speaking about these documents as that they're indicative of making assumptions, the point is
that it's an assumption, your honor, it's not an evaluation of evidence. And this witness should
not be trying to evaluate the evidence. The jury is totally capable of evaluating that on their
own.
Judge: He needs to state the basis for his opinion. I'm going to overrule it, but I understand.
A. It's indicative of the fact that an agreement has been reached on the part of AEG that Dr. Murray
will be paid $150,000 per month.
Q. Now, does this in itself, Mr. Berman -- again, I've asked you earlier about your assumption that AEG
Live hired Dr. Murray. Would this in itself be enough to come to that assumption?
A. No. It's the starting point. There -- I would want more than this. And I would claim that there was --
that AEG hired Dr. Murray based on this alone? No, I would not.
Ms. Strong: Again, your honor, he's trying to decide whether or not this is sufficient to
determine whether or not Dr. Murray was hired. That's not the appropriate scope of this
expert's opinion.
Judge: Okay.

Ms. Strong: An assumption is an assumption. He doesn't need to understand the basis of the
assumption. We need to understand the basis of his opinions, and his opinions are not
supposed to be --
Mr. Panish: Can we have a sidebar on this, on these objections? This is -- you've already ruled.
We went through all of this. I have your order here. We discussed this. So we don't have to
keep having this objection.
Ms. Strong: And to be clear, the ruling is there is to be no expert --
Judge: If we're going to have a discussion, let's do it at sidebar.
Mr. Panish: Let's do that.
Judge: Hold on. What I'm going to tell the jury, ultimately, you're going to decide whether
Conrad Murray was hired or not. That's going to be a question posed to you at the end of the
trial. So when the experts testify, or anybody in trial testifies about a hiring, they're making
assumptions. On the assumption that so-and-so was hired, Conrad Murray was hired, then
they give their opinions.
Mr. Panish: Right.
Judge: But ultimately, you're going to decide whether that assumption is true or not. So I just
want to make it clear that all the testimony about hiring is on the assumptions there was a
hiring, or not a hiring, depending on who is presenting the evidence. Ultimately, it's going to be

your question. But for purposes of the testimony, they're just saying, "assuming there was a
hiring, let me ask this question," and then he gives his answer. But we'll go back and talk about
it.
(sidebar)
Mr. Panish: Your honor, before we begin, Ms. Strong here just shows up today, has been repeatedly
making not only speaking objections, but inferences and testimony of evidence from a lawyer. That's
inappropriate. And if she has an objection, like "no foundation," you know, she can't say, "no
foundation. The witness has testified to" -- you can't. That's not appropriate. I ask she be admonished
not to do that. If she has an appropriate legal objection, she should make it. That's first. So could that
be done, your honor? I don't think what she's doing is appropriate, and that's not the way the trial has
been progressing, number one. Number two, this whole issue on the assumption, we are following
your order that they made, in light of their motion. So for them to keep objecting and doing that, judge
should tell the jury that judge has made an order that no witnesses, experts, can testify to that, not --
so they're thinking that we're doing this assumption, and he gave testimony in his deposition that they
hired him, okay? But you ruled in motion in limine no. 4, I think it was -- and we have the ruling -- and
we're trying to comply with it. So what they're trying to do is make it look like he's making an
inappropriate assumption, when all we're trying to do is comply with their ruling. That, again, is
inappropriate for counsel to make such an objection and a suggestion to the jury that he's not qualified
to do this, and he can't do this, because you -- so they made a motion, and now they're objecting and
saying things that make it look like our witness doesn't want to testify to that. So that's also
inappropriate --
Judge: Okay.

Mr. Panish: -- for her to be doing that. And these objections are ridiculous. Hearsay? Experts can rely
on hearsay. And she keeps blurting out speaking objections. If she has a ground, she should make it,
and you should rule. And we went down this thing on the expert, and when he can testify, and when
he can't, in a motion in limine, and -- after she argued for hours on it, and you've made a ruling, and
we've been following what you ruled to.
Ms. Strong: Okay. So, your honor, with respect to the assumptions, you clearly ruled that no expert in
this case can speak, as you just instructed, to the jury. No expert can opine on whether there was a
hiring or not. That is purely an assumption. We do not need the expert to evaluate the basis of the
assumptions. By doing so, that is, issuing an opinion as to whether the assumption is accurate,
correct, founded in the evidence or not, the jury is not entitled to hear. And the expert is not entitled to
opine about the evidence, and whether it supports that assumption. The assumption is the
assumption. If he wants to use the assumption of hiring to then make an opinion and offer an opinion
about something else, that a hiring would be inappropriate because of x, y, z, but he can't look at
evidence and say, yes, this says a deal was done, that's what he just testified to up on the stand. So
that indicates that the deal was done, which is, i.e., this is evidence that there was a hiring, and that's
what I'm concerned with, your honor. And he's violated it several times this morning, and I think it
might go on throughout the day.
Mr. Bloss: If I could tell just --
Mr. Panish: In fact, he said it didn't.
Ms. Stebbins: Well, your honor, he said that in itself --

Ms. Strong: Indicative of --

Ms. Stebbins: That's more evidence. This is the problem, your honor. No one can testify, experts, that
there is or is not a hiring. The jury is going to evaluate all these documents, they're going to have the
instructions that your honor gives and says there is or isn't. The witness can say, "assuming there was
a hiring, I don't think it's appropriate, based on my experience in the music industry." that was our
understanding, based on your honor's ruling, on what he's going to testify to. But now it seems like
they're going back through, you know, the woolley emails and saying, do these constitute a deal or
not? And that's the basis for the concern.
Mr. Bloss: Here's what I was working off, your honor. I was working off your honor's order on the
assumptions of hired experts on their opinions -- well, let me go back a sentence.
"All of the experts in the case assume that Dr. Murray was hired or retained by AEG"
Fine.
"And any opinion that Dr. Murray was hired will be stricken, but any hypothetical
question which assumes he was hired will be permitted."
Fine.
"The assumption of hiring, the retention upon which the experts rest their opinions can
and will be tested by the parties and does not render the expert opinion inadmissible."
Ms. Strong: That would be tested by the opposing party. To the extent there's no basis for the
assumption, of course, the opposing counsel can test the basis for the assumption. You've assumed
there's a hiring, but there's no hiring. But I don't believe you intended to say, they can support -- point
to evidence supporting that in fact there's a hiring, but that actually --

Judge: Okay. That may happen. So are you saying that you're not going to ask him about that
assumption on your cross? Because if you're not, then I guess it wouldn't come out.
Mr. Panish: She's saying she is. She can test him, cross-examine him on that exact point.
Ms. Strong: I think --
Mr. Panish: Excuse me, Ms. Strong.
Judge: Wait a minute. I don't even know who was talking first.
Mr. Panish: She can't prevent him from talking about it and then get into it on cross-examination. And
she just said, I'm going to test the basis. She can't do that.
Ms. Strong: Of course we can test the basis for opinions, but to the extent it's an assumption, again,
your honor, this is not -- I'm not going to be asking the witness to evaluate the evidence of whether
there is a hiring or not, because you've instructed him that's not within the scope of his expert
testimony. No expert is supposed to be opining about whether or not there was a hiring or not, and
whether there's sufficient evidence of a hiring. And, your honor, I would like to say one other thing.
Judge: I guess what I'm saying is, if you do do that on cross, then on redirect they'll be allowed to get
into that.
Ms. Strong: Of course on redirect, your honor, if that happens. We're going to have lots of experts in

this case, so I think it's hard to predict what will happen with each expert. But I think that's exactly the
appropriate way to approach that. I would like to caution, your honor, I anticipate, given the deposition
testimony, this expert plans or may opine to things like, "well, AEG Live should have known," or should
have -- they saw this, and so therefore they should have known state-of-mind issues, which you,
again, in your motions in limine said those would be assumptions only, and they can't evaluate and
speak to what AEG Live knew or should have known from the evidence. They're not supposed to be
evaluating the evidence for state of mind. That's inappropriate.
Mr. Panish: No. An expert can testify about whether it was reasonable or not, and what the basis is
for whether it was reasonable or not. And he can cite to evidence. I mean, what they're trying to do
now is limit everything. We followed your orders, okay? They made it. And I would like an instruction
to the jury that you ruled that no expert can testify to that.
Judge: I think I already did.
Ms. Strong: She already did it.
Mr. Panish: No.
Ms. Strong: She did it.
Mr. Panish: No, you didn't rule. Can I talk?
Ms. Strong: You have been talking most of the sidebar, Mr. Panish.

Mr. Panish: See? This is what she injects into the case. You can see.
Judge: Let him finish.
Mr. Panish: You ruled in response to a motion by them. You haven't told the jury that you ruled that.
You said, "You will be the one who will decide." But the reason -- we all want -- I believe you should
tell the jury, "I, as judge, have ruled that none of these experts can give this opinion. That's why
they're using an assumption." and the rest of it -- and that's for you. And you did rule that.
Judge: Okay.
Mr. Panish: And they made the motion, not us.
Judge: Okay. If that's not clear, I can do that.
Ms. Strong: And as to the knowledge, the points you made, the same -- you're talking just with

respect to Berman only. With respect to all of the experts, all of the experts that will say AEG knew or
should have known "x" from the evidence, again, all of that should be a matter of assumptions and not
be evaluating the evidence to see whether AEG Live knew something. So, again, it's an assumption,
and if they have an expert opinion based on that assumption, fine. But to evaluate the evidence and
be a talking mouthpiece for Plaintiffs, that's --
Mr. Panish: Well, no. A hypothetical, you have a right to get into the facts upon which the assumption
is based. That's clear.
Mr. Bloss: That's all I was trying to do, your honor. I'm not asking him -- I promise I am not going to
ask him, "Do you think there was a binding agreement between AEG Live and Murray?" At any point.
What I was doing, based on your honor's ruling, was asking what documents he relied on for the
purposes of his assumptions. That's all I was trying to do.
Ms. Stebbins: The problem is, your honor, you don't rely on documents for the purposes of an
assumption, you rely on documents for an opinion. And by
calling it an "assumption," they're basically soliciting an
opinion as to, you know, what was the basis for your
assumption? "well, it's based on this document, and these
documents together make me think this assumption is a
valid assumption, because it looks like there was a hiring."
that's exactly the opposite of what we're supposed to be
doing. The witness -- obviously, experts can evaluate
evidence when it's within their expertise, and it's something
they have unique knowledge on, and it's not usurping the

role of the jury. But by having -- by -- the whole point of making an assumption is so that you don't
have to get into the basis or you don't have to have the expert evaluate whether there's a hiring or not.
Because his expertise is music-industry relations, right?
Judge: right.
Ms. Stebbins: So he can say, "I want you to assume," for instance, "that AEG Knew that Michael
Jackson had a history with drugs." he doesn't have to explain the basis for that. He can then say,
knowing that, do you think it was appropriate to do this, that or the other thing? That's the appropriate
role for expert testimony, not to evaluate the evidence as to what AEG knew whether or not it entered
into the contract.
Judge: Unless you get into it.
Mr. Panish: That's wrong.
Ms. Strong: The basis for the assumption, then of course, your honor.
Mr. Panish: But a hypothetical question, as the jury were instructed, is only as good as the facts
upon which the hypothetical is based. So he can ask hypotheticals with all these facts.
Ms. Strong: Assuming them.
Mr. Panish: Excuse me.

Ms. Strong: Assuming them, right, Mr. Panish?

Mr. Panish: Assuming what?
Ms. Strong: Assuming the facts, not evaluating.
Mr. Panish: No -- he -- all right. Let's just go.
Mr. Bloss: The opinion that I think -- that I hope I'm trying to get him to offer is that AEG acted
unreasonably as a matter of artist relations during this relevant time period.
Judge: Right.
Mr. Bloss: I think I'm entitled to ask him what facts he bases that opinion on.
Ms. Strong: To the extent there are assumptions, your honor, they need to be assumptions. He can't
evaluate the fact to say this supports a hiring. It's very --
Judge: The fact saying this supports a hiring, I think, let's stay away from that.
Mr. Bloss: Okay.
Judge: But facts supporting a conflict or how it's inappropriate artist relations, that's okay.
Mr. Bloss: Okay.

Mr. Panish: That's what he's been doing.

Judge: So I'll sustain the objection.
Mr. Panish: What objection?
Judge: But he can certainly refer to these emails, if they support his opinion.
Ms. Strong: Of course.
Judge: All right. So you may continue with the exhibit. I think it's just a matter of how you posed the
question.
Mr. Panish: Can you tell the jury that you made a ruling?
Judge: I will tell the jury about the motion in limine, and how --
Mr. Bloss: If I may, your honor --
(several people speaking at once)
Court reporter: Excuse me. Excuse me.
Mr. Panish: Don't talk to me. She keeps talking to me, your honor. She shouldn't be talking to me.

Judge: Wait a minute. Hold on. I don't know who is talking to who.
Mr. Panish: She's talking to me.
Judge: I don't want to have to supervise any conversations between counsel that are contentious.
I think --
Mr. Panish: I haven't talked to her. I don't talk to her.
Mr. Bloss: Maybe I can talk. How about that? The -- I probably should just, as you may have noticed,
Mr. Berman sometimes talks --
Judge: Are you concerned about it? We can bring him back and talk to him.
Mr. Bloss: We're going to take a break shortly, so I'll just tell him directly.
Ms. Stebbins: Briefly, to hopefully save time before we go back out. On the hearsay issue, obviously
experts can rely on hearsay in forming their opinions, however, they can't introduce it. It doesn't make
it independently admissible. So that's the reason for the hearsay objection.
Ms. Strong: On direct.
Ms. Stebbins: On direct you can't introduce hearsay into evidence yourself through the expert.
Obviously, if it's already in evidence --

Judge: All of it has been in evidence.

Ms. Stebbins: Right. Exactly. And I think everything we're dealing with right now is not a problem.
There's been evidence. It's in evidence. But that's what the objection was. It was to try to close
everything up, not make an unnecessary fight.
Mr. Bloss: As far as I can think of, I think everything I've shown him is already an exhibit. I'm pretty
sure.
Ms. Stebbins: Okay.
Mr. Bloss: If there's something that isn't --
Ms. Stebbins: Should be no issue, then.
Judge: Thank you.
(back to open court)
Judge: Mr. Panish and Mr. Putnam, will you come to sidebar, please?
(sidebar):
Judge: It's been brought to my attention that there has been some gesturing between counsel,

which is inappropriate. Specifically, Mr. Panish, it's been brought to my attention that you may be
gesturing something to Mr. Putnam. Is that what's going on?
Mr. Panish: I don't think I've even gestured anything to Mr. Putnam today.
Mr. Putnam: You've given me the finger twice.
Mr. Panish: What? I said like this to stop (indicating).
Mr. Putnam: I know what --
Mr. Panish: Judge, if I want to give him the finger, I know how to give him the finger.
Mr. Putnam: And you did it quite well twice.
Mr. Panish: I was trying -- I would tell you, okay? I admit what I do. If I wanted to give you the
finger -- are you complaining and saying I gave you the finger?
Mr. Putnam: I didn't.
Mr. Panish: I did -- I went like this when he was talking (indicating), and all three of them were
interrupting. And Ms. Strong, since she's been here, you can see how the intensity and hostility. And in
deposition, she has been unbelievable. I'll show you the transcripts. The most uncivil lawyer,
disruptive, attacking lawyer. Now we come in here, the three of them are talking. I tried to let them
talk. I didn't get in an argument with them. They started addressing me. I haven't addressed them.

I didn't flip Mr. Putnam the finger or flip him off. If he would like me to, I know how to do it, believe me.
I haven't even talked to Mr. Putnam or made any -- did I have any dealings today other than when we
came in here?
Mr. Putnam: No. Your honor, every time that you have raised an issue with Mr. Panish about
something that you thought was in terms of civility and dealings between counsel, what immediately
occurs, he completely then turns and blames somebody else for something else, okay? And I think
that's not only inappropriate, but it attempts to belie what's actually going on. And I think the issue
raised is an issue. I did not raise this issue with judge, but I will represent that that absolutely occurred
and did occur twice. The reason I didn't raise it with judge is because this has been repeated for two
months now. We are constantly accused on the record of many things, including lack of civility. We
have done nothing to lack civility. But continuously we are sworn at, we are given the finger, as today,
we're accused of things that are absolutely baseless. And I think what you're asking today is that there
be required civility, you're not even asking of the expected, the actual required civility. I think that is
something that everyone would benefit from.
Mr. Panish: Well, first of all, I don't know when I've sworn at Mr. Putnam. Of course, apparently he
has said that. But I have been trying my best, in light of the conduct of counsel, to be civil. I've never
had an issue in 100 jury trials with civility until this case. I've never had such attacks on my law firm
and myself before any lawyers before their case. And I could break out chapter and verse of the
letters and the threats by this law firm. I didn't give Mr. Putnam the finger. If he wants me to give him
the finger, I'm happy to do that. I've sat there all day listening to these objections and these speeches
by Ms. Strong, okay? And I asked to come back here to stop that. I didn't do it in front of the jury. But I
will not talk to Mr. Putnam, and I didn't address Ms. Strong when she attacked me in here, and I
brought it to judge's attention. Now, have I been upset with them? Yes, absolutely. Was I upset with

their witnesses? Absolutely. No question. I don't deny that.

