WRITER ADDRESSES JUDGE FOR THE CLASS

CASE NUMBER:            BC339972

CASE NAME:  WILLIAM RICHERT VS. WRITERS

GUILD OF AMERICA WEST, INC.

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA   MONDAY, MARCH 23, 2009

DEPARTMENT NO. 311 HON. CARL J. WEST, JUDGE

APPEARANCES: (AS NOTED ON TITLE PAGE.)

REPORTER:    WANDA GRAY, CSR NO. 7675, RPR

TIME:   10:00 A.M.

THE COURT: IN THE RICHERT VERSUS WGA CASE, WE HAVE A MATTER ON CALENDAR TODAY. IT WAS CAPTIONED AS AN APPLICATION TO EFFECT A DISMISSAL OF THE CLAIMS OF

MR. RICHERT AND THE SUBSTITUTION OF A PLAINTIFF FOR A DECEASED CLASS REPRESENTATIVE.

I RECEIVED A COPY OF MR. RICHERT'S OPPOSITION THAT WAS SERVED ON FRIDAY. WE'VE GOT A MESS HERE, AND I WOULD LIKE TO HELP YOU SOLVE THIS PROBLEM, BUT I'M NOT SURE JUST HOW WE'RE GOING TO DO IT. WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO IT ON THE APPLICATION. MR. RICHERT NOW IS THE CLASS REPRESENTATIVE, DESIRES NOT TO IN EFFECT BE RELIEVED OF THAT RESPONSIBILITY

AND WANTS TO STAY IN THIS CASE.

MONTHS AGO -- AND I WENT BACK. THIS SETTLEMENT CONCEPT HAS BEEN PERCOLATING SINCE JUNE OF LAST YEAR. WE HAD A MOTION WHERE YOU, MR. JOHNSON, SOUGHT TO BE RELIEVED. WE PUT THAT OVER TO TRY AND ACCOMMODATE THE PRACTICALITIES OF WHAT THAT WOULD MEAN. I'M NOT SURE WHERE TO GO. LET ME GIVE YOU THE COMMENTS I HAVE, AND THEN YOU ALL CAN GIVE ME YOUR SUGGESTIONS ON WHAT YOU THINK WE OUGHT TO DO

MR. JOHNSON: WHY DON'T WE DO APPEARANCES.

THE COURT: WELL, I KNOW MR. RICHERT IS PRESENT. YOUR APPEARANCES WILL BE NOTED ON THE MINUTE ORDER, BUT YOU CAN ANNOUNCE YOUR APPEARANCES.

MR. JOHNSON: I ALWAYS SEEM TO DO IT WHENEVER I GO TO COURT. I DON'T HAVE TO. THAT'S FINE.

THE COURT: WE DON'T USUALLY DO THAT HERE, AND WE NOTE THE APPEARANCES. MR. RICHERT IS PRESENT IN COURT. I'LL NOTE THAT FOR THE RECORD, AND CLASS COUNSEL IS PRESENT AND COUNSEL FOR THE WRITERS GUILD.

I DON'T THINK I CAN GRANT THE RELIEF REQUESTED ON THE APPLICATION THAT'S PENDING, PARTICULARLY IN VIEW OF THE OBJECTIONS FILED BY MR. RICHERT.

UPON THE DEATH OF THE CLASS REPRESENTATIVE, I THINK, MR. JOHNSON, YOU HAD AN OBLIGATION TO INFORM THE COURT THAT YOU NO LONGER HAD A CLASS REPRESENTATIVE, AND I GUESS I HAVE REAL CONCERNS ABOUT HOW ALL THESE NEGOTIATIONS AND MEDIATIONS WERE TAKING PLACE WITH NO LIVING CLASS REPRESENTATIVE FOR ONE OF THE SUPP. CLASSES. THAT'S A PROBLEM.

I HAVE A QUESTION REGARDING THE ABILITY OF CLASS COUNSEL TO CONTINUE TO REPRESENT THE INTERESTS OF THE CLASS AT THIS JUNCTURE GIVEN THE INFORMATION THAT HAS BEEN PLACED BEFORE THE COURT.

I HAVE AN ISSUE REGARDING MR. RICHERT'S CONTINUATION AS A CLASS REPRESENTATIVE. IF HE'S TO CONTINUE, HE'S GOING TO HAVE TO OBTAIN COUNSEL. THE COURT WILL HAVE TO APPROVE SUBSTITUTE CLASS COUNSEL.

WE HAVE REPRESENTATIONS MADE IN THE MOTION TO BE RELIEVED WHICH WAS PREVIOUSLY PUT BEFORE THE COURT THAT THERE'S BEEN A BREAKDOWN OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CLASS COUNSEL AND MR. RICHERT.

