JACKSON V AEG LIVE July 24

th

John Meglen (President/CEO Concert West division of AEG Live)
The Judge. thank you. And I did finish the Sasaki. I just need to make copies for you.
Mr. Putnam.: thank you very much.
Ms. Cahan. thank you very much. Appreciate It.
The Judge. And you want to talk about the Other rulings --
Mr. Boyle. Just one.
Ms. Cahan. Just one on Dr. Farshchian.

Mr. Boyle. Just one issue on Dr. Farshchian.

The Judge. Great. It went down.
Mr. Boyle. Do you have a copy of the transcript up there?
The Judge. I don't know. Maybe.
Mr. Boyle. Want me to give you one? I can Just use my e-mail.
Mr. Putnam.: we can send it up on the computer.
Ms. Cahan. the script includes the --
Mr. Boyle. Okay. She's got it. It's just one Page.
The Judge. Yes.
Mr. Boyle. Great.
The Judge. Is it a single line?
Mr. Boyle. Yes, your honor. If your honor would turn to page 135.
The Judge. You have to remind me of what my Rulings were.
Mr. Boyle. So what happened here was, is you Ruled -- the plaintiffs designated the part Im
about to Show you on page 135.
The Judge. Okay.
Mr. Boyle. the objection was based on a few Grounds. I think it was relevance, foundation, and
Beyond the scope. Am I right, those were the objections?
Ms. Cahan. Yes.
Mr. Boyle. All right. And so then you ruled this came out. And we would just like to argue that
we think that this should come in. And basically what it is is a series of Questions about -- Dr.
Farshchian was close to Mr. Jackson and his children, and he saw Mr. Jackson and His children
interact. And his testimony is about the Relationship between Mr. Jackson and his children as
Viewed by Dr. Farshchian. And it's about -- just a page of questions. And the first question by
Ms. Farrell of our firm was: "and you saw him" -- Mr. Jackson -- "interacting with his kids;
correct? "Yes." And then she goes on to have him describe the Relationship, and that is it. So we
would argue there is clearly a Foundation; it's relevant to a claim in the case, which Is Mr.
Jackson's relationship with his children; and that it's not beyond the scope of any designation

Because he basically -- the part of the designation of Dr. Farshchian is the defense showing --
trying to show Michael's drug-seeking behavior, his character. this Is -- so this is all within the
scope. Also, they go into the relationship between Dr. Farshchian and Mr. Jackson, because part
of the Claim from the defense, and -- you know, is that Mr. Jackson had relationships with a lot
of these Doctors. And so we think this is all part of the Relationship, and there's no reason to
exclude this Short testimony about Dr. Farshchian, you know, who had Meals and things with the
family, witnessing his Interactions between Michael and his children. And we Don't think it's
unduly -- that wasn't even raised, Unduly prejudicial, but we think based on relevance,
Foundation and scope, it's all fine.
Ms. Cahan. Our principle objection, your Honor, is to scope. this is testimony that has been
available to both parties the entire time. If plaintiffs thought it was important to their case-in-
chief, they could have designated it and played it during their portion of the Case. And as we're
going to have in the neighborhood Of 15 or so depositions that we're going to be Designating and
playing in defendants' case, it's not a Problem just for this deposition, but it will be a Problem for
others down the road if plaintiffs are Allowed to designate outside the scope. And the reason this
is outside the scope, your Honor, is because there is some testimony that was Provided as to
Michaels motivation for wanting to get Off of Demerol so he could be a good father to his
Children and actively participate in his family. But this series of questions, which comes at the
end of the Deposition, is not about that. this is about, "did you Observe Michael's interactions
with his children?" and I don't contest that plaintiffs could have designated that fresh in their own
case, but now that we're moving Into defendants' case, it's not an appropriate counter.
Mr. Boyle. Your honor, I would just say that the court, you know, has been very liberal in
Determining scope, both for live witnesses and for video Designations. the court was very liberal
in allowing the defendants to designate beyond the scope of what Plaintiffs designated on our
four videos.
The Judge. I'm trying to remember. I don't think I did.
Mr. Boyle. Well, I think the same arguments were made. the thinking was they could just
designate playing it in their case. We haven't rested, so we could designate and Play one page of
Farshchian in our case or play it in Rebuttal. It seems silly not to play it right now. they already
cut it with it in there. It's about 45 Seconds of testimony. It seems silly just not as a matter of
judicial Economy to not play it right now as opposed to us playing it separately.
Ms. Cahan. Your honor, it really concerns me to hear plaintiffs' counsel saying that because they
havent rested. Because we're still dealing with the Issue of Ms. Rwaramba and finishing Mr.
Ortega's testimony, they think that they have free range to raise Issues outside of the scope of
what we're doing in our Case. It's not a meaningful distinction to pass the Case to us if they're
allowed to continue to designate things outside the scope. And as I said, the deposition testimony
is going to be a significant portion of our case. We're trying to move efficiently, and, you know,
in the prior 13 weeks, if they wanted to use this testimony, they could have. As -- with respect to
their rebuttal case, I think that's a separate issue for a separate day. But We -- the law is quite
clear that what is appropriate for a rebuttal case are things that could not have been Known or
presented in plaintiffs' --

The Judge. No, not necessarily. Rebuttal is Just to rebut any arguments made by the defense. It
Doesn't --
Mr. Panish. Right.
The Judge. -- doesn't mean you have to present it in your case-in-chief; it's just to rebut what's
Presented in the defense case.
Mr. Panish. Exactly.
Ms. Cahan. Your honor, we stipulated that Michael loved his children, and we're not presenting
testimony to which this is responsive. We're not --
The Judge. that's the problem. So Im going to sustain the objection, but I don't know if that's
Going to prevent it from coming in in some other Fashion.
Ms. Cahan. thank you, your honor.
The Judge. Okay. Okay. Are the jurors here? And the witness is here; right?
Ms. Stebbins Bina. Yes. He's in the hallway.
Mr. Putnam.: yes.
The Judge. We can call him in.
Ms. Stebbins Bina. Okay. the courtroom assistant: your honor, we're Missing one juror.
The Judge. Oh, okay.
(the jury entered the courtroom at 10:14 a.m.)
The Judge. thank you. You may be seated. And we have Mr. Meglen on the witness stand for
Cross-examination. You understand you're still under oath?
The Witness. Yes, ma'am.
The Judge. Okay. Very good. Let's continue. John Meglen, Recalled as a witness by the
defendants, was previously sworn and testified as follows:

Cross-examination (resumed) By Mr. Panish:

Q. Good morning.
A. Good morning.
Q. Did you have a chance to meet with your Attorneys since you left here yesterday?
A. No, I did not.
Q. So that means you didn't review any documents to refresh your recollection; right?
A. No, I did not.
Q. Okay. Sir, yesterday you showed us exhibit 13,471, the Rose Bowl. Let's put that up, sir.
A. Okay.
Q. And you assisted in preparing this exhibit; Right?
A. Yes.
Q. And your testimony under oath in this case is that the actual maximum capacity for a concert
at the Rose bowl is 59,570; is that right, sir?
Ms. Stebbins Bina. Objection. Misstates the testimony.
The Witness. No. I do not believe --
The Judge. Hold on. Overruled. You may answer.
The Witness. I do not believe I testified that was the maximum capacity. I said that was the
actual Capacity, saleable capacity for the rolling stones "Voodoo Lounge."
Q. tell us, sir, what is the Maximum seating capacity for a concert at the Rose Bowl?
A. there are many factors that will enter into that, so it is not a one-number answer.
Q. Maximum means all factors, the most you could put in there. How much is it, sir?
A. I believe the seating capacity for a football Game is 100,000 people, roughly. In that range.

Q. What is the maximum capacity at the Rose Bowl, Sir, for a music concert?
A. You would need to tell me the production in Order for me to answer that question.
Q. I want you to assume the largest possible.
A. Are you talking about a singer standing in the Middle of the stadium singing?
Q. No. I'm talking about the U2 concert that you went to, sir.
A. Yes. the U2 concert, it was called the U2 "360 tour," so I would assume that means that tour
can sell 360 degrees.
Q. Sir, you told us yesterday that you were at the Concert, didn't you, sir?
A. Yeah. No, I told you I was down at the stadium during the day. I did not go to the concert.
Q. Oh. You saw the stage, how it was set up, Didn't you, sir?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And, sir, you're aware that the U2 concert at the Rose Bowl that you were at the beginning
sold over 97,000 tickets, and that's how many people were there, Aren't you, sir?
A. No, Im not aware of that, because I did not settle that show; I wasn't involved in that show.
And, You know, it sold 360, so, yes, it would have a bigger Capacity than probably the rolling
stones show. How much bigger, I don't know.
Q. Well, sir, so you're not trying to tell us that you can't have 97,000 people at a concert at the
rose Bowl, are you, sir?
A. No, Im not trying to tell you that. What Im trying to tell you --
Q. You've answered --
A. -- is that it depends on the production, and Michael's production was an end-stage production.
Q. Sir, can you answer -- if you don't understand the questions -- Id like to finish this morning.
So Please, sir, tell me if you don't understand it, and Ill repeat it; okay?
A. I perfectly understood the question.
Q. Okay. Well, can you answer it, then? Can I Have it read back, and can you answer it?
A. Your question, I believe, was: can you do 97,000 people for a concert at the Rose Bowl?

Q. Could you answer that question?

A. If you had a center stage, 360 in the round, with a very small stage, you could probably get to
97,000, yes.
Q. Sir, you saw how the concert was set up for the U2 concert, didn't you, sir?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And you told us yesterday that the billboard
Magazine was wrong when they said there was 97,000 People there, didn't you, sir?
A. Yes. And I still believe that is true.
Q. Okay. Do you have any documents to show that's not true?
A. No. I've been in the -- producing concert tours and stadium shows for a very, very long time.
So, I'm sorry, Im trusting my gut on that.
Q. Well, sir, Im looking for evidence here. Can you give me some evidence that there wasn't
97,000 people as reported by billboard, LA times, Pasadena star news, AP, Reuters, Guinness
book of World records, and documented in a movie? Can you give me some evidence?
Ms. Stebbins Bina. Your honor, objection. Lack of Foundation and --
The Judge. Sustained. Assumes facts not in Evidence. Sustained.
Q. can you give me some evidence, Sir? Do you have any documentary evidence?
Ms. Stebbins Bina. Objection. Lacks foundation. the Witness has testified he was not present at
that Concert.
The Judge. Well, if he has evidence, he can tell us; if he doesn't, he doesn't.
The Witness. I don't have any evidence of -- that would support your number or my number.
Q. Okay, sir. But you're saying Billboard is wrong, aren't you, sir?
A. I do not -- I've been in this business for a Very long time, and I know how those numbers can
be manipulated.

Q. Sir
Mr. Panish. Your honor, can he please answer my question?
The Judge. He's answering your question.
Q. you're saying the Billboard Magazine is wrong, and you have no evidence to establish that;
correct?
A. I told you I do not believe the numbers in Billboard magazine.
Q. Okay. I'm going to show a picture, sir, of the Setup at the Rose Bowl.
Mr. Panish. Do we have copies of this?
Ms. Stebbins Bina. Your honor, Im going to object. Lacks foundation as to showing --
Mr. Panish. He was there.
The Judge. Well, before you show it, if you can lay the foundation for that photo, then you can
publish it to the jury.
Q. do you know that there was a Movie made of this concert, sir?
A. No, I did not.
Q. You didn't know that? But you're --
A. No. I don't work with U2.
Q. Live nation does, don't they, sir?

A. Yes. Live nation does the U2 tour.

Q. Okay. I want to show you this picture; okay?
The Judge. Do you have an exhibit number for It?
Mr. Panish. I do not.
Mr. Boyle. 1043.
Mr. Panish. 1043.
Q. okay. Do you see that, sir?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Was that how the stage was set up when you went to the Rose Bowl that day?
A. Yes, that is.
Mr. Panish. Okay. Can I show it now, your Honor?
The Judge. Sure.
Q. Okay. So let's see what it looked like at the Rose Bowl; okay? Is that the stage (indicating)?
A. Yes, that is.
Q. Are there people on the field?

A. Yes, there are.

Q. Okay. Are the seats full in that picture, sir?
A. I cannot tell from that picture if it's totally full. I can see that the field is not totally full.
Q. How many seats in the Rose Bowl, sir?
A. For football, 100,000 people.
Q. Okay. Did they take any seats out for this Concert that you could point to, sir?
A. they have people standing on the floor. If you keep panning --
Q. Sir, can you tell me, and answer my question? Did you see seats that they took out for this
Concert, sir?
A. You mean physically removed?
Q. Or didn't let anyone sit there.
A. No. I don't -- it is a 360 show. that's the Idea.
Q. Could you answer my question, sir?
A. No, I do not.
Q. Okay. So if all the seats are filled, how much is that?

A. I don't know what their capacity on the floor is, so I don't know exactly. But it's somewhere
probably in the 90,000 range, yes.
Q. I'm just talking about the seats, sir. Forget the field. the seats. You, as a concert promoter,
know -- you told us what the attendance is for football. People don't stand on the field and watch
the game like that, do they, sir?
A. No, they do not.
Q. Okay. So what is the attendance like when they have the Super Bowl there?
A. I don't know what the paid attendance here is. I cannot tell from the picture.
Q. I'm asking you how many seats. Let's go back to your exhibit, sir.
Mr. Panish. Don't show that yet.
Q. do you know how many seats seat the Rose Bowl?
A. I told you that the Rose Bowl is a stadium of Around 100,000 people.
Q. Okay. So if all the seats are filled, how many People would be there?
A. For a football game, they announce 100,000 People.
Q. For any event, if they don't block off any Seats, and they're all full, how many people is that?
A. Be 100,000 people.
Q. And then there'd be additional people on the Floor; right?

A. If that was the -- you know, depending on what the fire marshal allows you to put on the floor,
yes.
Q. Now, you told us yesterday you talked to the Producers of the show, didn't you?
A. Yes. they are friends of mine.
Q. Okay. What is the name of the person that you talked to?
A. Gerry Barad.
Q. Gerry, last name spelled?
A. Barad. B-a-r-a-d.
Q. And he works for live nation?
A. Yes, he does.
Q. Still?
A. Yes, he does.
Q. In Beverly Hills?
A. No. Gerry's in Chicago.
Q. Oh, okay. And you talked to Gerry Barad -- is it Barad, Did you say?

A. Barad.
Q. Barad. And he told you that it wasn't a Sold-out show. that's your testimony under oath here
today; is that right, sir?
A. Uhm --
The Witness. Am I to answer things about Industry-type of --
The Judge. He's asking me a question.
The Witness. Can I ask the question to the Judge?
Mr. Panish. Sure. Let's have it on the Record.
The Witness. You know, we talked --
The Judge. Hold on. If you want to ask me a Question, you can ask me a question.
Mr. Panish. I just want it to be on the Record.
The Witness. With business, confidential Information, talked on the tour with other artists, Im
Worried about infringing confidentiality.
The Judge. Well, do you have a confidentiality Agreement?
The Witness. No, I do not, on this.
Q. answer the questions.

The Judge. Wait a minute. Who is giving Direction here?

Mr. Panish. I'm sorry.
The Judge. Okay. So you said that you personally don't have a Confidentiality agreement with
who? An artist? Or what Is your --
The Witness. No, no. Somebody spoke to me Confidentially about the tour, and, you know --
The Judge. Okay. You have to answer that Question.
Q. All right, sir. So, first of all, you don't work for Livenation; right?
A. No, I don't work for live nation.
Q. You don't work for U2; right?
A. No, I don't work for U2.
Q. And you told us yesterday you spoke to live Nation and they told you only 60,000 people
attended the Concert. You remember saying that under oath?
A. No, I did not say that at all.
Q. So if you said that --
A. I never disputed what U2 sold at the Rose Bowl. I told you that I was told that not all of their
shows Sold out; okay? And I cannot tell how much of this is paid Admission versus how much of
this is what we call Papering.

Q. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about, You told us -- let's go back to your exhibit again.
You told us what the seating capacity, paid or Unpaid, you said plaintiff says 92; you say it's only
59,570, to try to make it look like plaintiffs didn't Put the accurate number, didn't you, sir?
Ms. Stebbins Bina. Objection. Misstates the testimony.
The Judge. Overruled.
The Witness. that is not what I said. What I said is for the rolling stones "voodoo Lounge," for
an end-stage setup, they're going to sell Somewhere in the range of 180 to 220 degrees; that
You're going to sell 60,000 tickets. And I will stand By that.
Q. all right. Let's make sure we Understand your testimony under oath yesterday. You never
told us -- it's your testimony here today, that you talked to someone that was promoting the Show
that told you that there were only 60,000 seats of People there? Is that your testimony today, sir?
A. Could you show me my testimony?
Q. No. I'm asking you. Is that your testimony or Not?
A. I'd like you to show me the testimony, and then I can answer the question, because, I mean, I
don't Believe that's what I testified to.
Q. So if you testified to that, that's a lie, isnt it, sir?
A. I don't believe that's what I testified to.
The Judge. He needs his recollection Refreshed.
Q. so you don't remember what you testified to yesterday about speaking with the person From
live nation; is that right?

A. I do not remember every word that I said Yesterday to you, and if we have a court record of
that, You could simply read it back to me, and I could tell You what I meant by that.
Q. Okay. Well, let's start with this.
Mr. Panish. Line 15 --
Ms. Stebbins Bina. What page?
Mr. Panish. this is yesterday, 11477.
Q. and let's first set it up here. Let's start with the first question that I Asked you, and Ill ask
you if you remember your answer. And if you don't, Ill refresh your recollection. the Question
is: "well, sir, isn't it true that the group U2 had a single-day concert At the Rose Bowl" --
The Judge. You need to put it down.
Mr. Panish. Don't put it up.
The Judge. Not yet.
Mr. Panish. Not yet. Well, I want to try to refresh first, like you asked, and then Ill do it.
Q. so the question is: "well, isn't it true, sir that the group U2 had a single-day Concert at the
Rose Bowl where 97,000 People attended?" Do you remember what your answer was, sir?
A. I said -- I probably said "I don't believe that."
Q. No, sir. Do you remember what your answer was?

A. No, I don't remember my specific answer. You should show me.

Q. I'm going to show you, and then I want you to Read it to the jury, what your answer was.
The Judge. Well, first read it to yourself.
Mr. Panish. Read it.
The Witness. (reviewing document.)
Q. what's your answer, sir? Does that refresh your recollection, what you testified under oath
here yesterday?
A. Yes. And I still would say the same thing.
Q. tell us what you said under oath yesterday.
A. I said that I don't believe that they -- you Have to give it to me if you want me to read it word
for Word.
Q. You just said -- it's three words, sir.
A. "well, it isn't true, sir, that the group U2 had a single-day concert" -- that's your question.
that's not true. I still believe that is not true.
Q. We're getting there, sir.
A. Okay.
Q. that's your answer. Yesterday you said under Oath it was not true. You didn't say "I believe it,"
"it might be." you said "it's not true," didn't you, Sir?