Judge: Well, I haven't seen it, but if that's going on, it's got to stop. It really does. I mean, I just -- you
know, this trial is difficult enough for both of you, and it just -- it really, as I've said to other people, it
doesn't help to enflame problems with gestures or attitude or raising voices or any of that. It really
doesn't. It makes all of our jobs a lot harder. So please don't do that. I haven't seen anything uncivil on
their part, Mr. Panish. I know you keep arguing that somehow they're doing something to you, but I
haven't seen anything like that. So I don't know why you feel they're doing that.
Mr. Panish: She just attacked me right here in chambers.
Judge: She didn't attack you.
Mr. Panish: Did you hear what she said to me?
Judge: I heard what she sad. She's not attacking you. Don't feel that there's a personal attack.
Mr. Panish: They're constantly attacking me, your honor. I'll show you the emails that they write
all day long between Ms. Stebbins and Ms. Strong, okay? They may not bring it in all the time in here,
but they certainly do. She just said -- was making comments to me as we're walking out of here. I
didn't say anything to her, and I don't talk to her because of what she's done with me before.
Judge: Maybe the best thing to do is not to talk to them.
Mr. Panish: I don't. I don't talk to Mr. Putnam. Rarely. I say, "hello," that's it, other than something on

scheduling. We do talk about that. I don't talk to any of them. That's the whole point. I don't talk to
them.
Judge: No gesturing, please.
Mr. Panish: No gesturing. I don't talk to them.
Judge: Anything else you want to say?
Mr. Putnam: No, your honor.
Judge: Okay. All right. Let's go back and do our thing.
(back to open court)
Judge: Okay. You may continue.
Mr. Bloss: Thank you, your honor.
Q. Mr. Berman, do you have an opinion whether AEG Live was acting reasonably, as a matter of artist
relations in may and june of 2009, with respect to its dealings with Dr. Murray?
A. No, I don't.
Q. How about in terms of its interactions as negotiator? Was AEG Live acting reasonably in its
negotiations with Dr. Murray, as a matter of artist relations with Michael Jackson?
A. I think as a matter of artist relations, it was unreasonable for them to be negotiating the
engagement of Dr. Murray by themselves.

Q. And what do you rely on for the conclusion that AEG Live was negotiating?
A. Oh, a large stream of emails among and between Ms. Jorrie and Mr. Gongaware and Mr. --
Q. All right. And we just looked at one of those emails, exhibit 175, "Done at 150 per month"?
A. Yes.
Q. And you rely on that, in part, for your belief or conclusion that AEG Live was acting unreasonably
in negotiating with Dr. Murray?
A. In part.
Q. Okay. I'd like to draw your attention to exhibit 177. (shows document) and what do you understand
exhibit 177 to be?
A. Well, I can't read -- I've read this before, so I believe I know what it is. It is, in my opinion, as further
confirmation from Mr. Gongaware on behalf of AEG Live, as to the -- more detail as to the terms of the
engagement between AEG Live and Dr. Murray.
Q. And do you see any evidence in this that Mr. Jackson or any of his attorneys or his personal
manager was copied on that email?
A. No.
Q. Do you find that unusual within your experience?
A. Highly.
Q. Why?
A. What essentially you have being made here is -- in the process of being made, is a three-party
agreement between AEG Live, Dr. Murray, or his holding company, and Michael Jackson. And this
email, and throughout the process of conveying drafts back and forth on this subject matter, were only
between AEG And outside counsel of AEG And Dr. Murray, and never were they copied or the
agreement submitted to Michael Jackson or any of his representatives. And I find that extremely
unusual.
Q. What would be the reason within your industry that the documents would have been copied or

should have been copied to Mr. Jackson or a representative?

A. It's a three-party agreement. And it's as if you're denying the representatives of one of the three
parties the existence, although he knew -- to be involved in the concluding of the agreement. It's
just -- you don't function that way. You don't keep a third party in the blind on the terms of a three-party
agreement.
Q. Are you aware, also, around this time, Mr. Berman, there was a line -- withdrawn. You reviewed
certain AEG Live budgets relating to the This Is It tour?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Did you review them in detail the way you might have when you were in charge of capital records?
A. No, I did not.
Q. All right. Do you remember there being some information within the budget regarding medical
management? Medical --
A. Yes.
Q. And if I may --
Mr. Bloss: If I could just have a moment, your honor.
Judge: You may.
Mr. Bloss: May I approach, your honor?
Judge: Yes.
Q. If I could show you exhibit 641-48. (shows document) What do you understand exhibit 641-48 to
be?
A. Well, this is really tiny.
Q. Very small print. Yes, sir.
A. Yeah.

Q. You understand this to be a page out of This Is It-

A. It's a page out of the This Is It tour budget.
Q. All right. And the date of this budget is --
A. Is June 7th.
Q. That's the date printed.
A. Oh, I'm sorry. No, no, no.
Q. Might be easier to look at the screen, as our very able assistant --
A. May 16th, 2009.
Q. All right. And is it your understanding, are you relying on this in part for your opinion regarding the
negotiations with Dr. Murray and AEG Live?
A. Yes.
Q. And what is it about this that you consider material?
A. That included in the budget as of may 2009 was $300,000 for "medical management."
Q. Which is consistent with what dollar amount?
A. It's consistent with $150,000 for Dr. Murray for the months of May and June.
Q. 2009?
A. 2009.
Q. All right. Now, I want to direct your attention, Mr. Berman, to exhibit 191-2. (shows document) is
this one of the emails that you've relied on for the purposes of your opinions?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. And specifically, about AEG's -- the reasonableness of AEG's actions in negotiating with Dr.
Murray?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. All right. And what is it, your understanding, what the first email there is? You might have to go to
The first page just to get the date.

A. I don't have that, Mr. Bloss.

Q. The paper copy?
A. I don't have the paper copy.
Q. We can get it pulled out. If you go to the bottom of that page 191-1, that shows that the email on
the second page was sent --
A. On May 14th.
Q. From whom to whom?
A. From Dr. Murray -- excuse me. From Mr. Woolley to Dr. Murray.
Q. And what did you understand Mr. Woolley to be asking Dr. Murray in that email?
A. If he had had -- if Dr. Murray had had a chance to review the email that Mr. Woolley had sent to
Dr. Murray, setting forth in more detail the terms of the agreement, and whether they should take the
next step of discussing a contract to be drafted.
Q. All right. And that was the exhibit 177, the last email that we looked at, the May 8th email --
A. Yes.
Q. -- that Mr. Woolley sent to Dr. Murray?
A. Yes. Yes.
Q. And did you rely, also, on Dr. Murray's response the same day to Mr. Woolley for the purposes of
your opinion in any way?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. And what is it about that that you consider material for your conclusions?
A. That Dr. Murray acknowledges that he is in agreement with the terms of the May 8th email.
Q. Now, do you understand -- have an understanding as to whether Dr. Murray was actually
performing
Services as of May 15th, as reflected in exhibit 191?
A. That is exactly my understanding.

Q. What?
A. That he was performing services as of that date.
Q. Can you just describe the language that you relied on for that?
A. The line that says: "As for good faith with my client, I am sure that you are aware that my
services are already fully engaged with Mr. Jackson."
Q. Now, I'd like, also, Mr. Berman, to direct your attention to exhibit 232-2. (shows document) and
what is your understanding that -- withdrawn. Did you also rely on this email, in part, for the purposes
of your opinion?
A. Yes.
Q. And what is it about this email that you considered material for your opinions?
A. It is an email from Dr. Murray to Mr. Woolley where Dr. Murray is stating that he has performed and
has continued to perform his services and would like to be in receipt of his monthly fee, confirm that
his understanding is they have an agreement. And nowhere -- well, there's not a response to this
saying they don't have an agreement.
Q. Well, if we go to exhibit 232-1, (shows document) do you understand this 232-1 to be Mr. Woolley's
response to Dr. Murray, asking when Dr. Murray is asking to get paid?
A. Yes.
Q. And if I can draw your attention to the first sentence in that email.
A. You want me to read it?
Q. Just -- the first sentence says: "The legal department has not yet completed the agreement,
which is rather specialised since it is a rare event that a physician is engaged to accompany a
touring artist." Do you see that?
A. I do.
Q. First of all, do you agree with Mr. Woolley's statement that "it is a rare event that a physician is
engaged to accompany a touring artist"?

A. Yes, I do.
Q. To what degree is it a rare event?
A. I have never heard of it, and to my knowledge, AEG had never done it before.
Q. As a touring promoter or producer?
A. That is correct.
Q. Now, is there a circumstance where an artist -- are you aware of circumstances that artists, on their
own, without involvement of a company, producer, promoter, retain a doctor to bring on tour?
A. I'm not specifically aware, but it wouldn't surprise me. I assume it's been done.
Q. You wouldn't have an issue with that?
A. I would have no issue at all.
Q. And why is that?
A. Because I think an artist is perfectly entitled to engage the services of any physician he or she
chooses to.
Q. What is it about this transaction -- assuming that AEG Live hired Dr. Murray, what is it about this
transaction you believe is unreasonable?
A. Again, it's putting themselves in any -- it's the conflict that I've discussed, and an attempt to put
themselves in any control position over the performance of Dr. Murray's services as Michael Jackson's
physician.
Q. Now, is there language -- withdrawn. Did you already have an understanding as to whether --
withdrawn. I'll come back to that later. Do it in order. The -- did you understand, after reviewing
exhibit 232, was there any -- for the purposes of your opinion, did you understand that Mr. Woolley
sent this email to any representatives of Mr. Jackson?
A. I have seen no indication of that being done.
Q. And do you rely -- withdrawn. Did you rely on Mr. Woolley's representation that "We are working
on it" to mean -- what did you understand "we are working on it" to mean, for the purposes of your

opinion?
A. Well, if I'm -- I don't believe that, as of this date, there has been a request to in fact start to prepare
the agreement. I don't believe it's an accurate statement.
Q. Now, in your industry, Mr. Berman, as a matter of industry practices, may agreements be oral?
A. Of course.
Q. Why do you say that?
A. Well, it's a common occurrence that agreements are commenced and performed by both parties as
oral agreements and subsequently put in writing and executed long after the commencement of the
services of performance by both parties. Not an uncommon occurrence at all.
Q. And does it happen from time to time parties in the music industry engage in purely oral
agreements?
A. Yes, yes.
Q. Is it more common they begin as a verbal agreement and then memorialize their agreement in
Writing?
A. Correct.
Q. And in that circumstance, the latter circumstance, it's a matter of negotiation when the agreement is
retroactive to?
Ms. Strong: Objection. Vague, your honor.
Judge: Sustained on vagueness.
Q. All right. Mr. Berman, in the circumstance where two people start with a verbal agreement and then
eventually enter into a written agreement, memorializing their verbal agreement, as a matter of
industry practices within your business, when does that agreement start?

Ms. Strong: Objection. Vague.

Judge: Sustained.
Q. When is it that the parties have -- or act pursuant to their agreement in that circumstance where
they have -- I want you to hypothetically understand that there is an oral agreement, and one of the
parties, at least, is acting consistently with that oral agreement, all right?
A. Yes.
Q. And then there is eventually a written agreement memorializing the oral agreement, okay?
A. Yes.
Q. As a matter of business practices within your industry, when did the agreement start?
Ms. Strong: Objection. Vague and calls for an improper legal conclusion, your honor.
Judge: Overruled.
A. Generally speaking, when one party in your example has commenced performing under the
oral agreement.
Q. Do -- have you ever had a circumstance where there is an oral agreement confirmed -- withdrawn.
Is it unusual within your industry that an oral agreement for services might be confirmed by an email?
A. Oh, yes.
Judge: I'm sorry. You're saying that's common?
A. That's common. Yes. I'm sorry.
Q. Now, you've reviewed a voluminous amount of records in this case, Mr. Berman?
A. I believe I have.

Q. You reviewed the Michael Jackson/AEG Live tour contract, have you not?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. That was in writing?
A. That's correct.
Q. You remember there being a provision in that agreement where amendments could only be done in
writing?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Are you aware of any circumstances in the context of this case where in fact the parties acted
pursuant to a verbal agreement, notwithstanding that written agreement?
A. Yes, I am.
Ms. Strong: Objection, your honor.
Q. What are those?
Ms. Strong: Objection, your honor. To the extent that -- objection, your honor. Calls for legal
conclusion, something you'll be instructing the jury on, I believe, your honor.
Judge: Let me hear the question again.
Mr. Bloss: I can rephrase it, your honor. Is your honor -- is there a written agreement that it
could be amended only by written agreement between the parties? Is that your --
Judge: You're asking for an assumption?
Mr. Bloss: We were talking about the Michael Jackson/AEG Live contract, your honor, not the
AEG Live/Murray contract. I don't think there's any dispute about this, honestly.
Judge: Okay.
Mr. Bloss: But I'll --

Q. You're aware of the AEG Live/Michael Jackson contract, correct?

A. Yes, I am.
Q. And for the purposes of your opinion, I'd like you to assume that there's a provision in that that the
contract can only be amended in writing.
A. Okay.
Q. Are you familiar with that language?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. Is that unusual at all in a tour agreement?
A. Not unusual in an agreement in the entertainment industry, period. No, it's not unusual at all.
Q. And are you aware, based on your review of materials in this case, where AEG Live and the
Michael Jackson Company in fact did amend the contract without a writing?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. What is that?
A. The agreement calls for 31 shows, and the agreement was subsequently amended, parties agreed
to 50 shows. The agreement calls for a tour budget of $7.5 million, which subsequently grew to
something in excess of $30 million. Both of those events, without having any written document to
confirm as of the date of Michael's death. No written document to confirm those amendments to the
agreement.
Q. Now, Mr. Berman, as part of your work in this case, are you relying, in part, for your opinions as to
the reasonableness of AEG Live's negotiations with Dr. Murray as a matter of artist relations on
various draft contracts, draft agreements that were circulated from AEG Live or its attorney to Dr.
Murray?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. And I ask you to first consider exhibit 266. (shows document)

Mr. Bloss: Your honor --

Judge: Yes.
Mr. Bloss: -- are you taking a break, or are you just pushing ahead?
Judge: Yes. Are we at 11:15 already?
Ms. Stebbins: Yes.
Judge: 11:15? Why don't we take a 10-minute break.
(jury exits)
Judge: I've tried to come up with an instruction to give to the jury. I'm going to read it to you.
Maybe you can think about it, and if you want it modified in some fashion, then you can
suggest that. I'm going to read it now, and you think about it over the break. You may step
down for 10 minutes.
The witness: Okay. Thanks.
Judge: It starts: "Prior to trial, judge ruled that experts may give opinions on the assumption
that defendant or plaintiff hired Conrad Murray, however, the experts cannot give opinions that
defendant or plaintiff in fact hired Conrad Murray. That is your decision."
Mr. Panish: The only thing --
Mr. Bloss: The only thing that comes to mind --

Mr. Panish: "or both."

Judge: I'm sorry?
Mr. Panish: It says, "defendant, plaintiff or both."
Mr. Bloss: And I think it wouldn't be plaintiff, if judge please.
Mr. Panish: I think it would be Mr. Jackson. I think we should insert "Mr. Jackson" for
"plaintiffs"
And "AEG Live" for "defendant."
Judge: Okay. I'm going to give you my handwritten note, and then you guys work on it, and if
you come up with --
Mr. Panish: Sure. Well, I mean, other than those changes, I'm okay with it.
Ms. Stebbins: Well, maybe "both or neither." I mean, they could conclude neither. It is a
possibility.
Mr. Panish: You can write it out how you want.
Judge: You can come up with -- that's what I was working on.
Mr. Panish: All right.

Ms. Strong: Thank you, your honor.

(break)
Ms. Stebbins: Can you read my writing, your honor?
Judge: I can read it.
Ms. Stebbins: We were messing around with the first one, and then we thought we'd flip the
order.
Judge: That's fine. Okay. I have this handwritten note. I assume both sides agree to this
instruction?
Ms. Stebbins: Yes.
Mr. Panish: Yes, as long as it's what she wrote, yes.
Judge: Have you looked at it?
Mr. Panish: Yeah, I did. The bottom?
Judge: The bottom portion. All right. Let's bring in the jury.

(jury enters)
Judge: I have an instruction I want to read to you. "Prior to trial, judge ruled that no expert may
give an opinion as to whether any defendant Or Mr. Jackson or both or neither hired Dr.
Murray. This is your decision, however, judge ruled That experts may give opinions based on
the assumption that defendants or Mr. Jackson or both or neither hired Dr. Murray."
Okay. Thank you. You may continue.
Mr. Bloss: Thank you, your honor.
Q. Did you, for purposes of your opinions, in part, rely on a series of email exchanges between Dr.
Murray and either Timm Woolley, Paul Gongaware, or Kathy Jorrie, including draft agreements
between AEG Live and Dr. Murray?
A. Yes.
Q. And if I can specifically draw your attention first to exhibit 266-1 through -9. (shows document)
Mr. Bloss: And if I can approach, your honor? There are actual paper copies. I don't know if
that would be more convenient for Mr. Berman.
Judge: Okay.
Q. Okay. Showing you exhibit 266, 1 through 9, did you rely on this, in part, for any of your opinions?
(shows document)
A. Yes.
Q. And what do you understand this to be?
A. Well, it begins with an email from Kathy Jorrie to Timm Woolley, submitting to Mr. Woolley a draft

agreement for his review, which then, if he approves it, to send on to Dr. Murray for Dr. Murray's
comments.
Q. And does this document, exhibit 2 -- and that's on page 2 of 266, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And the address is on page 1 of 266?
A. That's correct.
Q. And does it show that Ms. -- who do you understand Ms. Jorrie to be?
A. Outside counsel for AEG Live.
Q. And there is also two other addresses there, email addresses, that Ms. Jorrie sent this draft to.
Do you know who those people are?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Who is that?
A. Mr. Trell, Shawn Trell, and Brigitte Segal. Mr. Trell has already -- he's counsel for AEG Live.
And I understand that Brigitte Segal is an attorney. I don't know if she's an employee of AEG Live, but I
know she was performing services for AEG Live.
Q. Okay.
A. In connection with the This Is It tour.
Q. Is it unusual at all that, in your business, that Kathy Jorrie would have sent that to Mr. Trell as
general counsel of AEG Live?
A. Not at all.
Q. Why?
A. That would be the normal course of events, for outside counsel to send a copy of a document that
they were preparing to the general counsel of the company.
Q. And is it your understanding, based on the email above in exhibit 266, that Mr. Woolley did in fact
forward this to Mr. Murray -- Dr. Murray and Mr. Gongaware?