THAT CREATES A NUMBER OF PROBLEMS, ALL OF WHICH I THINK HAVE TO BE RESOLVED ON A FAIRLY FORMAL PROCESS. I CAN'T JUST DO IT INFORMALLY OR SAY -- WAVE MY MAGIC GAVEL AND SAY, HERE'S WHAT WE DO. I NEED TO HAVE MOTIONS. I NEED TO HAVE A SHOWING.

WE HAVE A NUMBER OF CLASS MEMBERS THAT HAVE A RIGHT TO HAVE THIS PROCESS BE FAIRLY TRANSPARENT AND KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON. THERE'S ALSO AN ISSUE REGARDING THE SUBSTITUTION OF NEW CLASS REPRESENTATIVES FOR MISS RETCHIN, WHO IS DECEASED AND APPARENTLY PASSED AWAY IN JUNE OF LAST YEAR.

I CAN'T JUST SUBSTITUTE TWO NEW HEIRS. I NEED TO HAVE SOME DOCUMENTATION, AN APPLICATION TO SUBSTITUTE A NEW CLASS REPRESENTATIVE. I HAVE TO GO THROUGH AND MAKE FINDINGS AS TO THE SUITABILITY OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS TO SERVE AS CLASS REPRESENTATIVES. THAT IS ONE OF THE TWO

SUBCLASSES.

AND I GUESS MY NEXT QUESTION IS IN WHOSE NAME HAS THIS PENDING SETTLEMENT BEEN NEGOTIATED. I'VE BEEN REASSURED THAT WE'RE WORKING ON THE DOCUMENTATION. WE'RE FINALIZING ALL THESE THINGS. WHO'S BEEN AT THE HELM? IS MISS JAMISON STILL IN AS THE REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE NON-WGA MEMBERS?

MR. KURTZ: YES, YOUR HONOR. AND IF IT HELPS TO CLEAR

THINGS UP, YOUR HONOR, THE NEGOTIATION OVER THE SETTLEMENT DOES NOT PERCEIVE A CLASS DEFINITION THAT WAS SET OUT IN THE COURT'S ORDER CERTIFYING THE CLASS. IT SETS OUT MORE OF A BROADER, GENERAL DEFINITION AS ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT WHERE IT'S ONE DEFINITION OF ALL WRITERS FOR WHOM THE WGA HAS RECEIVED FOREIGN LEVY MONIES, AND THAT INCLUDES MEMBERS, NON-MEMBERS.

SO, YES, MISS JAMISON HAS BEEN PARTICIPATING AS A CLASS REPRESENTATIVE, SO HAS MISS FElL RETCHIN. SHE HAS BEEN ACTUALLY PARTICIPATING TO A CERTAIN EXTENT FROM THE VERY BEGINNING OF MISS PEARL RETCHIN BEING IN THE CASE AS HER DAUGHTER. SO SHE'S VERY INTIMATELY FAMILIAR WITH THE CASE AND SINCE HER MOTHER'S PASSING HAS BEEN EVEN MORE INVOLVED WITH THE CASE.

THE COURT: HOW COULD THIS POSSIBLY HAVE GONE FORWARD.

COUNSEL HAS AN OBLIGATION IF THE CLASS REPRESENTATIVE IS DECEASED, YOU CAN'T INFORMALLY JUST PICK SOMEBODY TO CARRY THE BALL. THE COURT HAS TO APPROVE ANY SUBSTITUTE REPRESENTATIVE. I HAVE TO MAKE FINDINGS THAT THEY'RE A SUITABLE REPRESENTATIVE, THAT THEY ARE CAPABLE OF PURSUING

THE INTERESTS OF THE CLASS.

I'VE HAD IT REPRESENTED TO ME REPEATEDLY SINCE JUNE OF LAST YEAR THAT WE'RE IN NEGOTIATIONS. WE'RE CLOSE TO A SETTLEMENT. I HAVE NEVER SEEN ANY DOCUMENTATION OF ANY OF THIS SETTLEMENT. IT'S BEEN KEPT -- BASICALLY JUST HASN'T BEEN FILED BECAUSE OTHER ISSUES KEPT COMING UP, BUT I HAVE SERIOUS CONCERNS ABOUT THE WAY THIS HAS BEEN DONE.

I'M WILLING TO WORK WITH YOU. I KNOW YOU,

MR. KURTZ AND MR. JOHNSON. YOU ARE GOOD LAWYERS. I'M SURE YOU HAVE NOT DONE ANYTHING UNTOWARD INTENTIONALLY, BUT IT JUST HAS A BAD LOOK TO IT, AND I'M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT'S COMING UP HERE.

MR. RICHERT, YOU HAD SOMETHING YOU WANTED TO ADD.

MR. RICHERT: WELL, I WANTED TO ALSO SAY THAT I SPOKE TO ANN JAMISON, AND SHE HADN'T TALKED TO ANY OF THESE LAWYERS IN YEARS. THE LAST TIME I TALKED TO HER WAS PROBABLY SIX MONTHS AGO, AND ALSO SHE DOES NOT REPRESENT NON-MEMBERS, YOUR HONOR. HER FATHER, PHANE WILLIAMSON, WAS WRITING IN THE 1930'S, AND HE WAS A NON-MEMBER WRITER, BUT SHE'S HIS DAUGHTER.