A. My answer said that it is not true that they Had 97,000 people paid at the Rose Bowl.
Q. Sir --
Mr. Panish. Can I put it up now, your honor?
The Judge. All right. Yes.
Q. let's put it up, sir. You didnt say how many people were paid, did you, sir? Let's look at
what you said. You understand you're under oath, sir?
A. Mr. Panish, when I talk about ticket sales, we talk about paid tickets.
Q. Okay. Sir --
A. We don't really care about the unpaid tickets. they do nothing for us; okay?
Q. Sir, do you understand you're under oath?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Do you know what "perjury" means?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Okay. Well, let's look at what you said, sir: Question: "well, isn't true, sir, that the group U2
had a single-day Concert at the Rose Bowl where 97,000 People attended?" Answer: "that's not
true." Was anywhere in that question where it asks you How many paid people were there, sir?
"yes" or "no"?

A. to me, you're asking me a question here --

Mr. Panish. Your honor --
The Witness. -- and in reviewing my testimony And answering your question, and when you
asked me if 97,000 people attended, that, to me, means 97,000 people Buy tickets to go see U2 at
the Rose Bowl. I do not believe that is true.
Q. sir, does it say anywhere in the question how many people paid to go?
A. I'm in the concert business on a daily basis, Mr. Panish, and that's how we speak. I'm sorry.
Q. Well, we're in the courtroom here, and you're under oath, sir. this question that you answered
under Oath, you had no basis to say that, did you, sir?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Okay. Give me the evidence you have to say that.
A. I -- the evidence is just my experience in this Business and people I talk to in this business,
which you call hearsay. So, Im sorry, but when you talk about 97,000 People, I talk about
97,000 people buy tickets. And I Believe that's not true.
Q. Sir, tell me who from U2's group told you that 97,000 people did not attend that event?
A. No one from U2's group told me that 97,000 People did not attend the Rose Bowl.
Q. So you testified to something under oath here yesterday in court that you had no evidence of;
isn't that true, sir?
A. I am telling you what I believe to be true and not true --

Q. You didn't say that.

A. -- and I do not believe that your question is true.
Q. Sir, you didn't say you "believe." you said "that's not true," didn't you, sir?
Ms. Stebbins Bina. Your honor asked and answered.
Mr. Panish. He's not answering.
The Judge. Overruled.
Q. it's a simple "yes" or "no" Question.
A. I can see what my answer says here. It says "that's not true," and I still would stand by that.
Q. And you have no basis, other than your gut, to Make that statement under oath; right?
A. I have promoted and produced stadium tours for 35 years. I think I have a bit of experience in
this.
Q. Sir, I don't want to know about your experience yet. I want to know -- do you understand that
when you testify to something under oath, it's supposed to be the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth?
A. Yes, I understand that.
Q. Did you write billboard and tell them they were wrong?

A. No. I don't write Billboard letters. I never have.

Q. You give interviews with them all the time, dont you, sir?
A. Honestly, not that often.
Q. When you had interviews, did you ever say "you're reporting this U2 97,000 wrong"?
Ms. Stebbins Bina. Objection.
The Witness. Probably not the subject I was being interviewed on.
Q. well, let's talk about --
The Judge. Hold on. Mr. Meglen, if there's an objection, you need to not answer and let me rule
on the objection.
The Witness. Okay.
Ms. Stebbins Bina. I was going to say argumentative and Irrelevant at this point, your honor.
this is all about a concert he didn't promote.
Mr. Panish. It's all about his testimony under Oath yesterday, and his inference that he was
trying to draw from his charts that aren't true. that's what it's about.
The Judge. Overruled, except to the extent he wrote a letter to somebody is irrelevant.
Mr. Panish. I didn't ask about that.

Ms. Stebbins Bina. And I would ask that Mr. Panish not comment on the chart. the chart was
true. the witness westified many times the chart was based on the actual evidence of the concerts
he promoted. So I think he's arguing on the record.
Mr. Panish. they're the ones making the arguments. I'm responding that this witness put that
chart up to show a difference and allege or infer that what our numbers were, were not accurate.
that's the purpose he was called.
The Judge. I'm going to overrule the objection to the extent you're asking about his specific
testimony during the trial. So overruled.
The Witness. Is there a question?
Q. there sure was. Maybe you can answer it.
A. Going to have to ask to have it read back, Please.
Mr. Panish. Certainly.
Q. is this funny, Mr. Meglen?
The Witness. Pardon me?
The Judge. Mr. Panish, don't argue. Do you want the court reporter to read it back?
Mr. Panish. I asked if it could please be read back.
(the requested question was read back.)
The Witness. No.

Q. now, sir, let's talk about ticket sales. You told us yesterday under oath that there were other
concerts that sold just as fast and just as many tickets as Michael Jackson 02, didn't you, sir?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And you've been working with Mr. Gongaware, you said, 35 years; right?
A. Mr. Gongaware and I worked together 35 years Ago; then we didn't work together for quite a
long time period; and then we worked together again later.
Q. So can you answer the question again, sir? Or please answer it. Have you worked with Mr.
Gongaware for 35 Years? "Yes" or "no"?
Ms. Stebbins Bina. Objection, your honor. Asked and Answered. Very clearly, it's not a "yes" or
"no" Answer.
The Judge. Okay. I'm going to sustain the Objection. He said intermittently.
Mr. Panish. Well, okay. Just give me a Moment.
Mr. Putnam.: your honor, while we have this Little break, if I could ask the witness to answer
from Where he is, as opposed to leaning forward. It's --
The Witness. Oh, is it too loud? I'm sorry.
Mr. Putnam.: just for the sake of us back here.
Q. you remember being asked a Question in your deposition of how long you've worked With
Mr. Gongaware, sir?
A. I do not recall.

Mr. Panish. Okay. Page 14, lines 25, to Page 15 --

Q. how many years did you not work for him over the 35 years, approximately?
A. I would say approximately 15 years, maybe.
Q. Okay. So you really only worked with him for 20 years?
A. Yeah.
Q. Is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And did you discuss with Mr. Gongaware the ticket sales for the 02 and Michael
Jackson?
A. I do not recall.
Q. Okay. Well, do you disagree with Mr. Gongaware's testimony that in two hours, tickets sold
out 31 shows, and an additional 500,000 people Wanted to buy tickets and that, in his opinion,
was the fastest that it's ever occurred in the industry? Do you agree or disagree with that?
A. I don't know if I 100 percent agree with that statement, but I think that Paul felt that way.
Q. Well, he's been in the business longer than you, hasn't he?
A. Yes, he has a few years.

Q. Okay. Well, he's said he's never seen anything like it in the history of his career, and you don't
agree with that, do you?
A. Paul and I have worked on different projects in our lives, and so we've both seen different
things.
Q. Sir, could you please try to answer my Question? It was real simple. Do you not agree with
Mr. Gongaware when he said it was the most amazing thing he's ever seen in his Career?
Ms. Stebbins Bina. I would object. Asked and answered.
Mr. Panish. He hasn't answered.
The Judge. Overruled.
The Witness. I believe I did answer your question. I told you that Paul and I -- Paul could
believe that, so the answer, do I think Paul believed that? Yes, Paul could believe that, but I could
believe differently.
Q. I didn't ask that, sir.
The Judge. It's "yes" or "no."
Q. do you agree or not agree with What Mr. Gongaware testified under oath here at this trial?
A. I don't think it's a "yes" or "no" answer.
Mr. Putnam.: I would object as vague, your Honor. "Do you agree with his statement," and his
statement is it's the biggest thing he had ever seen.
Mr. Panish. Are we going to allow speeches?

The Judge. It may be, but he either can agree with it or disagree with it. I mean, it may be a
statement, but he can either agree or disagree.
Mr. Panish. that's all I asked.
Ms. Stebbins Bina. I think the statement we had yesterday when he was trying to figure out if he
was asked for his personal opinion if Mr. Gongaware was telling the truth. I think if he's being
asked for his own opinion, he can answer it easily. that's the vagueness of the question that might
be causing the problem.
Q. do you think Mr. Gongaware was untruthful when he came to court here, sir?
A. No, I do not.
Q. Do you know that he didn't remember anything in his deposition -- strike that. Do you
remember he didn't remember a lot of things in his deposition and all of a sudden remembered
them in court?
Ms. Stebbins Bina. Objection. Argumentative.
The Judge. Sustained.
Ms. Stebbins Bina. And misstates the evidence.
Mr. Panish. Doesn't misstate the evidence.
Mr. Putnam.: move to strike.
Ms. Stebbins Bina. Your honor, it's inappropriate.

The Judge. It is.

Mr. Panish. Let's just play what Mr. Gongaware said. Can I ask my question be read back so
maybe he can try to answer?
The Judge. All right. Let's read back the Question. I think it was "do you agree?"
Mr. Panish. Right. that was it.
The Judge. Let's go back and get the question.
(the requested question was read back.)
The Judge. Okay. Do you want her to go back further?
Mr. Panish. I'll ask it one more time.
Q. do you agree or disagree with Mr. Gongaware's testimony that this was the most amazing
thing in ticket sales that he saw for Michael Jackson at the 02 arena?
A. I agree that that is the most that Paul has seen.
Q. Are you denying that Michael Jackson had a huge ticket drawing power?
A. Not at all.
Q. Okay. thanks for answering that.
A. You're welcome.

Q. De nada. All right, sir. Let's go to -- you told us a lot yesterday about your experience in the
industry. Remember all those questions?
A. I think so.
Q. You told us all about what happens. How many tours have you done, sir? You told us how
many?
A. I've done a lot of tours. I don't -- you know, I mean, 35 years of doing tours, so it's hard to say,
but probably hundreds.
Q. Okay. that's what you said when counsel asked you --
A. Well, I --
Q. -- right? You answered it for her: hundreds of tours.
A. Yeah. I mean, you're asking me over 35 years. Yes, I've probably worked on hundreds of
tours.
Q. Sir, you didn't have a problem answering that when Ms. Bina asked that question, did you?
Ms. Stebbins Bina. Objection. Argumentative, and he Answered it again three times now.
The Judge. Sustained. Argumentative.
Q. sir, in all of the hundreds of tours, you came in here yesterday and told us all about what
happens on tours regarding doctors; right?
A. Yes.

Q. Gross versus net; right?

A. Yes.
Q. Rehearsals?
A. Yes.
Q. teleprompters?
A. Yes.
Q. Selling tickets?
A. I don't recall talking about selling tickets, but we probably did.
Q. Promotions? You told us all about that, how that works; right? In your experience in the
industry?
A. I don't know how much detail we went into on Promotions, but if I did, I did.
Q. Merchandising and endorsements and Sponsorships? You told us all about that yesterday
Based on all the experience you have; right?
A. I told you -- I talked about merchandising regarding the Vegas show, and I talked about tour
Sponsorships that I've been involved in.
Q. You didn't tell us about percentages of gross and merchandising? You don't remember
testifying about that, sir?

A. No. I remember talking about whether a sponsorship could be derived by taking a percentage
of the gross revenue, which Id never heard of before.
Q. But you talked about it. that's the point.
A. Well, I said that that -- I had never heard before.
Q. So that means you were dwelling on your experience to tell us that never happens; right?
A. I don't recall specifically which testimony that you're referring to, so if there's a specific one,
You could read it to me, and Ill be happy to explain again what I meant.
Q. So you don't remember what you testified about yesterday afternoon about that?
A. You know, this isn't a common setting for me, so I don't really, you know, remember
everything you're saying every day here.
Q. I didn't say that; Ms. Bina did my question Is: you don't remember; is that right?
A. No. I remember a lot of things.
Q. You don't remember -- sir, you also told us about what's common for tour directors and artists
at Rehearsals, and complaints of tour directors. You told us all about that, right, based on your
experience? Not uncommon that they complain; gave us examples of that; when they should
rehearse. All that. You told us all about that yesterday, didn't you, sir?
A. You would need to, you know, show me the testimony again, and then I would be happy to go
through that again with you.
Q. Okay. So you don't remember yesterday coming to this courtroom and telling us about what's
common and Uncommon regarding directors in rehearsals; is that Right, sir?

Ms. Stebbins Bina. I would just object. Vague, your Honor. there's a fair bit of testimony.
Directors and Rehearsals are kind of --
Mr. Panish. He talked directly about that.
The Judge. His experience, particularly.
Ms. Stebbins Bina. Yeah. I don't recall -- Im not sure what Mr. Panish is talking about.
Mr. Panish. Your honor, he directly testified, I objected, and you allowed him. He gave
examples of Celine Dion, and directors are never happy. But he wont admit to that.
The Judge. I think he said -- show him -- the testimony is, I think, is what he said, but --
Mr. Panish. Okay. Then let's clarify that.
Q. so you can't remember what you testified to about your experience in the industry with
Rehearsals and artists and directors yesterday; is that Right?
A. Yes, I do remember what I, you know, went through yesterday. There was no question. I -- but
you would have to lay out for me specifically what you are Discussing, and I would be happy to
tell you what I Meant by that.
Q. I wasn't discussing it, sir; Ms. Bina was Questioning you about your experience with directors
and Artists and rehearsals, and whether directors were happy With artists showing up. Do you
remember that, sir?
A. I remember that part of our conversation, yes.
Q. And then you talked about contracts, and what Contracts require of artists regarding
rehearsals, and All your experience in that, didn't you, sir?

Ms. Stebbins Bina. Objection. Vague and misstates the testimony. I think he didn't talk at all
about Contracts, your honor. He was asked if contracts Require rehearsals. I think that's --
Mr. Panish. He talked about all the contracts He reviewed, and all this. And I objected, and the
Court allowed him to say that.
Ms. Stebbins Bina. It's vague.
The Judge. Sustained. It is a little vague.
Mr. Panish. Okay. Well, let's read it, then; Okay?
Q. Okay. Number one, you said It's not the artist's obligation to go to rehearsal; Right?
A. You would need to read for me exactly what I Said, because the artist does go to rehearsals,
but it Is not the sole purpose of the rehearsal.
Q. Okay. In all your experience that you've had, Hundreds of tours, is it the artist's obligation to
go to rehearsal? "Yes" or "no"?
A. I have never done a contract, in my experience, Where the artist has been obligated to go to
rehearsal.
Q. So the answer to the question is, in all the Experience you have, the artist is not obligated to
go to rehearsal; correct?
Ms. Stebbins Bina. Just vague as to "obligate." is it Obligated by contract? Is that the question?
Mr. Panish. Obligated.
Ms. Stebbins Bina. Or obligated --

Q. do you know what "obligated" Means, sir?

The Judge. Overruled. You can answer.
The Witness. I think there are many different Definitions of "obligated." So if you were asking
me about a contractual Issue, I am unaware of a contract that would state the Artist is obligated
to go to rehearsals. I'm not arguing in terms of -- if you want to Know what I think about
obligations in terms of a Contractual point, I suggest you talk to Shawn Trell When you discuss
contracts.
Q. Im going to ask you the Question again, sir. In all your experience, is the oblig- -- is the
Artist obligated to go to rehearsal? "yes" or "no"?
A. In my experience, the artist has not been obligated to go to rehearsal.
Q. Okay. So then let me show you -- by the way, Who is your boss at AEG.?
A. Dan Beckerman.
Q. Dan beckerman? Your boss is the C.E.O Of AEG Inc.?
A. Yes. that's -- my employment contract says I Report to the C.E.O. of AEG.
Q. So you're under the control of AEG., Inc.; is that right, sir?
Ms. Stebbins Bina. Objection. Vague as to "control."
The Judge. Overruled.

The Witness. I -- my contract states that I Acknowledge the structure of AEG. Live, but my
Personal report is to the C.E.O Of AEG.
Q. and he has to approve things that you do, like concerts; right?
A. there is a specific approval process for our tours that we, I believe, went through earlier.
Q. So when -- 2009, when the This Is It project Was on, you had to report to Tim Leiweke, he
was your Direct report, the C.E.O Of AEG., inc.; correct?
A. Yes. that was my direct report.
Q. And Mr. Tim Leiweke, the C.E.O Of AEG. Live, Had -- of AEG., Inc., had to authorize the
This Is It tour for it to go forward; correct?
A. No, that is not correct.
Q. So Mr. Leiweke never authorized the This Is It tour; is that right?
A. Mr. Leiweke was not required to give approval On tour offers.
Q. But Beckerman was, and he's from AEG.; right?
A. We went through this earlier. the four people that approve tour offers are: myself, Randy
Phillips, Tom Miserendo and Dan Beckerman.
Q. I didn't ask you that, sir; Ms. Bina asked you that. Beckerman was CFO. Of AEG., Inc., when
the This Is It tour was started; correct?
A. Correct.

Q. And now he's the c.e.o. Of AEG.; correct?

A. Correct.
Q. Okay. So now, Mr. Randy phillips is the c.e.o. Of
A..e.g. Live; right?
A. Correct.
Q. And does Randy phillips know what artists are Required to do for rehearsals?
A. I cannot speak for Randy.
Q. Okay. Would you expect Randy phillips, when he Comes here under oath, to tell the truth?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Okay. Well, let's see what he said about Rehearsals.
Mr. Panish. that's page -- okay. Let's start With page 6476, lines 21 to 24.
Ms. Stebbins Bina. What's the date of that?
Mr. Panish. 6476, 21 to 24.
Ms. Stebbins Bina. Right. What's the date?
Mr. Panish. I just know the page number. Can you tell us the date on that?