A. Exactly.
Q. All right. And does he -- have you been provided any materials to show that Mr. Woolley made any
changes to the draft from the time he received it from attorney jorrie to the time he forwarded it to
Dr. Murray?
A. I've seen no indication of that. No, I have not.
Q. Okay. And the email address at the top, sending it to Dr. Murray, do you see any indication that this
draft agreement was sent to any representative of Mr. Jackson?
A. Again, it was not.
Q. And as a matter of industry, artist-relations practices, do you believe that's reasonable or
unreasonable within your industry?
A. I think it's unreasonable and inappropriate not to include the third party to the agreement's
representative to have a copy of the document.
Q. Now -- withdrawn. If I could show you exhibit 648-168 through 192. (shows document)
A. Right.
Q. What do you understand this to be?
A. This is a -- Mr. Woolley is sending to Dr. Murray, with carbons to Ms. Segal and Ms. Jorrie, a
revised document of the agreement between Dr. Murray and AEG Live.
Q. All right. Now, again, is there any evidence in the address chain there that any representative or
attorney for Mr. Jackson was copied on this?
A. No, there's not.
Q. And have you seen anything in the record that suggests that Mr. Jackson did have counsel as of
June 19?
A. Yes, he did.
Q. Who do you understand that to be?
A. Well, certainly it is my understanding that at least he had Mr. Hawk as counsel. And I believe, as of

June 19th, he also had Mr. Branca and Mr. Katz.

Q. And there is in -- and, actually, sir, if you would look at exhibit 648-196, a two-page document.
(shows document)
A. That's not in this -- okay. (reading document)
Q. Is 648-196, does this indicate that the second version of Dr. Murray/AEG Live agreement was
forwarded by attorney Jorrie to Mr. Trell?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that standard in your industry?
A. Standard and normal.
Q. And, now, there is a request, is there not, within the bottom of 648-196 and -- I'm sorry, 648-169,
where AEG is making certain requests of Dr. Murray separate from providing medical care to Mr.
Jackson? Do you see that?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. What is that?
A. That's to assist AEG in getting medical records from Mr. Jackson to enable them to secure
insurance. Additional insurance.
Q. And would that -- if that request had been made, is that consistent with any of the provisions of
the draft Murray/AEG Live agreements?
A. It's totally consistent with the drafts of the agreement.
Q. In what way?
A. In that there is a provision in the agreement which provides that Dr. Murray will, on request, provide
services for AEG Live.
Q. Now, I want to draw your attention now to exhibit 338-1 through 17. (shows document)
A. Okay. Right.
Q. You have that in front of you, sir?

A. Yes, I do.
Q. What is exhibit 338?
A. It's the submission of the -- what Ms. Jorrie refers to as the "final Michael Jackson/AEG/GCA,"
Dr. Murray's "contract." Its submission to Mr. Woolley for submission to Dr. Murray.
Q. And when it says there this language that says, "I have attached a clean pdf version which is
ready for execution," what does that mean in your industry?
A. That means that insofar as AEG is concerned, the document is complete and ready for execution.
Q. Do you see any evidence in this document, exhibit 338, that this was forwarded to any counsel or
representative of Mr. Jackson?
A. Again, no.
Q. Was Mr. Branca -- as you reviewed the materials, was Mr. Branca retained before June 23, 2009?
A. Yes, he was.
Q. And Mr. Katz?
A. Correct.
Q. Now, there was also language in this email from attorney Jorrie to Dr. Murray, again relating to the
insurance records. Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. And is that also -- is there any difference in the version of this agreement and the prior agreement
in terms of the doctor agreeing to cooperate with the producer?
A. No. There's no change in that language.
Q. Specifically referring to paragraph 4.1 of the agreement.
A. That's my recollection. That's correct.
Q. Okay. Now, do you have an understanding as to whether -- withdrawn. And if I show you exhibit
350 --
A. Yes.

Q. -- do you have an understanding whether exhibit -- 338, the third version of the AEG/Murray
agreement, was in fact forwarded to Mr. Trell by Ms. Jorrie?
A. That's what this indicates.
Q. Now, there is a big black box. We should say, for the jury, what is your understanding as to why
there's a big black box in that document?
A. It's my understanding that that contains privileged material between Mr. Trell -- between Ms. Jorrie
and Mr. Trell.
Q. Okay. Now, do you have an understanding as to whether Dr. Murray in fact came to sign that
version of the agreement?
A. Yes, he did.
Q. And is that exhibit 343-1 through 6?
A. That's correct.
Q. Now, before Dr. Murray signed exhibit 343, are you aware whether AEG Live took any steps with
respect to Dr. Murray's immigration status, getting him into the united kingdom?
A. Yes, they did.
Q. Actually, why don't we go back to 343 for a second, the agreement. If we can go to paragraph 3,
first of all, "compensation" --
A. Right.
Q. -- what was the compensation that was reflected in this version?
A. "$150,000 per month."
Q. Did that differ in any material way from the email of May 8th, 2009?
A. No. It's exactly the same.
Q and 3.2 -- there is also a provision within 3.2 relating to housing?
A. That's correct.
Q. What was your understanding of what that was?

A. That AEG Live would arrange for housing for Dr. Murray and his family in London.
Q. And did you have an understanding from reviewing the materials -- specifically exhibit 342 --
whether that had already been arranged?
A. It's my understanding, yes, it had.
Q. All right. We'll touch on 342 in just a moment. But prior to the time Dr. Murray executed this
agreement, as you understand it, did AEG Live already arrange for housing for Dr. Murray?
A. Yes, they had.
Q. Now, within exhibit 343, Mr. Berman, the language, 4.1, on the second page of the document --
A. Right.
Q. -- what is the language there that you --
A. 4.1 provides that: "Dr. Murray will perform the services reasonably requested by AEG Live."
Q. All right. And is that, as you understand it, was forming the basis of getting the insurance
information?
A. That is part of it, yes.
Q. Now, you remember there being a discussion in some of the earlier drafts, some similar language
that was removed from another part of the agreement?
A. I recall that.
Q. What do you recall about that?
A. That in connection with the scope of the services, which, to the best of my recollection, the scope of
the services in paragraph 1, originally provided that Dr. Murray would provide services for or to the
producer. And it's my understanding that that was altered that he would provide general medical
services to the artist at Dr. Murray's request.
Q. Now, is that consistent or inconsistent with exhibit -- or with paragraph 4.1?
A. It's not at all inconsistent.
Q. Okay. Why is that?

A. Because the document would then just provide that Dr. Murray would be providing services for
Michael Jackson, and additional services for AEG Live.
Q. All right.
A. Different services.
Q. Okay. Exhibit 343 was the version of the contract that Dr. Murray signed, is your understanding?
A. Right.
Q. Did you have an understanding whether AEG Live had already arranged for Dr. Murray's
immigration approval prior to that?
A. Yes, they had.
Q. And is exhibit 308 what you rely on for that?
A. Exactly. Yes.
Mr. Bloss: I ask that be brought up.
Q. If we start off on page 2 of this document --
Ms. Strong: Objection, your honor. Can I have this removed from the screen? I believe it's
hearsay, not admitted into evidence.
Mr. Bloss: I didn't hear the objection.
Judge: Hearsay.
Ms. Stebbins: I don't believe this document has been admitted.
Mr. Panish: Still can be admitted.
Judge: Why don't you lay some foundation for it, if you can.
Ms. Strong: Objection, your honor. He's not a fact witness.
Judge: Well, let's see. Maybe he can.

Q. Did you rely in part on exhibit 308 for any purposes for your opinion?
A. Yes.
Q. And do you have an understanding as to what exhibit 308 appears to be?
A. Yes.
Q. And why is it --
Mr. Bloss: I don't want to do it in the wrong way, your honor.
Q. What is it about exhibit 308 you considered to be material for the purposes of your opinion?
A. That as of june 19th, that --
Ms. Strong: Objection, your honor. I just want to make sure there's a caution. The witness may
be familiar with this, but not to actually repeat the content of the document.
Judge: Okay.
Mr. Berman: I didn't hear that.
Judge: Not to repeat the content of the document.
Mr. Berman: Okay.
Judge: Okay. You relied on the document for the proposition that?
A. That as of June 19th, 2009, Dr. Murray was included on the UK party for immigration purposes.
Q. By who?
A. By AEG Live.
Q. And at that time, was there a written agreement between AEG Live and Dr. Murray that everybody
had executed?

A. No, there was not.

Q. And at the time AEG Live obtained housing in london for Dr. Murray, had there been an agreement
executed by all parties, AEG Live, Dr. Murray and Michael Jackson?
A. No, there had not.
Q. Now, Mr. Berman, are you aware of other requests that AEG Live made of Dr. Murray relating to
performing services for it, for AEG Live, consistent with the insurance-information provisions that we
talked about?
A. In addition to the insurance, they requested that Dr. Murray be in control of Michael Jackson's
rehearsal schedule.
Q. And what are you relying on for that?
A. An email to that effect that you should provide to me.
Q. Is that exhibit 336?
A. Yes, that's the one.
Mr. Bloss: If we could bring this one up.
Q. Okay. Now, is exhibit 336 the one you relied on?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. What is this?
A. It's an email from Mr. Woolley to Mr. Taylor, who is the UK insurance broker, stating that the
responsibility for Michael's rehearsal attendance was from Mr. Phillips and Dr. Murray.
Q. Okay. Now, I actually want to go back -- I'm sorry to do this -- to the agreement of 343-1 that Dr.
Murray signed.
A. Yes.
Q. There is a provision in this, on paragraph 7.2, relating to termination of the agreement?

A. Correct.
Q. And is there something about that that raises -- that raises -- that is material to your conclusion
about the conflict of interest?
A. Yes, there is.
Q. What is it about that?
A. The fact that if the tour is even postponed, that AEG Live has the ability to cease any further
compensation, to terminate the agreement with Dr. Murray, giving Dr. Murray even greater conflict,
since he was in financial dire straits, he did need this gig, and yet if it was postponed, which could
hypothetically be in the best interest of Michael Jackson, he ran the risk of losing any further
compensation.
Q. Now, as a matter of reasonable company artist-relation practices, Mr. Berman, are you familiar
with any documents in this case that -- other than the email that we talked about earlier with Mr.
Phillips, where you see the conflict recorded, actually, in written form? I can draw your attention to
exhibit 263.
A. Yeah. That, I assume, is the Randy Phillips email in response to Mr. Ortega?
Q. No. It's an earlier one on June 14th.
A. What's the number?
Q. 263.
A. 263?
Q. Right. All right. What do you understand exhibit 263 in the middle of the page to be? (shows
document)
A. Oh, this is -- I'm sorry. Yeah. This is the email from Mr. Gongaware to --
Q. It replies to an email from Ortega down below. Is that your understanding?
A. Yeah. Ortega --

Ms. Strong: Objection, your honor. Leading.

Q. What is your understanding, sir?
Judge: Sustained.
Q. What is your understanding, sir?
A. That -- I don't have --
Judge: You show him. You need to show him.
Mr. Bloss: Okay.
Judge: Can you come up and show him the documents?
Mr. Bloss: Okay. I think there actually is a paper copy here.
Judge: If you can do that, it might make it easier.
Mr. Bloss: I'll try to do that. If there's no objection, your honor, I'll just give him my copy.
Judge: Sure.
Q. Mr. Berman, did you understand, for the purpose of your opinion, regarding artist management and
artist relations in this case, that Mr. Ortega raised with Mr. Gongaware a concern about Michael
Jackson's health?
Ms. Strong: Objection. Leading, your honor.
Judge: Sustained.
Q. What did you understand Mr. Ortega to be communicating to Mr. Gongaware on June 14th, for

purposes of your opinion?

A. Concerns as to Mr. Jackson's health.
Q. And did you understand -- did you review this document for the purpose of coming to your
conclusions, any of your opinions?
A. Yes.
Q. And is there anything about Mr. Gongaware's response to Mr. Ortega that you relied on for the
purpose of any of your opinions?
A. Yes.
Q. And what is it about Mr. Gongaware's response to Mr. Ortega that you believe is material?
A. That he indicates that it is AEG -- that they want to control, to a great extent, or to a certain
extent, Dr. Murray, and remind him that AEG, and not Michael Jackson, is paying his salary. And I'm
not supposed to read from it?
Q. No. This is in evidence. It's okay.
A. "We want him to understand what is expected of him." "we," AEG, wanted Dr. Murray to
understand what AEG expects of him.
Q. Do you believe as a matter of artist company relations, that this is a reasonable approach?
A. Certainly not.
Q. Why?
A. Well, it's indicative of the fact that they believe, and they want to control the services of Dr. Murray,
as opposed to having the patient control the services of their physician.
Q. Now, had Dr. Murray -- hypothetically, if Dr. Murray had been retained solely by Mr. Jackson, and
his only relationship was with Mr. Jackson, and AEG Was not involved, would this be able to be
written?
A. It would make no sense. It wouldn't be factually accurate.
Q. Now, is it usual or unusual for AEG Live's counsel to have been drafting these agreements in the

first place?
Ms. Strong: Objection, your honor. Lacks foundation, M.I.L.
Mr. Bloss: I'm sorry?
Judge: Is this part of the same M.I.L.?
Ms. Strong: It's getting --
Judge: Okay. Well --
Ms. Strong: I'm trying not to have a speaking objection.
Mr. Bloss: I can ask it a different way.
Judge: All right. We only have five more minutes to go, so let's try to --
Mr. Bloss: I understand.
Q. Is it unusual or usual within your industry for counsel for the concert promoter, producer, the
company being the entity responsible for drafting agreements with medical doctors for artists?
A. No. Highly unusual.
Q. Can you -- within your industry, can you -- have you thought about whether there was a legitimate
business reason to do this?
A. There, in my opinion, would not be an appropriate business reason.
Q. And was there anything that -- if Mr. Jackson wanted to hire a doctor himself and have the
relationship, the contractual relationship solely between Mr. Jackson and the doctor, is there anything
unreasonable about that under industry practices?
A. None whatsoever.
Q. Is that what was done here?
A. No, it's not.
Q. Now, did you review, also, a series of emails after June 14th that have a subject line, "trouble at

the Front"?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Did you consider those to be material in any way for the purposes of any of your opinions?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. What is it about those -- I will -- just in general, without going into each one, what is it in general
that you believe is material?
A. The "trouble at the Front" emanated from -- I'm going to refer to him as Bugz, if it's okay. I believe
evidence has been introduced who Bugz was, and I can't pronounce his name, I apologize. That
Mr. Jackson's health was deteriorating to the effect that -- well, in the last eight weeks, it was
deteriorating, that he used to be able to do multiple 360 spins, and now if he tried that, he would fall
down.
Q. All right. And you're specifically referring to exhibit 321, is that correct?
Mr. Bloss: I'd ask that be brought up. If I can approach, your honor?
Judge: You may.
Mr. Bloss: I think I can pull that out. Okay. It starts off with exhibit 321. (shows document)
Q. The initial email is actually an email from Mr. Houghdahl, "Bugz," to Paul Gongaware and Randy
Phillips, if you look at the second page, 321-2.
A. Right.
Q. Is that your understanding of the start of the "trouble at the Front"?
A. That's correct.
Q. And do you consider this to be material for any of your opinions?
A. Yes.
Q. In connection with some others that we're going to look at?

A. Correct.
Q. Okay. Now, what -- when Mr. Houghdahl -- you said that Mr. Houghdahl wrote to Mr. Phillips, "I
watched him deteriorate in front of my eyes over the last eight weeks," you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. What is it about that that you consider to be material to any of your opinions?
A. Well, that AEG personnel acknowledged that there were a number of people who considered
Mr. Jackson's health deteriorating, which is actually subsequently confirmed by Dr. Murray.
Ms. Strong: Objection, your honor. I'd like to move to strike. It actually gets to the knowledge --
Again, the jury is to evaluate the evidence and determine what AEG knew or did not know at
any given time.
Judge: Overruled. Why don't we end right here?
Mr. Bloss: That's fine.
Judge: And we'll resume at 1:30. See you at 1:30.
(lunch break)
Continued direct examination by Mr. Bloss:
Q. Mr. Berman, I think we have the exhibits put in order, and the ones we've already looked at
removed, hopefully. Do you have exhibit 343 in front of you?
A. Yes, I do.

Q. And what is exhibit 343?

A. It's the independent contractor agreement -- it's labeled as the independent contractor
agreement between Dr. Murray's holding company and AEG Live.
Q. All right. Now, we've talked a little bit about under -- and this is the version that Dr. Murray
signed?
A. That's correct.
Q. And this is the version that attorney Jorrie , on behalf of AEG Live, represented was ready
for exclusion?
A. Indicated the final version, that's correct.
Q. Okay. Now, there is some language there about scope of services. Do you see that in
paragraph 1?
A. Yes.
Q. And the language "Such services will be administered professionally --" starting where
it's not highlighted on the screen "-- will be administered professionally, and with the

greatest degree of care to be expected from similarly situated members in the medical
field." Do you see that?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Who did you understand that to apply to?
Ms. Strong: Objection to the extent it calls for speculation.
Mr. Bloss: I'll ask it that way, your honor.
Q. Who did you assume it applied to for purposes of your opinion?
A. Well, the services is intended to be the service would be performed by Dr. Murray.
Q. Okay. Now, does this language affect -- withdrawn. To what degree did you consider this
language in coming to your opinion about the appropriateness of AEG Live retaining Dr.
Murray?
A. Well, it's -- it's a pretty glaring example of why AEG -- the inappropriateness of AEG
entering into the agreement with Dr. Murray in that they have no expertise and no experience
in supervising the services or determining whether or not they were administered
professionally to the greatest degree of care to be expected. That's not their area of expertise.

