Exhibit A

Transcript [Rough Draft # 2]: Washington v. William Morris Endeavor Entertainment et

al. Conference Call No. 2 with the American Arbitration Association (AAA) re: Claimants Motion for Clarification and Modification, Demand for Oral Hearing. Parties Present: Arbitrator David L. Gregory, Marcus Isaiah Washington, Michael P. Zweig & Christian Carbone of Loeb & Loeb LLP, and Carol Placella & Linda Hendrickson of the AAA Date: July 30, 2013
ARBITRATOR DAVID L. GREGORY: Thanks very much and good afternoon everyone. I think that the discussion for a hearing in person on-site has a great deal of merit to it, but we might be able to substantially, if not completely, eliminate the need for that hearing in the next several days depending on our progress today. I have read most, I cant say every word, but Ive read most of the recent papers submitted by Claimant, Mr. Washington. I have not seen any reply to that by Respondents. And I do know that in the coming week, I scheduled a bit of a vacation, so if there were to be an in person on site hearing, it would be from my schedule somewhere during the week of August 13 th. Let me ask at this point of the Respondents counsel, do you anticipate filing any sort of reply to the most recent motion of Claimant? MICHAEL P. ZWEIG: ArbiterArbitrator Gregory, this is Michael Zweig of Loeb & Loeb. I was away of all of last week and actually have not had a chance yet to review, other than very cursorily, the, what I gather the 35 page, single spaced motion that has been made by Claimant. I think we would require at least two weeks to respond to that and to see what it says and if need be, order any additional factual material that we might have. Obviously, the Claimant has had a considerable period of time to prepare this. ARBITRATOR GREGORY: I think it would be appropriate. MICHAEL ZWEIG: It would be appropriate for us to have, at least an appropriate amount of time to respond. Im not quite sure what purpose a hearing in person would serve, but Im certainly prepared to learn more about that. It seemed to me from your decision that the individuals who would supply information about Exhibit A or Exhibit 31, if that is still deemed to be appropriate or necessary, are individuals who are at whats formerly the Sonnenschein firm, now known as Denton, or at EED in Seattle. ARBITRATOR GREGORY: Let me ask this, and Mr. Washington you have been patient so I want you to have the floor on this next question. You were quite precise in much of your reading and

your commentary and I appreciate that. When I reread, especially my references to Mr. Rowe and
his deposition, and it was an insolicitous use of language on my part when I referred to another proceeding. What I meant to say wasuhshall we say uhI guess Im still sorta searching for the appropriate wordanother, another avenue in the current proceeding, so I did not mistake Mr. Rowe as being stranded a decade ago, but I did understand clearly that the document filed in terms of Mr. Rowes rather extensive reiteration was and is part of our proceeding. So I do appreciate your urging of a

more precise read. Let me ask now this, if Mr. Zweig and the Respondents lawyers want to have

an opportunity to take Mr. Rowes deposition , are you in a position to help facilitate that deposition? MARCUS ISAIAH WASHINGTON: He can do it tomorrow. MICHAEL ZWEIG: We have not asked for Mr. Washingtons deposition. CHRISTIAN CARBONE: (in the background) Leonard Rowe. MICHAEL ZWEIG: Oh, sorry, Mr. Rowes deposition? ARBITRATOR GREGORY: Right, Mr. Rowes deposition. Excuse me if I misspoke. I meant Mr. Rowes deposition. If Respondents wanted to take Mr. Rowes deposition given his rather extensive document thats been made part of this proceeding, I asked Mr. Washington if he could help facilitate that and his answer was it could be done tomorrow. So my question now to Mr. Zweig is, would you anticipate taking Mr. Rowes deposition? MICHAEL ZWEIG: Umm, its not something that Id given any thought to prior to the question now being raised. That is something I would be duty bound to discuss with my clients first. MARCUS WASHINGTON: Come on. ARBITRATOR GREGORY: Okay. Let me say this Mr. Washington and then you can have the floor. My purpose in the second Interim Decision was to move the process forward because both parties I think are quite correct in their view that for whatever reasons, we seem, the whole proceeding seems to be stalled whether youre in state court, federal court or in arbitration. It is my endeavor to try to move this as timely as possible toward the objective of arbitration, which is to go to a hearing. Now, that doesnt happen in a vacuum and I appreciate the various arguments brought by, especially by Claimant on this whole process in terms of where we should be and when we should be

I want to make it very clear that under Rule 9, I do have the power to order the deposition or depositions, etc, etc. I refrained from doing that. In my second Interim
there. Now, Decision, I take express arbitral notice of the undeniable fact that e-discovery is much more sophisticated and much more effective and much more efficient than it used to be. Now, I dont want us to get completely bogged down in the problematic exhibit, but I take arbitral notice on my sense is that Respondents, corporate Respondents, are in the norm, custodians of the record, maintain the archives, etc.

Im not looking for anybody to spend six figures in terms of some laborious process, but I would urge the Respondents to take a final look before we go to any other part of this proceeding to see whether or not the elements of the problematic exhibit can be retrieved.

MICHAEL ZWEIG: Arbitrator Gregory? I think this is Michael Zweig. I think its important for me to state this on the record. Im sorry, it appears that someone is trying to talk over me and its not working. Lets just talk one at a time. Im happy to wait to be recognized. MARCUS WASHINGTON: When am I going to have a chance to respond? ARBITRATOR GREGORY: I want to let Mr. Washington have the floor. Mr. Washington, you can have the floor. The floor is now yours. MARCUS WASHINGTON: Okay. First and foremost, the fact that you acknowledged that you clearly read what I said, theres no confusion in what Im arguing here, is there? Arbitrator Gregory? ARBITRATOR GREGORY: Confusion? No, theres no confusion. There may be various opinions, but MARCUS WASHINGTON: So what is the issue and why is it that you cannot decide whether or not the arbitration agreement I signed when I started employment at the William Morris Agency in September of 2008 is unconscionable or not? Or whether or not arbitration is an appropriate forum for a case of this magnitude to effectuate the public policy goals of the Civil Rights Act of 1964? You had three, almost three years worth of pleadings before you. I included ten additional documents with my Notice to the AAA and I made sure that you got every single motion that I filed ahead of time, just so that you could get a gist of what this case was about. Okay? Now, when they responded with their Answer, they denied everything. You know, there were these general denials, then they wanted to come at me with counterclaims and I cant even remember what else they tried to do. But these are just the tactics and pattern of corrupt behavior by Loeb & Loeb this entire case, as well as in the Rowe case. ARBITRATOR GREGORY: Well, Mr. Washington, let me say this. MARCUS WASHINGTON: What? ARBITRATOR GREGORY: I definitely am ready, willing and able to issue a substantive decision on your claims. MARCUS WASHINGTON: Okay then, you can do that. ARBITRATOR GREGORY: Now, we could do that, but what Ive always done, and will

continue to do, is to be exquisitely sensitive to procedural due process and that applies to both parties. As things are situated now, Mr. Rowes, well call it his statement
MR. WASHINGTON: His Affidavit. ARBITATOR GREGORY: is centrally situated as I see your structural, institutional claims. Now, thats certainly

MR. WASHINGTON:

Conspiracy, antitrust as well.