Ms. Stebbins Bina. If you want to put it up on our Screen, that's fine, too.
Mr. Panish. Sure. Of course. 6476, 21 to 24. Got it? Let's put that up.
Q. this is what Mr. Phillips said, Sir, when I questioned him here in that same seat here.
Ms. Stebbins Bina. And, your honor, just for the Record, Ill make an objection on completion
grounds, Since Mr. Phillips testified elsewhere in his 10 days of testimony on this issue --
Mr. Panish. 10 days?
Ms. Stebbins Bina. He's asking the witness to opine on the veracity of Mr. Phillips's testimony,
which is Inappropriate anyway. He should be showing the entire testimony on the subject.
Mr. Panish. Is there a grounds for --
The Judge. I don't know where the rest of the Grounds would be. I mean, I suppose if you could
show It --
Mr. Panish. Is there a grounds for the Objection?
Ms. Stebbins Bina. Yeah, the grounds --
The Judge. I'm talking, Mr. Panish.
Ms. Stebbins Bina. the grounds for the objection is Completeness. It appears from Mr. Panish,
where he is going Is, he's going to ask him whether he agrees or disagrees With the testimony. He
should show the entire testimony On the subject, because otherwise the witness is not Going to
know whether or not he should agree or disagree With Mr. Phillips's testimony.
The Judge. Well --

Mr. Panish. Your honor --

The Judge. Ms. Bina, you can show it in your Redirect, if you want.
Ms. Stebbins Bina. Okay.
The Judge. Overruled.
Q. okay. Sir, do you agree with Mr. Phillips, the c.e.o. Of your company, who believed that Mr.
Jackson had an Obligation to attend rehearsals as part of the contract? Do you agree with that?
A. I don't know the context in which this question Was asked, so it's hard for me to tell you --
you're Showing me one question and one answer --
Q. Okay.
A. -- of what happened during an entire Conversation. So it's hard for me to react to that.
Q. Well, let me read it and ask you again, sir: "by Mr. Panish: you as the C.e.o. Of the company
believed Mr. Jackson had an obligation to Attend rehearsals as part of the Contract; correct?"
Answer: "I felt Michael had that Obligation." Answer: "yes." Did I read that right, sir?
A. Yes, you read that part.
Q. Do you agree or disagree with that statement?
A. that you read it right?
Q. Is that funny, Mr. --

A. I can only read the statement, and I can't tell You in the context of what was going on. You're
asking Me to, you know, to answer on what Randy was thinking, And Im not Randy.
Q. I'm going to ask you again.
Mr. Panish. Could you please, your honor --
The Judge. Mr. Meglen, "yes" or "no." agree Or disagree.
The Witness. I don't know if I can answer that With a "yes" or "no." I -- if I was to look at this
strictly in this Context, I don't know if I agree with him that Michael Had a contractual
obligation.
Q. sir, you never read the Contract, so you don't know?
A. that's correct.
Q. Okay. So put the contract aside. Did he have an obligation to come to rehearsal Or not?
A. I read this to feel that Randy felt Michael had An obligation, not that necessarily that would
be Contractual or not. But I think Randy felt he was Obligated to go to some rehearsals.
Q. Do you agree with that statement?
A. I agree that an artist should go to some of the Rehearsals, yes.
Q. Do you agree that the artist has an obligation to attend rehearsals?
A. I believe that there is a business obligation By the artist for his -- so that his show is good, that
He does go to some of the rehearsals.

Mr. Panish. Your honor, can he please --

The Judge. You know, it sounds like that's the Best you're going to get, so just leave it where it
is.
Mr. Panish. Okay.
Q. the contract -- let's put that Aside, because you never read the contract; right?
A. Correct.
Ms. Stebbins Bina. Objection. Asked and answered.
The Judge. Overruled.
Q. do you agree with Mr. Phillips that Michael Jackson was bigger than celine dion?
A. that is a personal opinion.
Q. Sir, could you please try to answer the Question? Do you agree with Randy phillips, the c.e.o.
Of Your company, that Michael Jackson was a bigger artist than celine dion? "yes" or "no"?
A. I do, myself, personally believe that that is Not true.
Q. Okay. Well, you can say "no." that's okay. So celine dion, in your opinion, is a bigger Artist
than Michael Jackson; right?
A. So in my opinion, celine is right up there with Michael Jackson, yes. And, to me, she is
bigger.
Q. Okay. All you got to do is say "yes." it's Okay.

Mr. Putnam.: move to strike, your honor.

Ms. Stebbins Bina. Your honor, can we stop the Commentary, please?
The Judge. Motion denied.
Q. all right. So now, do you agree with Mr. Phillips that Michael Jackson's obligation, even if
not written in the Contract to attend rehearsals, was inferred as part of the contract?
Ms. Stebbins Bina. Objection. Lacks foundation, your Honor. He just clarified the witness hasn't
read the Contract and then is asking for things.
The Judge. Yes. Sustained.
Q. were you aware that Mr. Phillips was calling Michael Jackson's assistant, telling him how
critical it was for him to show up to Rehearsal?
Ms. Stebbins Bina. Objection. Misstates the testimony.
The Judge. Overruled.
The Witness. I was not aware of that.
Q. now, sir, let's talk about what You were aware of. First of all, you told us about the meetings
in Las Vegas; right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. But after that, you weren't involved, Were you, sir?

A. No, sir. Not on a day-to-day basis.

Q. Well, sir, isn't it true that you testified Under oath that after 2008, the fall of 2008, you were
Not involved?
A. I believe I testified I was not involved in the Day-to-day, but that does not mean that I was not
aware.
Q. Okay. Well, let's look at what you said. First of all, the AEG. Negotiations began in the fall of
2008; correct?
A. Again, I do not recall that.
Q. Okay. Let's see what you said in your Deposition.
Mr. Panish. 46/23 to 47/8.
Q. summer or fall of 2008 Negotiations began. Can we just go with that?
A. I don't know. You know, Mr. Panish, I told You, Im not really good with what years things
Happened, but if you showed documentation, then that can Refresh my memory as to what was
going on at that time.
Mr. Panish. Let's just play it.
Ms. Stebbins Bina. Just give me a second to review it. 26/23?
Mr. Panish. No, no. Page 46/23, the very Beginning.
Ms. Stebbins Bina. Oh, page 46. that's fine.

Mr. Panish. Okay. Let's play that. (a video clip was played with the Following testimony being
said:) "I asked you earlier whether Or not you recall a time in which you And other AEG. Live
executives Started negotiating a concert deal With Michael Jackson; correct? "correct. "and you
said, 'yes'? "yes. "all right. When do you Recall that those negotiations with Mr. Jackson started?
"for the 'this is it' tour, I think it was summer or fall of 2008, Approximately."
Q. does that refresh your Recollection, sir?
A. that refreshes my recollection of my Deposition, yes.
Q. Is that the truth?
A. I -- again, I told you, Im not great with Dates, and I think it shows in the way I was in my
Deposition. Yes, summer or fall of 2008, yes, sounds About right.
Q. Is that the truth or not, sir? Or do you not Know the truth?
A. No. I know the truth. I remember -- I Remember things, but in terms of years, you got to tell
Me, you know -- I got to go back and look at my Calendars to remember exactly where I was and
what I was Doing at different times.
Q. Sir, you testified to that under oath in your Deposition. You read the deposition, signed it
under Penalty of perjury, and you didn't change that; correct?
A. And Im not disputing it now.
Q. that's all Im asking you.
A. Okay. Yes.
Q. thank you.

A. Okay.
Q. Next question: you weren't involved in the Negotiations, were you, sir?
A. I was not at the table during the negotiations. I would do what we standardly would do,
reviewing things At the office.
Q. Okay. Sir, let's ask it again. Do you know what it means to be "involved" in Something?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Okay. Were you personally involved in the Negotiations for the This Is It tour? "yes" or
"no"?
A. I was not personally involved in the negotiations between Michael Jackson's representatives
and the representatives at AEG.
Q. Is that a "yes"?
A. that is, I was not involved in face-to-face or In the actual negotiations between those parties.
that Does not mean that I was not aware of what those Negotiations were.
Q. Sir, my question was real simple: Were you personally involved, "yes" or "no," in the
negotiations? that's all Im asking.
Ms. Stebbins Bina. I'm going to object. Asked and Answered, your honor. I think the witness
has answered the questions the best --
The Judge. I think he did. He said he wasn't.
Mr. Panish. He said --

Q. will you admit that, what the Judge just said, that you weren't personally involved?
A. Yes. I said I was not personally involved in the face-to-face actual negotiations between his
camp And ours.
Q. Were you involved -- were you personally Involved in the negotiations at all?
Ms. Stebbins Bina. Same objection, your honor.
The Judge. Well, whether face-to-face or some other way?
Mr. Panish. Right.
The Judge. Okay. Overruled. Some other way.
The Witness. The only thing that happens when youre negotiating a contract is not the face-to-
face. There are many conversations that we have back discussing that internally. Those are the
conversations that I am referring to.
Q. so you were personally involved?
A. I was -- I -- as C.E.Os of concerts west, it is My job to review any negotiations that
individuals may Be having on specific tours.
Q. Is that a "yes"? Just asking, were you personally involved? "yes" or "no"? that's all.
A. I was personally -- I don't know -- your Question was, was I personally involved in the
Negotiations? And that can mean different things. So you would need to define what that meant.
Q. So you don't know what "negotiations" means?

A. Yes, I do, but I think that they mean more than what you're inferring they mean.
Q. I haven't inferred anything, sir. I just asked you, very simply: were you personally involved in
the Negotiations or not?
The Judge. Well, the question was outside of Face-to-face.
Mr. Panish. Right. Right.
The Judge. So --
Mr. Panish. We already know that. He's Already told us not face-to-face.
Ms. Stebbins Bina. Your honor --
Mr. Panish. And I put -- can I please finish, Ms. Bina, with the question?
The Judge. Before you answer --
Mr. Panish. Let her object. But let me ask the question.
Q. Were you personally involved at all in the negotiations, other than face-to-face negotiations,
with Michael Jackson's people on the This Is It tour contract?
The Judge. Before you answer --
Ms. Stebbins Bina. And I will object, asked and Answered, your honor. He testified very clearly
he was not involved In the negotiations with the Jackson's camp but was kept Updated in his
office and had internal conversations related to the negotiations. So he's not --

Mr. Panish. Not what he said.

Ms. Stebbins Bina. I think the issue is coming up in terms of he doesn't know what Mr. Panish
means, if that Means personally involved in the negotiations or not. But he's answered the
question repeatedly, your honor, and described his involvement.
The Judge. Overruled. He can answer.
The Witness. My answer is the same answer, because I do not understand your full meaning of
"negotiations." If you are including conversations that we, as Executives at AEG., have regarding
the deal that was Being discussed with Michael Jackson's representatives, then, yes, I was
involved in those discussions.
Q. okay. that's all I asked. It's real simple.
A. Okay.
Q. And who were you involved with in those Negotiations?
A. those negotiations would be conversations with Paul and with Randy.
Q. And did you discuss those at the executive Committee meetings?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you -- you never reviewed the contracts as they were being drafted; correct?
A. No, I did not.
Q. Now, did you ever meet with the lawyers about the contracts?

A. No, I did not.

Q. Okay. You were not involved at all in the This Is It film; correct?
A. No, I was not involved in that.
Q. But you are listed as a co-producer in the Credits, even though you didn't do any work on the
film; Correct?
A. I believe Im listed as a co-producer of the Show, not of the movie.
Q. You don't think you're listed as a co-producer In the credits of the This Is It film? Have you
seen It?
A. Yes, I've seen it, and my understanding is I am a Co- -- I am a co-producer of the show, not
the film.
Q. Okay. Is Mr. Gongaware a producer of the Celine Dion Show?
A. No. He -- well, he is credited as a Co-producer.
Q. that wasn't my question, sir. My question is: is he a co-producer? "yes" or "no"?
A. Paul did not have much of an active role in Celine, but we have always given each other
credit on Shows that either one produces.
Q. So he didn't do much work but got credit as Co-producer; is that fair?
A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Now, sir, let's talk about the financial Arrangements and forecasts of the financial
projects of "this is it." You know what that means?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. You weren't involved in putting together the Forecasts and the projections for the tour, were
you?
A. I would review forecasts and give my opinions In terms of the promoter's side. And I would
occasionally look at the producer budget, but not in Detail.
Q. Sir, do you recall whether or not you personally provided any input for any forecasts that
Were being done by AEG. Live for the Michael Jackson Show?
A. I am sure I had input into things, like ticket prices, scalings, where to play, et cetera, the
things I testified to yesterday.
Q. So you're sure about that?
A. So I am -- yes. I would have been involved in conversations with Paul or in conversations
with Randy on what we thought ticket pricing should be, shouldn't Be, et cetera.
Q. Okay. Well, let's see what you said in your Deposition.
Mr. Panish. Page 24, lines 1 to 9. Let's see What you remembered at your deposition.
The Witness. Okay.
Ms. Stebbins Bina. And Ill just object to the extent this is being offered for impeachment
purposes. this testimony addresses production forecasts, not promotion Forecasts. But if he's
playing it under the party rule, I have no objection.

Q. were you involved in the Production forecast, sir?

A. No. that was timm woolley and Paul gongaware, Predominantly.
The Judge. Hold on. He's not a party.
Mr. Panish. Employee of the party.
Ms. Stebbins Bina. Employee of the party, AEG. Live, Who is a party. that's --
Mr. Panish. Let's just play it. (a video clip was played with the Following testimony being said:)
"did you take part in putting Information, those forecasts, for the Michael Jackson shows? "I
don't recall. "do you remember whether or Not you personally provided input for the various
forecasts that needed to Be done in order for AEG. Live to Produce the Michael Jackson shows?
"I don't recall."
Q. now, sir, you mentioned timm Woolley and -- just timm woolley. Did you mention Someone
else, too?
A. Paul gongaware.
Q. Okay. timm woolley, he's a long-time employee Of AEG. Live; is that right?
A. No. timm is an independent contractor.
Q. Oh, he's never been in any position of Management at AEG. Live?
A. He was our c.f.o. At the very beginning of
A..e.g. Live.

Q. Is he a long-time independent contractor, as You say?

A. Yes. I've known timm for a long time.
Q. And he works for AEG., inc., too, doesn't he?
A. Not that Im aware of.
Q. He's never worked for AEG., inc.?
A. I don't know.
Q. But he's a long-time friend of yours?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Have you talked to him about this trial?
A. No.
Q. When is the last time you saw him?
A. In london at the rolling stones.
Q. So he's working -- he was working on the Rolling stones tour for AEG. Live?
A. No. He works for the rolling stones.
Q. Oh. And bugz houghdahl, that's another Long-time independent contractor of AEG. Live;
Correct?

A. Bugz has been an independent contractor for us. He originally acted as bon jovi's production
manager.
Q. Sir, my question is: is bugz houghdahl a Long-time independent contractor for AEG. Live?
Ms. Stebbins Bina. I would have to object. Asked and Answered, your honor.
The Judge. Sustained. Asked and answered.
Q. and, sir, have you spoke to Mr. Houghdahl lately?
A. No. I haven't seen bugz in a while.
Q. Was he working on the rolling stones tour?
A. No. Bugz is working on the shania twain show In las Vegas.
Q. Who is doing that show?
A. We are.
Q. So he's working for AEG. In las Vegas?
A. Actually, he's working for shania.
Q. Sir, you never met with Michael Jackson Regarding any financial aspects of the tour; correct?
A. I did not, no.

Q. And you do not recall any of the budgets in 2009 for the tour; correct?
A. I do not recall the production budgets. the Promotion stuff would have been more of what I
would Have been familiar with.
Q. Okay. My question was, sir: do you recall any Of the budgets for the 2009 This Is It show?
A. I think I answered that question.
Q. So the question is: you do?
A. I think I answered that I was aware of the Promotion budgets but would not have been as
aware of the producer budgets.
Q. Okay. So let's talk about exhibit 31 that your Counsel showed you. Remember that exhibit?
that one e-mail you talked about?
A. the only e-mail; correct?
Q. Yes.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. By the way, did you say that you were aware of the meetings that Paul Gongaware and
Randy Phillips had With Michael Jackson to discuss -- and Michael Jackson's People to discuss
the This Is It tour?
A. Can you repeat that? I'm not sure I understand the question.
Mr. Panish. Okay. Well, Id ask if it could Be read back.

Q. and if it's not clear, you let Me know, and Ill repeat it for you.
Mr. Panish. You know what, Ill just re-ask it. Easier.
Q. are you aware of any meetings that Randy Phillips and Paul Gongaware attended with
Michael Jackson where he discussed the financial aspects Of the show?
A. I do not recall that.
Q. So when you said they came back and talked to You about the meetings, you don't recall what
was Discussed?
Ms. Stebbins Bina. Objection. Vague as to "meetings." We were talking earlier about meetings
relating to the Contract, and now we're talking about contracts relating to financial aspects of the
show. I'm confused as to which meetings Mr. Panish is referring to.
The Judge. Well, is the witness confused? Is the witness? Are you confused?
The Witness. I'm confused by the question.
The Judge. Okay. then rephrase it.
Q. let's see something that's not Confusing. Let's look at page 31-1. We talked a little Bit about
this yesterday. Remember -- just to refresh, look at the Bottom. I'm not going to get back into it,
but we talked about Mr. Anschutz, and being actively involved with calling him. Remember
those questions?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And you're on this e-mail, as is Phillip Anschutz; right?

A. Yes, I am.
Q. You're actually before him.
A. We don't worry about those types of things.
Q. I'm not worried about it, either. I'm just making a -- okay. So let's go now to the next page.
And the next Page, if I recall correctly, deals with the worldwide tour; right?
A. Correct.
Q. Okay. And this is drafted by Mr. Gongaware; right?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And let's look and see what Mr. Gongaware's plan was as of this time. He said: "we
play out the 02. Who Knows. 30 shows maybe." that became 50; right?
A. Correct.
Q. "and then go play out berlin And other Europe centers. As many as We can get. take a break.
Ship the Gear by sea freight (cheapest way) And then play out the next Continent." I did that
right so far?
A. Right.
Q. "we'll be in all arenas in America, Europe, Australia stadiums In some places where it makes
sense. We finish in America." Correct?
A. Correct.

Q. You received that e-mail from Mr. Gongaware?

A. Correct.
Q. And that was also sent to Mr. Leiweke, the C.E.Os of AEG., Inc.?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And then Mr. Gongaware goes on to discuss how many shows were being projected;
correct?
A. Correct.
Q. He projected 186 shows; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Including 14 privates?
A. Correct.
Q. And then he talked about the amount of net money to Mikey, 132 million; right?
A. Yes.
Q. And you told us yesterday all about gross and Net, and how it's important with artists that
have Guarantees to know what the gross is; right?
A. Correct.

Q. But Michael wasn't getting a guarantee, was he?

A. No, Michael was not.
Q. Okay. But then Mr. Gongaware said: "it's a big number but not a Number mj will want to
hear." Does that refer to his guarantee, to your Knowledge, sir?
A. I think he's referring to the -- Im sorry. Repeat the question.
Q. He's referring to the 132 net; right?
A. Correct.
Q. So then he goes on to say that: "if we use income, show Income, it's a quarter of a billion
Dollars." that's 250 million; right?
A. Yes.
Q. And he says: "his gross will be half a Billion dollars." that's 500 million; right? "his gross will
approach half a Billion dollars." You see that? It's on the screen, if you want to look.
A. No, no. I have to refer to the earlier in Order for it to make sense. Okay. I'm reading. I've got
it. What's the Question?
Q. the question was: he wrote his gross will approach half a billion dollars; right?
A. Yes.
Q. And he said: "maybe gross is a better Number to throw around if we need to use numbers
with Mikey listening." Right?