I mean, they can certainly perform that function for a lighting engineer, a sound engineer, a
choreographer. That's well within their bailiwick, but not this.
Q. Okay. And so is that one reason why it's your opinion that AEG Live should not enter into
this type of agreement?
A. Without question.
Q. All right. Now, Mr. Berman, we started before the break -- we were on exhibit 321, which
was the Bugzee to Phillips and Gongaware email about time to circle the wagons, trouble at
the Front. Do you remember that?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. And "For the last eight weeks, I've watched him deteriorate in front of my
eyes," in effect?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you consider this email for the purposes of any of your opinions?
A. Yes.

Q. All right. Now -- and there are several other emails labeled "trouble at the Front," and I just
want to ask you briefly about a few of them and to ask how -- whether you considered them.
And I'll ask you at the end to put it together, if you can. Okay?
A. Yes.
Q. If I direct your attention to exhibit 302 --
A. Yes.
Q. -- is that another chain, if you will, another branch of the "trouble at the Front" email chain?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. All right. And there is some language in -- on the first page of that in Ortega's email to
Randy Phillips, 2:04 a.m. On June 20th. For the purposes of your opinion, do you know what
it means -- what Mr. Ortega meant "now that we've brought the doctor into the fold"? Can you
assess that at all?
A. Well, it -- it indicates to me --
Ms. Strong: Objection, your honor. To the extent it's asking how it affects his opinion,
lacks foundation, calls more speculation.

Judge: Sustained.
Q. Mr. Berman, for the purposes of your opinion, how did you interpret that?
A. That it was an attempt to exercise some degree of control over the doctor.
Q. Now, incidentally, Mr. Berman, this email appears to have been forwarded to Tim Leiweke.
A. Yes.
Q. Mr. Gongaware?
A. Yes.
Q. Joel Katz?
A. Yes.
Q. Mr. Branca?
A. Yes.

Q. And Mr. Dileo. Do you see that?

A. Yes, I do.
Q. Do you think that in and of itself was a reasonable thing to do by Mr. Phillips?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Why?
A. Because this is the first time I'm aware of where they are reaching out to various Michael
Jackson advisors and filling them in on the problems that they now see.
Q. Now, if you go to the top of exhibit 302, is that Mr. Branca's response to Mr. Phillips' email?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. And Mr. Branca -- did you consider this for the purpose of your opinions?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. What did Mr. Branca ask?

A. Mr. Branca, very shortly after being advised of the concern for Michael's welfare,
immediately responds with a specific suggestion as to what should be done; that he has a
person that he feels can be helpful. And then he asks a specific question, the -- if you want
me to go on, AEG rejects the proposition of the individual that Mr. Branca suggests can help,
and they never respond or answer to his second question of whether there is a substance
issue involved.
Q. Now, there -- if I can direct your attention to exhibit 315, there are two parts of this that I'd
like you to consider. 315, dash, 1, this is another branch of the "trouble at the Front" email
chain?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. If -- it starts off there's some -- an email down at the bottom from Bugzee to Mr.
Phillips and Mr. Gongaware.
Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. And is it -- for the purposes of your opinion, do you interpret this as raising issues about
concerns about Mr. Jackson's health?
Ms. Strong: Objection; leading, your honor.

Judge: Sustained.
Q. What is it that you considered in this to be material for the purposes of your opinion?
A. Well, it -- it indicates that they were concerned, and that the email from Mr. Gongaware to
Mr. Phillips is -- appears to be an attempt to exercise control over Dr. Murray.
Q. All right. If I go to the -- the email above that, the response to that from Mr. Phillips to -- it's
a statement, anyway, by Mr. Phillips, in an email by Mr. Phillips, "Tim and I are going to see
him tomorrow; however, I am not sure what the problem is, chemical or physiological."
From the point of view of a -- of a music industry executive, Mr. Berman, are you in the
position to determine whether a problem of an artist is either chemical or physiological?
A. I am aware of no expertise whatsoever that Mr. Phillips or any other music executive that
I'm aware of would have to make that determination.
Q. Who would you rely on for that determination?
A. A qualified, un-conflicted doctor.
Q. Now, if you go up to the next email in this chain, Mr. Gongaware writes "Take the doctor
with you. Why wasn't he there last night?" Do you see that?

A. Yes.
Q. And what -- what, if anything, did you consider to be material about that email?
A. Well, again, as I referred to earlier, that is an indication of an attempt to take some control
over Dr. Murray's actions.
Q. All right. Now, I'm not going to show you every single one of the "trouble at the Front"
emails, we've all seen them several times, but I do want to ask you about exhibit 318, which is
Mr. Phillips' response to this email.
A. Yes.
Q. Now, starting at the top --
A. Yes.
Q. -- what do you understand that to be for the purposes of your opinion?
A. Well, it's -- it's an indication -- it's confirmation of what I was referring to earlier in terms of
AEG or Mr. -- inability to in any manner supervise the services of Dr. Murray. It's an indication
that they don't know what the problem is, they don't -- they don't know that Dr. Murray can

help or not. I mean, they're at sea on this issue.

Q. All right. And I'm going to just, for the record, read this into the record. "He is not a
psychiatrist, so I am not sure how effective he can be at this point. Obviously, getting
him there is not the issue, it is much deeper." Did I read that accurately?
A. Yes, you did.
Q. All right. And for the purposes of your opinion, is it your understanding that this reflects --
what is your understanding of what this reflects in terms of Mr. Phillips' concerns about
Murray?
A. That they don't know what the problem is, they don't know if Dr. Murray is the right doctor
to handle the problem, they just don't know what's happening.
Q. And is that -- withdrawn. And do you know -- have you seen any evidence that this
particular email was forwarded to either Mr. Branca or Mr. Katz or Mr. Dileo?
A. No, I see no indication of that.
Q. All right. Now, as a music -- as matter of music -- reasonable music industry practices, Mr.
Berman, was AEG Live capable of determining whether Murray was rendering reasonable
services under the terms of the agreement?

A. Not in my opinion.
Q. And is that a reason why AEG Live should not have entered into the agreement in the first
place?
A. Absolutely.
Ms. Strong: Objection; leading, your honor.
Judge: Sustained.
Q. What is the reason, sir? I'm sorry. I apologize.
A. Because they have no expertise or ability to supervise Dr. Murray's services.
Mr. Bloss: All right. I have no other questions. Thank you, your honor.
Judge: Thank you.
Cross examination by Ms. Strong:

Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Berman.

A. Good afternoon, Ms. Strong.
Q. You're a lawyer, correct?
A. I am an inactive member of the California Bar.
Q. And what does that mean, to be an inactive member of the California Bar?
A. It means that I am not permitted to practice law unless I -- I do pay dues, but I I can't
practice unless I take my continuing education classes.
Q. And when is it that you became inactive? About ten years ago?
A. Approximately, yes.
Q. After you graduated from law school, you worked for a law firm, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And then you went and worked for record companies, correct?

A. Yes, and then back to the law firm at one point, yes.
Q. Right. For a short period of time, you went back to the law firm?
A. Yes.
Q. But for several years, you worked as a record executive, correct?
A. I worked as a record executive running the legal departments of two companies, and
being the general counsel for two companies.
Q. The record companies?
A. Two record companies, yes.
Q. And you said you went back to the law firm for -- law firm for a short period of time,
correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And that was because you were fired from Capitol Records, correct?

A. That's because I demanded to be fired, and they acceded to my request.

Q. And so you worked for record companies until about 2001?
A. Yes.
Q. And you've not since been working for record companies since that time, correct?
A. Not as an employee.
Q. Right. You've been working as an expert witness since 2001, correct?
A. To the extent that I'm working, that's correct.
Q. That's right. That's your primary job, to the extent that you're working now, since 2001, it's
been as an expert witness?
A. I would question "primary job," but that's essentially accurate.
Q. And when I say it means you've been working as an expert witness, that means you've
been working on lawsuits. Is that a fair explanation?
A. Arbitrations, labor commissioner hearings, yes, actual parts are litigating. Disputes related

to the music industry matters.

Q. And so you've been doing that for about 13 years?
A. I believe 11 years.
Q. Since 2001. 12 years?
A. I think I started in 2002.
Q. Okay. And you get paid when you work as an expert, correct?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. One side hires you?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you're paid by that side to work on the case for that party, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And I believe you indicated that you've been hired in this capacity almost 40 times; is that

right?
A. Almost, that's correct.
Q. So in this case, it's Plaintiffs -- Plaintiffs who hired you for this litigation, correct?
A. I believe I have been engaged by Plaintiffs' attorneys.
Q. And they're paying you $500 an hour?
A. Yes, they are.
Q. And how many hours have you spent working on this case so far?
A. I don't -- you'd have to do the math. To date, in terms of compensation, I've received
approximately $25,000 from Plaintiffs' attorneys and $5,000 from Defendants' attorneys.
Q. And that's because Defendants have to pay you when we deposed you; is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. That's the only reason why Defendants paid you?

A. Presumably.
Q. And you have no idea how much time you spent on the matter at this point, then?
A. Divide that into $500 per hour.
Q. Okay. But you don't know off the top of your head?
A. Well, that's 50 -- what is that, 60 hours? Yeah.
Q. And how many of those hours were spent talking with Plaintiffs' counsel?
A. Certainly not the majority by any means. Not even close to the majority.
Q. How many times have you met with Plaintiffs' counsel?
A. That I can think of right now, six times.
Q. And I want to ask you some serious questions about who you met with. Did you meet with
Perry Sanders of the law offices of Perry Sanders?
A. I have no idea who that is.

Q. Did you meet with Sandra Ribera of the Ribera law firm?
A. I don't know who that is.
Q. Did you meet with Robert Glassman of the Panish, Shea & Boyle firm?
A. I was introduced to somebody at the Panish, Shea & Boyle firm. I -- that I don't recall who
it is. It might have been Mr. Glassman. I don't remember.
Q. Well, did you --
A. It was just an introduction. I didn't have a meeting with --
Q. And did you meet then with Jenny Farrell of the Panish, Shea & Boyle firm?
A. I was introduced to a woman at the firm, just introduced. I don't know if that was the
person or not.
Q. How about Kevin Boyle of the Panish Shea firm?
A. Yes, I've met with Mr. Boyle.
Q. How many times did you meet with Mr. Boyle?

A. Well, there was a conversation, it wasn't really a meeting; and then I would say effectively
one meeting.
Q. One meeting?
A. Yes.
Q. And for about how long?
A. He didn't stay for the entire meeting. Maybe two hours.
Q. Who else was in that meeting?
A. Mr. Panish and Mr. Bloss.
Q. How about Deborah Chang of the Panish, Shea & Boyle firm?
A. I'm not familiar with her.
Q. And how about Michael Koskoff of the Koskoff, Koskoff & Bieder firm?
A. I met Mr. Koskoff this morning in the hallway.

Q. And how about Alinor Sterling, also with the Koskoff, Koskoff & Bieder firm?
A. I met with Alinor Sterling, to the best of my recollection -- recollection on three occasions.
Q. And you also had telephone conversations with Ms. Sterling, as well, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Multiple conversations?
A. I'm sorry?
Q. Multiple conversations with her, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Anyone else that you can think of whom you met with from Plaintiffs' lawyers?
A. I don't believe so, no.
Q. So in your past cases, you've given testimony before, correct?

A. Yes.
Q. But in one case, a judge disqualified you from testifying as an expert witnesses; isn't that
right?
A. She disqualified the methodology that I was using and didn't allow the methodology to be
introduced.
Q. She believed that you were testifying outside the area of your expertise, correct?
A. No, she did not. What she felt was -- the issues had nothing to do with a case like this, but
it had to do with valuing -- putting a value on a start-up record label, a process that I had
literally performed on a number of occasions in my career. And I put a value on based on my
assessment of the quality and knowledge and expertise of the individual -- the main person
who was running the company, the genre of the company, the company's access to
independent promotion or promotion, distribution, marketing, et cetera. I felt all of those things
were valid in terms of how do you value the company.
Q. Okay. I think that answers my question.
A. Well, her concern was that methodology was not correct; she wanted a more academic,
economic-based --

Q. That's right. I think I was going to try to get to the point. You testified that you were not an
economist, and you didn't use economic theory, and for that reason, she disagreed with your
methodology?
A. I used real-life business expertise; and that's correct, she disagreed.
Q. She didn't think you were an economist, and she felt that someone who acts as an
economist is the one with the right qualifications to give the testimony that you were trying to
give in that case?
A. Apparently that's what she felt.
Q. In any event, you did not testify in that case?
A. Well, I -- I did, to the best of my recollection, give an expert opinion report that was -- I
suppose it was rejected, I guess. I gave testimony that was rejected.
Q. You testified today about the actions of AEG Live, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And AEG Live is a music touring company?

A. Primarily a concert promoter.

Q. For live music tours, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you've explained to us that you've worked for several record companies during your
career, but you've never worked for a music touring company like AEG Live, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you've never promoted a concert tour?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you've never been a promoter, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. You've never worked for a promoter?
A. I believe that's correct.

Q. You've never produced a concert tour?

A. Nope.
Q. No, you have not?
A. No, I have not.
Q. Is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you've never been a tour producer?
A. That's correct.
Q. You've never worked for a tour producer?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you've never managed a concert tour?

A. That's correct.
Q. And you've never hired staff for a concert tour?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you've never worked as a staff member for a concert tour?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you've never worked with Michael Jackson on a concert tour?
A. No.
Q. You have not. And, in fact, you've never met Michael Jackson, correct?
A. I was at a party once that he attended. I don't think I was introduced to him.
Q. You also do not know any tour managers in the touring industry, correct?
A. That's -- I think that's correct.
Q. And you also do not know any production managers in the touring industry, correct?

A. I think that's correct.

Q. And you do not know the difference between the roles of a tour manager and a production
manager, right?
A. Not in any detail.
Q. You also made a reference to an analogy about sports and a conflict that comes up in
sports, correct?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And your testimony to that effect was based on your belief that sports team doctors face a
conflict of interest when treating players, correct?
A. The potential, yes, that's my opinion.
Q. And that is based on what you've read in the press, correct?
A. Oh, I would say more than that; but in part, yeah. I mean, general knowledge of sports,
yes.

Q. And you testified at your deposition that it was based on what you read in the press?
A. Probably did.
Q. But reading stories in the press about sports teams does not make you an expert on sport
ethics, correct?
A. I did not claim to be an expert on sports ethics.
Q. Yet based on your understanding from the press about a potential conflict in the sports
industry, you believe that's similar to the conflict that would have been created if AEG Live
had advanced funds to pay for Michael Jackson's doctor; is that fair to say?
A. No, that's not -- that's -- I don't believe that's accurate.
Q. You think the analogy is relevant to your opinion in this case, right?
A. I think they are analogous situations.
Q. Okay.
A. They're not right on point.

Q. All right. And that's because the athletes on sports teams, they don't pick the team doctor,
do they?
A. That's -- no, they do not.
Q. And you agree here that Michael Jackson, he chose Dr. Murray?
A. That's my understanding.
Q. And in the sports context, the athletes there aren't responsible for paying the team doctor's
salary?
A. I don't believe so.
Q. The team owner would be responsible for paying the team doctor's salary?
A. That would be my understanding.
Q. But in this case, the services contemplated from Dr. Murray were going to be paid by
Michael Jackson, correct?
A. I disagree with that.

Q. Okay. Well, that was in the contract. Let's go ahead and look at the contract. Exhibit 168,
please. You've seen this draft agreement with Dr. Murray, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And if we can go to the end, the signature block, and it says the agreement provided that
Dr. Murray was to be engaged at the expense of the undersigned, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And, again, to read it in full, "the undersigned --"
A. That's what it says.
Q. "The undersigned hereby confirms that he has requested producer to engage Dr.
Murray on the terms set forth herein on behalf of and at the expense of the
undersigned," correct?
A. That's what it says.
Q. And the undersigned -- the person who would have signed there, was intended to sign
there if it were ever executed, would have been Michael Jackson, correct?

A. That's what it says.

Q. In terms of your opinion about conflict of interest, do you think it matters what Dr. Murray
believed about who hired him?
A. I think the critical factor for Dr. Murray in terms of the conflict was knowing that he was, in
fact, going to be compensated by AEG Live, not by Michael Jackson, and that AEG Live had
the ability to terminate the agreement if for any reason the tour was postponed or cancelled.
So they control the flow of money to him, money which he sorely needed.
Q. Well, there's no indication that if the concert were postponed for any reason, that Dr.
Murray would have been terminated, Mr. Berman?
A. Dr. Murray had no way of knowing that. All he knew, in my opinion, is that AEG Live had
that right.
Q. And if the tour were postponed, it's very well likely that Mr. Jackson would have asked that
Dr. Murray come whenever the tour began, Mr. Berman; isn't that fair to say?
A. Well, I don't know about that; but during the period of a postponement, it would appear
that Dr. Murray would not be paid his $150,000 a month, which was money that I think -- I
don't think desperate is too strong a word -- he desperately needed.

Q. There's no postponement in this case, the tour was not postponed, correct, Mr. Berman?
A. I think there were indications that it might have been, but there was not. I think Dr. Murray
had the right to be concerned about the issue.
Q. Well, if Dr. Murray believed he was working for Michael Jackson and not AEG Live, if he
believed his client was Michael Jackson, and he was working for Michael Jackson, you'd
agree there would be no conflict, correct?
A. I don't know that.
Q. And are you familiar with the hippocratic oath?
A. In -- in general terms.
Q. That's an oath that the doctors take, and it requires that they act in the best medical
interest of their patients, correct?
A. That's my understanding.
Q. And it's reasonable to expect that doctors are going to adhere to the hippocratic oath with
their patients -- it's reasonable to expect that, right, Mr. Berman?