ARBITRATOR GREGORY: that certainly gives the opposition, in this case the Respondents, a fair opportunity to conduct a deposition of Mr. Rowe. MARCUS WASHINGTON: Yesa deposition with Leonard Rowe and I said that he is willing and able to speak whenever you need him. Immediately. I can get him on the phone right now, he could do a deposition. And Ive already researched deposition companies; they are able to do depositions at the spur of the moment, any times notice. Make the Respondents pay for it and if I have to do any f urther depositions with SNR, the Respondents should pay for that as well. I addressed this with Mr. Zweig in an

I think if you want to be fair, since you always use the term in fundamental fairness, make them cover the costs of anything with regards to this spoliated evidence. We are talking about spoliated evidence here, okay?
e-mail and he has not responded yet, but ARBITRATOR GREGORY: Which is another fair consideration. So, heres the paradox. MARCUS WASHINGTON: Right, so if you want a deposition, he can do it tomorrow. ARBITRATOR GREGORY: Mr. Washington, you will have the floor. I want to put a question on the table for both you and the Respondents to reply to. Heres the question. Youve raised the spoliation of evidence. If the infamous n-word list were to come forward, it seems that from Mr.

Washingtons perspective, almost any variation or any version of that document is going to be vulnerable to, at least the possibility, if not probability, of spoliation. And
MARCUS WASHINGTON: No, its a fact. ARBITRATOR GREGORY: do either of the parties or maybe both of the parties see any way in which that concern can be satisfied so that we can get to this, as I see it, important, structural evidence or

is the evidence, no matter what its form, if it were to come forward, going to be inadmissible now because of spoliation?
MARCUS WASHINGTON:

That doesnt make it inadmissible.

Thats a

negative on their end. What are you talking about?

MICHAEL ZWEIG: Arbitrator Gregory. ARBITRATOR GREGORY: Yes. MICHAEL ZWEIG: I wonder, this is Michael Zweig, if I can be heard for a moment.

ARBITRATOR GREGORY: Sure. MICHAEL ZWEIG: I appreciate your statement that you always attempt to be exquisitely sensitive to procedural due process for both sides and I must state that I am concerned from my own clients rights MARCUS WASHINGTON: They dont have any rights. You

cannot have rights when youre

engaging in criminal and unethical activity.

MICHAEL ZWEIG: Wait, wait, wait, I can't. No, I'm sorry. This is not working for me. ARBITRATOR GREGORY: Mr. Zweig, Mr. Zweig, you have the floor. We can only listen to one person at a time. Mr. Washington will have the full MICHAEL ZWEIG: If Im being interrupted by someone... MARCUS WASHINGTON: But hes lyingbad faith. MICHAEL ZWEIG: This is not working to do a hearing or a conference in this way. ARBITRATOR GREGORY: Well, were gonnaI would ask everyone to be courteous and be civil and every person on the call will have fair opportunity. Now Mr. Zweig, you have the floor.

I think that this arbitration has been diverted from what is the issue in the arbitration, which is, Mr. Washington brought a claim, what would be described as a one-off claim for employment discrimination. Claiming that he was, in some fashion, discriminated against
MICHAEL ZWEIG: Let me just continue for a moment. by William Morris and then William Morris Endeavor. His employment at William Morris was relatively brief. It began in 2008 if Im not mistaken, concluded within two years of that. Since then,

The focus of Mr. Washington on Exhibit 31 is something that represents, and has always represented a complete distraction from the issues in this case. You asked Arbitrator Gregory, a number of
there has been a succession of litigation. questions about Exhibit 31 in your initial decision, which were answered and that was: Were there any people who were on that list from William Morris who had anything to do with Marcus Washington. And the answer was resoundingly and indisputedly no. MARCUS WASHINGTON: Laughs. Oh no. Don't even try it. I'm not going to allow it. I'm not going to continue this call. If you are going to allow this man to sit here and lie like this on record,

I'm not going to allow it.

ARBITRATOR GREGORY: Well gentlemen, let me say this. The first time I saw the list.

MARCUS WASHINGTON: (Overlapping) You need to make a decision. Rule against me, but I'm not going to allow him to keep doing this.

I will say this, when I first saw the list, there was very little information on it. After I saw the Claimants papers
ARBITRATOR GREGORY:

Reply to Summary Judgment and my Reply to your Interim Decision. Be specific, please.
MARCUS WASHINGTON:

when I saw those papers, there was a great deal more information on that document
ARBITRATOR GREGORY: I am, I am. Yea, MARCUS WASHINGTON: A lot more.

and it sounds like much of it, if not all of it, but much of it came through the Claimants endeavors and in some part of the Claimants papers, the Claimant Mr.
ARBITRATOR GREGORY:

Washington talks about staying several days in the federal courts going through documents to do your best to comply with my requests for more specificity.

MARCUS WASHINGTON: In ARBITRATOR GREGORY:

good faith.

And now, we have a document, thanks to Mr. Washingtons efforts primarily it seems, that has significantly more information on it than did the original copy of a copy of a copy.
MICHAEL ZWEIG: No, Arbitrator Gregory, I was interrupted in speaking MARCUS WASHINGTON: (Overlapping) Because youre lying. MICHAEL ZWEIG: which I dont think complies with the standards of procedural due process. Let me say this, the document that Mr. Washington has presented is precisely the same document that was presented to Judge Patterson in 2002 MARCUS WASHINGTON: (Overlapping) Yes. MICHAEL ZWEIG: precisely the same document. MARCUS WASHINGTON: (Overlapping) Yes. MICHAEL ZWEIG: Okay. There has been no other additional information elicited. MARCUS WASHINGTON: (Overlapping) No. MICHAEL ZWEIG: Other people have said other things about it MARCUS WASHINGTON: (Overlapping) Your conspirators have, yes. MICHAEL ZWEIG: but its the same document Mr. Rowe had in 2002. His attorneys

submitted it on his behalf in opposition to a motion for summary judgment.