A. Yes.
Q. But he wasn't in a guarantee situation, was he?
A. No, he was not.
Q. Okay. Well, Mr. Gongaware is saying here, if I Understand it correctly -- correct me if Im
wrong -- in this e-mail, that rather than tell him what the net was, 132 million, we better tell him
the gross because it Will sound better; right?
Ms. Stebbins Bina. And Ill object. Calls for Speculation as to what Mr. Gongaware was
thinking.
Mr. Panish. He's on the e-mail.
The Judge. Well, sustained.
Ms. Stebbins Bina. Your honor --
Q. well, sir, does it say --
The Judge. Wait a minute. Is he copied on this e-mail?
Mr. Panish. Yes.
Ms. Stebbins Bina. He's copied on it but has no way of knowing what was in Mr. Gongaware's
mind.
The Judge. Overruled. He's on the e-mail. He Must have some understanding of this.
Q. okay. It says net 132; right? Million?

A. (no audible response.)

Q. Is that a "yes"?
A. Yes. I'm sorry. I'm reading.
Q. Well, take your time to read, if you need to Read it.
A. No, no. What's your question?
Q. You didn't read that e-mail before counsel went And asked you about it when you testified
about it Yesterday?
A. I reviewed this e-mail. I thought you put this E-mail in front of me at my deposition, didn't
you?
Q. Yeah. You didn't remember it, then?
A. Yeah. I mean, yeah, Im interpreting it --
Q. Well, you didn't have a problem -- my question Was this, sir: when you came yesterday and
Ms. Bina Questioned you about this e-mail, you didn't need to Read it, did you?
A. I know. But Im trying to answer your Question, so Im trying to understand what your
question Is, sir.
Q. So you're not familiar, then, with the e-mail? You need to reread it?
A. Yes. I have a lot of deals every day that I Deal with, so, yes, I need to go back and look at
them.

Q. Okay. Isn't Paul Gongaware suggesting to lie to Michael Jackson?

A. No, he is not.
Q. Okay.
Q. Mr. Meglen, Im going to shift for a little bit to try to get through this; okay?
A. Okay.
Q. You know Dr. Finkelstein, don't you?
A. Yes, I know Dr. Finkelstein.
Q. And you've spoken to him about Michael Jackson, Have you not?
A. I have spoken to him about his travels on the Road with Michael on, I believe, the
"Dangerous" tour.
Q. Okay. The first question was: have you spoken to him about Michael Jackson?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. You didn't know what tours he had been On with Michael Jackson, did you, sir?

A. No. I was confused on whether he was on "history" or "Dangerous."

Q. You didn't know when you gave your deposition what tours he had been on with Michael
Jackson; correct?
A. No. I was not sure.
Q. Okay. Since that time have you gone and spoke to Dr. Finkelstein?
A. No, I have not.
Q. So you haven't seen him since his deposition?
Ms. Stebbins Bina. And I would just object to the Extent this calls for anything other than -- any
medical Contexts.
Mr. Panish. I don't want to know about him.
The Judge. Oh, you mean --
Q. is he your doctor? Is that the Deal?
A. He's one of my doctors.
Q. Okay. Don't tell us about your medical --
A. Okay.
Q. I don't want to know that.

A. I'm trying to remember if I've seen Dr. Finkelstein since my deposition.

Q. Six months.
A. Pardon me.
Q. In the last six months?
A. I saw him at the Coachella music festival.
Q. What was he doing there?
A. Going to the festival.
Q. He was just an attendee?
A. Attendee.
Q. Did he get tickets from AEG.?
A. Yes.
Q. And Dr. Finkelstein has worked for AEG. In the past; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you said you'd spoken to him about Michael Jackson in the past; correct?
A. Yes.

Q. And you'd spoken to Mr. Gongaware about past tours with Michael Jackson, hadn't you?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. And you knew that Mr. Gongaware was on the tour With Dr. Finkelstein; correct?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And you knew that tour was canceled because Michael Jackson entered into rehabilitation;
correct?
A. Yes, I do know that.
Q. And Mr. Gongaware and you actually discussed that, didn't you?
A. I don't recall specifically discussing that, No.
Q. You're telling us you've never discussed that With Mr. Gongaware; is that correct?
A. No, Im not saying that I did not ever discuss It with him. I'm saying I don't recall discussing
it With him.
Q. Okay. So you could have discussed it, you just dont remember as you sit here today?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Let's go back to 31. And what this was, remember, was the worldwide Projections done
by Mr. Gongaware; correct?
A. Correct.

Q. And you would agree that he's qualified and Competent to project a worldwide tour; right?
A. Yes, he is.
Q. Okay. Let's go to page 4. Do you know Mr. Tom Barrack, by the way?
A. I met Mr. Barrack once in a meeting.
Q. What was that related to?
A. that was related to the colony capital wanting to develop a -- not an exhibit, a -- whatever you
call It. Move the pieces of Neverland down to the Hilton in Las Vegas.
Q. And they owned the Hilton?
A. they at that time did. I think they have since sold it. I am not sure.
Q. Okay. And this is page 4 of the exhibit, the E-mail that you received. You can look at it, if you
Want (indicating). Okay. And this is the timeline, the shows that Mr. Gongaware had projected;
right?
Ms. Stebbins Bina. And Ill just object, lacks Foundation as to who actually created and
projected these numbers. I think Mr. Panish said they were attached to an e-mail by Mr.
Gongaware, but I don't know if he knows Who created them.
Mr. Panish. Your honor, could I get grounds for an objection instead of a speech to try to cue the
Witness as to what the answer should be?
The Judge. Sustained. the e-mail or the Worldwide tour projections attached to an e-mail.

Mr. Panish. Right.

Q. sent to you; right? Let's go back. Let's go to the first page. All right. Who is sending the e-
mail?
A. On page 2, the one -- from Paul, or page 1?
Q. From Paul, "MJ first draft worldwide tour Projection"; okay?
A. Yes.
Q. "look at the worldwide tour. Put it on paper. Sent it to you"; right?
A. Yes. Cc'd me.
Q. Does that mean anything different than it was sent to you?
A. Yes. When someone is cc'ing, it usually means It's for their information; that they -- I might
not be directly involved in the project. So you'll cc people So they're aware of it, but it's more
directed to the People that it is to.
Q. Well, you were aware of this; right?
A. I was aware of it, yes.
Q. You were aware that Mr. Gongaware prepared this; right?
A. I'm not sure Mr. Gongaware prepared this Because, you know, there were other people in the
office that -- there would be Timm Woolley preparing producer Numbers for him, and Kelly and
other people in the Office preparing promoter revenue.

Q. I thought Timm Woolley didn't work for AEG.

A. Timm Woolley could have still prepared these Numbers for us.
Q. Well, I thought he didn't work in the office.
A. No. Timm works out of his house.
Q. Well, you said Timm Woolley was in the office.
A. that was a phrase, meaning other people in the Office, like Kelly, who is in the office, to do
the Promoter projections. And Timm Woolley, who is not in the office, doing the producer
projections.
Q. Okay. So let's ask you what you know. Did Timm Woolley work on this?
A. I believe so.
Q. Oh, okay. Did you talk to him about it?
A. I don't recall.
Q. Okay. Who told you Timm Woolley worked on it?
A. Probably Paul.
Q. "probably." he did or he didn't? Your testimony under oath is that Timm Woolley worked on
Preparing this worldwide tour schedule; correct?
A. I -- my testimony is I can look at the format And tell that that is most likely a Timm Woolley
work Product.

Q. Was it sent to Timm Woolley?

A. Was it sent to Timm Woolley?
Q. Yeah.
A. No.
Q. So back to my question. You have no idea -- Strike that. No one has told you Timm Woolley
worked on this; right?
A. Paul may have told me that Timm Woolley worked On this, yes.
Q. When did he tell you that?
A. I don't recall. But he may have told me. And I may have spoken to Timm, and Timm may
have said he was Working on it.
Q. And it may rain tomorrow, too, sir, but I want to know what happened.
The Judge. Argumentative. Question is Stricken.
Mr. Panish. Well, your honor --
Q. did he speak to Mr. Gongaware, And did he tell you that Timm Woolley prepared this? "yes"
or "no"?
Ms. Stebbins Bina. Objection. Asked and answered, your Honor, three --

The Judge. Overruled.

The Witness. I don't recall.
Q. okay. So you don't recall. So let's go to the Exhibit, page 4. And, by the way, the only people
on this are: You, the C.E.Os Of AEG. Live, the C.E.Os Of AEG., Inc., and the person sending it
is Mr. Gongaware; right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. Now, it has cities that are listed; right?
A. Yes.
Q. And if you go there, "Oslo, Goth, Stockholm," And something we can't read; right?
A. Right.
Q. And it goes to "London, Berlin, Hamburg," Something else we can't read; right?
A. "Munich." yeah. "Berlin" plus "Hamburg" or Hanover, I think.
Q. Where is Munich?
A. "Zurich, Munich, Milan" --
Q. "Paris" --
A. "Johannesburg, Cape Town."

Q. Hold on. First group up through Munich, that's Europe; Right?

A. through Munich.
Q. Sweden, England, Germany, France, Germany, those are all in Europe; right?
A. Correct.
Q. Okay. then you go down to Africa way down to "Cape Town, Johannesburg," down there;
right?
A. Yes.
Q. And different number of shows listed; right?
A. Yes.
Q. Do they have big arenas or stadiums in Johannesburg?
A. they have stadiums.
Q. Big ones, don't they?
A. Soccer stadiums. And I don't know how big.
Q. Well, they had the world cup there, didn't they?
A. Yeah.
Q. Okay. "Dubai." going to Dubai. Now that would be in Asia or Europe?

A. No. that is in the Middle Mast.

Q. Is that its own continent?
A. Uhm --
Q. Mr. Gongaware --
A. I think the Middle East is in Asia.
Q. I think so, the last time I checked. Mr. Gongaware talked about going to all these Different
continents; right?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. then "Japan," we know that's in Asia; right?
A. Yes.
Q. And then talking about the Pacific Rim, maybe. "Seoul, Taiwan, Taipei." More cities there;
right?
A. Correct.
Q. then "India." there's India. You told us yesterday nobody goes to India; Right?
A. Not very many do.
Q. You told us yesterday no one goes to india, Didn't you, sir?

Ms. Stebbins Bina. Objection. Misstates the testimony.

The Judge. Overruled.
The Witness. Again, I told you that very few People go to India. If I said, "no one goes to India,"
that means no one goes there, meaning very few people.
Q. when you say, "no one," that Means just a few people? Do I understand you correctly? You
don't really mean no one, you mean just a Few people. So whenever you say, "no one," that
means Just a few people; right?
A. You'd have to show me how I answered that, if I used the word "no one," and then I could
answer your Question here. I'm sorry.
Q. I didn't ask --
A. I think people understand when you say, "no one Goes there" doesn't -- that could mean
somebody has tried. And I've told you that none of the tours I Worked on went to India. I'm
aware of people going to India --
Q. Like Michael Jackson?
A. -- but it's not very common.
Q. Michael Jackson went to India, didn't he, sir?
A. I think he did one or two shows in India. You May know.
Q. You're the concert expert.

Ms. Stebbins Bina. I would object. Argumentative on that, your honor.

The Judge. Sustained, "concert expert." he hasnt been designated.
Q. you were on the "History" tour, werent you, sir?
A. I was at two shows of the "History" tour in one City.
Q. Didn't the "History" tour go to India?
A. I don't know if it may have been one that went to India.
Q. Is Beyonc "no one"?
A. Is Beyonc what?
Q. Is she no one?
A. No. Beyonce is a very popular act.
Q. Didn't she go to India?
A. No, I did not know that.
Q. You know who Shakira is?
A. I know who Shakira is.
Q. Is she no one?

A. No. Shakira is very big, especially in the Middle east.

Q. You know she went to India?
A. No.
Q. You know who Akon is?
A. Yes.
Q. You know that Akon went to India?
A. No, I didn't know that.
Q. You know who 50 cent is?
A. Yes.
Q. You know that he went to India?
A. No. And Im sure all these people went to India did one show or something. Could have been
Privates. You know, I don't --
Q. You don't --
A. It's not a very big market. that, I do know.
Q. So all -- so how many people live in India?
A. A lot of people.

Q. How many?
A. In the billion -- I think it's over a billion In India, isn't it?
Q. A billion. there's multiple billions in the City of Mumbai itself, isn't there, sir?
Mr. Putnam.: objection, your honor. Lacks Foundation. Move to strike.
The Judge. Sustained.
Mr. Panish. Well, we can take judicial notice Of the population of Mumbai.
The Judge. Multiple billions.
Mr. Panish. Yeah. there's more than a billion People in Mumbai alone.
The Judge. Multiple billion?
Ms. Stebbins Bina. I'm not sure, your honor.
Mr. Putnam.: also lacks foundation.
The Judge. Sustained.
Q. there are billions of people in India. How is that?
Ms. Stebbins Bina. Objection, your honor. Lacks Foundation, the exact population of india, and
Irrelevant.

The Judge. Well, it's not irrelevant.

Ms. Stebbins Bina. I think it's established it's a large number of people.
The Judge. At least a billion.
Ms. Stebbins Bina. I think its a billion, little over, But I don't think there's any foundation that
the Witness knows the exact population of India.
The Judge. Ask him if he knows.
The Witness. I believe there's 1.3 billion or 4 billion, was the last I heard, in china, so I would
Seriously doubt one city in India has billions.
Q. Okay. that's fine. Is that Funny?
The Judge. Mr. Panish.
Mr. Panish. Well, I mean, come on, your honor.
The Judge. You're just going to encourage --
Mr. Panish. He's doing it without me. I don't need to encourage --
Mr. Putnam.: objection about he's Encouraging --
Q. Okay. So in India they were projecting five shows at this time; right?
A. Looks to me like three shows.

Q. Oh, really?
A. And one private.
Q. Okay. Three?
A. Three shows and one private.
Q. So four shows. What did I say? Five? Okay. And at that time they were predicting 30 for the
02; right?
A. Yes.
Q. And then that went up to 50; right?
A. Yes.
Q. And you know they could have sold tickets for 200; right?
A. No, I do not think that.
Q. You don't think that's true?
A. No. I don't personally believe he could have Sold 200.
Q. Did you know that Randy Phillips said that?
Ms. Stebbins Bina. Object. Lacks foundation.
The Judge. Overruled.

The Witness. I don't know exactly what Randy Said.

Q. let me show you.
A. Okay.
Q. You think if Randy Phillips said he could sell 200 shows in London, that would be a false
statement; is that right?
A. No, I did not say that it would be a false statement if Randy said that.
Q. You just don't think it's true?
A. My opinion is that, no, he could not have done 200 shows in London.
Q. Okay. But you weren't involved in that, were you, sir?
A. As I told you, I had a supervisory -- whatever -- my executive position, I constantly reviewed
that, and the only thing approved was to do 50 shows.
Q. Sir, who is more involved in the London shows, You or Mr. Phillips?
A. Mr. Phillips.
Q. That's -- actually, sir --
Mr. Panish. What is it? 112-1. It's in Evidence. Why don't you go to that for a second?
Ms. Stebbins Bina. Let me just check and make sure --

Mr. Panish. take it down. It's in evidence, I believe.

Ms. Stebbins Bina. Okay. that's fine.
Mr. Panish. thank you.
Ms. Stebbins Bina. Is he on this e-mail?
Mr. Panish. No. It doesn't matter. It's in Evidence. Admission of party opponent of Mr. Phillips.
Ms. Stebbins Bina. I would object. Lacks foundation if He's going to be asked about the article.
Mr. Panish. It's not an article.
Ms. Stebbins Bina. Randy said this, and he already testified he wasn't. I don't see what the
foundation is for this witness.
The Judge. Overruled.
Q. okay. So let's see what Mr. Phillips said, the person more involved than you on how many
shows could be sold in England. Okay: "it's not a series of Concerts, more of a cultural
Phenomenon. We could have done 200+ Shows based on demand. Left 525k in the cue when
we stopped selling. Major stars like Coldplay, Akon, Black Eyed Peas, etc., want to Support.
So we underestimated the Demand. Now have to get him on Stage. Scary. Rp." Now, does Mr.
Phillips say he could have done 200 show in England, sir?
A. Yes, he does.
Q. Do you believe that's a false statement?

A. Yes, I do.
Q. So if Mr. Phillips testified to that under Oath, then he would have told a lie; right?
A. No, because no one has a crystal ball in our Business. And everyone wants to -- we could
have done 200 shows is totally speculation on Randy's behalf.
Q. Okay. So if he testified to that, that's False?
A. He believed that; I don't believe that.
Q. And he was the one on the front lines, not you; Right?
A. We have different experiences. Mine -- yes, he was on the front lines.
Q. Okay. How many tickets could each person buy?
A. How many could each person buy?
Q. Yeah.
A. I don't know what our ticket minimum was on that.
Q. You don't know what the minimum amount of tickets could be bought?
A. They're different for every single tour.
Q. I want to know about this tour --
A. I don't know.

Q. -- since you know --

A. I don't know what the ticket minimum was on Michael Jackson.
Q. Okay. Well, since you know you couldn't have sold this many tickets, you can't tell us what
the minimum or the maximum people could buy that were waiting? the 525,000?
A. No, because that is something that is decided on by a tour-by-tour basis with input from the
artist and their camp as to what the per-ticket limit should be.
Q. Right.
A. Also takes into account the buildings, and their regulations, and things of that nature.
Q. But you don't know, do you, sir?
A. I don't know specifically on Michael Jackson, What the per-ticket limit was, no.
Q. How about generally? Tell us what it was.
A. It isn't generally. There can be no ticket Limit; you can have a four-ticket limit; eight-ticket
Limit; ten-ticket limit, two-ticket limit. It's all different. I would guess somewhere between four
to eight would probably be kind of standardish.
Q. You think Mr. Phillips knew what the ticket Limit is, sir?
A. I don't know whether Randy knew that or not.
Q. Well, how many tickets would the 525 that are Left have to have bought for there to be 200
shows?

A. I don't know if the 525k in the cue, when we stopped selling, what the basis of his, you know,
data Is for that.
Q. He said it was a computer.
A. Well --
Ms. Stebbins Bina. Objection to the extent Mr. Panish Is -- that's actually not what he said, what
the testimony was.
Mr. Panish. He said it.
The Judge. Sustained. Unless you can show him.
Ms. Stebbins Bina. I have the testimony right here, actually.
Mr. Panish. Whatever. 525.
Q. how many tickets would they have to buy -- there's 50 shows sold out; right? Is that right?
A. Correct.
Q. Okay. So how many would 525 have to buy for 150 more shows to be done?
A. Is that simply a math question?
Q. Well, you told us it couldn't be done, so let's see.
A. I'm telling you that I don't know if I agree with there were 525 in the cue.