THE COURT: I UNDERSTAND THAT, SIR.

MR. RICHERT: SO SHE'S NOT A NON-MEMBER WRITER AS I WAS TOLD SO THAT SHE COULD, YOU KNOW -- BECAUSE I HAD TALKED TO MR. JOHNSON WHO ALWAYS TOLD ME THERE WERE OTHER PEOPLE TO REPLACE ME IF I WERE TO WITHDRAW, BUT I SEE THAT THERE WEREN'T REALLY ANYBODY WHO WAS A WRITER WITH MY CREDENTIALS, YOU MIGHT SAY.

THE COURT: WHEN THE COURT'S ORDER CERTIFYING THE

CLASSES AND IDENTIFYING THREE SUBCLASSES IDENTIFIED

MISS JAMISON AS THE REPRESENTATIVE, FOR THOSE ENTITLED TO FOREIGN LEVIES WHO ARE NOT NOW NOR HAVE BEEN MEMBERS OF THE WGA.

MR. RICHERT: AS A WRITER, YOUR HONOR. PEARL RETCHIN WAS REPRESENTING THE OTHER HEIRS. AS I UNDERSTAND IT -­ THE COURT: I UNDERSTAND THAT. I HAVE AN ORDER, AND I'M READING FROM MY ORDER. SO MISS JAMISON WAS THE

DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE.

NOW HAVE YOU BEEN DEALING WITH MISS JAMISON AND HAS SHE BEEN ENGAGED IN THE NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE WGA AND THE MEDIATOR, OR AS MR. RICHERT SAYS, SHE HASN'T HEARD FROM YOU IN MONTHS. WHAT'S THE STORY HERE?

MR. KURTZ: WELL, FRANKLY, YOUR HONOR, I DON'T KNOW WHERE THAT'S COMING FROM. WE'VE BEEN IN CONTACT WITH ALL THE CLASS REPRESENTATIVES, OBVIOUSLY WITH MR. RICHERT AND NOW WITH MISS FElL RETCHIN AND MISS JAMISON. THEY WERE ALL INFORMED OF THE MEDIATION.

ONE OF THE MEDIATIONS MR. RICHERT SPECIFICALLY OBJECTED TO AND DID NOT APPEAR, AND UNFORTUNATELY THE OTHER TWO CLASS REPRESENTATIVES, THEY OBVIOUSLY KNEW OF IT BUT THEY COULD NOT APPEAR. THEY WERE BOTH OUT OF TOWN.

MR. RICHERT: THEY WERE AVAILABLE BY PHONE.

MR. KURTZ: BUT THEY WERE AVAILABLE BY PHONE FOR MEDIATION.

MR. JOHNSON: MAY I SAY ONE THING ABOUT MR. RICHERT.

MR. RICHERT, AS YOU WILL RECALL AT THE LAST HEARING, WENT OUT AND ENGAGED OTHER COUNSEL IN THE CASE. I HAD EXTENSIVE

DISCUSSIONS WITH HIS OTHER COUNSEL ABOUT THE APPROPRIATENESS OF THE SETTLEMENT, THAT COUNSEL CAME OUT TO CALIFORNIA, MET WITH HIM, WENT OVER ALL OF IT, CALLED ME UP AND SAID, OKAY. IT'S ALL RIGHT. I TOTALLY UNDERSTOOD.

MR. RICHERT KNEW EXACTLY WHAT WAS HAPPENING AT ALL TIMES, AND, AS YOU KNOW, HE'S BLOWN HOT AND COLD IN THIS CASE WHERE HE'S BEEN WITH ME, HE'S BEEN AGAINST ME, AND, YOU KNOW, FRANKLY, I'M JUST SORT OF FLABBERGASTED AS WHAT

HAPPENED TO HIM LAST FRIDAY, BUT WE'VE DONE EVERYTHING WE CAN TO KEEP HIM INFORMED AND TO DO WHAT'S RIGHT FOR EVERYBODY.

AND THE SETTLEMENT THAT WE WORKED OUT WAS AFTER EXTENSIVE REPEATED MEETINGS. WE STILL HAVEN'T PUT THE -­ DOTTED ALL OF THE I'S BECAUSE WE'RE STILL FIGHTING FOR EVERYBODY, AND WE EFFECTUATED A RESOLUTION THAT'S GOING TO HELP EVERYBODY IN WHAT IS A COMPLETELY DIFFICULT, MESSY, UGLY SITUATION UP TO THIS POINT.

SO IT'S BEEN -- HIS INTERESTS HAVE BEEN COMPLETELY PROTECTED. HE'S JUST UNHAPPY NOW BECAUSE, AS I'VE SAID TO YOU BEFORE, HE HAS -- I DON'T WANT TO SAY ANYTHING AGAINST THE INTEREST OF MY CLIENT RIGHT NOW. I DON'T WANT TO SAY ANYTHING.