MARCUS WASHINGTON: Yes. MICHAEL ZWEIG: A motion for summary judgment that was granted by MARCUS WASHINGTON: (Overlapping) Judge Patterson.

MICHAEL ZWEIG: Judge Patterson as we know. So there has been nothing new or

added with respect to this exhibit since that time other than rhetoric.
MARCUS WASHINGTON: Oh God. Yes, yes, yes. Laughs. ARBITRATOR GREGORY: Okay, Mr. Washington, let me ask the essential question, perhaps

of the entire proceeding and that is this, I mean, you have been very consistent from
MARCUS WASHINGTON: (Overlapping) Day one. ARBITRATOR GREGORY: the very first set of papers that I have read, where it is your belief that there has been criminal, either omission or commission, by person or persons involved in this proceeding. MARCUS WASHINGTON: (Overlapping) No, theres evidence that I presented in those papers. ARBITRATOR GREOGORY: And if that remains your view MARCUS WASHINGTON: (Overlapping) Thats the view. Its alwaysthe evidence is there. Youve seen the evidence yourself. ARBITRATOR GREGORY: If I may Mr. Washington, let me ask a question and then youll have full opportunity. MARCUS WASHINGTON: (Overlapping) But dont proffer the question based on incomplete facts. ARBITRATOR GREGORY: My question Mr. Washington is this. Believing what you believe MARCUS WASHINGTON: (Overlapping) The evidence. ARBITRATOR GREGORY: and given the gravity of MARCUS WASHINGTON: (Overlapping) The evidence. ARBITRATOR GREGORY: Okay, lets say your evidence. Have you gone to the U.S.

Attorney?
MARCUS WASHINGTON: What? ARBITRATOR GREGORY: Have you brought your concerns to the office of the U.S. Attorney? MARCUS WASHINGTON: No, I have not. I have not, yet. Im waiting for a decision in my caseIm waiting on a decision in my case before I pursue any further action. I nee d proof that theres clearly a conspiracy going on and that will be furthered confirmed by your decision, or not. All I just need you to

do, is make a decision. I mean, you have enough evidence before you. I am okay with doing discovery if need be. Its not necessary, but I just ask that they cover all the costs for the electronic evidence discovery

my case is not about Exhibit 31 it has never been about Exhibit 31.
retrieval. Also, first and foremost, let me say that ARBITRATOR GREGORY: Youve made that very clear. But you also say MARCUS WASHINGTON: (Overlapping) That is to counter Michael Zweigs statements that this is about Exhibit 31 ARBITRATOR GREGORY: You

also say that Mr. Washington

MARCUS WASHINGTON: (Overlapping) Its not about that. You know what its about.

and correctly, that this could be a smoking-gun and you would be foolish.
ARBITRATOR GREGORY: MARCUS WASHINGTON: It doesnt even matter if its a smoking gun or not. I

dont need to rely on smoking gun evidence to prove claims of discrimination. I dont need it, but its there. I found it in the midst of a case. You know what Im saying? I
didnt know about this. ARBITRATOR GREGORY: (Overlapping) Let me ask both parties. Mr. Washington MARCUS WASHINGTON: But it

proves that theres conspiracy. It further proves that theres unethical conduct on behalf of Michael Zweig, on behalf of Loeb & Loeb LLP, on behalf of William Morris Endeavor and the William Morris Agency and all of the agencies throughout Hollywood. And of themost of the businesses in America, period. This is a problem and that is why I am fighting this case. That is the reason. I cannot allow this to keep going in this country. Its not going to happen.
ARBITRATOR GREGORY: Mr. Washington, you have been very clear on this. MARCUS WASHINGTON: (Overlapping) So, what?

ARBITRATOR GREGORY: And theres no dispute withclarity. [???] MARCUS WASHINGTON: (Overlapping) So what are the questions youre asking me, if Ive been very clear on everything that Ive said? ARBITRATOR GREGORY: Let me ask the core question. If you believe crimes have been committed, especially crimes that are particularized and structural MARCUS WASHINGTON: Do you understand white supremacy? ARBITRATOR GREGORY: have you gone to the U.S. Attorney? MARCUS WASHINGTON: Do you understand global white supremacy. This is all controlled by white people. White people are not going to go against their going to do it. Mr. Rowe has tried to file a complaint with the DDC.

own.

White people are just not

ARBITRATOR GREGORY: (Overlapping) Mr. Washington, let me ask you this. Mr. Washington. Mr. Washington. MARCUS WASHINGTON: Mr. Rowe has tried to file a complaint with the DDC. The DDC has not

they were included in my complaint with the DDC. But one of the attorneys is on the board of the DDC. Thats how widespread the corruption is here.
done anything with regards to Michael Zweig and the other attorneys, although, well ARBITRATOR GREGORY: Mr. Washington. Okay, let me ask a question. MARCUS WASHINGTON: Okay? So dont ask me that. Im not going through that right now. This is about my case. Its not about the U.S. Attorney. ARBITRATOR GREGORY: Okay, okay. So you say you have not gone MARCUS WASHINGTON: If the U.S. Attorney wants to get involved, that will be after you make a decision in my case. ARBITRATOR GREGORY: Let me ask this: you say youve not gone to the U.S. Attorney for the reasons stated, have you gone, if you believe that MARCUS WASHINGTON: (Overlapping) Ive gone to the DDC. ARBITRATOR GREGORY: this is affected by white supremacy, have you gone to the U.S. Attorney General of the United States, Mr. Eric Holder?

MARCUS WASHINGTON: Do you know how difficult it is to get in contact with these people? Ive tried various organizations, Ive made attempts. But unfortunately, this country ARBITRATOR GREGORY: (Overlapping) The key law enforcement officer, other than the President of the United States and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, is the Attorney General of the United States. Have you gone to Mr. Eric Holder? MARCUS WASHINGTON: and a lot of institutions in this country, its not in their interests to go againstand uphold the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Its not. Theres a lot of racism in this country. And just like Judge Castel ruled against me not based on law, its the same situation. Its everywhere because its all being decided and controlled by white people in this country. Period. ARBITRATOR GREGORY: So my question is, if assuming arguendo all of thats true MARCUS WASHINGTON: It is true. ARBITRATOR GREGORY: Considering arguendo its all true, why not go to the

Attorney General of these United States, Mr. Eric Holder?