Q. Well, let's just assume --

A. Everybody exaggerates, and everybody -- you know, when something's hot, everybody wants
to take it to the moon.
Q. Well, let's assume that the C.E.O of your Company told the truth; okay? I know that's a big
assumption, but let's assume.
Mr. Putnam.: objection. Motion to strike, your Honor.
The Judge. Motion granted. Let's go to Sidebar.
(the following proceeding was heard at sidebar:)
The Judge. You need to stop the commentary.
Mr. Panish. Okay.
The Judge. You're argumentative, a lot of comments. And, you know, I can start getting more
Aggressive with it, but I don't think you're going to like that.
Mr. Panish. Your honor, first of all, I won't do that. Second of all, this witness is repeatedly not
answering the question. You know that. I need help from the court. If the court is not going to
help me, I'm going to have to do something myself, and I don't mean to do that. Number three, I
have been saying since the beginning of the trial that these speaking objections are out of control.
Now I have two lawyers making speeches with every objection. I implore the court. Please tell
counsel to just say the legal basis for the objections. We are getting page-long speaking
objections by two attorneys when Im trying to examine a witness that wont answer the
questions. I won't make any more Qqestions -- statements and try not to argue, if the Court
would instruct the witness to answer. He makes faces at me. He's doing --
Ms. Stebbins Bina. He's not made any faces.

Mr. Panish. Yes, he is. Absolutely, he is, Your honor.

Ms. Stebbins Bina. No, your honor.
Mr. Panish. Yes, he is, your honor. And I will ask the questions, and if you can help me get him
to answer -- this should have been done a long time ago. He will not answer a question.
Ms. Stebbins Bina. Your honor, first of all, I do not believe that there is any counsel in this court
who can Say, "Im allowed to misbehave because the judge is not controlling the witness
adequately." I think it's our responsibility as counsel to act appropriately and professionally at all
times. So setting that aside, your honor, I believe the witness is trying to answer the questions.
Some of these questions are very vague and confusing, like, you know, "did you know anything
about the meetings" without identifying the meetings. I -- and when you have disagreed on me,
you've instructed him to answer. So I think that's issue one. The issue that we're talking about
right now, the 525k, I actually have Mr. Phillips's testimony. He was asked about this e-mail he
wrote. You know, he said: "you said we could have done 200+ shows based on the demand;
Right?" He said, "Yeah, correct." He acknowledged the statement, although, elsewhere in his
testimony, he said 100 shows, not 200. So there's actually -- he acknowledged making the
statement in the e-mail, but his testimony was a smaller Number. Then, your honor --
Mr. Panish. Well, wait. What page are you Reading from? State it for --
Ms. Stebbins Bina. I'm at page 6244, starting at line 12. Then he goes on to say: "and then you
said, 'we left 525k.' does that mean thousands?" Answer: "people in the cue." Question: "did you
hear my question, Sir?" Answer: "I thought you asked me to read it." Question: "no. I asked you
does 525k mean 525,000?" Answer: "yes." Question: "so what that means is there were 525,000
more people that wanted to buy tickets? Is that a Fair statement?" Answer: "that's what I was
told, yes." So, basically, Mr. Phillips had a hearsay statement that he believed at the time he
wrote the E-mail. That was his testimony. And he believed it was 525,000 people, not 525,000
times four or whatever Mr. Panish said. Now we've got another witness who has no knowledge
of this e-mail who is being asked to evaluate whether Mr. Phillips was being truthful or not.
there's no way that a witness who was not familiar with what was In Mr. Phillips's mind when he
wrote the e-mail at the time can possibly make that evaluation, and it's not an appropriate line of
questioning.

Mr. Panish. This witness testified that there's no way that this number of tickets, the shows
could be sold.
Ms. Stebbins Bina. that's not true, your honor. He said it was -- in his opinion -- I apologize.
The Judge. Go on.
Mr. Panish. Interrupting your honor. Go ahead, your honor.
Ms. Stebbins Bina. I did not mean to interrupt the Court. I apologize.
The Judge. I forgot my thought.
Ms. Stebbins Bina. I was just saying, your honor --
Mr. Boyle. I'll jump in. Your honor, I mean, this guy -- they're having him carry their water as an
expert witness. I know the Court has ruled on it. Thats fine. But we should be able -- when he
makes these statements about certain shows can't sell out, and we start showing him the
underpinning evidence that his own company said they can, and now they're preventing us from
doing that, it's really unfair to us that this guy can just come in here and opines about the
projections --
The Judge. First of all --
Mr. Boyle. -- and then not --
The Judge. -- he's saying I've been involved In these things. the "Voodoo Lounge," how much
the capacity was. He didn't say this is the capacity for all --
Mr. Panish. Yes, he did.

Mr. Putnam.: he did not.

The Judge. this is the "Voodoo Lounge." "This Is my experience." You came back and said,
"Well, isn't it true on other tours like U2, it could be 97,000?" Ultimately, he agreed that if you
set up the stage in a certain manner, it could be 97.
Mr. Panish. He said --
The Judge. So, you know --
Mr. Panish. He said, "Thats not true."
The Judge. -- I know you don't like it.
Mr. Panish. No, your honor. He said, "Thats Not true." I asked him. He said, "No, that's false."
Mr. Boyle. Right.
Mr. Panish. He's lying.
Ms. Stebbins Bina. He's not lying.
Mr. Panish. He is lying. He knows that's false; okay?
Mr. Boyle. It's known worldwide that the U2 Show at the Rose Bowl had the largest in the USA.
Concert attendance. It's reported everywhere. He said He was even there for part of it. Why he's
lying about it? I don't know. He's sticking to the lie, but --
Mr. Putnam.: your honor, he is not lying. He has given -- for them to sit here and put on the
Record --

Mr. Panish. And then he gets up and makes the statement --

Mr. Putnam.: -- repeatedly that they're lying, and we have seen --
Mr. Boyle. He lied.
Mr. Putnam.: every time we've been brought back here -- every time we've been brought back
here where you've said, "I would like you to stop the following," What immediately follows
thereafter is accusations against us, against our client, against the person on the stand, as if that's
justification for what has occurred, and that should not happen. We were brought back here so
you could say stop Doing it, and --
The Judge. And I told Mr. Panish to stop doing it. And I told him, if he doesn't, it's going to
become more aggressive. And if he doesn't listen any further, I'm going to shut down his
examination.
Mr. Putnam.: thank you.
The Judge. I don't think it's gotten there, But it could.
Mr. Putnam.: thank you. Thats the point.
The Judge. But --
Mr. Panish. Your honor, I've listened to you, and I've asked that you instruct the witness.
The Judge. I have. I have.
Mr. Boyle. She has.
Mr. Panish. You said you would.

The Judge. I have multiple times. And you know what? Mr. Panish, what you have to
understand is, if a witness does not listen to the court, that is not lost upon a jury, and you have to
leave it at that. They get it.
Mr. Panish. All right.
The Judge. they will get it.
Mr. Panish. But --
The Judge. And you're free to comment on that, if that's in fact what's happening. If that's what's
happening. But I can only tell him to answer the questions "yes" or "no," agree or disagree. If he
doesn't want to do that, then the jury will see.
Mr. Panish. Okay. All right.
The Judge. And make of it what you will, or you can argue to them what they should make of it.
Mr. Panish. When he makes a statement --
The Judge. But to argue with me or to argue with the jury, to argue with counsel, or to make
negative comments, it's not going to advance the ball.
Mr. Panish. All I was trying -- okay. I understand that. All Im trying to do is get him to -- like
when he says -- he gives a statement, I have to cross-examine on the underpinning. He just
throws out things. Oh, "this guy wrote it." he doesn't know that. He just says it, your honor.
Theres no basis. So I can question him on his basis. He just says things -- Okay. Thats fine. I
won't make any comments to him. I'll look to the court to help me. And then if he doesn't want to
Answer, I understand what you said.
The Judge. then you have to leave it.

Mr. Panish. that's fine.

The Judge. Sometimes people aren't going to answer your questions, and the jury gets it.
Ms. Stebbins Bina. As for this specific e-mail, your Honor, the witness testified that he doesn't
know where the 525k number came from, and he's not sure it's right. Then Mr. Panish said it
came from a computer. What the witness actually said is "somebody told me it."
The Judge. And I made the comment.
Mr. Panish. You did.
The Judge. I think it came from a computer.
Ms. Stebbins Bina. So I think --
The Judge. So what's the issue?
Ms. Stebbins Bina. Well, I just want to know if we're going to have further questioning on this
e-mail.
Mr. Panish. I am going to question him about it. I'm going to ask him to assume, just like you
said -- just like they were doing to Mrs. Jackson. "I want you to assume this."
Ms. Stebbins Bina. You can't assume something that's not based on the evidence.
Mr. Panish. It's in evidence.
The Judge. Wait a minute.

Ms. Stebbins Bina. He's going to say, "Assume this came from a computer."
Mr. Panish. No, Im not.
Mr. Boyle. Wait. Mr. Gongaware also testified about the cue, and we asked him what the cue
was, and it was people online trying to buy tickets. Thats where the "computer" comment came
from. That was Mr. Gongaware's testimony.
The Judge. that's not what you said. He asked If Mr. Phillips meant that and got that number
from an e-mail, which is not accurate.
Mr. Panish. Well, it actually did come from a Computer.
Mr. Boyle. Randy Phillips said, "someone told Me that."
Mr. Panish. Gongaware.
Mr. Boyle. The inference being Gongaware told Him that; Gongaware got it from his computer.
Mr. Panish. that is a legitimate inference from the evidence.
The Judge. And this witness is supposed to know that? I mean, come on. It's fair to ask him, "is
Randy Phillips in a Better position to know the numbers than you?" I think that's a fair question.
Mr. Panish. I think so, too.
The Judge. Then, "given that, do you agree or disagree with his statement?" I think that's a fair
question.
Mr. Panish. And then Im going to ask him, "how many tickets -- assuming this is accurate, how
many does it take to sell out the additional shows?" that's Easy.

The Judge. If he can do the math.

Mr. Panish. I'll do it for him.
Mr. Putnam.: your honor, it's after the Lunch --
The Judge. It's 12:10?
Ms. Stebbins Bina. Should we break for lunch?
Mr. Putnam.: I don't care. I just know you have rules for your staff.
The Judge. Okay. Thank you. I will have to dismiss the jury.
Mr. Putnam.: I apologize. I didn't mean to interrupt.
The Judge. thank you.
(the following proceeding was heard in open court:)
The Judge. I didn't realize it was after 12:00 or I would have let you go before we went back
there. I apologize. But you can come back at 1:30; okay? Thank You.
LUNCH.
Mr. Boyle: your honor, one quick thing to clear it for the record. I don't think there's any
dispute. There was a question whether exhibit 1043 was in evidence or for identification only. It
was the picture of the rose bowl.

The court: I think he identified and said --

Ms. Bina: there was a question from the clerk, your honor. I don't think there was any dispute
from the parties.
The court: actually, I think somebody asked me, "can I use it or admit it?" and I think I said he
identified it.
The clerk: it's in?
The court: yes.
Mr. Panish: she's just not used to the way we do it here.
Ms. Bina: she just wanted it for the record.
The court: okay. That was in.
Mr. Panish: she's much more formal.
Continued cross-examination by Mr. Panish
Q. Hi, Mr. Meglen.
A. Hello, Mr. Panish. How are you?
Q. How you doing?
A. I'm good.

Q. Okay. Before we go back to that last exhibit, I was informed that I was mixing up my
millions and my billions, which is not unusual. Is it your understanding there's 1.2 something
billion people in India?
A. Yes, I understand that.
Q. Okay. And 18 million in number by -- not multiple billions, as I said, right?
A. Yes, I didn't -- I understand youre mistaken. I understand. Doesn't mean you're a liar.
Q. I won't respond to your --
A. Thank you.
Q. But despite it being 1.2 billion, you still think that's a small market in India, don't you, sir?
A. No, I do not think it's a small market. I think it's an undeveloped concert market.
Q. Did you testify yesterday, under oath, that India is a small market?
A. I do not recall my specific testimony. What I believe about India is that it is a market that
is not frequently gone to by concert tours, nor are there a -- if somebody goes there, it's usually
for a show or two and that is it.
Q. Okay. Sir, first of all, if somebody testifies one way and it's not true, what would that be?
Ms. Bina: objection; vague.
The court: sustained.

Mr. Panish: okay. Well, sirs, first of all, lets look and see here -- and I was mistaken when
I said "no one" goes to India. You said "nobody" goes to India.
Q. Do you remember that, sir?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And nobody, to you, means only some people, right?
A. In that reference, yes.
Q. That was your under-oath testimony, you didnt say some people, you said nobody, right?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Ms. Bina: Im going to object that it misstates the record. The next sentence was "a few
shows have gone there," so it's misleading.
The court: okay.
Mr. Panish: could I just ask one more time for counsel to just state the grounds for the
objection instead of keep making speeches, your honor?
The court: just ask your next question.
Mr. Panish: okay. Where were we? India.
The court: the objection was misstates the record, wasn't it?
Ms. Bina: yes, your honor.

Q. Sir, did I misstate your testimony when you said nobody goes to India?
A. I -- I would probably need to see that again now, if you don't mind, because --
Q. All right.
A. -- I -- I may --
Q. You've answered.
A. -- have said no one goes to India other than a few people have gone.
Mr. Panish: sir, at page 11422, let's put it up and show it to you, lines 4 to 8. You said
"nobody." Okay? Let's see if this refreshes your recollection. This is when Ms. Bina was
questioning you. Let's just put up what she asked you.
Ms. Bina: and I would ask that it be extended down to line 18.
Mr. Panish: let's look at what you asked him, Ms. Bina.
The court: let me see what goes down to line 18.
The witness: I think that --
The court: wait, wait. Read to 18.
Mr. Panish: okay. That's fine. Let's go to the top.

Ms. Bina: so the first question I have, Mr. Meglen, did AEG Live ever propose that Mr.
Jackson would do 60 days in India, to your knowledge?
A. No. Can we put it up so I can read it, your honor?
The court: you may put it up.
Mr. Panish: sure.
Q. Have you ever proposed that an artist go -- do 60 dates in India?
A. I've never, probably, proposed an idealist (sic) to go to India.
Q. Why not?
A. Nobody goes to India. Why not? There's no -- I mean, theres been a few concerts that
Im aware of. I've personally never done a show in India. I don't even know if there's -- I think
there's a cricket field but no arenas, and I don't know if there's any real stadiums in India.
Q. Is that what you said, sir?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Tell me who went to India that you know.
A. I know that Michael played India.
Q. You didn't know that this morning when I asked you.
A. Well, I heard Michael had played India. I'm not sure where I heard that.

Q. Okay. Who else?

A. And I heard from you that Beyonc went to India.
Q. No. But when you said that in court here, who did you know had gone to India? You
didn't know anyone, did you, sir?
A. No, no, I -- I remember a couple people going to do shows there, and they talking about it,
and they -- somebody got food poisoning --
Mr. Panish: your honor, excuse me. He now wants to blurt out hearsay. I asked him who
went there, not who got food poisoning, not what someone said on the way there. That's
nonresponsive.
The witness: Im only telling you --
The court: what are you asking me to do?
Mr. Panish: Im asking you to please ask the witness to answer the question.
The court: all right. Listen to the question, answer what's asked. You may re-ask your
question.
The witness: could you re-ask --
Q. Sir, when you testified yesterday under oath, you didn't know anyone that had gone to
India, correct?
A. No, that is not correct.

Q. Okay. Okay. And, sir, you don't know what the stadium capacities are in the stadiums in
India; you told us that yesterday, right?
A. I -- if I did, you know -- Im not sure of what the capacities of the different venues are in
India.
Q. All right. Now let's go to -- back to Mr. Phillips' e-mail. This was talking about -- I dont
remember the number. I'm sorry. I'll get the number for you, sir. 115 (sic). Remember we were
talking about this, sir?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. Now let's just assume that 200 shows are accurate. Okay?
A. Okay.
Q. And if you have 200 shows -- the arena holds 15,000, right?
A. Correct.
Q. And 15,000 times 200 are 3 million people, right?
A. 15,000 times 200 is 3 million.
Q. Okay. We're all in agreement on that, right?
A. Correct.
Q. Okay. Now, if -- do you know what percent of the population in London that is -- or
excuse me -- in the United Kingdom that is?

A. No, I do not.
Q. You have no idea about the population of the United Kingdom?
A. No, I don't know the population of the United Kingdom.
Mr. Panish: okay. Fair enough. Now, sir, that exhibit that you were telling us about
yesterday, I think it was 734 -- is that right, Ms. Bina? 734?
Ms. Bina: I don't remember using exhibit 734.
Mr. Panish: the one that --
Ms. Bina: the one that plaintiffs' counsel had?
Mr. Panish: the one that you showed him with all the information. This exhibit right here.
Ms. Bina: I am not sure --
Mr. Panish: is that 734?
Ms. Bina: what does it say on the bottom right-hand corner?
Mr. Panish: it says exhibit 7 of the depo.
Ms. Bina: but that one, I think there was a chart that was exhibit 74- -- Id have to check the
chart, but this exhibit was 13 something.
The court: right. You replaced it with the one with the larger font or something?

Mr. Panish: this says 13128. Is that okay, to use that?

Ms. Bina: fine by me. No objection.
Mr. Panish: okay.
Q. So you reviewed this, right, sir?
A. Yes.
Q. Yesterday we talked about it, right?
A. Correct.
Q. And we were talking about stadiums and such, right?
A. Correct.
Mr. Panish: okay. Now, you understand --
Mr. Putnam: Brian, I think it's 774, dash, 1.
Mr. Panish: thank you.
Q. You understand that you were questioned about that, and Mr. Erk had estimated 12.9 people
for the total -- 12.9 million for the world tour? Do you remember that?
Ms. Bina: objection; misstates the testimony. I dont think that was asked --
Mr. Panish: it's from this exhibit that he just reviewed. He just told me --

The court: wait a minute. Are we talking about Erk or this witness? I'm confused, too.
Ms. Bina: yeah. Your honor, this witness, to my knowledge, has not reviewed that entire
exhibit. We talked about a couple of pages of it yesterday.
The court: true.
Ms. Bina: so I may have a foundation objection. I don't recall talking about the 12.1
million, I -- thats -- we were limited in terms of our use of that document, your honor. I only
used this page.
Mr. Panish: can I say something?
The court: Im sorry. What was --
Ms. Bina: I used, I think, three pages of this with this witness.
Mr. Panish: is it okay if I say something?
The court: yes.
Mr. Panish: I just asked the witness if he reviewed this document, he just said yes. But I
dont -- it's pretty simple what I want to ask him. I havent even been able to get a question out.
The court: well --
Ms. Bina: I have no objection, your honor, to him asking about this page. I have not heard
the 12.1 million before.
Mr. Panish: it was 12.9.

The court: actually, I just don't think there was any testimony on that yesterday. Can you
read back the question about the 12.9, or whatever?
The record was read as follows:
Q. You understand that you were questioned about that, and Mr. Erk had estimated 12.9 people
for the total -- 12.9 million for the world tour? Do you remember that?
End of record
The court: okay. So Im sustaining that objection.
Mr. Panish: what was the ground?
The court: what do you mean, what was the ground? My own grounds. There's no
foundation for that.
Mr. Panish: okay.
Q. I want you to assume that Mr. Erk estimated 12.9 people for all the concerts for Mr.
Jackson. Okay? Are you with me?
A. Sure, I can assume that.
Q. For 200 -- million. I keep -- 260 dates. Remember you talked about that? Right?
A. I do not remember talking about 260 dates.
Ms. Bina: again, objection --
Mr. Panish: okay. I want you to assume 260 dates.