THE COURT: I UNDERSTAND THAT, AND I DON'T WANT TO PUT ANYBODY IN AN AWKWARD POSITION, BUT I DO HAVE A RATHER CONVOLUTED RECORD BEFORE ME NOW.

AND, MR. RICHERT, IF YOU HAVE COUNSEL THAT IS REPRESENTING YOU, I WOULD URGE YOU TO GET THAT COUNSEL IN THIS COURTROOM TO STAND UP FOR YOUR INTERESTS BECAUSE I AM

GETTING MIXED MESSAGES FROM YOU. YOU WERE HERE ON JANUARY 15TH. YOU TOLD ME YOU WANTED TO WITHDRAW.

MR. RICHERT: I TOLD --

THE COURT: SO WE NEED TO DECIDE WHICH DIRECTION WE'RE GOING AND HOW WE'RE GOING TO GET THERE.

MR. RICHERT: YOUR HONOR, THAT WAS BEFORE I FIGURED OUT WHAT THIS WAS ALL ABOUT FROM THE BEGINNING. IT WAS NOTHING. THIS IS ONE HAND CLAPPING. THE WRITERS GUILD

REPRESENTS SEVEN PERCENT OF THE MONEY THAT'S BEEN TAKEN FOR THE PAST 20 YEARS.

I FOUND CONTRACTS WITH THE WRITERS GUILD WITH ALL THE MAJOR STUDIOS WHICH HAVE NEVER BEEN GIVEN, AS FAR AS I KNOW, IN EVIDENCE. THE WHOLE SETTLEMENT WAS BASED ON THE WRITERS GUILD CONTENTION THAT THERE WAS SOME KIND OF GERMAN PATENT OFFICE THAT MADE THEM DO THIS, AND THAT IS NOT TRUE.

THE COURT: I DON'T KNOW. THAT'S LIKE A COMMENT FROM OUTER SPACE. YOU'RE MAKING COMMENTS IN YOUR OPPOSITION ABOUT REPRESENTATIONS MADE BY THE WRITERS GUILD. I HAVE NONE OF THAT BEFORE ME.

THE WAY THE COURT OPERATES, WE WORK ON WHAT IS PRESENTED. NOW I'VE BEEN TRYING TO GET AN APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THIS PENDING CLASS SETTLEMENT ON FILE FOR SIX MONTHS. THAT APPLICATION WOULD OF NECESSITY PROVIDE ME WITH BACKGROUND AND WITH INFORMATION, AND I'M NOT GOING TO APPROVE A SETTLEMENT THAT HAS OBJECTORS THAT GIVE VIABLE AND CREDIBLE OBJECTIONS THAT I SHOULD CONSIDER OR THAT DOESN'T HAVE THE NECESSARY SUPPORT SHOWING HOW THE SETTLEMENT WAS REACHED AND WHAT WAS DONE.

THAT'S WHAT WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO GET ON THE TABLE FOR MONTHS NOW. WE'VE HAD A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT HURDLES, AND SO I KNOW NOTHING ABOUT IT, AND YOU CAN TALK ABOUT CONTRACTS.

MR. RICHERT: THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING, YOUR HONOR.

NOBODY IS GIVING YOU THE TRUTHFUL INFORMATION. THIS IS A FRAUD THAT'S GOING ON HERE JUST LIKE THE SUB PRIME MELTDOWNS. I CAN SHOW YOU WHERE IT BEGAN.

J

YOU HAVE NOT BEEN GIVEN -- THE SETTLEMENTS DIDN'T GIVE THE RIGHT INFORMATION. THE PEOPLE INVOLVED IN HELPING MR. JOHNSON ALSO SIGNED THE DEALS WITH THE STUDIOS THAT GAVE THEM -- THE WGA SAID THEY COLLECTED $60,000,000 APPROXIMATELY OVER THE PAST TEN YEARS, BUT THAT'S ONLY SEVEN PERCENT OF THE MONEY THAT SHOULD HAVE GONE TO THE WRITERS THAT THEY PREVENTED THE WRITERS FROM GETTING BECAUSE THEY MAKE SIDE DEALS WITH THE STUDIOS, AND I HAVE THOSE SIDE DEALS, YOUR HONOR, AND THEY HAVE NEVER BEEN GIVEN TO ANYBODY.

THE COURT: WELL, MR. RICHERT, HAVE YOU GIVEN THEM TO MR. JOHNSON?

MR. RICHERT: I GOT THEM FROM MR. JOHNSON. MR. JOHNSON DIDN'T GIVE THEM TO ANYBODY.

MS. LEHENY: THEY WERE PRODUCED IN DISCOVERY. THE COURT: SO THEY'VE BEEN ON THE TABLE.