MARCUS WASHINGTON: I dont have to do that right now. I can do that at a later date. I

dont have to do that right now. Thats a question you should ask Mr. Rowe, why he hasnt done that. Not me. Thats his evidence. That was something that happened to him in his case. That is not about my claims of individual, post-hiring disparate treatment.
ARBITRATOR GREGORY: Fair enough. Understood. MARCUS WAHSINGTON: (Overlapping) So lets not get things confused here.

I want to ask a question to Mr. Zweig. Mr. Zwig, what is your view as to whether or not, I have the authority to issue a decision knowing that criminal charges may be pursued subsequent. Do I have that authority or am I foreclosed from proceeding further in the arbitration, pending a referral to the Attorney General of the United States?
ARBITRATOR GREGORY: Mr. Zweig, Mr. Zweig. [???] Mr. Washington, but MARCUS WASHINGTON. Good

question.

MICHAEL ZWEIG: IIm not.youve caught me a little off guard cause Im not

sure I understand the question.

MARCUS WASHINGTON: Thats a good question. MICHAEL ZWEIG: Are you saying this arbitration should be stayed pending Mr.

Washingtons?
MARCUS WASHINGTON: No. Mr. Gregorys referral to the U.S. Attorney General about whats going on. MICHAEL ZWEIG: Excuse me, excuse me. MARCUS WASHINGTON: Laughs. ARBITRATOR GREGORY: Mr. Zweig, you have the floor. Mr. Washington, you may reply. Mr. Zweig, you have the floor. MARCUS WASHINGTON: Let him reply. Laughs. MICHAEL ZWEIG: I understand that. Its very difficult to have a conversation where people are expected to be civil, where if you begin to speak, you are interrupted. -- Marcus Washington gets dropped from the conference call --- Marcus Washington returns to the conference call MARCUS WASHINGTON: So, what was his answer? ARBITRATOR GREGORY: Heres what I propose. Umm MARCUS WASHINGTON: (Overlapping) What was his answer? ARBITRATOR GREGORY: The

answer was that was a good question.

MICHAEL ZWEIG: Didnt you drop off the call Mr. Washington because you didnt want to listen to the answer? MARCUS WASHINGTON: (Overlapping) Yea, but did you keep talking? What was his response? ARBITRATOR GREGORY: Mr. Zweig, were going to move forward.

Mr. Washington, Mr. Zweigs response, and I think it was a fair response to s fair question, was that

its a good question.

Heres where I think where were at and where were going to be going.

First, just to reiterate a couple things to make sure I fully understand the parties current position. I understand the parties remain of the view that theyre perfectly fine with me issuing a written decision without an in person hearing.
MARCUS WASHINGTON: (Overlapping) No, I think we need a hearing if youre going to make a decision. ARBITRATOR GREGORY: But theres certainly enough paper that I can decide this

case based on the paper alone.

Nah, I think we should have a hearing. They need to speak on record.

MARCUS WASHINGTON: ARBITRATOR GREGORY: Now, let me say this.

that crazy decision you just wrote, making it seem like I didnt say anything or that I didnt present anythe pyramid of evidence of evidence that I presented to you and now youre going to sit here on this phone call and say thatyou know what I presented to you. You know that what Ive said is substantial like any way you look at it. But youll say that on the call, but in writing, youre not going to say that? We have to have a hearing. And if youre going to make any recommendation, you also need to make a recommendation to Judge Castel when you say: No, based on everything thats here before [me], I think that you need to handle this case because it further goes back to my point that this case is too big of a civil rights case, a human rights case, to be decided in arbitration, especially based on someone who doesnt have proper authority to fully handle whats happened here. You cant do that. Youre always holding it off. Oh, I dont have the ability to make decisions on the unethical aspects of what hes
MARCUS WASHINGTON: Since you delayed the case and made

doing. Oh, I cant make a decision now, because the U.S. Attorney General hasnt done it. No, you have been presented something, you need to make a final decision, and let it move on where it needs to go, but.you dont serve a purpose anymore other than to just make a decision, and lets keep it going because this case is bigger than you, its bigger than the AAA, so its going to keep going regardless. So you need to just make a decision, but we need to have an oral hearing before that.
ARBITRATOR GREGORY: So Mr. Zweig? MICHAEL ZWEIG: Theres no purpose to have an oral hearing of any kind as far as I can see. I f Mr. Washington, who bears the burden of proof, is going to present witnesses to attempt to prove his case, we can and suggest in your Interim Decision number two, I think it was number two, schedule such a hearing. Obviously, witnesses will need to be garnered in advance of that and some time allowed to schedule it. I would reiterate that both parties agreed over a year ago, that this case should be decided

Indeed, Mr. Washington moved initially, as I recall, for summary judgment on his own behalf and in his most recent paper, Mr. Washington, that is the motion he just submitted, Mr. Washington reiterates the same point. And we have presented certainly a response to
based on summary judgment submissions.

We do not believe that Mr. Washington has presented any evidence whatsoever of any individual discrimination against him and we believe that any efforts to claim that there are fact issues, that would preclude summary judgment, would be based purely upon the creation of sham issues of
Mr. Washingtons motion.

fact, not real one, not ones that any court or arbitrator would need to
MARCUS WASHINGTON: (Overlapping) Okay, lets talk about pre-hiring discrimination. MICHAEL ZWEIG: Excuse me, would need to consider or to point to in not granting summary judgment. The Second Circuit has recently indicated that summary judgment can be appropriate where there are no issues of fact, only sham issues presented. MARCUS WASHINGTON: Laughs. ARBITRATOR GREGORY: Lets consider[???] MARCUS WASHINGTON: (Overlapping) Okay. Can I speak now? I need to be able to respond to that sir. Arbitrator Gregory, I need to respond. I need a chance to be allowed to respond to what he just said. ARBITRATOR GREGORY: Mr. Washington, let me ask a related question and youll have the floor. MARCUS WASHINGTON: Okay. ARBITRATOR GREGORY: Lets take Mr. Washingtons earlier point: he doesnt need and he can prevail without what well call the exhibit. Lets

assume that the the exhibit is for whatever reasons, off the table. Are the parties still of the view, if this exhibit were not a factor, that I could still decide this case just on the motion papers? And my view is, I can.
MARCUS WASHINGTON: (Overlapping) Yes.

My view is, if the exhibit remains resolved in the eyes of one party, but not in the eyes of the other, I can still move forward and make a decision. And, I want to make sure the Respondents have, if they wish, an opportunity to take the deposition of Mr. Rowe. And I think, from where I sit, that will be the end of the matter.
ARBITRATOR GREGORY: MARCUS WASHINGTON: Okay, so can we make it happen tomorrow?