A. One would hope they do.

Q. And it actually was in Dr. Murray's own best interest to not harm Michael Jackson, right?
A. It was in -- he had conflicting interests. It was not in his best interest to do harm to Michael
Jackson, but that wasn't his only interest. His interest was also in making sure that that -- that
tour was not postponed or cancelled.
Q. All right. Well, let's talk about that for a second, then. Your opinion first assumes that Dr.
Murray was hired, correct?
A. Yes, it does.
Q. And you believe that Dr. Murray was under pressure because he might lose his job
because the tour -- for example, if the tour was postponed, you believed he might feel
pleasure that he'd lose his job under those circumstances?
A. He -- I feel he would be concerned with that, yes.
Q. All right. And we've already established that nothing required him to lose his job if the tour
were postponed?
A. No, but nothing prevented AEG from doing so.

Q. And if the tour was cancelled, Dr. Murray would lose his job in terms of with respect to
caring for Michael Jackson on the tour, correct?
A. AEG had the right to do that, yes.
Q. And Michael Jackson had the right not to perform, as well? He could have chosen not to
get up onstage, correct?
A. I think if he did -- I think Michael would have been in breach of his agreement with AEG
had he done that.
Q. But you admit that artists have the ability to not perform if they don't want to perform?
A. It doesn't mean they're not in breach of their agreement.
Q. My question is, you agree that artists have the ability to not perform, not take the stage, if
they don't want to take the stage, right, Mr. Berman?
A. The physical ability, but not necessarily the legal ability.
Q. Well, they can --

A. I'm not talking about criminal liability, but they're in breach -- in most -- in many instances,
they would be in breach of their contract and subject to damages if they chose to do that.
Q. Right. But they still could choose to do that, Mr. Berman, correct?
A. And be subject to damages, yes.
Q. And sometimes artists can cancel a tour if they're sick?
A. It does happen.
Q. There could be a problem with a venue and the tour could get cancelled if there's a
problem with a venue, or postponed, correct?
A. An act of God, yes.
Q. There are lots of reasons why a tour might be cancelled, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And so the pressure Dr. Murray felt, it wouldn't matter who cancelled the tour, he feels the
same pressure whether Michael Jackson could cancel the tour, whether anyone else could
cancel the tour, correct? The pressures could come from other sources, Mr. Berman?

A. There are elements that could lead to the cancellation or postponement of the tour that Dr.
Murray had no control over whatsoever. An act of God, there's nothing he can do about that.
Q. And if Michael Jackson cancelled the tour, Dr. Murray would lose his job?
A. I can't -- I can't assume that. I don't know what Michael would have done if he chose to
terminate the tour, I don't know what his continuing or non-continuing relationship would have
been with Dr. Murray. I have no way of knowing that.
Q. So the same holds true if AEG would have canceled the tour, you don't know what would
happen with that relationship, either?
A. Well, it's quite logical if the tour gets cancelled, AEG has no interest in continuing a
relationship with Dr. Murray. Presumably they no longer have a relationship with Michael
Jackson.
Q. And --
A. But it doesn't mean if it gets cancelled that Michael Jackson doesn't necessarily have a
continuing relationship with Dr. Murray.
Q. Agreed, because he was his long-term physician?

A. I don't know about that.

Q. You don't know that Michael Jackson --
A. I know that he saw him on some occasions prior to being engaged by AEG, but I don't
know how long or in detail.
Q. And you said you reviewed a lot of materials about this case?
A. I reviewed a lot of -- yes.
Q. And, in fact, you reviewed Dr. Murray's police interview?
A. Yes, but I really don't -- I did read it, yes.
Q. And you know --
A. That was a long time ago.
Q. And in there, it talks about -- it talks about how long --

Mr. Bloss: I'm going to object.

Judge: Sustained. Refrain from the police interview with Dr. Murray.
Mr. Panish: It's hearsay.
Q. Well, you have reason to believe that Dr. Murray had been working for both Michael
Jackson and his children prior to 2009?
A. I am aware that he performed services for Michael; and now that you mentioned it, that
does ring a bell for his children, but I don't know -- I have no recollection of how extensive
those services were, or for how long prior to 2009.
Q. Either way, if either AEG Live or Michael Jackson cancelled the tour, Dr. Murray was at risk
of losing his job, correct?
A. He was -- I don't know what would have happened if Michael cancelled the tour. I just have
no way of knowing that.
Q. You testified earlier about the appropriateness of AEG Live negotiating a contract with Dr.
Murray on behalf of Michael Jackson, correct?

A. That's correct.
Q. You can't think of a single time in your whole career where you were involved with hiring
someone for an artist to address the artist's personal needs, correct?
A. I -- probably not correct.
Q. Okay. You were deposed in this case, correct?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. And at your deposition, you swore to tell the truth?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And you were given an opportunity to review your deposition after you were deposed?
A. Yes, yes.
Q. And you signed the transcript to indicate that you approved the transcript with some
changes?
A. I remember submitting the changes. I actually don't remember signing the -- the transcript

itself, but I may well have.

Q. And you made changes to your transcript?
A. I made changes of a typographical error in nature.
Ms. Strong: Pam, can we put up page 285, lines 6 through 14.
Mr. Panish: Can we look at it first?
Ms. Strong: It's volume --
Mr. Panish: You said page 285?
Ms. Strong: Correct.
Mr. Panish: Oh, the second volume.
Ms. Strong: Volume 2. Line 6 through 14.
Mr. Bloss: That's fine.

(video clip is played of Berman's deposition):

Q. Can you think of a time where you were involved with hiring someone for an artist to
address the artist's personal needs of any sort?
A. I -- I can't answer that right now. I'd really have to think about it.
Q. As you sit here today, you cannot remember any such time; is that correct?
A. It vaguely rings a bell, but I cannot come up with a specific right now.
Q. And you understand that artists hire staff to serve their personal needs, correct?
A. They do.
Q. Sometimes they hire chefs?
A. They could.
Q. Masseuse?

A. They could.
Q. Or massage therapists?
A. Sounds good.
Q. Physical therapists?
A. As needed.
Q. Makeup artists?
A. Record companies also do hire makeup artists for -- for artists. There's a good example of
where record companies do hire people to render services for an artist.
Q. Right. And artists don't always make those arrangements themselves, sometimes they're
made by others on behalf of the artists, correct?
A. By record companies, by managers, yes.
Q. And an artist's relationship with his or her own representatives, that can vary significantly
from artist to artist, correct?

A. Are you referring to a personal manager or just any representative?

Q. Any of their representatives.
A. It's too broad a -- it's a very broad question. I think it would be better served to narrow it
down.
Q. Well, would you agree that the roles of artist representatives vary significantly from artist to
artist?
A. Well, the roles of artist representative vary significantly from area to area. I mean, the role
of a lawyer is not the same as the role of an attorney -- of a personal manager, not the same
as a booking agent, not the same as a chef.
Q. So is the answer to my question yes?
A. What's the question again?
Q. Okay. Let's go back to the question. Would you agree that the roles of artist
representatives vary significantly from artist to artist?
A. Well, the representatives role vary. I think it's misleading because the representative role
varies so significantly.

Q. Yes or no?
A. I've answered it the best I can.
Ms. Strong: Okay. So let's go ahead and -- would you look at page 206, line 24 through
2. -- pages 206, line 24, through 207, line 2.
Mr. Panish: 06, did you say?
Ms. Strong: Page 206, volume 1, line 24, through 207, line 2. Can you put it up? And I'll
read the question again as it was presented to you at your deposition, and you can
read me the answer, Mr. Berman. "Would you agree that the roles of artist
representatives vary significantly from artist to artist?"
Q. Answer, Mr. Berman? Can you read the answer for me?
A. The answer is "Yes." I would feel more comfortable if I could see some of the deal before
that.
Q. Okay.

A. It is possible that it's as simple as that, and that's what I said. It's also possible that in my
mind, I was thinking about personal managers only.
Q. Okay. And it -- but you agree in some circumstances at a minimum that what an artist
wants a representative to do for him or her is something that varies?
A. You know, I'm troubled by merging all representatives into one lump package.
Q. For this question, then --
A. Of course they vary because their function varies.
Q. And so for this one, let's focus on managers.
A. Good.
Q. In terms of what an artist would want a manager to do for him or her, that varies artist by
artist?
A. It does vary somewhat. There is more similarity than variance.
Q. But it's totally fair to say that it varies by artist in terms of what an artist would want a
manager to do for him or her?

A. It can vary.
Ms. Strong: Is the answer -- this is really a yes or no, and I don't -- we're going to be at
this for a while if --
Judge: Listen to the questions. She's asking for a yes or no.
Mr Berman: Sorry. Try it one more time. I'm sorry.
Ms. Strong: Okay.
Q. It varies by artist in terms of what an artist wants a manager to do for him or her; is that fair
to say?
A. It can vary, it does -- it does vary. Yes, it does vary. How much is a different question.
Q. All right. And you've never been a tour producer, but you also understand sometimes
producers might take on responsibilities that would otherwise be handled by an artist
manager, for example?

A. That would be more plausible if the producer was being engaged by the artist or the
manager. Then that would certainly be true.
Q. And there's really no legal limitation on an artist's ability to choose who performs which
functions for the artist?
A. Yes, there is.
Q. There is a legal limitation?
A. Of course there is.
Q. We'll be at this all day. At your deposition, you said there's no limitation, it's a free country,
right? There's no limitation on the artist's ability to make the choice as to who does what
functions for the artist in the touring industry, correct?
A. A personal manager in California cannot provide the services of a booking agent. The
personal manager or non-attorney cannot provide the functions of a lawyer. So if I said it in
black and white earlier, I misspoke.
Q. But in terms of within the scope of legal functions for the artists, it's up to the artist to
choose who does what for him or her?

A. Yes, if they're not a minor.

Q. And you know -- although you've not done this yourself personally ever, you know that
sometimes producers do engage people who will serve the personal needs of artists, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you know that sometimes producers do pay the people hired at the direction of the
artist with the understanding that the artist will reimburse or be responsible for the costs,
correct?
A. It is normal for the artist to be responsible for the cost of production of a tour.
Q. And so a producer -- we talked about the types of people who an artist might have hired to
attend to their personal needs a producer might hire a masseuse, for example, correct?
A. That might be within the scope of production costs, yes.
Q. But you don't know if that's the norm in the touring industry because you're not part of the
touring industry, correct?
A. I don't -- I would think it's not abnormal.

Q. But you don't know one way or the other as to whether it's the norm in the touring industry
to have a massage therapist to go on tour with an artist, correct?
A. I think I know enough to say that it would not be an unusual occasion.
Ms. Strong: Okay. So let's look at your deposition, page 362 -- or 363, lines 12 through
16.
Mr. Panish: Go ahead.
Ms. Strong: Can you put that up, Pam. So at line 12, and going down to -- "Do you
know whether it's the norm in the industry to have a massage therapist go on tour with
an artist?" answer, "No, I don't."
Mr Berman: Your question related to a producer engaging a therapist for the artist.
That's not the same question.
Ms. Strong: I think the record will speak for itself. I think we --
Mr. Panish: That's exactly what the question was.
Q. The producer might it would be logical for a producer or promoter to contract for a

masseuse on behalf of an artist, correct?

A. Not necessarily a producer. It wouldn't be illogical for the producer to do it.
Q. You're aware that concert producers sometimes hire masseuses, as well?
A. I assume they could.
Q. And it's logical for a concert producer to hire a masseuse when an artist goes on tour?
A. It's not illogical.
Ms. Strong: Can we look at page 155 of Mr. Berman's deposition.
Mr. Panish: What lines?
Ms. Strong: Lines 11, through 13.
Mr. Bloss: No objection.
Ms. Strong: Let's put that up. "Are you aware that concert promoters hire masseuses
for artists when they go on tour?"

Answer, "It's logical."

Q. So you agree that there's several scenarios where a concert promoter might, at the
direction of an artist, engage a person to serve the personal needs of an artist, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And, in fact, you can't think of a single example where someone in the music industry
refused to negotiate a contract that the artist asked them to negotiate, correct?
A. Try me one more time slowly, please.
Q. You can't think of a single example where someone in the music industry refused to
negotiate a contract that the artist asked him to negotiate?
A. That's not true at all.
Ms. Strong: Okay. Let's go ahead and look at page 183 of Mr. Berman's deposition,
lines 1 through 8.
Mr. Panish: It's a different question.

Ms. Strong: Go ahead and play it.

(video clip is played of Berman's deposition):
Q. Are you aware of any situation based on your experience in the music industry where
someone told an artist they wouldn't negotiate a contract the artist asked them to negotiate?
A. I would have to -- right now I can't come up with something. I can't come up with one now.
Mr. Berman: But I can come up with one now.
Ms. Strong: I'm sure you can, Mr. Berman.
Q. You were deposed just three months ago, correct? Less than three months ago, right?
A. You probably have better information on that than my recollection.
Q. It was at the end of March, March 21st was the first day of your deposition?

A. I will accept your statement as to that.

Q. And your first job in the music industry was 40 years ago?
A. Yes, it was. Don't remind me.
Q. And you couldn't come up with an example at your deposition three months ago?
A. As opposed to now.
Q. AEG Live negotiated several contracts for Michael Jackson, correct?
A. They negotiated -- are you saying with Michael Jackson, or --
Q. On behalf of Michael Jackson at his direction.
A. I -- I'm sure some of them were at his direction, yes.
Q. And you know that AEG Live engaged a makeup artist for Michael Jackson, Ms. Karen
Faye, correct?
A. I'm aware of that.

Q. And that was Michael Jackson's long-term personal makeup artist?

A. I'm aware of that.
Q. And you have no problem with AEG Live negotiating that contract, correct?
A. No.
Q. And Karen Faye is someone who had access to Michael Jackson, correct?
A. That's my understanding.
Q. There were times when she was alone with Michael Jackson?
A. That's my understanding.
Q. And there was times when she could put facial creams directly on Michael Jackson's skin?
A. That's my understanding.
Q. Had she wanted to -- and I'm not suggesting that she did -- she could have caused serious
injury to Michael Jackson, correct?

A. I don't know how to answer that. I don't --

Q. Okay.
A. I don't know. I mean --
Q. That's fine.
A. -- anybody could have injured seriously injured Michael Jackson. A key grip could have.
Q. Is it your understanding that Michael Jackson requested that AEG Live -- Dr. Murray, right?
You understand that?
A. That --
Q. I'm sorry. -- that Michael Jackson requested that AEG Live engage Dr. Murray for the tour,
correct?
A. It's my understanding that Dr. Murray was Michael's choice.
Q. And you understand that Michael Jackson was the one who came up with the $150,000
per month offer that was conveyed to Dr. Murray, correct?

A. Yes, that's my understanding.

Q. And you also understand that AEG Live would have made -- any payments AEG Live
would have made to Dr. Murray would have been advanced on behalf of Michael Jackson,
correct? That's what the contract called for?
A. It would have been treated as an advance. Actually, I am unclear as to whether it always
was going to be treated as a production cost, in which event, it would have been recoupable,
or was it advanced to Michael, in which event it was going to be recoupable.
Q. In any event, it was an expense --
Judge: Let him finish.
Mr. Berman: Theoretically, at the end of the day, Michael was going to be responsible.
Q. And despite that, you still believed that a producer should never engage a doctor to
provide services to an artist, correct?
A. I firmly believe that.

Q. You believe that a producer should never draw up a contract for a doctor at the artist's
request -- for a doctor at the artist's request?
A. It would be a strange request, but I might feel somewhat differently -- it would be very
strange if the artist requested that the promoter or producer prepare a contract between the
artist and the doctor. Actually, I have some problem with that, if the artist representatives or
attorney wasn't directly involved. But that's not what happened. They didn't draw up a contract
between Michael Jackson and the doctor.
Q. Well, Michael Jackson was a party to the contract, would have been had it been executed?
A. Well, there was a signature line for Michael; and he was the presumed beneficiary of the
contract; so I assume he would have been a third-party beneficiary to the contract.
Q. And one of the reasons why you think it's inappropriate is that you believe it's unusual,
correct?
A. Well, it is un -- very -- it's extremely unusual, but it goes beyond unusual.
Q. But you've never produced a concert tour, right?
A. I have never produced a concert tour.

Q. And you've never had any experience hiring a doctor for an artist under any
circumstances, have you?
A. Hiring a doctor for an artist? No.
Q. But you understand that doctors are hired to go on tour, correct?
A. Tour doctors?
Q. There are doctors who have been hired to go on tours with artists?
A. Are you referring to a doctor who performs specific services for one artist, or are you
referring to what's commonly referred to as a tour doctor?
Q. I'm asking you if you're familiar with doctors going on tour with an artist, for an artist or a
band.
A. I want you to distinguish between two types of doctors going on tour for an artist that I just
suggested, because one is typical and one is not.
Q. Do you know that the Stones tour with a doctor? Correct?

A. I know that Mr. Trell indicated that. I'm -- I want to be careful how I say this. I'm not sure it's
accurate.
Q. And Blink 182 tours with a doctor?
A. I don't know that.
Q. You don't know one way or the other of any artists that tour with doctors?
A. I'm not troubled if an artist wants to tour with a doctor that they hire. I'm not troubled with
that at all.
Q. And you don't know who hires these doctors for these other tours, do you?
A. Well, I know that AEG never hired a doctor to go on tour for an artist.
Q. Do you know who hires the doctors for these other tours?
A. The normal case is --
Q. I'm asking if you know.

Mr. Panish: Your honor --

Mr. Berman: Yes.
Q. For Blink 182, who hired the doctor for Blink 182?
A. It is an unusual event for the concert promoter to also be the tour producer. The normal
course of events is that the tour production is handled by the artist's management, in which
event, it is the artist that is engaging the doctor should there be a doctor on tour.
Q. Do you know who hired the tour for who hired the doctor for Blink 182?
A. If AEG Live or LiveNation, which I presume were the concert promoters, were not the
producers, then I feel quite confident that they were engaged by the artist or artist's
representatives.
Q. But you don't know one way or the other for any of these artists, correct?
A. I don't know for certain.
Q. And you believe that a producer should not negotiate the terms of a contract for a doctor
even if the doctor is the artist's long-term doctor?