MR. RICHERT, PART OF THE PROCESS -- YOU SAY THERE'S A FRAUD BEING PERPETRATED ON THIS COURT, THAT THESE AGREEMENTS HAVE NEVER BEEN PUT BEFORE THE COURT. NOTHING HAS BEEN PUT BEFORE THE COURT BECAUSE WE HAVE BEEN STALLED

IN THE PROCESS, AND THE APPLICATION HAS NOT BEEN FILED. I HAVE NOT SEEN THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OR THE TERMS, AND I HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO REVIEW THEM WITH THE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION THAT WOULD COME IN, AND THEN I'LL LOOK AT IT.

YOU SIT HERE TODAY AS A CLASS REPRESENTATIVE OPPOSED TO THE PENDING SETTLEMENT, AND SO MY GUESS IS EITHER THERE'S GOING TO HAVE TO BE SOME FORMAL MOTION TO OBTAIN COUNSEL THAT CAN ADEQUATELY REPRESENT YOUR INTERESTS

AND THE INTERESTS OF THE CLASS FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE OR THERE'S GOING TO HAVE TO BE A MOTION TO HAVE YOU REMOVED AS A CLASS REPRESENTATIVE AND ANOTHER CLASS REPRESENTATIVE SUBSTITUTED FOR THE SETTLEMENT CLASS.

I'M NOT COMFORTABLE WITH THE NOTION THAT

MISS JAMISON AND/OR MISS RETCHIN'S DAUGHTER HAS BEEN INVOLVED INFORMALLY SINCE MISS RETCHIN DIED IN JUNE OF LAST YEAR. THIS IS A REAL PROBLEM, AND SO I'M OPEN TO SUGGESTIONS. YOU CAN PUT BEFORE ME WHATEVER APPROPRIATE MOTIONS YOU THINK SHOULD BE CONSIDERED, AND I'LL DO THAT.

MR. JOHNSON: HOW ABOUT THIS. EITHER YOU OR SOMEBODY ELSE GETS INTO A ROOM WITH EVERYBODY, AND MR. -- AND I'M HAPPY TO HAVE THAT GENTLEMAN -- WHAT'S THE NAME --

MR. RICHERT: WHAT'S WHOSE NAME, SIR?

MR. JOHNSON: THE NAME OF THE GUY IN KANSAS.

MR. RICHERT: HE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ME. HE CAME -­ HE'S A COLLEGE GRAD. I NEEDED A COLLEGE GRAD.

MR. JOHNSON: NO LAWYER.

MR. RICHERT: HE'S NOT MY LAWYER, SIR. HE IS A LAWYER, BUT HE WAS NOT MY LAWYER. HE WAS SOMEBODY WHO WAS

INVESTIGATING --

MR. JOHNSON: WHAT MR. RICHERT IS BRINGING UP IS HE'S SAYING THAT THERE SHOULD BE ADDITIONAL DEFENDANTS IN THIS CASE. I DON'T WANT TO GO INTO IT ON THE RECORD RIGHT NOW AS TO THE PROS AND CONS OF THIS. A, IT'S IRRELEVANT, AND, B, AT THIS POINT I JUST DON'T FEEL THAT IT'S NECESSARY.

HOWEVER, I AM NOT OPPOSED TO HAVING A FULL FREE FORM DISCUSSION OF THE PROS AND CONS OF ALL ASPECTS OF THE

SETTLEMENT WITH YOURSELF OR ANYBODY ELSE AND MR. RICHERT, AND AT THAT POINT IT CAN BE -- IT CAN HELP HIM DETERMINE WHAT, IF ANYTHING, CAN BE DONE AND/OR THE COURT WHICH COULD INCLUDE HE CAN GET ADDITIONAL COUNSEL TO COME IN AND REPRESENT HIS INTERESTS AS WELL.

THE COURT: WHY COULDN'T THIS BE DONE -- THIS WHOLE SETTLEMENT -- AND I LOOK BACK AT MY NOTES. YOU HAD A MEDIATOR THAT WAS ACTIVELY INVOLVED IN THIS PROCESS, DID YOU NOT?

MR. JOHNSON: HE DOESN'T LIKE THE MEDIATOR. THE COURT: AND WHO WAS THE MEDIATOR?

MR. KURTZ: JOEL GROSSMAN.

MR. RICHERT: YOUR HONOR, JOEL GROSSMAN WAS THE ORIGINAL SIGNERS FOR COLUMBIA PICTURES FOR CRT. HE WAS ONE OF THE ORIGINAL PEOPLE WHO GAVE THE STUDIOS THE RIGHT TO COLLECT THIS MONEY, AND IN 1990 THE WGA WORKED WITH HIM IN THE STUDIOS TO CONTINUE ALLOWING HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO FLOW DIRECTLY TO THE STUDIOS AND ONLY PARTIALLY TO THE WGA IN THE SAME WAY THAT MR. JOHNSON WANTS TO MAKE A SETTLEMENT WHERE HE'LL GET SOME OF THE MONEY AND -- IN

OTHER WORDS, FIRST THERE WAS A BIG AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT WAS ALL GIVEN TO THE STUDIOS UNTIL 1990, BUT THEN THE BURN CONVENTION MEANT THAT THAT WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO HAPPEN. SO THE UNIONS GOT TOGETHER WITH THE STUDIOS AND ALLOWED THE STUDIOS TO KEEP TAKING 85 PERCENT OF THE WRITERS' MONEY, MY MONEY AND OTHER WRITERS' MONEY.