Q. All right?
A. I can assume 260 dates.
Q. All right. And if you take 12.9 and we subtract 3 million, would you agree with me that
leaves 9.9 million?
A. Yes, I would.
Q. Okay. And if you take out -- that's not the question I want to ask. Let me back it up. Are
there a lot of stadiums in the world that hold more than 60,000 people?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. I mean, there's a lot of them in Australia, right?
A. There are a lot of soccer stadiums around the world that have large capacities.
Mr. Panish: okay. Sir, I was just asking you about Australia. Your honor, Id ask the
witness to please answer the question. The question --
The witness: yes, there are stadiums in Australia.
Mr. Panish: in fact, in Australia they play a game called world -- excuse me -- called Australian
Rules football, don't they?
A. Yes, they do.
Q. And they have stadiums of over 100,000 in Australia, don't they, sir?

A. They may. I can't tell you exactly myself.

Q. Okay. So you don't know? Is that a fair answer?
A. I am not positive of that, no. That's a fair answer.
Q. Okay. Fair enough. And let's go back to exhibit 31, dash, 4, the e-mail that was sent to you
by Mr. Gongaware, and Mr. Gongaware listed all these countries. Remember we went through
that? Some of them. We didn't get through all of them, right? Okay? Are you familiar with the
stadiums in Oslo?
A. In Oslo, Norway?
Q. Yes.
A. I have played there.
Q. Okay. So is that a yes?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. London, what's the stadium in London they have, the big stadium?
A. Wembley stadium.
Q. And how many does that hold, sir?
A. 70, I think, 70 -- roughly 70, 80,000. Lot of times I think in terms of concert capacities.
Q. How many times has Michael Jackson sold out Wembley stadium?

A. I do not recall.
Q. Do you know if he ever has, sir?
A. I've been told that. I do not recall.
Q. Okay. Johannesburg, have you been there?
A. Where?
Q. Johannesburg?
A. No, I have not been to Johannesburg.
Q. Do you know anything about the stadium capacities in South Africa?
A. Not really. Only what I have seen in other touring materials on other tours.
Q. Do you watch the world cup?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you see they had a lot of large stadiums there?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Do you know if Michael Jackson was popular in South Africa?
A. I believe he was. I do not know.

Q. Okay. Have you seen him with Nelson Mandela?

A. Yes.
Q. Do you know whether Nelson Mandela came to Michael Jackson concerts?
A. I do not know.
Q. Okay. Dubai.
A. Correct.
Q. You've been there, right?
A. No, I haven't been to Dubai.
Q. Are you familiar with the stadiums in Dubai?
A. Not totally, no. I -- I -- I don't know them.
Q. That's -- it's okay if you don't. Just asking. Japan, are you familiar with the stadiums in
japan?
A. Yes.
Q. We covered India, Australia. South America. Are you familiar with the stadiums in Chile?
A. Yes.

Q. They have stadiums over 60,000?

A. Chile? I don't remember Chile or Montegayo (phonetic), Uruguay -- one of them is not
and one of them is of those two. I can't remember which one
Q. How about Brazil? They got some big stadiums in Brazil, sir, where they're having the
world cup next summer?
A. They're building new stadiums in Brazil right now, and there are some old stadiums in
Brazil.
Q. There's stadiums in Brazil that hold over 80,000 people, aren't there?
A. Yes, there are.
Q. And Argentina, they have large stadiums there, too, don't they, sir?
A. River plate stadium in Buenos Aires, theres a number of smaller ones. I don't think river
plate is over 80,000. It might be around 60, 70.
Q. Okay. Clearly, there are stadiums that hold over 60,000, though, aren't there, sir?
A. Yes, there are.
Q. Can you tell me how many stadiums in the world, to your estimate, hold over 60,000 seats
for concerts, sir?
A. I don't know.
Q. Okay. Do -- all right. So if -- youve put an average number of bookings or seats, as you
said, of like 57,000 something. Do you remember that chart you showed us?

A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Let's just use 60,000. Okay? At 200 shows at 60,000, how many people would
come?
A. 200 shows at 60,000? Is that 18 million, or --
Q. I think it's 12 million, but check me.
A. No. 200 times -- it would be 12 million.
Q. 12 million people. And if you added on another ten shows at 60 that would be 18 million
people?
A. Another ten shows --
Q. No, no. 600,000.
A. Yeah.
Q. 12.6, right?
A. Correct.
Q. And, sir, if you have a good artist, youre good at selling tickets, right? You're a promoter?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. That's your job, selling tickets?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. Among other things?
A. Yes.
Q. Productions, you've done a world tour one time as the producer and promoter and AEG
Live, correct?
A. We've done more than one worldwide tour at
A. AEG Live.
Q. As the producer and the promoter?
A. I believe we produced Leonard Cohens tour. That is a worldwide tour. Prince, we
produced his. That was really just the U.K. and -- North America, at AEG. And Bon Jovi would
be Europe and -- that, we promoted only, did not produce.
Q. So back to my question.
A. Yes.
Q. Mr. Gongaware and Mr. Phillips said that the company had only done one worldwide tour
where they had been the promoter and the producer. Is that correct?
A. They may be -- they may have forgotten about Leonard Cohen.
Q. Okay. When did you do Leonard Cohen?
A. Well, it's still -- it's been going on for the last four or five years.

Q. Have you been doing that?

A. Me personally?
Q. Yeah.
A. No. I -- I don't personally go out and do entire tours myself.
Q. Did you negotiate that tour deal?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Okay. Did you negotiate with Mr. Cohens people?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Did you hire a doctor for Mr. Cohen?
A. No, we did not hire doctors.
Q. Can you answer my question, sir?
A. No, we did not.
Q. All right. Now I want to get two -- two other areas. First one I want to ask you about is
the industry and your experience. Because you told us a lot about your experience, and I went
through those areas this morning that you've talked about. Do you remember that? I don't want
to have to go back on that. Right?

A. Correct.
Q. Okay. So what I want to ask you now is certain things, if you've had experience with them.
Okay? You told us about a lot of the experiences youve had. Do you remember that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. Have you ever had experience in all your touring and concert preparation
experience where there was an intervention between the CEO of your company and one of the
artists?
A. Am I aware of it?
Q. Have you had that experience?
A. I was aware of it happening once prior, yes.
Q. And when was that?
A. It would have been back in the early '80's.
Q. At AEG Live.
A. No, no, not at AEG, no. I thought you said in my experience.
Q. Well, I did say that.
A. Okay.
Q. Okay. Who was that -- that -- did Mr. Gongaware doing that?

A. No.
Q. Okay. So let me -- let's talk about AEG Live first.
A. Okay.
Q. Okay? Have you had that experience at AEG live?
A. Doing an intervention on an artist?
Q. Where the CEO was involved.
A. Not that I can recall.
Q. Okay. When you said once prior the CEO was involved in that --
A. It was a different company a long time ago.
Q. CEO was involved?
A. I don't know if his title was CEO back then, or -- might have been president.
Q. Prior to this, you said one time, right?
A. Not at AEG I am aware of one time something like that happened.
Q. Okay. And who was the CEO?
A. Tom Hulett.

Q. That was at the concert wests predecessor?

A. Correct.
Q. Okay. Were you involved in that?
A. Minimally.
Q. Okay. Was Mr. Gongaware involved?
A. No. He did not work at the company at that time.
Q. Okay. Have you ever had a situation -- Mr. Hougdahl, you know him, right?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And what was his position with the production?
A. Production manager.
Q. Is that an important position?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And somebody that has to be reliable and credible put into that position?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And he's a long-time independent contractor of your company, Mr. Hougdahl?

A. Yes, he is.
Q. Okay. And have you ever had a situation in all your experience at AEG where the
production manager has written e-mails about the artist saying that the artist has been
deteriorating in front of his eyes over eight weeks?
A. Specifically that, no.
Q. Okay. Have you had e-mails from production managers where artists have been
deteriorating in front of them?
A. Possibly a long time ago.
Q. At AEG?
A. No, not at AEG
Q. Okay. We're sticking with AEG for now.
A. Not that Im aware of.
Q. Okay. Have you had situations in your experience at AEG in the hundred -- you said it was
hundreds of concerts, right? Or is that hundreds of tours?
A. I probably worked on hundreds of tours.
Q. Which would be thousands of concerts?
A. Correct.
Q. We're talking about AEG now.

A. Maybe not hundreds of tours at AEG maybe close to that number, but --
Q. Well, you've been there 13 years, right?
A. Yeah; so it's going to be close.
Q. You do ten a year, at least, don't you?
A. Maybe not every year, no.
Q. Okay. We'll just -- how about an average?
A. Probably averages -- around 100 in 13 years probably might be a good guess.
Q. Fair enough. So in those hundreds, have you ever had it where the production managers e-
mailed the management that the doubt was pervasive and they were seriously worried about the
artist?
A. I have had situations where the production manager has sent e-mails regarding behavior of
an artist.
Q. Have you ever had it where they said that doubt was pervasive and they didn't think the
artist was going to make it and needed professional help?
A. No, not at AEG
Q. Now, have you ever had it in your experience where the artist has come to rehearsal
wrapped in blankets unable to perform?
A. I have had situations where artists have been sick before at rehearsals, yes.

Q. No. I'm saying wrapped in blankets.

A. I have -- I have seen artists sick at rehearsals, but I do not know whether they were
wrapped in blankets or not.
Q. How about where the CEO had to call the doctor of the artist for 30 minutes? Have you
had that experience?
A. I have had experiences where the promoter -- the -- you know, I had called artist handlers to
see if there is a problem.
Q. Sir, Im talking about doctors now. Have you called the doctor for 30 minutes to discuss
the artist?
A. No, I have not.
Q. Have you, or anyone that you know of, hired
A. Doctor to be in charge of the artist's rehearsal schedule?
A. No, I have not.
Q. Have you or anyone at AEG, to your knowledge, gone to the artist's house for a meeting
with the doctor and the artist and the director of the show?
A. Well, you're asking if me or anyone at AEG? I can only speak for myself, and all I -- and I
have never done that.
Q. To your knowledge, sir, because you told us --

A. I'm not aware of anyone going to meet with the doctor.

Q. Okay. How about where the -- the CEO and the doctor are responsible for getting the artist
to rehearsal? Have you had that experience at AEG live, to your knowledge?
A. To my knowledge, my experience, no.
Q. How about where the CEO has written to the CEO of AEG, Inc., where they've expressed
concern about the artist either having a chemical or physiological problem? Have you
experienced that?
Ms. Bina: objection; vague. Is he asking whether two people that he's not on -- have written
e-mails to each other?
The court: overruled. I think he means does he know about it under any circumstances.
The witness: Im not aware of any e-mails between a CEO and a senior CEO stating that.
Mr. Panish: how about where the CEO -- have you ever been in a situation where somebody
has e-mailed to tell the doctor who is paying them and what is expected of them?
A. To a doctor, no.
Q. To an employee of AEG to tell the doctor that information, who is paying him, to remind
the doctor who is paying them and what's expected of the doctor?
A. Are you -- are you asking me if I am aware of anyone ever doing that in the past?
Q. Yes.
A. No, Im not.

Q. You've never done it, right?

A. I have not done it, no.
Q. Okay. Have you ever been aware of anyone discussing -- telling anyone that works on any
production that they shouldn't be an amateur psychiatrist?
A. Not that I recall.
Q. How about that they -- do you e-mail -- is it common in your experience to e-mail the
lawyer for the artist when you think that the artist may have a psychological or chemical
problem?
A. I am aware of many e-mails that go to attorneys representing artists. If something arises
with an artist and there is a problem, it is not uncommon to reach out to the attorney.
Q. Okay. The question was chemical, have you had that situation?
A. At AEG?
Q. Yeah.
A. No.
Q. Now, have you had a situation where there was meetings between AEG personnel and tour
personnel to bring the doctor into the fold?
A. I'm thinking -- trying to think through the tours right now, so give me a second.
Q. Take your time, sir.

A. Could you repeat the question?

Q. Sure. Have you had a situation where there was a meeting between AEG personnel and
tour personnel to bring the doctor into the fold?
A. Not that I recall.
Q. How about where the CEO had been -- have you ever been aware of the CEO ever telling
anyone that somebody didn't need the gig that they were going to do?
Ms. Bina: objection; vague.
The court: sustained.
Q. Have you ever had a situation where the CEO has written to the director of the show and
said "this person was thoroughly checked out, doesn't need the gig, is successful and ethical and
unbiased"?
A. What is the question there? Have I ever --
Q. -- encountered that situation in all your experience at AEG
A. Well, I have -- we check people out by -- you could -- if somebody is an artist's
representative, you ask the artist if they are their representative.
Q. Sir, could you answer the question? I know you want to say something.
A. I am aware of us checking people out.
Q. Okay. And you check out doctors thoroughly?

A. No, I -- we -- again, I -- we don't -- we dont hire doctors. If the artist wanted his doctor
there, the way you check that out is ask the artist if this is his doctor.
Q. Okay. So does the CEO thoroughly check out doctors, from AEG?
A. No, we do not thoroughly check -- we thoroughly check out -- I mean, if Im asking an
artist if that's his doctor, then that would be thoroughly checking out, in my opinion, yes.
Q. Okay. Well, no. Were you aware that Mr. Phillips wrote an e-mail that said that AEG
thoroughly checked out Dr. Murray and that he was highly successful? Are you aware of that,
sir?
Ms. Bina: objection; misstates the evidence. That e-mail did not contain the word
"thoroughly."
The court: okay. Strike "thoroughly."
Mr. Panish: strike "thoroughly." Im sorry. Mr. Phillips wrote an e-mail that said that they
checked Dr. Murray out, and he was successful.
Q. Were you aware of that, sir?
A. I was aware of that e-mail you're speaking of. I do not know the -- every word within that
e-mail; and as I explained, if you'll let me answer --
Q. I just asked if you were aware of that e-mail, of someone doing that. That's all Ive asked.
A. I have heard about that e-mail, yes.
Q. Okay. Did you ask Mr. Phillips what he did to check out Dr. Murray?

A. No, I did not.

Q. Did you know that Mr. Phillips admitted that wasn't true?
Ms. Bina: objection; misstates the evidence.
The witness: Im not aware of that.
The court: overruled.
Mr. Panish: okay.
Q. You'd expect the CEO who writes an e-mail from your company to tell the truth, right?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Were you aware that Mr. Phillips sent an e-mail that says Dr. Murray didn't need the
gig? Were you aware of that, sir?
A. Again, I was aware of an e-mail. I do not know specific -- the specifics of the e-mail.
Q. I just asked if you're aware of an e-mail that he said Dr. Murray doesn't need the gig and
that he is --
A. I was aware of an e-mail that he sent. Im not -- I can't testify that -- that, you know, he
said he does not need the gig. I'd have to see that.
Q. Have you -- have you reviewed that e-mail, sir, as the CEO of concerts west?

A. That -- that e-mail was with randy and somebody else, I believe. I wasn't copied on that e-
mail.
The court: he's just asking -- even if its between somebody else, he's just asking have you
read it, even if it's between other people.
Q. by Mr. Panish: did you review that e-mail, sir? Did you not understand that?
A. I don't recall if I did. I mean, can you show it to me?
Q. Sure.
A. Okay.
Q. You really want to see it?
A. Well, no. I'm just saying -- you're asking me specifics about that e-mail, and it might be
easier for me to see it.
Mr. Panish: Ill be happy to, sir. All Ive got to do is figure out the number. I think it's
307. Is that it? I remember that one.
Ms. Bina: we're just putting it up for the witness to see if he's ever reviewed it?
Mr. Panish: he wants to see it. I'll put it up for everybody. Everybody else has seen it.
The court: that's true. Show it. Everyone has seen it.
The witness: can you make it a little bigger?
Mr. Panish: you just look at it. Let's just speed this up.

Q. Have you seen it, sir, and this e-mail? Tell me whether you've seen it or not.
A. Yes, Ive seen this.
Q. Okay. And who showed it to you?
A. I don't recall. Possibly the attorneys.
Q. Before you came to testify here, you saw that?
A. I saw this e-mail before; I do not -- because I remember the "trouble at the front." I do not
remember the specifics of it, but I know Ive seen it before. I don't recall who showed it to me.
Q. Sir, you weren't shown that in your deposition, were you?
A. Was I? I don't recall. Was I or was I not?
Q. Well, Ill give you your deposition again, but --
A. I'm -- okay.
The court: is there any reason why --
Mr. Panish: just stipulate that --
Mr. Putnam: Ill stipulate -- what would you like? I'm trying to figure out the relevance
of this.
Ms. Bina: Im not sure whether he was shown it at his deposition or not. I'm looking now.

Mr. Putnam: if you say it wasn't, Ill stipulate it wasn't.

Mr. Panish: here it is right here. You can show me.
Mr. Putnam: if you represent it wasn't shown, Ill stipulate.
Mr. Panish: well, I don't want to -- you look and tell me.
Mr. Putnam: Mr. Panish, are you representing it wasnt shown at his deposition?
The witness: Im not sure what the question is anymore.
Mr. Panish: there is none. Here it is.
Mr. Putnam: Im not going to read the whole thing.
Mr. Panish: I don't want you to accuse me of anything. I'm going to show it to you, you
tell me.
The court: I could look at it.
Q. Well, you did read your deposition before you came here, you told me several times, right?
A. I said I read through parts of it. It was pretty long. I didn't get through the entire thing.
Ms. Bina: it does not appear to be an exhibit to the deposition.
Mr. Panish: okay. So now we have an agreement you weren't shown it at your deposition.

Q. Okay?
A. Okay.
Q. So when did you see it? Since your deposition?
A. You know, I do not recall when I saw this e-mail and all of the specifics of it.
Q. Was it within the five days that you were preparing to come here and testify, sir?
A. I do not know, do not recall if that was it or not.
Q. Okay. All right. Then I won't ask you.
A. Okay.
Q. All right. You know, one other thing I do want to ask you about, you spent some time
yesterday with us talking about exhibit number 13129. Do you have that in front of you, sir?
That's the Las Vegas thing. It's got the AEG logo on it.
A. The "now and forever" thing? Yes.
Q. You told us all about this yesterday, right?
A. Correct.
Q. Okay. And yesterday you told us that this was something that you prepared, right?
A. This is something Im very familiar with.