ARBITRATOR GREGORY: I would certainly appreciate Mr. Washingtons good faith assistance in facilitating this as quickly as possible the deposition of Mr. Rowe. Im not compelling that thats purely

Im not compelling either side to take any deposition. If a side wants to take depositions, nows the time.
an option. MICHAEL ZWEIG: Arbitrator Gregory, if I may ask a question. MARCUS WASHINGTON: There has to be a deadline. There has to be a deadline set. MICHAEL ZWEIG: If Exhibit 31 is off the table as you put it. If Mr. Washington who clearly says he doesnt need Exhibit 31 for his case, then why would anyone need to take the deposition of Mr. Rowe? Mr. Rowe has no involvement in Mr. Washingtons employment at the William Morris Agency, or subsequently, the William Morris Endeavor. He has no bearing whatsoever MARCUS WASHINGTON: (Overlapping) Were talking about conspiracy, antitrust as well here dont forget that. ARBITRATOR GREGORY: I think Mr. Washington can certainly respond for himself. I cannot be in

But I can see reasons why both parties may want to either conclude any discovery now or may wish to pursue extensive discovery. Im agnostic on that. Each party is entitled to present their cases as they see fit. I just want to make sure
the role of attorney to either party so Im in sort of a yellow line, middle of the road spot here. that I understand the parties current view remains that of when I first entered into these proceedings and the Respondents view is that they are perfectly fine with me rendering a decision on the case involving all of its dimensions without the need for hearing and until today, I think that was also consonant with Mr. Washingtons views. I think theres a lot to be said for this: why dont we take the advantage

of a few more days, both parties mull over their options MARCUS WASHINGTON: (Overlapping) How many days?
ARBITRATOR GREGORY:and then let me know what the parties wish. Now, Mr. Washington, Im assuming when you say youd like a decision a.s.a.p. and you actually ask me to rule against you so you may proceed, what happens if you rule in my favor?

MARCUS WASHINGTON: That depends on what you, what if you accurately, you know, it depends on your decision honestly. Im not going to answer that right now. ARBITRATOR GREGORY: Okay. MARCUS WASHINGTON: I just need for you to decide in your heart, based on what you have been presented, you need to make a decision based on what you feel is right. I shouldnt be answering a question like that. You need to decide, as the arbitrator with 30 years experience as a

professor of law in employment and labor, you need to decide based on what I have presented and what started before I even had the historical evidence, before I even knew case law, before I even filed a complaint with the EEOC, this was all a gut-instinct first and foremost, but I had nothing to really buttress how I felt when I worked there, but like I said, lets address pre-hiring discrimination. Ive presented you the chart showing my qualifications compared with all of my similarly situated White /Jewish coworkers, who were all White. I was the only black person there. I was a token hire. So, he says that I havent presented anything? Its enough to slap you in the face.
ARBITRATOR GREGORY: As I understand Mr. Washington, this is a brief summary, but the year after you left William Morris, they brought in five, they brought in five junior people all persons of color. MARCUS WASHINGTON: (Overlapping) Hired five black people. ARBITRATOR GREGORY: hired five [???] people.

They hired five black people after I filed a complaint with the EEOC, not after I left, but after I field the complaint which is after I left, but lets be specific. After I filed the complaint and they got a notice, then they hired five people in one month when in the year that I was there, they hired two black people. The year and a half that I was there, two which was myself and Larnelle Foster, who also did not advance, who could not even be an assistant and was more experienced than all of the white people and Jewish people that worked there. So if thats not disparate treatment or a pattern or
MARCUS WASHINGTON:

systemicno matter how we break the years up, whether its just the year and a half that I worked there. Or if we even take the time Exhibit 31 was concealed and became spoliated evidence and theres the conspiracy of that case and we include that. Or even if we look at the fact that there has been no black music Agents since 1991 or so, 1990, thats thirty years. Or we can start from 1898 where its rooted in racism, period. And its the same past, present and it will be the same in the future if you make a decision or a judge makes a decision that allows this to keep going. So its on you. What do you want to do? At this point, if you rule
against me, it doesnt surprise me clearly, I know what it is, but if you rule in my favor, I will decide how I will proceed based on your decision. ARBITRATOR GREGORY: So I want to ask this Mr. Washington and this again, cuts right to the core and you were very unequivocal in your papers, but at this point, youre not interested in a remedy that might include reinstatement? MARCUS WASHINGTON: Why would I ever work for a company that is doing what its doing and is never going to be corrected? Never be corrected in my lifetime. Im not going to put myself through that. Ive already gone through extreme stress in this case on top of it. Why would I work for them? ARBITRATOR GREGORY: Let me suggest the following and I ask both parties to think about this and

Lets take sexual harassment. Sexism is one of the deeply embedded pathologies in most of human history. You can see thousands of years of that experience
Id be interested in their responses.

portrayed by Camile Pagilia in her book Sexual Personae. Its

not as deeply embedded as racism is in the United States and perhaps even

globally, but theres no question sexism is also a deeply embedded pathology.

There have been executive investment bankers, women, who were subjected to the indignity and the humiliation of the boom boom room now I wont go into the details on that but there have been settlements where those investment bankers would return to work with the assistance and help of and guidance of a senior mentor and there would be structural programs built into place as part of the remedy to help the institution rectify problematic issues that may have resonance absent the structural reforms. And sometimes, the only way in which a structural reform can have real validity and real resonance and actually get traction and take hold and make a difference, is if the persons who were the principal claimants return to work.
MARCUS WASHINGTON: No. No. Ive never heardno. ARBITRATOR GREGORY: Like I said, I cant be a partys lawyer, but I want to at least wanted put that on the table to see if you respond and think about it. MARCUS WASHINGTON: Thats a bunch of bull. They would never put someone through that. They dont have to

go back into that work environment and I can present you

case law. Im not even going to go there, but I already have the case law. Ill send it to you. Ill send
it to the AAA for you, so you can read it.