A. The producer should not be engaging the services of the doctor, that's correct.
Q. And even if the doctor is already treating the artist's children?
A. That's correct.
Q. So earlier you testified a bit about the independent contractor agreement between -- this
was a draft that you were looking at between Michael Jackson and Dr. Murray -- correct? --
and AEG Live? The independent contractor agreement --
A. Between Michael Jackson and Dr. Murray.
Q. Michael Jackson is a signatory to the contract?
A. He's a third-party beneficiary.
Q. Right. So you looked at that contract, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. You were previously testifying about that?

A. But that contract is between AEG and Dr. Murray.

Q. So let's go ahead and put up exhibit 168. Do you have a copy of it up there?
A. Is 168 different from 343?
Ms. Strong: I'd better give you exhibit -- may I approach, your honor?
Judge: Yes.
Ms. Stebbins: For the record, I believe it's the same version, but --
Mr. Berman: Oh, it's the version that was executed by Dr. Murray. Presumably, it's the
same.
Mr. Bloss: 168 and 343 appear to be identical.
Mr. Berman: I'm sorry?
Mr. Bloss: Identical.
Mr. Panish: They're both in evidence.

Q. And if you look at the top, this is the draft independent contractor agreement?
A. That's what it says.
Q. And you've testified this was never signed by AEG Live or Michael Jackson, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. But exchanges of drafts -- there were exchanges of drafts between Dr. Murray and Kathy
Jorrie . Are you aware of that?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. Let's go to 168, dash, 1.
A. I'm sorry?
Q. I'm sorry. 168, dash, 1, Pam.
A. I'm using the other one because it's a clearer copy. I've got it.

Q. Okay. Recital A.
A. Oh, recital A. Could you --
Q. Under recital A, the draft agreement states that, quote, "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", correct?
A. That's what it says.
Q. And you've talked about this. This is for the benefit of the artist, the artist being Michael
Jackson?
A. Presum -- yes, yes.
Q. And under recital B, the draft agreement states that Dr. Murray represents he is a licensed
cardiologist practicing in Las Vegas, Nevada, and that he acts as the artist's general
practitioner, correct?
A. That's what it says.
Q. And under Section 1 of the agreement, if we go to the scope of services, the draft
agreement states that Dr. Murray would tend to Michael Jackson's general medical needs,

correct? Do you see that? "tending to the artist's general medical needs" in the middle of
the paragraph?
A. I'm looking for "tend." I'm sorry.
Q. It's halfway through the paragraph, and it's highlighted on your screen, if you look at your
screen.
A. Okay. Yes.
Q. And I believe a provision of this clause that he focused on earlier was that it's -- I believe
you noted that it indicates Dr. Murray shall also provide such other services as are reasonably
requested by the artist. Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. And I want to focus on services as defined in this agreement -- this provision. Just above
that, the first sentence, do you see that there's a term "services" that's defined there?
A. Yes.
Q. We'll read that full sentence there. "Producer hereby engages GCA to provide the
services of Dr. Murray and GCA, and Dr. Murray hereby agrees that Dr. Murray will

provide general medical care to the artist throughout the duration of the term." And then
there's a quote, "Services."
A. Yes.
Q. So the services as defined is to provide general medical care to the artist throughout the
duration of the term, correct?
A. I disagree.
Q. Well, that's how it's defined in the contract?
A. No. Because the next sentence defines how those services shall be administered; so,
obviously, they're included in the definition of services.
Q. And it says how they will be administered professionally with the greatest degree of care,
correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And that's presumably referring to the general medical care services?
A. "Will be administered professionally with the greatest degree of care to be expected

from similar situated members of the medical field," yes.

Q. So it's talking about --
A. I do believe -- excuse me. I do believe that that provision is inclusive in the definition of
"services."
Q. But the services that we're talking about here, though, were general medical care services,
medical care services?
A. General medical care services that are administered professionally with the greatest
degree of care.
Q. Understood. That's the definition of services?
A. Insofar as I can see, yes. But that's not the limitation of the services he should provide.
Q. Okay. And then let's look at paragraph 4.1 of the agreement, please. And I have a question
before we look at the document. You indicated in your deposition that you had reviewed the
deposition transcript of Kathy Jorrie , correct?
A. That's my recollection.

Q. And have you reviewed the trial testimony in this case?

A. Of Ms. Jorrie ?
Q. Of any of the witnesses in this case.
A. Only Mr. Trell.
Q. So you reviewed Mr. Trell's testimony?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. So your -- do you recall that Ms. Jorrie, in her deposition, testified that there was a
provision in this agreement that was left in by mistake?
A. I'm aware of that allegation.
Q. And you're aware that Mr. Trell also testified that there was a provision left in the form
agreement that was left in by mistake?
A. That's my recollection.
Q. And let's look at provision 4.1 of this agreement. And that's the provision that Ms. Jorrie

and Mr. Trell were referring to in their testimony, "Perform the services reasonably
requested by the producer," correct?
A. That's what they were claiming.
Q. And their services -- that's a defined term -- correct? -- in the agreement?
A. Yes, it is, yes.
Q. And, again, the defined term there is general medical care or medical care with the
greatest degree of care to be expected. That's how it's defined in the contract, correct?
A. Apparently -- yes.
Q. And so "producer" doesn't make any sense, for a producer to be providing medical care,
right, Mr. Berman?
A. Except that the producer did request that Dr. Murray perform services, so I'm not sure
whether that's a typo or a mistake or not. I have no way of knowing.
Q. Right. And the two people who are familiar with the agreement, who have personal
knowledge of the agreement, were involved with the negotiation of the agreement, they
indicated it was a mistake and it was intended to be something different, correct?

A. That's what they allege.

Q. Let's go to section 9 of the agreement,
A. I'm sorry. I didn't hear that.
Q. Section 9, Mr. Berman. And section 9 states that the effect of this agreement is conditioned
upon the approval and consent of the artist, correct?
A. That's what it says.
Q. And then section 9 goes on to say without the artist's expressed and written approval of
the agreement, neither party of the agreement will have any rights or obligations to one
another arising from the agreement, correct?
A. That's what it says.
Q. And Michael Jackson did not sign the agreement, Mr. Berman, did he?
A. We have no reason to believe that he didn't -- that's not inconsistent with this being a valid
and binding oral agreement.

Q. My question -- a he did not sign it. He did not sign it.

Q. And neither did AEG Live?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you understand that AEG Live never paid any money to Dr. Murray under this
contract, correct?
A. That's my understanding.
Q. Mr. Berman, you previously testified about oral agreements being common in the industry.
Do you recall that testimony?
A. Today's testimony or in my deposition?
Q. Correct, today, when Mr. Bloss was asking you questions.
A. Yes, today, I recall.
Q. How often have you paid someone $1.5 million pursuant to an oral agreement in your
experience in the music industry?

A. I have paid substantial monies, quite possibly in excess of $1.5 million, pursuant to a
written agreement that was not yet executed by the parties under the firm belief that we had a
valid and binding oral agreement.
Q. And I take it, then, you didn't have any clause in the agreement that said that no one this
is not effective until it's signed by all the parties? No monies are going to be paid until signed
by all the parties? That wouldn't have been in your agreement, Mr. Berman?
A. That, I -- I don't know. That, I can't recall.
Q. You previously talked about changes to the tour agreement between AEG And Michael
Jackson with Mr. Bloss today, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And I believe you referred to them did you refer to them as amendments?
A. I may have. If modifications are better to you, I don't have a problem with it.
Q. So you think the contract between AEG and Michael Jackson was changed in two
respects; is that right?
A. Orally changed in two respects without a signed document, that's my understanding, yes,

that's my belief.
Q. And can you remind the jury what the two respects were? Let's start with the first one, the
shows.
A. The original contract called for 31 performances in London.
Q. And how do you believe that was changed?
A. There was an agreement subsequently to expand that to 50 shows.
Q. And you think that was a change in the contract?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And the second way in which you think the contract was changed was what?
A. There was a provision that the production costs could not exceed $7.5 million without the
approval -- I may have the wording not correct, but I have the concept correct -- without the
approval of Michael Jackson. And, in fact, without the written approval, according to the
contract. And, in fact, the production costs wound up -- or got to a point where they exceeded
$30 million.

Ms. Strong: Well, let's look at the agreement. Let's look at exhibit 66, pam.
Mr. Panish: Is this the one?
Ms. Strong: Thank you. So let's turn to paragraph 3 of this agreement here. It says the
-- terms of this agreement says -- pick up at the top of exhibit 66, dash, 2, partially into
paragraph 3.
Q. "Artistco hereby preapproves up to 31 shows or such other greater number as
agreed by Artistco and promoter at the 02 Arena in London, England, between July
26th and September 30th, 2009," correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. So the -- the contract itself contemplates a greater number of shows than 31, right, Mr.
Berman?
A. It contemplates the possibility, but that isn't -- it doesn't, in my opinion, negate the written --
the requirement of a written document to modify or amend.
Q. 50 shows is not inconsistent with this agreement, is it? It's not a change to what was
written here?

A. It is a change because the document requires a written agreement to change the his
commitment is for 31 shows. He has no commitment for a greater number. It acknowledges
the possibility of a greater number, there's no doubt.
Q. Okay. Let's look at provision 8.2. And the first sentence of this provision says "Promoter
shall make advances to cover mutually approved production costs, production
advances, up to but not exceeding 7,500,000 United States dollars." Do you see that?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And that's the provision that you were referring to earlier?
A. That's correct.
Q. Let's go down halfway down into the paragraph, pam. If you could pick up where it says
"Artistco shall be." Right there.
"Artistco shall be responsible for all production costs requested by Artistco in excess
of the production advance cap, and Artistco shall reimburse to promoter or otherwise
advance all funds necessary to pay such excess production costs."
Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. So this contract doesn't limit production expenses to $7.5 million, does it?
A. It acknowledges the possibility of exceeding that.
Q. Right.
A. Pursuant to a written agreement signed by both parties. That's what the document says. I
have no problem with orally amending it because that happens all the time.
Q. And you don't know one way or the other what Michael Jackson approved with respect to
production costs, do you?
A. Verbally?
Q. At all.
A. Well, I know there's no written document signed -- I am unaware -- excuse me. I am
unaware of any written document signed by Michael Jackson approving the increased costs.
Q. And how about Michael Jackson's representatives, Mr. Berman?
A. I'm unaware -- well, prior to his death, I'm unaware of any such document.

Q. But after his death, there are documents, aren't there?

A. You've said by representatives? There's one document signed by a, quote, representative
that I have serious doubts whether he was a representative. There's another document
signed by a, quote, representative that I'm not sure had the authority to speak for Michael
Jackson Company LLC. That's not the name I remember. No, that's the name. Okay.
Q. I want to focus one more time on this provision here at the bottom that is highlighted. It
says "Artistco shall be responsible for all production costs requested by Artistco in excess of
the production advance cap," correct?
A. Requested by Artistco, yes, provided they're requested by Artistco.
Q. And so what that says is that Michael Jackson is responsible for all costs beyond the $7.5
million cap?
A. That he requests. The problem is without a document in writing, how does one know
whether he requested it?
Q. It doesn't say in advance of any such requests, but let's move on. Now I'd like to ask you
some questions about Dr. Murray's salary. I think you talked about the $150,000 salary.

A. Correct.
Q. And you told us that it was Michael Jackson who decided how much money to offer Dr.
Murray, correct?
A. That's my understanding, he -- yes.
Q. And Michael Jackson -- you know that Michael Jackson told Mr. Gongaware to offer Dr.
Murray the $150,000 a month?
A. That's my understanding.
Q. You're being paid $500 an hour by Plaintiffs to testify in this case?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. So if you worked for Plaintiffs in this case for 40 hours a week at $500 an hour, that's
20,000 a week?
A. If I did that. I've never done that on any case I've been involved in, but I suppose your
math is correct.
Q. And if it were 80 hours a week, because it was something like a 24/7 type of a job, that

would amount to 40,000 per week?

A. With all due respect, I'm 69 years old. I'm not working 80 hours a week for anybody.
Q. Dr. Murray, though, was 24/7, correct?
A. That's probably accurate, yeah.
Q. And so would you say that your salary is a red flag indicating that the jury should not
believe your testimony today?
A. My salary as an expert witness is well in line with industry standards and other experts
who do the same function. In fact, I can think of some that are significantly higher than what I
charge.
Q. Well, you're not an expert in the issue of how much doctors generally make, are you?
A. I'm not an expert. I am aware of another doctor who is willing to do it for 40,000 a week a
month.
Q. You know that some doctors make millions of dollars a year?
A. I know mine does.

Q. That would be one. That would count as one.

A. He doesn't make it from me.
Q. You don't know that. And if a doctor was making millions of dollars a year left his practice to
go on tour with an artist, you would expect that the doctor would make a significant amount of
money on tour, correct?
A. Well, the assumption or the implication is that Mr. Murray -- Dr. Murray -- I'm sorry was
making anywhere remotely near that; and there's substantial evidence that that's simply not
true.
Q. Have you read Mr. Phillips' testimony?
A. Not trial testimony. Deposition testimony.
Q. Okay. So you haven't -- you don't know what Mr. Phillips testified about what he knew and
believed with respect to Dr. Murray's compensation, correct?
A. Not at -- not in trial testimony, not beyond what he might have said in his deposition.
Q. But if one were to believe that a doctor was making millions of dollars in his or her practice,

you would expect that the doctor would make a lot of money on tour to close down his
practices, correct?
A. I -- that's a hypothetical I can't address.
Q. Okay. And, again, you've never hired a tour doctor?
A. Never have, no.
Q. And I think you testified earlier that Dr. Murray's salary was the highest salary on tour.
A. It is the highest monthly salary on tour that I am aware of. It is -- the monthly salary is in
excess of what Mr. Ortega was making.
Q. So you believe that Dr. Murray was making more monthly than Kenny Ortega on tour?
A. There may have been back ends that certainly were not applicable to Dr. Murray that were
-- or could be to Mr. Ortega. But on a pure monthly salary basis, it is my understanding that he
was receiving more compensation than anybody else on the tour.
Q. Well, do you know how much Kenny Ortega was going to be paid on the This Is It tour?
A. I -- I did. I don't recall -- the best of my recollection, $100,000; but I could be wrong about

that. That figure sticks in my mind. But I know I believe it to be less than 150. I did see
correspondence between Mr. Ortega and his representatives, and AEG and their
representatives, on the Kenny Ortega deal.
Q. Okay. And you -- based on what you recall of those documents, you think he was going to
-- he was paid about $100,000?
Is that your testimony?
A. Per -- per month, or a hundred and a quarter -- it was -- my recollection is it was less than
150.
Q. Do you know how many months Mr. Ortega was going to be working on the This Is It tour?
A. I presume he was going to be working on the entire tour.
Q. Do you know how long the entire tour was?
A. Well, initially 31 dates through September.
Q. So what's the length of the tour, do you know?
A. Well, I don't know when rehearsals began. I don't know if that was April -- March, April
through September.

Q. And you believe that Kenny Ortega was going to be working on This Is It through
September of 2010?
A. Well, there was off time between the two ends; so it wasn't going to be permanent -- you
know, I have read the correspondence regarding Mr. Ortega's deal. I don't recall what it was
now.
Q. So you're not aware that Kenny Ortega was set to make $1 million for less than five
months work on the This Is It tour?
A. I don't -- I may have known that at one point. I don't recall it. I read that information a long
time ago.
Ms. Strong: Well, let's go ahead and put up exhibit 12729. It's already admitted into
evidence.
Mr. Panish: Well, you've got to establish he reviewed that.
Ms. Strong: So this is Kenny Ortega's contract.
Q. Have you ever seen this before?

A. I'm not sure.

Q. You don't know one way or the other whether you were shown this document?
A. I don't recall.
Q. So it's possible your lawyers didn't show you this document?
A. It's possible.
Q. And one of the bases of your opinions is that it is unusual and inappropriate because Dr.
Murray -- and it should have been a red flag because Dr. Murray was going to make more
than Kenny Ortega on the tour, correct?
A. I threw that out as an example. The red flag is $150,000 a month compared to another
doctor doing it for $40,000 a month, and -- and the idea that 150 was commensurate with
what Dr. Murray had been making and what he would lose if he took on this appointment is
ludicrous because it was nowhere near that.
Q. Part of your opinion is you believed it was a problem because Dr. Murray was going to
make more than anybody on the tour including Kenny Ortega?

A. It's not a problem he was going to make more, it's an indication of how high that figure
was. It's not a problem.
Q. It's your belief --
A. Pardon --
Q. -- it's not a problem that the doctor was going to make more?
A. It's indicative of something out of whack. How -- I've said what I -- I've expressed my
opinion.
Q. Let's go ahead and look at this. The term in paragraph 2 indicates the term for Mr. Ortega
anticipated was March 1 through July 15, 2009. Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. And that's four and a half months, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And if you look at provision 3, there's a compensation provision there, correct?

A. That's what it says.

Q. And there it says 800,000 plus 10 percent guarantee pay or play to be paid in three equal
installments. Do you see that?
A. That's what it says.
Q. And then it talks about those, the first payment due immediately, the second on the first
day of production rehearsals, or may 27th, whichever is sooner, third on the first public
performance or July 8, whichever is sooner. And then if you look down there, 200,000 plus 10
percent guarantee pay or play to be paid in two equal installments, as well. Do you see that?
A. I see it.
Q. So it contemplates here a total of $1 million, correct?
A. Well, I see that. I'm very uncomfortable in acknowledging the appropriateness of one
clause of an agreement that I do not recall any other portion of.
Q. But assuming this is accurate, Kenny Ortega would have been actually making
approximately more than $50,000 per month more than Dr. Murray, correct?
A. I can't -- I don't have enough information. I would want to review the entire --

Q. And you also mentioned you don't know whether Kenny Ortega had any arrangement that
may have resulted in him receiving additional compensation for his work on the tour, correct?
A. He may have. I don't know.
Q. And so you don't know one way or the other whether his contract talked about additional
bonus of 100,000 plus 10 percent guarantee pay or play for the performances in additional
cities after London? I'm just -- it's not on the screen in front of you. You don't know one way or
another about that?
A. I don't recall that. It may well be there. I don't know.
Judge: Is this a good time?
Ms. Strong: Yes, this is a good time. Thank you.
(break)
Ms. Strong: Thank you, your honor.

Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Berman.

A. Good afternoon.
Q. You previously testified when Mr. Bloss was asking you some questions about records in
connection with insurance, correct?
A. Records?
Q. A request for records from Dr. Murray?
A. Yes, yes. I'm sorry.
Q. Do you recall that?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And you said that was in connection with some insurance?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you understand it was related to the cancellation insurance policy?

A. That's my understanding.
Q. And you understand that the cancellation insurance policy actually benefited Michael
Jackson, correct?
A. It benefited both parties.
Q. And so to the extent that Dr. Murray would have been providing medical records for the
insurance company in connection with the cancellation insurance, that would have benefited,
in part, Michael Jackson?
A. As well as AEG Live, that's correct.
Q. And when Ms. Jorrie asked Dr. Murray for records, she wasn't directing him to get the
medical records for her, was she?
A. There were, to the best of my recollection, more questions of Dr. Murray to provide
information for Mr. Taylor -- for the insurance company beyond just the Ms. Jorrie request.
Q. But the Ms. Jorrie request we looked at, she wasn't directing -- she wasn't directing Dr.
Murray to get the medical records?

A. My understanding is it was a request.

Q. Okay. And let's go ahead and look at that. It's exhibit 648, dash, 196. If we could focus in
I believe on the second paragraph, this is - at the bottom is the email from Kathy Jorrie to Dr.
Murray that you focused on earlier, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And I believe Mr. Bloss directed your attention to the second to last sentence in the second
paragraph. And there it said "Is this something you can assist us in obtaining for the
insurance company?" Referring to the medical records, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And, again, these are records that would be in the custody of Michael Jackson's physician,
correct?
A. Prior physicians -- physician or prior physicians.
Q. Right. And if you look at the next sentence, Ms. Jorrie went on to say "If not, can you
please let us know what physicians can be of assistance?" Correct?
A. Yes, correct.

Q. So Ms. Jorrie was trying to find any physician that might be able to provide Michael
Jackson's medical records to her for purposes of this insurance, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Part of your opinion, Mr. Berman, earlier, you indicated is you had concerns because you
believed that Michael Jackson's management team was not included in the discussions about
Dr. Murray or aware of Dr. Murray, correct?
A. Or in any of the -- in the negotiating of the agreement and submission of the various drafts
of the agreement with Dr. Murray.
Q. And that's an important part of your opinion, that nobody -- you believe nobody was
involved and knew that that was going on?
Mr. Bloss: Objection to form, your honor; compound.
Judge: Overruled. You may answer.
A. I didn't -- no, that's not exactly it. What my feeling was and is is that it's extremely unusual.
That is not the way contracts are negotiated. I don't understand it. I can't come up with a

reason that would have been done, it's just so unusual.

Q. Your concern is that folks in Michael Jackson's team were not kept in the loop; is that right?
A. His representatives, his lawyers, his manager -- to the best of my understanding, that is
what was happening.
Q. And you said you haven't read Mr. Phillips' testimony in this trial, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. So you don't know that Mr. Phillips testified that he spoke with Michael Jackson's manager,
Frank Dileo, about Dr. Murray, correct?
A. Well, I'm aware that Mr. Dileo was aware of Dr. Murray. I'm not aware that he was in the
loop with respect to the negotiation and the drafting of the agreement.
Ms. Strong: Your honor, I'd like the witness to answer the questions. This is --
Judge: Listen to the question, answer the question that's asked.
Q. Aand you're not aware, then, that Mr. Phillips testified in court in this trial that Mr. Dileo

asked Mr. Phillips to try to talk to Michael Jackson and get him to not hire Dr. Murray because
Mr. Dileo had been unable to do so? You're not aware of that testimony because you didn't
read it, right, Mr. Berman?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you're not aware that Mr. Phillips testified that he was also unable to do so, unable to
convince Michael Jackson not to hire Dr. Murray, correct?
A. Correct, I'm unaware of that.
Ms. Strong: And let's go ahead and look at exhibit 12945. At the top of the document, it
says "Statement of Frank Dileo." It's a declaration of Frank Dileo. Have you seen this
before, Mr. Berman?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. If you look at the first paragraph of this document, it says "artist manager" and Mr. Dileo
wrote "I was Michael Jackson's manager from approximately March 2009 until June
25th, 2009. In such role, I had regular contact directly with Michael Jackson about
matters related to the This Is It concerts at the 02 Arena and the preparation for such
concerts." Do you see that?

A. That's what it says.

Q. If we go into paragraph 4 of this declaration, and halfway down, the sentence that begins
"Throughout the process of producing the show," look at that until the end -- end of the
provision.
A. Yes.
Q. We'll look at that. "Throughout the process of producing the show, Michael Jackson
had many requests of AEG Live, and he acknowledged that he would be responsible
for the costs associated with such requests. For instance, Michael Jackson asked AEG
Live, as the producer of the show, to retain the services of Dr. Conrad Murray, who
Michael said was his personal physician. Although Randy Phillips objected to hiring
Dr. Murray at a rate of $150,000, Michael insisted that AEG Live retain Dr. Murray's
services at such rate and provide Dr. Murray with a number of other benefits." Do you
see that?
A. That's what it says.
Q. And this is a declaration -- if we go down to the very bottom of this page, we can see when
this was signed. And that last paragraph, it says "I declare under penalty of perjury under
the laws of the State of California, the United States of America, and any other

applicable laws, that the foregoing is true and correct." Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. And that it was executed July 13th, 2009, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And that was just shortly after Michael Jackson's passing?
A. Yes.
Q. So assuming -- I recognize that you have not read Mr. Phillips' testimony in this trial, but
assuming what I represented to you is correct, does that change your testimony about
whether Mr. Dileo at least was in the loop about Mr. -- Dr. Murray and Michael Jackson's
request to hire Dr. Murray?
A. This has nothing to do with the document, the agreement itself and the transferring of the
agreement between AEG and its representatives and Dr. Murray. There's nowhere that
indicates he was in the loop with respect to that issue.
Q. And my question was assuming what I said was true with respect to Mr. Phillips' testimony
-- a I'm sorry. Okay. Assuming what I said was true with respect to Mr. Phillips' testimony that

Mr. Phillips testified that Mr. Dileo asked Mr. Phillips to talk to Michael Jackson because Mr.
Dileo wasn't able to convince Michael Jackson not to retain Dr. Murray -- assuming that's true,
would that change your opinion?
A. I can't answer that. I don't know.
Q. And so you haven't read Mr. Phillips' testimony. Does that mean you're not aware that Mr.
Dileo attended meetings with Dr. Murray and Mr. Jackson?
A. I am aware of a communication between Mr. Dileo and Dr. Murray.
Q. That's -- my question is --
A. I'm thinking of the meetings. I don't recall right now. I can't specifically recall a meeting that
I'm aware of where -- where Mr. Dileo was present with Dr. Murray.
Q. So in forming your opinions in this case, you're doing so without being aware of evidence
indicating that Mr. Dileo, Mr. Michael Jackson and Mr. Phillips all attended a meeting
together?
A. I have no knowledge about that, can't speak to it.
Q. And you also were shown several emails by Mr. Bloss earlier, and you were asked about

whether anyone in Michael Jackson's -- any of Michael Jackson's representatives were on the
emails, and you thought it was inappropriate for the emails not to include Michael Jackson's
representatives. Do you recall that testimony from today?
A. Are you referring to the emails transferring the document -- the the AEG /Dr. Murray
contract, those emails?
Q. Well, let's look at -- there were emails shown by Mr. Bloss. Why don't we go ahead and
pull up exhibit 177. And let's look at who this email is to and from, and the content of the email
itself. This is one of the emails that was shown to you earlier by Mr. Bloss, correct? You might
need to blow up the content, Pam.
A. I'm sorry. Is this the email that formally sets forth the terms of the agreement between Dr.
Murray and AEG ?
Q. I just -- do you recognize this agreement as -- this email as something that was shown to
you earlier by Mr. Bloss?
A. Yes.
Q. And this is one of the emails that you were concerned that didn't go to Michael Jackson's
representatives, correct?

A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Let's look at the top of that email. And you see there's Brigitte Segal?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know her email address? Do you know what she's associated with? I know it's
redacted there, so we can't see.
Mr. Bloss: Your honor, I'm going to object to this. May I be heard sidebar on this?
Without a foundation as to her email address -- I don't want to --
Judge: I think you're going to say you're not familiar with this email address. Is there
more you're concerned with?
Mr. Bloss: Not at this time. There is a potential -- if it comes up more, we need to
address it.
Judge: If there's an objection, don't answer, and I'll make a ruling.
Ms. Strong: Your honor, may I approach? I have an unredacted version I'd like to show
the witness.

Mr. Bloss: We need to see it.

Ms. Strong: I believe you gave this to us this morning.
Mr. Bloss: We need to have a sidebar.
Judge: Okay.
(sidebar):
Judge: Okay. There's an email, the addresses, some are redacted --
Mr. Bloss: The email address of Brigitte Segal is MJ something. However, the evidence from
Mr. -- from everybody, including Mr. Gongaware, is that she was working as a contractor for
AEG Live at the time. She is not Michael Jackson's employee. She, in fact -- you know, if the
court remembers, there was a motion in limine related to Ms. Segal that she is actually Mr.
Gongaware's girlfriend at the time. And we've stayed away from that, trying to behave. But
without a foundation of somebody saying that just because the email address is -- makes her
an employee of Michael Jackson or one of his production companies, or a representative,
that's just terribly misleading.

Judge: This would be a problem, I think.

Ms. Stebbins: Your honor, actually, that's not quite true, what he says about the testimony.
Ms. Segal did work for AEG Live in part in that she had an independent contract or
agreement with AEG Live. She also worked for Michael Jackson, MJJC Productions. As
testimony came up in the M.I.l.'s, she was recommended for that position by Mr. Gongaware;
but she did have some position with MJJC Productions, and she was advancing not only on
behalf of the tour, but also on behalf of some of Mr. Jackson's personal staff in London. For
instance, she was arranging housing for Mr. Jackson's security and other personal staff in
that household. Nobody wants to pretend she had some role she didn't, but I think just asking,
"Are you aware of what her role was?" -- for instance, there's evidence and testimony that will
come out that she was in relatively regular contact with Mr. Dileo. So just asking whether he
knows that, whether he knows whether or not she communicated with him -- I don't think we
want to go a long ways down this road. And we'll acknowledge that she also worked for AEG
Live, and so on and so forth.
Ms. Strong: It's not fair. They've left the impression that no one associated with Michael
Jackson is on that email, and that's not true.
Mr. Panish: They're not going to be able to link up that she was associated at this time.
There's no way. Mr. Gongaware testified to the contrary. She was securing housing for Dr.
Murray on behalf of AEG Live, and that's the testimony. And if we want to get into her

credibility, that she's the girlfriend of Mr. Gongaware, that's coming in, too.
Mr. Bloss: There's also a foundation problem. In one of the May emails, your honor, Woolley
says that he's going to forward the terms to Segal, who is, by the way, an attorney, and she's
going to start drafting up the documents, so she's clearly acting for AEG at the time. I can get
the email if the court pleases. But they're trying to establish it just by means of a domain that
Michael was employing
Ms. Stebbins: We're not trying to establish that she is an employee. There's not been any
evidence that she isn't. In other words, she had something of a dual role. She was working
with Michael. For instance, they've put in the email when Mr. Phillips says he's going to get
Frank back, Brigitte too, as soon as possible when Michael is ill. In other words, she was
working directly with Mr. Jackson as well as with AEG Live. Nobody is going to pretend that
she didn't have a contract with AEG Live, she had a independent contractor agreement with
them just like everybody else, but she did have this somewhat dual role, she was working
with Mr. Dileo helping him on certain things
Ms. Strong: And they've left the impression, your honor, that it wasn't anyone associated with
Michael Jackson, and that wasn't true. They can explore the nature of that relationship, how
close she was with Michael Jackson, but the --
Mr. Bloss: She's beyond the subpoena power of the court, also.

Ms. Stebbins: They could have deposed her, they chose not to.
Mr. Panish: His question was representative capacity, Dileo and such. This email doesn't in
any way counter that.
Judge: On what basis is Brigitte Segal a representative of Michael Jackson, the same level
as Dileo, for example, who was his manager?
Ms. Stebbins: She was not his manager and we're not going to argue that she was his
manager. But she was working with him in some capacity helping secure his personal needs
in London as well as the tour needs. For instance, you know, furniture for his house, things of
that nature. And she was involved personally with Mr. Jackson, hence Mr. Phillips' email
saying, "We'll bring her back, as well." She had worked with him before. The This Is It tour
was not the first time Ms. Segal worked with Mr. Jackson and had a prior relationship with
him. We can bring that in if needed.
Ms. Strong: And they can challenge the extent of her role.
Judge: The problem is it's going to get into all these other relationships, and I know you had
moved in limine to exclude the relationship between Gongaware and Segal, and it seems to
me that's opening the door to things you previously didn't want --
Mr. Panish: And it's 352. We're going to open up all this stuff. She can ask without this email

what was her role. There's nothing wrong with that, to ask her that. But there's also no
foundation for this witness on this to establish that.
Ms. Stebbins: Your honor, the witness can be asked. If he has no foundation, he's not done
any work to try to figure out who she is or what her role is, that's something that's worth the
jury to know, as well.
Judge: But I wouldn't have done that if he was provided with redacted --
Ms. Stebbins: He was provided with the unredacted copy, your honor; and the version that
was given to us this morning was actually the unredacted copy. I'm not quite sure why this is
redacted because it's a business address.
Mr. Bloss: There's not even a foundation that it is even a business address. They're asking
to make an assumption based on the fact that a domain name has MJ in it, that that makes
her an employee or representative of Jackson as of May -- March, April 2009. And it may be
an old email address but the point is that she says -- or that the Woolley says that she is
acting on AEG Live's behalf with respect to the drafting this contract.
Mr. Panish: And if they want to bring in Ms. Segal to say that she was involved with this
contract for Mr. Jackson, then they can do that; but I don't think she's going to say that, and I
don't think they can represent to you that Ms. Segal was working on Mr. Jackson's behalf with
respect to Conrad Murray's contract. In fact, Ms. Stebbins has said quite the contrary, and the

email says that she's working as an attorney for AEG and the personal relationship is with Mr.
Gongaware.
Ms. Stebbins: Your honor, the email doesn't say she's working as an attorney for AEG, the
email they're referring to merely says Ms. Segal is a licensed attorney and might be able to
help with the contract. Given that Mr. Jackson had asked that this be engaged, that doesn't
necessarily weigh in one way or the other as to who is engaging Ms. Segal or what her role
is, so I think that's a bit iffy, what they're claiming with regard to Mr. Woolley's email
specifically. As far as exploring biases, and so on and so forth, the only thing we moved in
limine to exclude was the romantic relationship. Mr. Panish has already elicited that Mr.
Gongaware was, quote, good friends with Brigitte Segal. I think that's sufficient evidence of
bias. The point being, your honor, we're not trying to go far way down this road; but she did
have some capacity in which she was working with Michael, as well.
Judge: As his lawyer?
Ms. Stebbins: She is an attorney; and, actually, the privilege issues in this instance were sort
of extraordinarily complex as to -- she didn't draft the agreement, so in terms of her role with
Dr. Murray, I don't think she was acting as an attorney, but it was sort of forwarded her.
Ms. Strong: And the point is merely that she was MJC staff, your honor. They can -- they can
evaluate the extent of that role, they can challenge the extent of that role. If they want to say it
didn't mean anything to send it to her, they can draw it out.

Judge: Why don't you ask if he knew whether or not she was on MJ's staff or not. But I don't
think -- we should leave all the emails redacted. We've had them redacted --
Ms. Strong: A bunch went up already, your honor. This one wasn't unredacted.
Mr. Panish: No. Only you.
Ms. Strong: If there was one that was unredacted, I can put it up?

Judge: Yes, you can put the unredacted.
Mr. Panish: Which one?
Ms. Strong: We'll go find it.
Mr. Bloss: If I made a mistake on not redacting an email, I apologize.
Mr. Panish: Now, see, they're going to go backdoor it, exactly why we're here, so they can't
put that up with the foundation. There's no foundation. She had a written contract with AEG
Live, with no one else. She had a written contract, there's no dispute, with AEG Live. She
was working on AEG Live's behalf. No one will testify that she was working on Mr. Jackson's
behalf relating to Dr. Murray's negotiating of his contract. Who is going to say that?

Ms. Stebbins: I'm not sure who is going to say that specifically; but there is evidence that she
was working on Mr. Jackson's behalf in connection with the tour in advancing things for
London, so there will be some evidence that she was involved. Again, she had kind of a dual
role and was working both with the tour on behalf of AEG Live and with Mr. Jackson, so I'm
not arguing that she didn't.
Judge: If you want to explore that, you can explore whether she had one or not; but let's
keep the email address out.
(back to open court)
Judge: You may continue.
Ms. Strong: Okay. So we can go ahead and put the email back up, and focus on the to,
from. Mr. Berman, do you know who Brigitte Segal is?
A. My understanding, she is an attorney that was working at the time in London on behalf of
the tour, among other things, securing housing for various members of the tour.

Q. And securing housing for Michael Jackson's personal team?

A. I believe it was Michael Jackson, Karen Faye, Dr. Murray. I forget who else.
Q. Do you know whether she was employed in any capacity to work for Mr. Jackson?
A. I don't know that.
Q. So you don't know whether she was employed by MJJ Productions?
A. I don't know that.
Q. Do you know anything about how much Ms. Segal communicated with Mr. Frank Dileo?
A. No, I don't.
Q. Mr. Bloss also asked you about several emails. I believe some had "trouble at the Front" in
the "re" line, correct?
A. Bugzee -- yes.
Q. And those emails -- some of those emails discussed a meeting on June 20th, 2009,
correct?