THE COURT: MR. RICHERT, THIS IS NOT THE WAY TO PRESENT THE EVIDENCE THAT YOU --

MR. RICHERT: I WISH I KNEW A BETTER WAY, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: NOW IF YOU CAN'T DO IT, MR. GROSSMAN, BECAUSE I'M GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE DECISIONS IN THIS CASE, AND I'M NOT PARTICULARLY COMFORTABLE THAT I CAN GET A STIPULATION OR AN EFFECTIVE WAIVER FROM EVERYBODY TO LET ME PARTICIPATE IN A SETTLEMENT PROCESS SINCE I ULTIMATELY HAVE TO APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE ANY PROPOSED SETTLEMENT.

I THINK THIS SHOULD BE DONE EITHER WITH ANOTHER NEUTRAL OR PERHAPS WITH ANOTHER JUDGE IN OUR PROGRAM, BUT ONE OF THE PROBLEMS THAT I PERCEIVE -- APPEARS TO ME TO BE PART OF THE PROBLEM IS THAT THERE'S BEEN LESS TRANSPARENCY IN THIS PROCESS THAN MIGHT HAVE BEEN APPROPRIATE AT LEAST AS BETWEEN MR. GROSSMAN, WGA, COUNSEL FOR THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES, CLASS COUNSEL AND THE REPRESENTATIVE PLAINTIFFS THAT WERE APPOINTED BY THE COURT AS REPRESENTATIVE PLAINTIFFS WHEN I CERTIFIED THE CLASSES.

AND SO I THINK THERE IS THE POTENTIAL FOR SOMETHING GOOD TO HAPPEN, MR. RICHERT, IF YOU KEEP CALM AND JUST STEP BACK AND COUNT TO TEN. IF THERE COULD BE A GROUP LIKE ALL OF THE CLASS REPRESENTATIVES GET TOGETHER IN A

ROOM WITH THE LAWYERS AND MAYBE WITH MR. GROSSMAN AND THEN A THIRD PARTY NEUTRAL TO --

MR. JOHNSON: THAT'S WHAT I'D LIKE TO SEE HAPPEN. I THINK THAT'S WHAT I'D LIKE TO SEE HAPPEN. IF YOU COULD JUST GET US TO ANOTHER JUDGE HERE, AND WE'LL GET

MR. GROSSMAN INVOLVED, AND MR. RICHERT COULD HAVE HIS ENTIRE SAY.

THE COURT: AT LEAST HAVE EVERYBODY SIT DOWN, AND IT

WOULD BE, IN MY VIEW, UNFORTUNATE IF NOBODY EVER COULD TAKE AN OPEN-MINDED VIEW OF ALL THE EFFORTS THAT'S GONE IN TO RESOLVE THIS CASE AND SEE IF, IN FACT, YES, IT'S A VIABLE RESOLUTION, NO, IT HAS LOTS OF ISSUES.

AND YOU SHOULD PARTICIPATE IN THAT, MR. RICHERT, BUT YOU HAVE TO DO IT ON A KIND OF COOPERATIVE, COUNT-TO-TEN BASIS RATHER THAN GETTING EXCITED ABOUT WHAT YOU PERCEIVE TO BE THE INEQUITIES OR THE PROBLEMS, AND IF YOU DON'T DO IT THAT WAY, THEN IT WON'T BE PRODUCTIVE.

AND I'M NOT SAYING THAT YOU HAVE TO COME OUT OF THE ROOM SAYING, YEAH, I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING EVERYBODY SAID. YOU COULD STILL AGREE TO DISAGREE, BUT IT HAS TO BE DONE ON A COOPERATIVE -- THIS PROCESS THAT WE'RE ENGAGED IN, WE ALL HAVE YOUR SEATS, BUT IT IS A COLLABORATIVE PROCESS, AND WE RESOLVE A LOT OF CASES IN A MANNER THAT IS BENEFICIAL TO EVERYONE INVOLVED, BUT IT TAKES SOME EFFORT, AND THE PEOPLE HAVE TO WORK TOGETHER A LITTLE BIT. SO LET'S COUNT TO TEN.

IS THERE A PREFERRED JUDGE THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO GO TO ON THIS?

MR. JOHNSON: WELL, I JUST HAVE PENDING CASES BEFORE JUDGES ELIAS AND LICHTMAN. SO ANYBODY ELSE WOULD BE FINE.