I think we should have a second conference call early next week at which point the parties will inform me do they wish any additional discovery, are they ready for a decision based on
ARBITRATOR GREGORY: Now, why dont we do this? Im open to suggestions.

paper alone and are there any other points I should consider. And certainly, the Respondent has full right and opportunity to reply to todays, or
yesterday or todays, papers from Mr. Washington. So, it would be very MARCUS WASHINGTON: No, they received it on Friday. So I think you need to set some definitive dates here. We dont need have no open-ended, oh next lets be specific please. Because a lot of time has already been wasted. ARBITRATOR GREGORY: Thats what Im trying to do Mr. Washington. MARCUS WASHINGTON: A lot of time has already been wasted. ARBITRATOR GREGORY: Ill be very specific to the extent that I can be and thats along these lines. Number one, the Respondents have a right to reply in writing to your papers. MARCUS WASHINGTON: Yes.

both parties have the right, and I think the role of responsibility, to decide whether they wish a decision from me without a hearing and the papers alone, which Im perfectly ready, willing and able to do, or do the parties wish...
ARBITRATOR GREGORY: Number two,

Ive already answered that question, how I felt. Your Interim Decision said you wanted to do this.
MARCUS WASHINGTON: (Overlapping) Thats what you said in your second Interim Decision. You just wrote that ignoring all of my evidence and then concluding that you wanted to have an oral hearing and discovery to waste this thing out another five months. Now, youre sitting here saying, Oh, now we need to call you next week and tell you if we want to do a hearingafter you o rdered it. Now, I want to do it. So, lets do it. What are we waiting on? What do you need? Leonard Rowe can do the deposition tomorrow. Why are you saying, Oh lets see if next week, if you even want to do a deposition? Like, come on.

Stop flip-

flopping here. You have to be firm, and make some decisions.

ARBITRATOR GREGORY: Well, Mr. Washington, and Id also say to all the Respondents, I prefer to ait on the side of caution. A decision rendered in haste is a decision regretted. MARCUS WASHINGTON: (Overlapping) Three years is not haste sir. ARBITRATOR GREGORY: I will do whatever I can, always to protect attorney-client privilege.

This case is not about Exhibit 31. This case is not about Exhibit 31. So lets not talk about haste.
MARCUS WASHINGTON: ARBITRATOR GREGORY: And I will do whatever I can always to protect due process. MARCUS WASHINGTON:

Three years worth of pleadings have been

Now, well to some extent Mr. Washington, youve

presented to you. Socome on.

ARBITRATOR GREGORY:

been very successful. I have, should we say, expedited what remains in this case.
MARCUS WASHINGTON: (Overlapping) You havent done anything expedited. ARBITRATOR GREGORY: and that is the Respondents right to reply paper. The deposition MARCUS WASHINGTON: (Overlapping) You gave them a lot of time to do their replies. ARBITRATOR GREGORY: if they wish, of Mr. Rowe. Mr. Washington has been very unequivocal in agreeing to help facilitate MICHAEL ZWEIG: (Overlapping) Just to clarify ARBITRATOR GREGORY: If we have a hearing, I would venture to say by the middle or the end of August. If any party still wants to MARCUS WASHINGTON: I will not be back in New York until September. I will not be back in New York until September 4th. ARBITRATOR GREGORY: Okay. MICHAEL ZWEIG: And I have a trial throughout September into October Arbitrator Gregory. MARCUS WASHINGTON: (Overlapping) So a hearing needs to take place by the 5 th. MICHAEL ZWEIG: You had indicated in your Interim Decision that we could we provide potential trial dates to you I think in a time span dating from late August ARBITRATOR GREGORY: (Overlapping) Through early December.

MICHAEL ZWEIG: through December, which we of course intended to follow and we would do that. I do need to ask a question. Theres been talk about taking the deposition of Mr. Rowe. As I understood it, he last resided in Georgia. Is he going to come here for his deposition? MARCUS WASHINGTON: He can if you need him. Yes, he will. MICHAEL ZWEIG: Okay. So hell travel here for his deposition youre saying? MARCUS WASHINGTON: But, Im not going to speak for him. But he can do it if theres going to be any problems, if you want to present any case law, whatever. If you cant make it happen from out of state, then Ill try to work on having him come as well. Whatever you need. ARBITRATOR GREGORY: Let me say this MARCUS WASHINGTON: I can do a deposition on Michael Zweig first and foremost, as well and I need to put that on the record that I want to do a deposition on Michael and Helen Gavaris and I know that theres case law that says I can do that. So I need to make that happen, we need to schedule that as well. MICHAEL ZWEIG: If weve already said in this case, that Exhibit 31 is not necessary for the case

Its not necessary for him to decide if the arbitration agreement is unconscionable or not.
MARCUS WASHINGTON: (Overlapping) MICHAEL ZWEIG: It has nothing to do with unconscionability. MARCUS WASHINGTON: It does. ARBITRATOR GREGORY: Let go back for a moment, for Mr. Rowes consideration. I have no problem if the parties wanted to arrange a long distance audio-visual deposition. MICHAEL ZWEIG: I would not conduct it by audio-visual means. MARCUS WASHINGTON: Why? ARBITRATOR GREGORY: Because? MICHAEL ZWEIG: Because Ive done audio-visual depositions before and MARCUS WASHINGTON: (Overlapping) And it seems to be working really well. MICHAEL ZWEIG: the time and sound lag, as exhibited on this call, is unacceptable. MARCUS WASHINGTON: No. Come on. We can do it telephonic. You can do it telephonic.

MICHAEL ZWEIG: Just as an arbitration hearing, if one is conducted in any arbitration, is done in person. MARCUS WASHINGTON: (Overlapping) No, thats not correct. Theres too many companies that exist. MICHAEL ZWEIG: We dont have witnesses who are going to be MARCUS WASHINGTON: I just researched a lot of companies that do this on a regular, so Ive seen it. Its reliable, it works for a lot of people, its done internationallyI meanthis is great. MICHAEL ZWEIG:

You represented that Mr. Rowe would be here tomorrow for his

deposition.
MARCUS WASHINGTON: No, I didnt say that. I said he could be on a call with you tomorrow. ARBITRATION GREGORY: Gentleman, I would take that as a figure of speech. MARCUS WASHINGTON: Yea, and bs. MICHAEL ZWEIG: Unfortunately Arbitrator Gregory, I dont know whether to take this call literally or not. MARCUS WASHINGTON: (Overlapping) And yourself MICHAEL ZWEIG: And I certainly didnt take it as a figure of speech. MARCUS WASHINGTON: Laughs. Delusional. That is so sad that theres people in the world like this. Like, how do you live with yourself? I dont understand. ARBITRATOR GREGORY: Thats another question for another day. I would assume in most

And you need to note that type of behavior with the attorney thats speaking to you and the things that theyve said throughout this entire case.
MARCUS WASHINGTON: MICHAEL ZWEIG: Excuse me. Arbitrator Gregory, with all due respect, you should be

restraining Mr. Washington from making these types of comments.