Q. No, no. That wasn't my question, sir.

A. Okay. What was your question?
Mr. Panish: could I ask it to be read back?
The witness: that Im aware of?
Q. Okay. And yesterday you told us that this was something that you prepared, right?)
The witness: yes, me and my team prepared this.
Mr. Panish: is that a yes?
A. That is a yes.
Q. Okay. And in preparation for that, you were trying to make a deal, right?
A. Yes, I was presenting a proposal to the estate.
Q. Is that a yes, sir?
A. That is a yes.
Q. And when you try to make a deal, negotiation gets involved, doesn't it?
A. Yes, they do.
Q. You say one thing, the other side says another, and you hope to find a meeting point, right?

A. That's one way, yes.

Q. And in this case, this proposal that you were making was for Las Vegas, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And in this case, the proposal had a time of ten years on it, did it not?
A. The proposal, it has a projection that shows if it went for ten years --
Q. Okay. Well, let's see --
A. I don't know if it states -- it is not a definitive ten-year offer, I don't believe.
Q. Okay. Well, let's see what it is, sir.
A. Okay.
Q. Lets turn to page 7 and lets look at the term and see how long the term that you, when you
prepared this with your team, put forth.
A. Page 7?
Q. It's under "term," right? Isn't that the term?
A. Yes, that is the term.
Q. And what was the term, sir?
A. Ten years was the term.

Q. Okay. So does that refresh your recollection how long the term was?
A. It also, if you look below that, says AEG shall have the right to terminate consistent with
common practice if any consecutive six-month performance period has less than 60 percent of
seating capacity was sold. So although the term may be ten years, you can cancel it in less than
ten years.
Q. And you can extend it, couldn't you, sir?
A. I don't know if there's an extension built in to this or not.
Q. How about this? "AEG shall have the right to extend the term beyond ten years in annual
increments." Is that a term, sir?
A. Yes, but this is a proposal. That is a term.
Q. Okay. So in this ten-year term that you proposed, the gross revenue would be about a
billion dollars, right, sir?
A. Yes.
Q. For the Michael Jackson show, right?
A. The projected gross at 100 percent sales is close to a billion dollars.
Q. That's your projection, right, sir?
A. We -- there's also an 80 percent projection, I believe, also. So we do multiple projected
levels.

Q. Was one of them $998,000,000, sir?

A. The one that is -- if the show had done 100 percent is -- I can't quite make out the number.
Q. I think it's 98.
A. I'll take it as 998, whatever that number is. It's close to a billion.
Q. And Celine Dions shows that you told -- her -- when she's performing -- her shows went
from 2002 to 2007, right?
A. Correct.
Q. And then she came back in 2008; is that right?
A. No. It was later than that. Its '13 now, about 150 show -- I don't think she came back until
10 or something, somewhere in there, '10 or '11, maybe.
Q. And she signed another ten-year contract?
A. No, it is not a ten-year contract.
Q. Well, how long is the contract? 2018, isn't it?
A. We have not publicly announced how long her contract is; but the contract is through 20
and, I believe, 18.
Q. Okay. Now it's public.
A. I know. You're going to kill my sales.

Q. And you told us that Celine Dion, one of the reasons that she likes to perform there is
because she has a family, right?
A. Correct.
Q. And it's very lucrative, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And that she's able to do the shows there? Now, does Michael Jackson have a family, to
your knowledge?
A. Yes, he does.
Q. Okay. It's very lucrative to perform there, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And do you know of any reason why Michael Jackson himself couldn't have
performed there?
A. I asked Michael Jackson if he was interested in performing there, and he told me that he did
not want to do that.
Q. In 2007?
A. In 2007, correct.
Q. I'm talking about after London. Okay?

A. I would think that Michael would have to do over two and a half shows a week or you
could not make such a deal.
Q. My question, sir -- could you try to answer my question?
A. I'm trying to answer your question.
Q. The question was --
The court: after London, is what you said?
Ms. Bina: your honor, he gave a reason. He asked, "Do you know of any reason why he
wouldnt perform?" and the witness gave a reason. It was asked and answered.
The court: can you read the question?
Mr. Panish: you know, your honor let me just ask --
Q. Sir, are there two shows in Las Vegas now about Michael Jackson?
A. No; there's only one show.
Q. Okay. That's the Cirque du Soleil?
A. There are two Cirque du Soleil Michael Jackson tours, one that is touring the world, and the
new one which opened about approximately a month ago.
Q. Okay.
A. It's the new permanent installation show.

Q. And Michaels not there, right?

A. Correct.
Q. Now, sir, your numbers, based on that Las Vegas projection that you did -- if Michael
Jackson only got 40 percent, you had a projection, right?
A. Repeat that question? I'm not sure I understood that.
Q. Let me rephrase it. You made a proposal that 60 percent would go to the investors and 40
percent would go to Michael Jackson, correct?
A. 40 percent would go to the estate.
Q. Okay. Now, could it be negotiated? Right?
A. Of course.
Q. 50 percent is not unlikely, could have been negotiated, right?
A. This was a -- an initial proposal. Its hard to say where anything could go.
Q. You just told me it could be negotiated. Is it unreasonable in negotiations that it would go
up 10 percent, which would be about 20 percent?
A. Depending on the return ask, it could also go the other way.
Q. Okay. But you also were giving a $60 million guarantee, right?

A. Correct.
Q. And a $40 million production fee, right?
A. Production budget of 40 million to create the show.
Q. And if you got 300 more seats in, you would increase the revenue by 16.5 million a year,
correct? Is that right, or is it 16.5 --
A. Might have been for the life of the project.
Q. Okay. Well --
A. That sounds --
Q. Sounds too high for what you said?
A. Yeah sounds too high.
Q. All right. Well, you might be right. Let's look. I think it's at the end of page 3. I thought
it says it would add -- 300 seats would add 16.5 million to the gross potential each year. Is that
what it says?
A. Yeah, it could be because of the number of shows. This was a ten-show-a-week pro forma.
Q. I'm just asking you if that's what you wrote, sir. Is that what you wrote?
A. Yes, that's what I wrote.
Q. And -- and, sir, when AEG advanced -- strike that. Do you know that AEG advanced $34
million for production costs for "this is it"?

A. Yes; but my understanding is that it was not entirely for production costs, that roughly 26
million, 27 million, was spent on production.
Q. Okay. So you know the specifics of that?
A. I -- those -- Ive heard those numbers within the office and in our executive meetings.
Q. Okay. And AEG thought this was going to be a successful show, didn't they?
Ms. Bina: objection; vague as to "show." The Vegas show or "this is it" tour?
Mr. Panish: "this is it."
The witness: yes, we believed this would be successful.
Q. And the ticket sales certainly indicated it was going to be successful, correct?
A. The ticket sales for London was very good.
Q. Do you know what queue scores are, sir?
A. Queue scores?
Q. Yeah.
A. I'm drawing a blank.
Q. Well, as far as a promoter and a concert promoter when you're going to go do concerts, do
you pay attention to queue scores?

A. You're going to have to refresh me on what

A. Queue score is.
Q. Okay. Well, if you don't know, then I guess you don't -- you don't pay attention to it. Is
that a fair statement?
A. I may call it something else. I dont know. I don't know what you're referring to.
Q. In your 38 --
A. I've heard the term, but Im not sure what it means. Queue scores.
Q. Okay. You don't -- it's not something that youre involved in in determining whether or not
you want to do a concert tour, is it?
A. I don't know -- again, you'd have to define it for me to tell -- I could tell you whether we do
that or not.
Q. The point is you don't know what it is, right?
A. I've heard the term queue scores, but I -- we must call it something else.
Q. My question is, since you don't know the term queue score, you don't know that you use
anything called the queue score to determine whether something would be successful; is that a
fair statement?
Ms. Bina: objection; asked and answered multiple times.
The court: sustained.

The witness: I think Ive answered your question.

The court: sustained.
Mr. Panish: okay.
Q. And, sir, do you -- when you're going to do
A. Concert, you want it to be a success?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you want to get an artist that you think people will come to see?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Do you want to sell as many tickets as you can?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And when AEG agreed to do the Michael Jackson "this is it" tour, was AEGs intention for
it to be a very successful financial venture?
A. Yes, for both ourselves and Michael Jackson.
Q. Okay. I agree with that. Okay. The last thing I was going to ask you, sir, is, did you have
a chance to gather up the documents reporting those exhibits on the backup for the -- strike that.
Those documents that you showed us about stadiums and such yesterday, do you remember those
that you -- that you and two other people prepared with the lawyers?
A. Uh-huh.

Q. Yes?
A. Yes.
Q. And in those documents, you put, so Im clear, what AEG uses for a concert at those
venues, correct?
A. I think it was actually based on actual information of artists that played at those. The term
AEG uses" would not necessarily be appropriate.
Q. Okay. So then you took information that wasnt AEG information to make those; is that
right?
A. No. I took information based on shows that we had done in those stadiums that -- and we
looked at what the saleable capacity for those shows was, and that is what it represents.
Q. Okay. So those charts show what AEG has done specifically only as those facilities, right?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Now, do you have the documents that support those exhibits?
A. I believe the subpoena that you gave us, we got yesterday; and it calls that we had until the
29th to deliver those, and the attorneys are working on it.
Mr. Panish: okay. Very good. Thank you. That's all I have.
The court: redirect?
Ms. Bina: yes, your honor.

Redirect examination by Ms. Bina

Q. Mr. Meglen, how are you?
A. I'm good.
Q. I'm going to try to keep this quick; but if I talk too fast, let me know, because Ive been
accused of that before.
A. Okay.
Q. We were just talking about a proposal you made for the Las Vegas show in 2010 to Mr.
Jacksons estate, right?
A. Correct.
Q. And you were asked about some figures on the chart you prepared?
A. Correct.
Q. And for those charts, did you show just what would happen at ten years if the show was
successful, or are there numbers all the way from one year through ten years?
A. There are numbers for -- may I look at the document?
Q. Sure.
A. There are numbers for a per week, per year, for what's called the first five performance
years and the next five performance years.

Q. So would you say -- fair to say it's kind of a long-range plan of possibilities?
A. I would say it's a long-range plan; and as I look at it now, we intended the recoupment of
the $60 million to be in five years, which means we wanted to know that if it only went five
years, that we could recoup the $60 million and the 40 -- the $40 million production advance.
Q. And I guess my question is, do you have any way of knowing at the time you made that
proposal whether the show was going to ever be made; or if it was made, whether it was going to
last ten years?
A. No. As I said in my testimony earlier, Ive become aware that Cirque du Solei was
anxious to get a deal done with the estate for a Michael Jackson show; and my argument was
with John Branca and John McClain that there was, perhaps, something better to do, to which
we laid out this initial proposal.
Q. And you were hoping that the proposal would be a success and a good proposal, right?
A. Absolutely.
Q. But you didn't know for sure one way or the other?
A. No. There's -- we don't have a crystal ball.
Q. And I think you said yesterday this would have been the first conceptual show that you
would have ever been involved in putting together where there wasn't actually an artist
performing.
A. Yes; because up until this point, all of our shows had been purely with headliners, we had
not done any purely conceptual shows like Cirque du Soleil has.
Q. And Mr. Panish asked you about Celine Dions show. Is that a conceptual show about --

A. No; that's a headliner show.

Q. -- music? And would comparing the show you proposed to Celine Dion be apples to
apples or apples to oranges?
A. No. Apples to oranges.
Q. And would you have proposed a conceptual show like that to Mr. Jackson while he was
alive?
A. No.
Q. You did propose a headliner-type show, right?
A. I asked him if he was interested in a headliner show in our very first meeting, and he said
no.
Q. And I recall you testified yesterday you dont believe that asking if someone is interested is
the same as making a formal proposal. Is that right?
A. Correct.
Q. Let's talk a little bit about something that took up a fair bit of your cross-examination, and
thats about concert venue capacity
A. Okay.
Q. All right? Now, there's some discussions about 360-degree tours and whether or not they
have a larger capacity than non-360-degree tours, right?
A. Correct.

Q. Let me just ask you straight out. If somebody stands in the middle of a stadium with a
microphone, and the fire marshal is feeling generous, is there any reason you can't fill that
stadium to capacity?
A. No.
Q. In your experience producing concerts, does that happen often?
A. No.
Q. Why not?
A. Well, one, an artist has to be comfortable performing center stage in the round. Number 2,
production becomes a very challenging thing; a very, very expensive thing; and to -- to do what
u2 had done at the rose bowl is incredibly expensive. It -- its -- you know, it has -- you know,
it's really a production thing. And it's also a sales thing because people will get nervous about
putting a center stage stadium in-the-round show on that they could sell all of those tickets to.
Q. And have you done productions where they were center stage in the round?
A. In a stadium, no.
Q. Have you done them in an arena?
A. Oh, yes.
Q. And when you've done them in arenas, am I correct in understanding that you no longer
have the sight line issue, so you can fill those seats, but there are still some seats that are not for
sale?
A. On a 360 in the round?

Q. Yes.
A. Well, you're going to -- as opposed to what you're talking about with the person, you know,
standing at center court with a microphone, you're going to have a big old stage sitting there,
and that, so it's a question of how much that takes up.
Q. What about all those suites?
A. You're not going to lose your -- you know, I mean, every building is different; but you
shouldn't lose any seats in the sense around the stage when you do 360 degree center stage, the
question is what is your footprint of your stage, how big that is, and how much that takes up.
Q. Got it. Briefly, pam, can you put up the chart we showed yesterday with the arenas on it?
13470. Mr. Meglen, you testified --
Mr. Panish: I just object, it's beyond the scope. I didn't ask about this.
The court: overruled.
Q. Mr. Meglen, you testified a moment ago that these numbers are based on actual shows
A. AEG Live is performing in these arenas, right?
A. Absolutely.
Q. And did they just perform one show in these arenas?
A. No. It looks like an average of 51 shows per arena.
Q. So you've done a lot of shows in the arenas?

A. Yes.
Q. And are these numbers the average capacity over all those shows?
A. This is the average saleable capacity in these arenas for, you know, an average of 51 shows
that played there.
Q. And that would include shows like Britney Spears where she was 360 in the round?
A. Yes. That would include -- if during this time period we had shows that played in the
center stage 360-degree shows, that would be in here, too.
Q. And so those would raise the average, whereas ones that are a lower viewing capacity
would lower it?
A. Absolutely.
Q. And this is what's averaged out over all of these shows?
A. This is what most people end up doing.
Q. All right. That's what I wanted to ask you about, because we've had all this conversation
about the theoretical possibilities of stadiums and 360-degree shows. Was the "this is it" tour set
up to be a 360-degree show?
A. No. It was probably the opposite of a 360-degree show.
Q. And that was a production that cost millions of dollars to put together, right?
A. 26 to 27 million is the number I was told.

Q. And could you put a gag like a giant 3d screen behind Mr. Jackson if he was performing in
a center stage in the round?
A. It's very difficult to do screens in the round. They have to be up high in the air, and you
can't do any of the effects -- they have to be above -- above the artist's head, they have to -- it
has to be high enough not to block sight lines from upper decks and that. You can't have
somebody up in the 300 level looking into a screen and the top of a screen and a lighting rig, so
you can't do a lot of the effects that were planned on Michaels show with center stage in the
round.
Q. For instance, you couldn't have a giant bulldozer zoom toward the screen and kind of come
out of the screen and almost run over Mr. Jackson?
A. No. I don't know where you would hide the bulldozer. You'd probably -- they'd say,
"Well hide it under the stage," and Id say, "Your stage is going to be 20 feet high and nobody
on the floor of the lower deck is going to be able to see the stage."
Q. And could you have Mr. Jackson step through
A. Screen and disappear if he was in the middle of a stage in the round?
A. Not if the screen is 40 to 60 feet above your head.
Q. So is it fair to say that in order to become a 360-degree show, the "this is it" tour would
basically have to be redeveloped from scratch?
A. Yeah. You might be able to save some of the video content that was produced. You know,
if you're going to different screen size, you're going to be reformatting that stuff, so there's going
to be a cost associated with that. But your rigging, your lighting rigs, your p.a., you know --
your band gear would be the same, probably, but really just about your stage, everything else will
pretty much have to be a new production.

Q. And so when we talk about the "this is it" tour, talking about the actual show that was
produced, or was going to be produced, was -- what -- I think you said yesterday it was about a
220 show; is that right?
A. I don't remember exactly. I think we could sell a little bit on the sides, which makes it a
little better than 180; but, you know, I don't think it was 240. So Im somewhat speculating that
it was somewhere between 180 and 240 degrees. So, you know, thats pretty standard.
Q. And for your estimates in terms of when you said for a typical show you would lose about a
third of the seating, is that consistent with your understanding for the "this is it" tour?
A. It still holds true for what I do every day.
Q. You were asked about the two shows you put on for the rolling stones voodoo lounge tour
at the rose bowl, right?
A. Yes.
Q. Was that a 360-degree show?
A. No.
Q. And what was the saleable capacity for that show?
A. I think it was just shy of 60,000.
Q. As a concert promoter, do you want to sell the most tickets possible for your shows?
A. Yes. It's -- in fact, when we load a production in, you know, that's one of the first things
we do is you have the box office manager or some representative from the box office there, and
you check what you sold versus the actual physical production because that's the first time
you're putting it into the building. So -- and if you find extra seats that you can sell, then you

try and do some little media that day or something like that to let people know that -- we've all
heard, "good seats just released." Usually that's where that comes from. We find that, you
know, we might be able to sell, you know, another four seats deep in these two sections on the
side of the stage.
Q. So is it fair to say if you could have sold more tickets for that show, you would have?
A. Yeah. It's nothing about, you know, profit at that point.
Q. And if the Michael Jackson "this is it" show had gone on tour, do you have any reason to
expect there would be anything other than the kind of production that they'd spent months
already building?
A. Well, that wouldn't be very efficient, to build a production to just play in one city and then
go build another one.
Q. Did you ever hear any discussions of converting the Michael Jackson show to a 360-degree
tour?
A. No, there was never any conversations about that.
Q. Do you know if Michael Jackson had ever performed that way?
Mr. Panish: no foundation.
Ms. Bina: he may have no foundation.
Q. Do you know?
A. I think, you know, when you take a super bowl halftime that Michael performed at the rose
bowl that year, where he had the jet pack on him, I guess you would call that -- but that wasn't a
concert that was a halftime show.

Q. What about the shows that you promoted on the "history" tour? Were they 360?
A. No. They were onstage.
Q. Were they more similar to what the "this is it" tour was going to be set up as?
A. Yes, very similar.
Q. Now, you talked a little bit yesterday about tour doctors and the idea that AEG Live does
not hire doctors, although sometimes they've been indirectly responsible for paying them. And
one thing you talked about was Celine Dions show, right? Do you recall that?
A. Correct.
Q. And in that case, I think -- and correct me if I misunderstood your testimony. You testified
that AEG Live pays Celine Dions production company a budget -- like a chunk amount, and
then she pays her doctor out of that as well as all the other production staff?
A. Correct.
Q. Now, if AEG Live were paying all those production staff directly, would you consider your
AEG Live to have hired the doctor in that instance?
Mr. Panish: Im going to object, your honor. It's a motion in limine about hiring and this
witness. It calls for expert opinion, and you've ruled its improper.
The court: sustained.
Mr. Panish: and that question is improper. And just like your instruction that you gave on
Ms. Seawright --

The court: sustained.