THE COURT: WGA HAVE ANY PREFERENCE?

MR. RICHERT, DO YOU HAVE ANY FAMILIARITY WITH ANY OF THE JUDGES IN THIS PROGRAM?

MR. RICHERT: NO, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: YOU KNOW WHO I MIGHT SUGGEST IS MAYBE JUDGE HIGHBERGER SINCE HE HAS QUITE A SIGNIFICANT

BACKGROUND IN LABOR RELATIONS AND LABOR LAW THAT WAS HIS PRACTICE BEFORE HE BECAME A JUDGE, AND HE'S BEEN A JUDGE FOR 10 OR 15 YEARS, A LONG TIME, BUT HE HAS AN APPRECIATION OF LABOR ISSUES MORE SO THAN SOME OF THE REST OF US. AND IF THAT WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE, THEN THAT'S WHAT -- I WOULD CALL HIM AND SAY THESE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO CHECK IN WITH YOU AND TRY AND GET A DATE. BRING MR. GROSSMAN IN AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS.

MR. RICHERT: I HAVE BEEN WILLING -- YOUR HONOR, I THINK YOU'VE BEEN HERE FOR ALMOST FOUR YEARS. I'M NOT SURE.

THE COURT: I'VE BEEN HERE FOREVER IT SEEMS LIKE, AND WHEN I GET A CASE LIKE THIS, IT SEEMS EVEN LONGER.

MR. RICHERT: IT'S AMAZING THE TINY AMOUNT OF RESULT THAT'S TAKEN PLACE IN TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT. YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE SETTLEMENT YET. IT'S SIX OR SEVEN PAGES OF A COVERUP AS FAR AS I CAN TELL, AND THAT IS NOT --

YOUR HONOR, I'M NOT TRYING TO BE EMOTIONAL ABOUT THIS.

I JUST CAME OVER THE PAST WEEK, AND PART OF IT HAS TO DO, I GUESS, WITH MADOFF AND ALL THE OTHER ISSUES THAT

HAVE HAPPENED IN OUR COUNTRY, AND I JUST SEE, OH, BOY, THAT'S WHAT'S GOING ON HERE, AND IT ISN'T LABOR LAW,

YOUR HONOR. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH LABOR. IT'S A PLAIN OUT AND OUT OLD EMBEZZLEMENT, AND I THINK I COULD PROVE IT WITH WHAT I GOT RIGHT HERE, AND IT'S NEVER BEEN GIVEN TO YOU.

THE COURT: MR. RICHERT, THIS IS YOUR VIEW. KEEP AN OPEN MIND. AT LEAST SIT DOWN WITH THE PEOPLE WHO PUT A LOT

OF EFFORT IN TRYING TO REACH AN AGREEMENT THAT PURPORTS TO BE FROM SOME PEOPLE'S PERSPECTIVE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE PEOPLE YOU ARE HERE TO REPRESENT, AND TAKE A LOOK AT IT AND WE'LL SEE WHERE WE GO FROM THERE.

MR. RICHERT: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THE COURT: NOW IN THE INTERIM, WE NEED TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE OF THE DEATH OF OUR CLASS REPRESENTATIVE, AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE DOING WITH THAT. YOU WANT TO HOLD -- I CAN CHECK WITH JUDGE HIGHBERGER. I DON'T KNOW WHAT HIS SCHEDULE WILL PERMIT. OR DO YOU WANT TO MAYBE GO OVER THERE NOW AND THEN COME BACK AND TELL US WHEN YOU COULD GET SOMETHING SCHEDULED.

MR. JOHNSON: THAT'S FINE, BECAUSE WE NEED TO CALL GROSSMAN AS WELL. AND THEN WE CAN --

THE COURT: I'D LIKE TO SEE THIS HAPPEN WITHIN THE NEXT TWO WEEKS, 30 DAYS AT THE OUTSIDE. I MEAN I'M WILLING TO STALL TO GIVE PEOPLE A CHANCE TO AT LEAST SIT DOWN IN A ROOM AND TALK ABOUT WHAT'S ON THE TABLE, BUT AT SOME POINT WE GOT TO PULL THE PLUG.

I MEAN I'M FAIRLY COOPERATIVE WHEN PEOPLE SAY

AND, MR. RICHERT, YOU CAN'T COME IN HERE -- YOU ARE THE CLASS REPRESENTATIVE, BUT I'M NOT GOING TO LET YOU COME IN AND SIT IN THE BACK AND JUST TALK ABOUT THINGS THAT BOTHER YOU. IF YOU THINK THAT YOU NEED DIFFERENT REPRESENTATION ON BEHALF OF THE CLASS, YOU MAY NOT PROCEED IN PRO PER, IN OTHER WORDS, WITHOUT A LAWYER AS A CLASS REPRESENTATIVE. I HAVE TO HAVE CLASS COUNSEL.