MARCUS WASHINGTON: (Overlapping) No, sorry. Its not going to happen.

MICHAEL ZWEIG: Theyre inappropriate, theyre uncivil MARCUS WASHINGTON: (Overlapping) Its the truth. And theres evidence that I presented over three years and longer of what youve done. MICHAEL ZWEIG: and this is the type of control that we would expect the arbitrator to

take over the call.

youre going to get disbarred for what youve done. Loeb & Loeb is going to get sanctioned for what theyve done. William Morris is going to get sanctioned. Hollywood is going to address this problem, one way or the other, period.
MARCUS WASHINGTON: And ARBITRATOR GREGORY: Let me ask this question. MARCUS WASHINGTON: And youre not going to keep continuing this. ARBITRATOR GREGORY: Mr. Washington, one thing for sure. Were going to have great difficulty,

I think well do our best, but I think Mr. Zweigs points are certainly fair. If we could have a deposition
I think, trying to figure out who said what in this taped conversation.

No, Ive presented enough evidence. Theres complaints already filed. Ive said this for years, its in writing. I can speak it and if you havent made a decision yet, I can keep speaking it until you have made a decision saying otherwise.
MARCUS WASHINGTON:

Theres no doubt you filed enormous amount of paper, much of it, very well presented I thought.
ARBITRATOR GREGORY: MARCUS WASHINGTON:

It was rhetoric right? You said it was

conclusory rote.
ARBITRATOR GREGORY: Well

MARCUS WASHINGTON: Right?

Thats what you called it?

ARBITRATOR GREGORY: It depends

Rhetorically rich. That what it was? But now? okay. Alright.

MARCUS WASHINGTON: ARBITRATOR GREGORY:

It depends on the particular time, place and

circumstance.
MARCUS WASHINGTON: Yea. ARBITRATOR GREGORY: That youve made, I think,

youve made a number of fair

points today, that sooner beats later, but again the need for
MARCUS WASHINGTON: I want a copy of this recording as well ARBITRATOR GREGORY: alacrity rubs up against the need for due process. So let me just try to summarize MARCUS WASHINGTON: Youre halting due process right now by not making a decision about that arbitration agreement that I signed. ARBITRATOR GREGORY: [???]

Judge Castel said that you were to determine that and you have still not made a decision on that matter. We dont need a hearing about that matter. But if were going to have a matter about my antitrust, if were going to have a hearing about my individual claims, the systemic claims, okay.
MARCUS WASHINGTON: ARBITRATOR GREGORY: (Overlapping) Well, Mr. Washington

But that would be after you have decided that the arbitration agreement is in fact conscionable to you. But you still havent made a decision aout the arbitration agreement and you tried to make in your second Interim Decision appear to be that you needed the
MARCUS WASHINGTON:

underlying e-mails to Exhibit 31 before you could make a decision about whether the arbitration agreement should be upheld or not and/or summary judgment.So what, what?
ARBITRATOR GREGORY: Heres the essence of the situation. If I decide that the arbitration agreement is unconscionable, then MARCUS WASHINGTON: (Overlapping) Then it goes back to the district court, we have discovery there and have a jury trial which is what I asked for in the beginning. So, what are we waiting on? Or rule against me now. I mean, do what you need to do. ARBITRATOR GREGORY: Mr. Washington, I may rule in your favor in whole or in part.

Thats cool too. Whatever. I mean, the case law, the facts, the evidence, the things that Ive said period and the fact that they have not met their burden of proof and persuasion, even just on my individual claims as well, not just Exhibit 31 they definitely did not meetI mean, what I presented shows that regardless of whether the e-mails were searched surreptitiously by EED or not or SNR had them do that, it still shows that the emails exist and the e-mails are contained on their hard drives. Ive
MARCUS WASHINGTON: called electronic evidence discovery companies already who are willing to get the backup tapes to be able to retrieve the e-mails just so that we can see what was on the tapes and/or they need to produce since they claimed that this [racial slurs list and underlying e-mails] was never found they need to produce what they actually received because it should only be the emails from Cara Lewis who I worked for and I should be able to see that because it will probably have something I need to see. ARBITRATOR GREGORY: Mr. Washington, if I could ask a question will be very important okay? Were all listening and now I want to ask a question. Youve said youve been in touch with some retrieval companies MARCUS WASHINGTON: Yes. ARBITRATOR GREGORY: and with your help, they would be able to zero in probably on particular employees and particular time frames. Do you have a ballpark estimated dollar cost? MARCUS WASHINGTON: I have e-mailed Michael Zweig the questions that they have sent to me and they said that they cannot provide a quote until those answers are, the questions are answered. So Im

waiting on Michael to respond. I asked him to give me a response by tomorrow. I asked him to forward it to their IT department and I dont know if hes done that. Can you ask him if he has? ARBITRATOR GREGORY: Well, Mr. Washington, if MARCUS WASHINGTON: Laughs. ARBITRATOR GREGORY: if those materials could be produced, are you interested?

Sir, Im interested in you deciding whether the arbitration agreement is unconscionable or not first and foremost. At this stage, thats what you need to decide. If any discovery needs to happen further, then it would be based on you saying the case should go back to the court and discovery can occur there. But you can decide this without Exhibit 31 o r the underlying e-mails to Exhibit 31 being produced. The fact that the e-mails were clearly concealed, the fact that Leonard Rowe found this on the desk of the attorney, miraculously found it, after being told that no derogatory terms existed when the search results came in. That is conspiracy in and of itself. [???]
MARCUS WASHINGTON: ARBITRATOR GREGORY: Mr. Washington, for Mr. Zweigs benefit, if and when I decide this case, if I decide this case on the merits, I tend to address all of the issues MARCUS WASHINGTON: Yes, okay. ARBITRATOR GREGORY: so theres going to be a resolution here, a global resolution. And I noticed from notes on one of the exhibits, somebody said is not knowledgeable in antitrust. Well, again, thats a matter of opinion. I took antitrust law at the Yale Law School with Ralph Winter who is currently acknowledged to be, along with Bob Board, the tough guy in the country on antitrust. So I do think, with

all due respect gents, I know what Im doing. It may not be moving at quite the pace that the parties may wish, but I can guarantee that when I have a decision, it will be a thorough decision on all of the issues. MARCUS WASHINGTON: Okay. ARBITRATOR GREGORY: Now, I do have procedural questions. Id like the parties to take 24

hours or 12 hours for that matter and think about it and it would be this: is there to be a
deposition of Mr. Rowe? Naturally, thats up to Mr. Zweig and his colleagues. If they deci de they want to take a deposition, Id prefer that be a.s.a.p. If they decide to forego it, thats fine with me. So thats certainly on the table. The Respondents clearly have the right to file a response, responsive papers, to Mr. Washingtons most recent submission. If they decide to waive that right, again, thats fine with me.