A. Yes.
Q. And those emails were forwarded to several individuals, correct?
A. Eventually, yes.
Q. And they included Joel Katz?
A. Eventually, yes.
Q. And who is Joel Katz?
A. He's an attorney in Atlanta with the firm of Greenberg Traurig.
Q. And what do you know about Mr. Katz's reputation?
A. He's a very successful music attorney.
Q. He's one of the most reputable music attorneys in the industry, correct?
A. I can't say that.

Q. You don't know that one way or the other?

A. I can't say that.
Q. He's certainly known to be one of the most prominent entertainment lawyers, correct?
A. He's one of the most successful.
Q. And those emails were already forwarded to Frank Dileo, correct?
A. That's my recollection.
Q. And, again, Frank Dileo, you understand to be?
A. A personal manager who for a number of years managed Michael Jackson during some of
his most successful years.
Q. And the emails were also forwarded to John Branca, Mr. Branca, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And Mr. Branca, he, too, is an extremely successful entertainment lawyer, correct?

A. That's correct.
Q. One of the best in the business?
A. He's extremely good.
Q. And Mr. Branca had worked on and off with Mr. Jackson for many, many years, correct?
A. That's my understanding.
Q. Decades?
A. Um, he certainly was a long-term attorney for Mr. Jackson. I can't swear to decades,
meaning over 20 years, but he was.
Q. You know he worked for Mr. Jackson in the era of the Bad album?
A. I can't tell you specifically what eras other than I am absolutely aware that he was Mr.
Jackson's attorney for an extended period of time.
Q. And he came back in in June 2009 at the request of Michael Jackson?
A. I don't know at whose request; but yes, I understand that he came back in.

Q. And those emails were also forwarded to Michael Kane, correct?

A. I believe so.
Q. And do you know who Mr. -- who Mr. Kane is?
A. Mr. Kane at that time was Michael's business manager.
Q. And now Mr. Kane works for the Estate of Michael Jackson, correct?
A. I actually didn't know that.
Q. You previously testified that you've never hired staff for a concert tour, correct?
A. I have not, that's correct.
Q. But you've had experience hiring staff for record companies, some experience?
A. Yes.
Q. And what sorts of positions have you been involved in hiring staff?

A. Well, when I was the head of business affairs, whether it be at Warners or Geffen, I would
hire attorneys, paralegals, assistants. When I was president of Capitol, I would be involved
with hiring a much broader group of people; marketing people, heads of marketing, heads of
promotion, heads of the art department. Not lesser -- not lower -- I don't want to say "lesser."
Not lower place --
Q. So sometimes you're involved with hiring folks at senior executive levels?
A. Pretty much so.
Q. Did you ever get involved with hiring a CFO for one of the companies?
A. I believe that all the CFO's I dealt with were already in place by the time I got to wherever I
got to.
Q. But these -- some of these hiring decisions, these folks could have had a significant impact
on the companies with whom you were working at the time, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you never checked the financial condition of any of those individuals prior to working
in the music industry, correct?

Mr. Bloss: Your honor, I don't know if I misheard, but I thought he said they were hired
before he got there.
Judge: Sustained. You're right.
Ms. Strong: I'm referring to the ones in which you were involved.
Q. You indicated you were involved with some hiring of some very significant executives over
the course of your career, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you've never checked the financial condition of anyone hired to work in the music
industry, correct?
A. To the extent that that would have been done, it would have been done by the human
resources department, and I don't know what they would have done. I wouldn't have been
intimately involved in their parameters.
Q. But you can't -- you can't recall ever checking out the financial position of anyone that has
been hired in the music industry, correct?

A. Not by me personally.
Q. And you couldn't recall being aware of a hiring where you did a credit check of that type?
A. I didn't personally. Human resources could well have done it. I wouldn't know about it.
Q. You weren't aware of any such check?
A. It wouldn't reach my level.
Q. But you weren't aware of any such check, correct?
A. Either way.
Ms. Strong: Your honor, I'd like to play page 170, line 6 through 12, of his deposition.
Mr. Panish: Go ahead.
(video clip is played of Berman's deposition):

Q. Have you ever had an opportunity in your years in the music industry to check out the
financial position of anyone that has been hired in the music industry?
A. I can't recall. Not with re -- I can't recall a hiring where we did a credit check of that type.
Q. And you're not aware of anyone in the music industry ever conducting a background check
on someone the artist requested be hired, correct?
A. That's not completely accurate.
Q. You have not had experience --
A. No --
Q. You have not had experience with anyone in the music industry conducting a background
check on a person who an artist requested be hired, correct?
A. That's not totally accurate.

Ms. Strong: Okay. Your honor, I'd like to play from page 170, line 19 through 22, of his
deposition testimony.
Mr. Panish: Go ahead.
(video clip is played of Berman's deposition):
Q. And have you ever had experience with anyone in the music industry conducting a
background check on a person who an artist requested be hired?
A. No, I don't recall.
Ms. Strong: No further questions at this time, your honor.
Judge: Thank you.
Redirect examination by Mr. Bloss:

Q. Mr. Berman, do you have the Michael Jackson/AEG Live agreement from January in front
of you?
A. Yes.
Q. You were asked some questions about -- relating to your testimony that a verbal
agreement was -- why don't you summarize what your testimony was in that respect and I'll
follow up.
A. That there was a provision in the agreement which requires a written document signed by
both parties to modify or amend the agreement.
Q. It's your understanding and your testimony that AEG Live and Michael Jackson agreed to
increase the -- withdrawn -- that Michael Jackson approved going to 50 shows
notwithstanding the agreement saying that it's up to 31 shows?
A. That is my understanding.
Q. Unless the parties otherwise agreed?
A. Right.
Q. All right. And also that there was approvals relating to the production costs, and you

testified about that?

A. Correct.
Q. And did you ever see any written approvals to go to 50 shows?
A. No, never.
Q. Did you see any -- before Michael Jackson died, did you ever see -- did you see any
evidence that before Michael Jackson died, that he or a member of his staff had approved the
preproduction costs that have now reached in excess of $30 million?
A. No, I did not.
Mr. Bloss: All right. I'd ask you, looking at the agreement, 67 or 66, dash, 12
Judge: 66?
Mr. Bloss: 66 I think is the one we were just looking at. I think 67 is also in evidence.
But 66 is fine. Go to page 12, paragraph 16.8, Mr. Berman.
Mr. Berman: I'm sorry. Paragraph --

Mr. Bloss: 16.8.

Mr. Berman: Yes.
Q. Now, the first sentence of that says, does it not, "All notices, approvals and consents
required or permitted to be given hereunder shall be in writing?" Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that consistent with what you testified here before?
A. Completely.
Q. Were you shown that just now in cross examination?
A. Not by Ms. Strong, no.
Q. And, in fact, was it a provision within the Michael Jackson/AEG Live agreement that any
approvals shall be in writing?
A. That's correct.

Q. And was the approval for 50 shows in writing?

A. No.
Q. Did anybody consider that to be a problem?
A. Apparently not.
Q. The preproduction costs being in excess of 7 and a half million dollars, was that approved
in writing prior to the time Michael Jackson died?
A. Not that I'm aware of.
Q. Did anybody consider that to be a problem?
A. Apparently not.
Q. Now I'm going to -- you seem to -- you were talking about how your employment led to be
terminated at Capitol records.
A. Yes.

Q. Would you like to explain that, sir?

A. I'll try to give the abbreviated version.
Q. That's fine.
A. I was originally hired by a gentleman by the name of Bhaskar Menon, a man I have had
and had enormous respect for, and certainly looked forward to the new position. Shortly after I
got there -- in fact, almost exactly six months after I got there, Mr. Menon was effectively
kicked upstairs and out, and so a new chief executive -- worldwide chief came in who, for
better or worse, I did not have any respect for. And apparently, arrogantly and naively, it's
possible, it was pretty clear that I had no respect for him. And probably as a result of that,
rumors started going around that "Berman is going to be fired, he's --" you know, and it wasn't
so much a problem for me as it was morale for the company. I mean, it was a very bad
situation. It was going to be difficult to sign artists if the president is about to be booted. And
so I went to my direct superior, the vice chairman, Mr. Smith, and said, you know, "You guys
have to publicly support me and say that I'm your guy, or you have to terminate me -- or you
have to terminate me, because it's and you have to do that." And Mr. Fifield, the new
executive had to do that, too. And he says, "I can't do that." I said, "Well, then I'm fired," and I
walked out. And of course I insisted on being fired because that's the only way I can get paid
off. If I quit, I'm not going to get paid.
Q. And did you secure other employment thereafter?

A. Yes, I did.
Q. And within -- also within the music industry?
A. Yes.
Q. Also a high-level executive position?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. Now, Mr. Berman, you were asked a question about some of your deposition
testimony, and you were referred specifically to a question about would you agree that the
roles of artists' representatives vary significantly from artist to artist. Do you remember that?
A. Yes.
Q. And you answered yes at the deposition?
A. Okay. Yes.
Q. And you were asking what was the context, I believe, of what the statement was?

A. Right.
Q. And would it refresh your recollection if I showed you your deposition transcript to tell you
what the context was?
A. It might well help.
Q. Page 206. Actually, if you go back to 205 --
A. Right.
Q. Does that refresh your recollection about what --
A. Well, can you be more specific of what --
Q. Here's my question. When you were asked about the differing roles of representatives in
that deposition at that time, were you being asked about -- was it in the context of some
specific kind of representative?
A. It appears -- are we talking about specifically page 205?
Q. Did I say 205?

A. That's what I heard.

Q. What kind of representatives were being talked about at that part of deposition? In other
words, Mr. Hawk, for example?
A. Mr. Hawk is an attorney.
Q. The -- is it -- Mr. Berman, there an artist may have multiple different types of
representatives, correct?
A. Exactly.
Q. Personal managers?
A. Yes.
Q. Agents?
A. Yes.
Q. Attorneys?
A. Yes.

Q. Something else, or is that it?

A. Booking agent -- you said booking agents?
Q. Do those people have different roles?
A. Totally. That's the point I was trying to make, yes.
Q. Okay. And you were shown a couple minutes ago defense exhibit 12945, this statement of
Frank Dileo. Do you remember that?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you have it in front of you?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. All right. And there's a -- a statement by Mr. Dileo that he was Michael Jackson's manager
from approximately March 2009 until June 25, 2009. Do you see that?
A. Yes, I do.

Q. By the way, do you know who prepared this document? Do you have any idea?
A. No, I actually don't.
Q. Do you know what the context of it, the circumstances of it, were?
A. More or less, yes.
Ms. Strong: Objection, your honor; leading.
Judge: Overruled.
Mr Berman: I believe I do.
Q. What do you understand the circumstances to be?
A. That it was to get -- after Michael Jackson passed away, an attempt to get some
representative of some form of Mr. Jackson to -- I guess you would have to say retroactively
approve a number of items that were never approved, apparently, in writing. Specifically, the
budget increase.

Q. All right. Now, Mr. Berman, are you aware of there being a document appointing Mr. Dileo
to certain functions signed by Mr. Jackson?
A. Yes.
Q. And if I can ask, your honor, to have the witness shown exhibit 185, dash, 2? Have you
seen this document before?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. Does this document, in terms of the practice and custom in your industry, does this
document appoint Mr. Dileo as Mr. Jackson's manager?
Ms. Strong: Lacks foundation.
Judge: Overruled.
A. I'm hard pressed to say that. It's a very unusual and confusing document.
Q. In what sense?

A. Well, it -- can I read it?

Q. Sure.
A. "The purpose of the letter is to confirm I am appointing Frank Dileo as one of my
new representatives and tour manager." That's not very specific, but it's not all that
ambiguous. But then it goes on to say "Mr. Dileo has my authorization to conduct
business matters on my behalf only when instructed." Well, how would AEG or anybody
else dealing with Mr. Jackson's affairs know whether or not Mr. Dileo was authorized and
instructed? I mean, it's a very confusing document. I've never seen anything like it.
Q. All right. And have you seen any documentary evidence that Mr. Dileo had been authorized
to approve increases in the preproduction costs in the budget?
A. No. Quite the contrary. It would appear that an officer of the company would be required to
do so, and Mr. Dileo -- I have no knowledge that he was an officer of the company. I have
some knowledge that he wasn't.
Q. Can we scroll down a little bit on this? Or up. I'm sorry. What was the date that Mr. Jackson
signed that document?
A. May 2nd.

Q. And is that consistent or inconsistent with Mr. Dileo's statement in the exhibit I just showed
you, 12945, as to the date of his appointment?
A. It's very inconsistent, given that the -- the 12945 indicates that he's been Michael's
manager since March of 2009.
Q. All right. I wanted to just conclude with a couple of questions about the -- the Murray/AEG
Live contract.
A. Fine.
Mr. Bloss: Do you have that in front of you? I have it as 343. I'm sorry. If I can approach,
your honor, I'll get the book out of his way.
Mr. Berman: Not that it matters. You're going off 343 or 168?
Mr. Bloss: They're identical.
Q. You were asked questions about the impact of Mr. Jackson not signing this document?
A. Correct.

Q. And does that or does that not make any difference to you?
A. Not to me, it doesn't.
Q. Why?
A. Because I believe there is substantial evidence to indicate that the entire arrangement
originally emanated at the request of Mr. Jackson. I don't dispute that he asked that AEG
engage the services of Dr. Murray at the price of $150,000. There's no -- a month. There's no
-- nothing that I'm aware of that would indicate that he did anything but agree to the essence
of this agreement.
Q. And what -- what is the relationship between this document and what you've testified
earlier to was an oral agreement between AEG Live and Dr. Murray?
Ms. Strong: Objection, your honor, to the extent we're getting into what's a contract,
what forms a contract. Again, legal conclusion.
Judge: I'm not sure what the answer would be; but if it's that, it's sustained.

Mr. Bloss: I'll rephrase it, your honor.

Q. What is it that you understand this document to be?

A. I believe this document to be a written document confirming a binding oral agreement
between the parties.
Ms. Strong: Objection, your honor; move to strike.
Judge: Motion granted, the answer is stricken.
Q. Are oral agreements within the custom and practice of your industry?
A. Absolutely.
Ms. Strong: Objection; asked and answered.
Judge: Overruled.

Q. Well, my first question was do they occur.

A. Frequently.
Q. And are they -- are they binding?
A. Yes.
Mr. Bloss: I have no other questions, your honor. Thank you.
Judge: Anything further for this witness?
Recross examination by Ms. Strong:
Q. Mr. Berman, again, you didn't review Mr. Phillips' testimony at the trial, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. So I take it you're unaware that last week, Mr. Phillips testified that Mr. Jackson instructed

him that Frank Dileo was to conduct all matters related to the This Is It tour. You're unaware of
that testimony?
A. I am unaware of that.
Q. And if we can look at 185. 185, dash, 2. And you were just asked about this document,
correct, Mr. Berman?
A. Yes.
Q. And nothing in this document addresses when it was that Mr. Dileo was retained, correct?
A. No, it doesn't say when it was.
Q. And then you previously, just a moment ago, testified about requests with respect to
production advances, and you looked at -- we'll go to exhibit 66, Pam. Let's go to provision
16.8, which is the provision that I believe Mr. Bloss just showed you. This is the AEG/Michael
Jackson agreement, correct?
A. Right, right.
Q. January 2009 agreement?

Judge: What paragraph are you referring to?

Ms. Strong: So 16.8, your honor.
Judge: I see a 15.
Ms. Stebbins: It's on page 12.
Ms. Strong: 66, dash, 12, your honor.
Judge: Okay. Thank you.
Q. And if you look at the first sentence there, I believe it was highlighted by Mr. Bloss's tech,
"All notices, approvals and consents required or permitted to be given hereunder, or
which are given with respect to this agreement, shall be in writing and shall be deemed
duly given or made," and then it goes on from there, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And, again, it's all notices, approvals and consents, correct?

A. Yes.
Q. "Requests," the words "requests," isn't there, is it, Mr. Berman?
A. I --
Q. Is "requests" included in that sentence, Mr. Berman?
A. I don't see the word "requests."
Q. So let's look at paragraph 8.2, Mr. Berman. And that's on page 66, dash, 8. And, again, this
is dealing with advances beyond the 7.5 -- or not advances, but costs beyond the 7.5 million.
If you look halfway down in paragraph 8.2, it says "Artistco shall be responsible for all
production costs requested by Artistco." Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. And it's -- who is Artistco?
A. The Michael Jackson -- Michael Jackson's company. The Michael Jackson Company LLC.
Q. And there, it's referring to requests, correct?

A. Um.
Q. Yes or no, Mr. Berman?
A. Yes, yes, that's what the word says.
Q. Right. And it doesn't say "notice," correct?
A. I don't see that word.
Q. And it doesn't say "approval," correct?
A. I don't see that word.
Q. And it doesn't say "consent," correct?
A. I don't see that word.
Ms. Strong: No further questions, your honor.
Mr. Bloss: If we can just keep that page up, your honor.

Judge: All right. You may.

Further redirect examination by Mr. Bloss:
Q. Is there some language in the first sentence of paragraph 8.2?
A. It talks about mutually approved costs in excess of 7.5 million.
Q. And is a mutually approved cost an approval?
A. That's how I would interpret it.
Q. And did you consider for the purposes of your opinion Mr. Phillips' deposition testimony?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you -- is that reasonable to do within your industry?
A. Yes.
Mr. Bloss: Thank you, your honor. Nothing further.

Ms. Strong: Just I'll do it from here, your honor.

Further recross examination by Ms. Strong:
Q. That first provision that Mr. Bloss just focused on, that's with respect to the $7.5 million,
correct?
A. That's correct.
Ms. Strong: No further questions, your honor.
Judge: Okay. Thank you. You may step down.