Ms. Bina: your honor, I was not trying to go down that road, so Ill move on.
Mr. Panish: absolutely.
Ms. Bina: all right.
Q. Mr. Panish asked you a number of questions about have you ever heard of something
happening at AEG Live or have you ever seen something happen in your experience in the
concert industry. Do you recall those?
A. Yes.
Q. And he was asking very kind of strange and specific-sounding things about telling a doctor
he had to get people to rehearsal, and things like that. Do you recall that?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Do you have any understanding as to whether any of those things happened with Dr.
Murray?
A. No, Im not aware of that at all.
Q. And you were not personally involved with that, right?
A. No, I wasn't involved with that.
Q. And just because -- let me ask something different. Now, you've been asked a couple of
times about documents turning over to plaintiffs in this lawsuit.

A. Yes.
Q. Was there a time in this case where you gathered up your computer and files and handed
them over to attorneys?
A. Yes, quite a while ago, I think shortly after the lawsuit was filed, they came and took --
went through my computer, went through all of my files and took everything I had.
Q. And was there anything you held back and said, you know, "I don't think the attorneys are
going to be interested in this one"?
A. No.
Q. So everything you had, you turned over?
A. Yes.
Q. Lets talk a minute about exhibit 31. And --
A. 31.
Q. That's that e-mail that you've been asked about a bunch of times.
A. This says exhibit 8. Erk 8.
Q. No. It's the e-mail.
A. Oh, the e-mail. Yes.
Q. Do you remember being asked about whether or not you could remember anything at your
deposition about the e-mail?

A. Yeah, I think I was asked about it during my deposition. You know, Im not sure if I was or
not, but if this is -- I can't remember.
Q. Do you recall testifying at your deposition about the idea of gross versus net numbers?
A. Yes, I remember that. I -- you know, what I may have done is said I don't remember this e-
mail, but I would tend to speculate on what was written in it.
Mr. Panish: it's totally nonresponsive to the question. Move to strike. The question was
did you testify about gross or net, do you remember testifying about gross or net at the
deposition.
The court: motion denied. I think he said he didnt remember exactly.
Q. By Ms. Bina: Mr. Meglen --
A. I remember talking about gross or net at my deposition, yes.
Q. And do you remember giving essentially the same explanation that you gave in this court
yesterday?
A. Yes.
Q. Has your understanding of gross versus net changed --?
A. No.
Q. -- since your deposition was made?
A. No, no. It's --

Q. And do you think anything different now than you did in January about the appropriateness
or inappropriateness as to giving an artist gross numbers?
A. No, not at all.
Q. Is that still your understanding of whats common and customary?
A. That's pretty much what we do on a regular basis.
Q. Now, Mr. Panish also asked you a couple of questions about assume that there were this
many tickets left in the queue, and so on and so forth. Do you recall those?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. If Mr. Phillips said in that e-mail 200 shows, and then at another point said 100 shows, and
then also said he wasn't exactly sure where he got the 525,000 figure from, would that affect
your understanding at all of whether or not he was right or wrong?
A. I -- it's hard to answer whether, you know, he was right or wrong. I'm sure he believed
what he believed, and you get very excited when you're in the middle of these things, but I don't
personally -- I mean, everybody is going to have their own opinions on what something is going
to do. I personally don't agree with his opinion of -- that there were 200 shows there.
Q. And that actually leads me to another question. You were asked a number of questions
about opinions or projections that Mr. Phillips had or Mr. Gongaware had. For instance, whether
or not Michael Jackson was the greatest artist ever, right? Do you recall those?
A. Yes, I recall those.
Q. As the executives of a concert promotion and production company, do you and Mr. Phillips
and Mr. Gongaware have the same opinion all the time on whether or not artists are popular?

A. No, we -- we vary on that quite a bit, actually.

Q. And even with all of your experience, if you were trying to put an artist into a city, would
you automatically agree on the number of shows the artist could play in that city?
A. No. That is a common daily debate in not only my office, but all of our concert offices,
about, you know, one person will think this person can do this, and the other person thinks they
can only do that. It's just -- it's very common. It's a regular day in our business.
Q. And does the fact that you disagree mean one person is being untruthful?
A. No, no. I mean, I -- it's -- not anything to do with truth because we're all -- we all believe
that -- which we do not know. That's one thing that we do agree upon is that none of us actually
know. We use the term a lot "none of us have a crystal ball," and the other term we use is that
"the public will decide." At the end of the day, it's the old you can take them to water but you
can't make them drink, and thats the same with the public. You can't force somebody to buy a
ticket.
Q. Mr. Panish asked you about whether or not -- about the idea of 12.9 million; and if there
were 3 million shows (sic) in London, then there would be 9 million left. Do you recall those
questions?
A. Yes. I didn't quite understand his -- where the 12.9 was coming from, but I kind of
understood it.
Q. Have you ever been involved in a concert tour that sold 12.9 million tickets?
A. No.
Q. Anything close to that?

A. A couple, maybe one or two, that got to 3 million; but no, Im not familiar -- not tours that I
have done, you know.
Q. And if Mr. Jackson's prior tours were around the 4, 4 and a half million range, would you
have any reason to expect that "this is it" would be a 13.9 -- or 12.9 million sales?
Mr. Panish: Im going to object. That's calling for expert opinion, speculation.
Ms. Bina: I think plaintiffs' counsel opened the door to this.
The court: overruled.
Ms. Bina: and this witness would be approving these legs.
The court: overruled.
The witness: you're going have to repeat the question. I'm sorry.
Ms. Bina: sure.
Q. If Mr. Jackson's prior tour sales were around 4, 4 and a half million tickets -- that's a very
popular tour, isn't it?
A. Yes, that's a very popular tour.
Q. Would you have any reason to put on for sale for the "this is it" tour 13 million tickets,
given that history?
A. No, not at all.
Q. Would that even cross your mind?

A. No.
Q. And, again, you expected the "this is it tour to do well, right?
A. I expected London to do well, and that is as far as we got. If -- if you remember, the way
the show was advertised, the way the press conference -- just simply the name of the show when
Michael walked out and said "this is it," it gives the impression to the public and the audience
that this is it, these are going to be the only shows that he does. So to -- the minute you go and
try to do that in another city, well, you're -- you know, your draw is going to start dropping
because, "oh, it's not. This is it and that's it."
Q. And as of the time that Mr. Jackson passed away, what number of shows had AEG Live
approved per the terms of the --
A. 50 shows.
Q. And that's all?
A. Yes, that is all.
Ms. Bina: nothing further at this time.
The court: anything further?
Mr. Panish: yeah.
The court: all right.
Recross-examination by Mr. Panish

Q. Did the public -- what did you say, you never know, you gotta let the public decide? Right?
A. A phrase that we use is that the public decides.
Q. Did the public decide on the popularity of Michael Jackson in London when the tickets
went on sale, sir?
A. Yes, they did.
Q. And it was a resounding favorable response, wasnt it, sir?
A. For a lower ticket price, it was a great response. That was our intention.
Q. Sir, is it appropriate for people from concert companies to misrepresent their artists?
A. No.
Q. And you said everyone talks in terms of gross numbers, right?
A. It is common with artists to talk about their gross, yes. The reason, you asked earlier, that
we put 100 percent on my Vegas projection is because the artist always wants to know if, "I sell
it out, what will I make?"
Q. Could you answer my question? Is that a yes?
A. I think I just did.
Q. But Mr. Gongaware said, "well, we'd better not talk about net; we'd better talk about
gross, didnt he, sir?

A. He was talking about different ways of presenting the numbers.

Q. Sir, Mr. Gongaware said, "hey, let's don't talk about gross -- net, let's talk about gross to
Mikey," didn't he, sir?
A. I'm reading his e-mail. It says "maybe gross is a better number to throw around if we need
to use numbers with Mikey listening."
Q. So is that a yes, sir?
A. That is yes, that's -- I just read what he said.
Q. Okay. And, sir, were Paul Gongaware and Randy Phillips more involved in "this is it" than
you?
Ms. Bina: objection; asked and answered.
The court: overruled.
The witness: yes.
Q. And did you ever write to them when you received those projections of the worldwide tour
that those were inaccurate or they shouldnt do that, the 186 shows?
A. No, because it's simply a projection.
Q. Sir, please. Did you ever write to them and say, "Thats a bad projection, 186 shows,
because hes never done that many shows before"? Did you do that, sir?

A. No. I'm not necessarily saying that it is -- it is a bad projection. I'm just saying that it's a
long ways from what we had agreed to do, and all we had agreed to do is 50 shows. People can
project if something keeps going and keeps going and keeps going.
Q. Can you answer my question, please, sir?
The court: so the answer is no?
The witness: no.
Q. And at that time, sir, it was only 30 shows, wasn't it?
A. Yes.
Q. And then that went to 50, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And the 186 could have gone to more, couldnt it, sir?
A. Could have gone down, too. Youre speculating.
Q. Want to add something else, sir?
The court: remember what I said about comments. You're just going to --
Mr. Panish: all right, your honor. But I would ask that the witness be instructed to please,
please, answer the question.
The court: answer the question. You don't want to end up in arguments with each other.

The witness: no.

Q. That 186 that Mr. Gongaware projected could have gone up, couldn't it, sir?
A. Yes, it could have gone up; and, also, it could have gone down.
The court: so that's a yes, it could go up?
The witness: that's my answer.
Q. Is that a yes?
A. Yes, it could go up.
Q. And, sir, you never wrote to Mr. Gongaware and said, "Hey, Michael Jackson has never
sold that many tickets, so why are you projecting 186 shows?" did you, sir?
A. I did not need to because he -- he was not proposing we do 186 shows.
The court: Mr. Meglen, you've got to listen --
The witness: no, I did not.
Q. And, sir, when you said you turned over all your documents; you didn't turn over anything
to the plaintiffs, did you?
A. You know, they went through my office and everything that I know I had, they took.
Q. The lawyers for AEG took all your documents in your computer, right?

The court: which is the normal way it's done.

Mr. Panish: well, I haven't -- that's what she just asked him.
The court: I understand; but I don't want you to give the impression to the jury that he's
supposed to turn over everything to you because that's not how discovery work.
Mr. Panish: no. But she just raised that, and I want to clarify.
The court: I want to clarify, too.
Ms. Bina: and I believe I asked, your honor, if he turned it over to his attorneys.
Mr. Boyle: she said "the attorneys," so he wants to clear up that it wasn't the plaintiffs'
attorneys.
Mr. Panish: it's not us.
Ms. Bina: I will stipulate that the AEG executives turned their documents over to counsel
for review for responsiveness and privilege, as is customary.
Mr. Panish: okay. And we also stipulate -- Ill ask this question.
Q. And you don't know what documents the lawyers turned over to us, do you?
A. No, I do not.
Q. Okay. And you talked about Vegas shows that -- wouldn't we call those -- I forgot the
name.

A. Conceptual?
Q. Thank you. And you talked about the Beatles show, right? The "love" show?
A. At one point we talked about "love," yes.
Q. And that's a conceptual show, right?
A. Correct.
Q. And some of the Beatles were still alive when that show was going on, right?
A. Correct.
Q. And still are alive?
A. Correct.
Q. And that show has been going on for seven years, hasn't it, sir?
A. That sounds about right. Might even be eight now.
Q. And it's been very successful, hasn't it, sir?
A. For the most part, yes.
Q. Well, has it been successful or not, sir?
A. Yes, it's successful.

Q. Didn't you tell us it was the best one as far as you knew?
A. Of -- of those. I mean, it's -- "love" and o" are probably your two biggest conceptual
shows in Vegas.
Q. Now, when you talked about the stadiums, the rose bowl, and your average, your average,
you said, was about -- let's just say 60,000 for all the stadiums, right?
A. For the shows Ive done, right.
Q. And usually does an artist do more than one show at a stadium when they're in a specific
city?
A. Not normally. I would say the average is more one than it is multiple.
Q. How many did they -- did the rolling stones do at the rose bowl?
A. The stones did two.
Q. And, sir, didn't you originally have three dates for the rolling stones?
A. Boy, I can't remember.
Q. And you couldn't sell enough tickets, so you reduced it to two shows; isn't that right?
A. No, no. It doesn't work that way.
Q. All right. So you're saying you never had three shows initially calendared for the rolling
stones; is that right?

A. You have itineraries that have options built into them; and you don't know, again, until you
go on sale how many you're going to get. So you could route and say, "Maybe we'll get three
rose bowls; if we dont get the third one, we'll go play San Diego." That would be common.
So -- but you're asking me about something that's nearly 20 years ago, and I can't remember
what the route -- potential routes for the stones were that year.
Q. I'm not going to argue with you. Does Live Nation do bigger concerts?
A. Do they do bigger concerts? No. There's not a rationale of one company does bigger
concerts than other companies.
Q. They did that rose bowl concert, didnt they, sir, with -- with u2?
A. Yes; and we did Coachella that's bigger than that one, so --
Q. So you had more than --
A. They do some big shows and they do little shows. We do big shows and little shows.
Q. So you had more than 97,000 in Coachella?
A. Not quite, but pretty close.
Q. Okay.
A. But I don't know if they had 97 at theirs.
The court: we're not going to go back over that.
The witness: thank you.

Mr. Panish: I wasn't going there, your honor.

Q. Did you see the Michael Jackson center stage super bowl show?
A. No, I did not.
Q. How do you know he was in the 360, then?
A. I think Ive seen videos of it, or news of it, things like that.
Q. Okay. So you've seen it, just not live?
A. Correct.
Q. You weren't watching the super bowl that day?
A. I probably wasn't watching the halftime show.
Mr. Panish: I don't have anything further. Thank you, sir.
Ms. Bina: very briefly, your honor. Can you pull up exhibit 31 real quick, pam? And it's the
next page. Can you zoom in on that first paragraph of the e-mail, the first couple paragraphs?
Further redirect examination by Ms. Bina:
Q. Mr. Meglen, can you read the first two lines of the -- well, actually, why don't you read the
first sentence.
A. "here is a first draft look at a worldwide MJ Tour. On paper, it starts January '09 and runs
through April 2011."

Q. And can you read just the next two sentences?

A. "there is really no way to pin this down. Too many variables."
Q. So when plaintiffs' counsel asked you why did you not write to Mr. Gongaware and say, "I
don't know if this tour itinerary is realistic or not," did you have any idea at this point what a
realistic tour itinerary for Mr. Jackson was?
A. No.
Q. This is just a first draft worldwide possibility?
A. Correct.
Q. All right. You can take that down. Quick questions about conceptual shows. Mr. Panish
asked you about "love." Can you see the Beatles tour these days?
A. No, unfortunately, it can't happen.
Q. It can't happen because --
A. Because john Lennon and George Harrison have passed.
Q. And Mr. Lennon passed quite a long time ago, didn't he?
A. A long time ago.
Q. So it's been a very long time since youve been able to see the Beatles live?

A. Correct.
Q. Do you have any interest in doing a conceptual show of Michael Jackson if you can still
have Michael Jackson alive and touring?
A. No, because it would -- I mean, there are tribute shows in Las Vegas that are done on a
very small level, and -- but no, if Michael is still alive and touring, I would not be interested in
doing a conceptual show.
Q. When you say "tribute shows," are you talking about those bands that play other bands'
music and charge like 10 bucks a head to go see that?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you have done that with Michael Jackson?
A. Well, Im sure you could -- someone could put that together and maybe make some money
at it; but that really wasn't what we were into doing.
Q. You, AEG Live, were not making that offer?
A. No.
Q. And the offer you made and wanted to do was for Michael Jackson to tour live?
A. Correct.
Q. And it was only after he had, sadly, passed away and you were talking about potential other
things that you ever had any idea of doing this Las Vegas-style show?

A. I never had any conversations about doing a conceptual Michael Jackson Las Vegas show
until after he passed.
Ms. Bina: nothing further.
The court: anything further?
Mr. Panish: oh, me? Yes.
Further recross-examination by Mr. Panish
Q. On that exhibit number 31 -- I don't need to put it up. It said 31 shows, right? Put it up.
All right. Whatever. We all want to go on a break.
A. Going back to the beginning?
Q. Well, it said 31 shows, didn't it? Or 30 show?
A. 30 shows.
Q. That went to 50, right?
A. Correct.
Q. Okay. And this was before -- and you said -- counsel asked you were only interested in
Michael Jackson touring live, right? You weren't interested in a tribute show; is that right?
A. While he was alive, yes.
Q. And -- and your job as a promoter is to make as much money as you can, right?

A. Right.
Q. And if Michael Jackson wanted to tour worldwide, you could have set that tour up, couldnt
you?
A. Of course.
Q. And you could have made as much money as there was to be made, right?
A. We would have tried to.
Q. Well, nobody can do it better than you, right?
A. I guess that's a personal opinion, isnt it?
Q. That's your opinion, isn't it?
A. I think we're very, very good at what we do.
Q. So you -- with all your resources and as good at this job as you are, you give -- if Michael
Jackson wanted to do 260 shows worldwide, you could have made that happen, couldn't you,
sir?
A. It's very speculative.
Q. Sir, you could have made that happen if Michael Jackson wanted to do it, as one of the best
in the business, couldn't you, sir?

A. I could have set up the arrangements for something like that. Whether -- to predict whether
we could do a 260-date tour, you know, they come in steps. It comes bit by bit by bit. You don't
sit there and say zero or 260.
Q. Okay. Actually --
A. You do 50, and then you go, "okay. Lets do some more."
Q. Okay. If you did 50, you could have done another 210, couldn't you, sir?
A. You know, I -- Im capable of promoting many more concerts, I hope, in my life; and I
could always promote more shows and hopefully do a very good job at it. I cannot tell you how
many more Michael Jackson shows I could have done. It would be pure speculation.
Q. I'm just asking you, sir, if Michael Jackson wanted to do it, and we saw what he did on
selling out the 02, and he wanted to do it, you could have set up the tour for him and got the
people to come, couldn't you?
A. We could have set up the tour, yes.
Q. Okay. We don't need to go to Live Nation; you could do that for us, right?
A. I would suggest you get a bid from both.
Mr. Panish: okay. Thank you.
Ms. Bina: two questions. Further redirect examination by Ms. Bina:
Q. One, if you set up that 260-show tour, could you have guaranteed that people would buy
tickets to it?

A. No.
Q. And if Michael Jackson didn't want to do a 260-show tour, could you make him?
A. No.
Further recross-examination by Mr. Panish
Q. Did you know that Michael Jackson told his children and Kenny Ortega that he was going
to do a world tour?
A. I was not aware of that.
Mr. Panish: okay.
The court: okay. Thank you. You may step down.
The witness: thank you.