And if the parties decide after reflection that they want a hearing, either party wants a hearing, I want to know specifically what will the hearing be about. Will it be about all of these claims, etc. proposed? Or will it be more focused? Or will it may be down to a single issue?
MARCUS WASHINGTON: Were

talking about the arbitration agreement here

You dont needwhat are we talking about? You need to

being unconscionable or not.

make a decision about that.

All that other stuff can be decided based on you knowif it goes back to the court, in a public forum where theres a jury and they can decide that my individual claims since Michael and William Morris believes Im just pulling this out of thin air. Let a jury decide that. I feel confident that they will rule in my favor it depends on if its an all-white jury

but thats another story. But Ive presented it very clearly in my motions what it is that Im asking you to do. And as I said in the beginning of this call, whether the arbitration agreement I signed was unconscionable, tainted with illegality, malum in se and whether arbitration is an appropriate forum for a case of this magnitude, to effectuate the public policy goals of the Civil Rights Act, the New York City Human Rights Laws, Section 1981, you have the the Sherman Act you have all these laws and you have evidence of 115 years of pattern and practice of discrimination against black people, not just in employment, but throughout every area of the company, from music to film to television and its based on their employment practices. So I dont see how you can try to separate these things or compartmentalize the issues here.
ARBITRATOR GREGORY: Mr. Washington, youve been very clear. Do you believe that you are quite confident that I can go to a decision and do it now, do it on paper and have it out in a couple weeks? MARCUS WAHSINGTON: That would be great. ARBITRATOR GREGORY: Okay. Mr. Zweig? I know youll have to talk with your clients, but whats your preliminary sense? MICHAEL ZWEIG: My preliminary sense would be the same as we hadexpressed last August when we had our conference, which was, both parties believed that this matter could be resolved on summary judgment without the need for a hearing.

ARBITRATOR GREGORY: Okay. MICHAEL ZWEIG: Im going to review the matter with my clients and expect that we will respond to you if I could, it would be Thursday, by no later than 12 PM.

I think this has been, shall we say, volatile but ultimately very productive. Were basically where we started. I have the authority of the parties to issue a decision in writing addressing all issues and unless I hear otherwise from the Respondents, they remain of that same view on that point that I have the right to decide this case on all issues. On that,
ARBITRATOR GREGORY: Okay, thatll be fine. So, heres where were at gentlemen.

And if I hear nothing from the Respondents lawyers by shall we say the end of this Thursday, then Im going to proceed with writing my decision. But in fairness to me, Im going to need probably the
the parties agree so we do sorta have the cosmic stipulation that I have that authority. better part of a couple weeks. I would fully intend to have a complete decision by Labor Day of 2013. MARCUS WASHINGTON: Okay. ARBITRATOR GREGORY: So if theres nothing else,

then Mr. Zweig, let me know

if I dont hear from you by the end of business this Thursday, August the first, then Im going to proceed with closing the record and writing my decision.
either way, but
MICHAEL ZWEIG: With the only exception being our filing a response to Mr. Washington. ARBITRATOR GREGORY: Fair enough. If you decide to pursue that, then give me a realistic date and then following receipt, I would then begin. MARCUS WASHINGTON: Wait one second. I would like to ask that their response should be due by at least August 6th. I mean, they had it since July 26th.

ARBITRATOR GREGORY: As I mentioned in the beginning, I have a wee bit of vacation planned and I would be able to get to work on this the week of August 13th and I would have a decision, Im quite confident, by or before Labor Day. MARCUS WASHINGTON: Alright. MICHAEL ZWEIG: And, if we are going to respond, we would have our response in by no later than the 14th. MARCUS WASHINGTON: What? ARBIITRATOR GREGORY: Thatd be terrific. MARCUS WASHINGTON: No, no, no, no, no. ARBITRATOR GREGORY: The 14th of August. MARCUS WASHINGTON: Theyve had it since the 26th. I wrote it in ten days. We got the Decision on the 16th. I mean, come on. Theyre not telling you thelike, what? You can tell by this

call.theyre not saying nothing.

MICHAEL ZWEIG: Mr. Washington, multiple times that you have a vacation in August. MARCUS WASHINGTON: Oh my God. Yall are so ridiculous man. Why do you keep ai ding and abetting? ARBITRATOR GREGORY: If Respondents decide to file a response to todays papers, they can do so and I think August 14th is certainly fair. MARCUS WASHINGTON: Okay. Alright, alright. ARBITRATOR GREGORY: The decision writer that will be me since I wont be available til that week anyway. And Ive had hundreds of cases over the years, maybe a thousand who knows MARCUS WASHINGTON: Like this?

quite like this, but with extensive records. Ive had cases with extensive records, Ive never taken more than 30 days from the close of the proceeding to get my decision out in writing. And that, I intend very much
ARBITRATOR GREGORY: Not to fulfill in this case as well. MARCUS WASHINGTON: Okay, that sounds good.

ARBITRATOR GREGORY: So if theres nothing further, then I look forward to hearing from Mr. Zweig. Let AAA know Mr. Zweig, whatever your decision is and AAA will communicate to me. Likewise, Ill file my decision with AAA and theyll send it to the parties. MARCUS WASHINGTON: So August 1st and August 14th. Alright. MICHAEL ZWEIG: August 1st, first Ill indicate if we have any objection to proceeding right to decisions on the summary judgment motion that both parties have submitted and August 14 th, the response to Mr. Washingtons latest motion. MARCUS WASHINGTON: Okay. ARBITRATOR GREGORY: If you decide to do so. MICHAEL ZWEIG: If we decided to do so. ARBITRATOR GREGORY: If you waive the right, let me know, then Ill be able to get started. MICHAEL ZWEIG: We shall do that. ARBITRATOR GREGORY: Okay, well thank you very much. Thanks to AAA as well. MICHAEL ZWEIG: Thank you. ARBITRATOR GREGORY: Have a good day. MARCUS WASHINGTON: Bye Carol. Bye Linda. CAROL PLACELLA: Gentlemen, if you would like to stay on to speak, you could feel free. -- Mr. Washington exits the call.