AND SO AFTER THIS NEXT ROUND OF A MEETING WITH JUDGE HIGHBERGER AND MR. GROSSMAN, IF WE CAN'T MAKE PROGRESS, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO REGROUP AND REORGANIZE HERE. IF YOU WANT TO BE THE LEADER IN CHARGE, YOU GOT TO ACT LIKE A LEADER, AND YOU GOT TO HAVE SOMEBODY TO REPRESENT YOU, AND WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GET INVOLVED HERE IN HOW WE'RE GOING FORWARD.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?

MR. RICHERT: I DIDN'T INTEND TO BE THE LEADER,

YOUR HONOR. IT JUST TURNS OUT I'M IN FRONT OF THIS PARADE THAT I'VE DISCOVERED.

THE COURT: WELL, WHATEVER IT IS, THAT'S WHERE YOU ARE, AND YOU GOT TO STAND UP AND DO WHAT'S NECESSARY, OR ELSE

I'M NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO LET YOU BE THE LEADER.

MR. RICHERT: I'LL DO THE BEST I CAN, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

WHY DON'T WE SET THIS OVER FOR A FURTHER STATUS CONFERENCE IN 30 DAYS, AND I'LL BE FLEXIBLE ON THAT, BUT I EXPECT THAT WHEN YOU COME BACK, YOU WILL HAVE HAD THIS EFFORT TO SIT DOWN AND LOOK AT THINGS.

MR. JOHNSON: DO YOU WANT TO LET US JUST LEAVE FOR A

MINUTE AND COME BACK SO WE CAN SEE JUDGE HIGHBERGER AND WHAT HIS SCHEDULE IS LIKE AND WHETHER HE'S WILLING TO HELP US OUT.

THE COURT: YOU CAN GO OVER AND LET US KNOW, BUT I THINK I SHOULD SET A DATE. I'M GOING TO SAY MAY 6TH AT 2:30, AND TRY AND SEE WHAT YOU CAN DO WITHIN THAT TIME FRAME.

MR. JOHNSON: ALL RIGHT. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. KURTZ: YOUR HONOR, DO YOU WANT US TO SET A FORMAL HEARING TO SUBSTITUTE MISS FElL RETCHIN IN WITH FURTHER DOCUMENTATION IN THE MEANTIME?

THE COURT: YOU NEED TO MAKE A MOTION. I MEAN THIS APPLICATION -- WE GOT PROBLEMS HERE NOW. I'VE GOT A DECEASED CLASS REPRESENTATIVE THAT WAS NEVER DISCLOSED TO ME THAT'S BEEN DEAD FOR NINE MONTHS WHILE YOU'VE BEEN NEGOTIATING A SETTLEMENT.

IF YOU WANT TO FILE A MOTION, GET IT ON FILE BEFORE THE NEXT STATUS CONFERENCE. I'LL SET A BRIEFING SCHEDULE, AND WE'LL HAVE A HEARING DATE ON IT. WE NEED TO

GET THIS UP IN A DIFFERENT LEVEL. WE ALL WORK COOPERATIVELY. MR. RICHERT HAS WORKED COOPERATIVELY WITH US, BUT NOW WE HAVE SOME CONFLICTS THAT WE NEED TO DEAL WITH ON A LITTLE MORE FORMALIZED BASIS.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

MS. LEHENY: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

(THE MATTER WAS CONTINUED TO WEDNESDAY, MAY 6, 2009, AT 2:30 P.M.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

          DEPARTMENT NO. 311 HON. CARL J. WEST, JUDGE SUPERIOR COURT

WILLIAM RICHERT

PLAINTIFF,  

 NO. BC339972

VS.               

WRITERS GUILD OF AMERICA WEST INC.,

DEFENDANT.     

REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS MARCH 23, 2009

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE PLAINTIFF: JOHNSON & JOHNSON

BY: NEVILLE L. JOHNSON, ESQ.

NICHOLAS A. KURTZ, ESQ. 439 N. CANON DRIVE, SUITE 200 BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90210

FOR WGA DEFENDANTS:      ROTHNER, SEGALL & GREENSTONE BY: EMMA LEHENY, ESQ.

510 SOUTH MARENGO AVENUE

PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91101 JOHN SPANO, ESQ.

9606 OAKMORE

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90035

ALSO PRESENT:      WILLIAM RICHERT

REPORTED BY:      WANDA GRAY, CSR NO. 7675, RPR OFFICIAL REPORTER

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANG

DEPARTMENT NO. 311   HON. CARL J. WEST, JUDGE

WILLIAM RICHERT

PLAINTIFF,    

VS

WRITERS GUILD OF AMERICA WEST INC)

NO. BC339972

DEFENDANT.      .               

REPORTER'S  CERTIFICATE

I, WANDA GRAY, OFFICIAL REPORTER OF THE

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING PAGES, 1 THROUGH 18, INCLUSIVE, COMPRISE A FULL, TRUE, AND CORRECT TRANSCRIPT OF THE PROCEEDINGS HELD IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED MATTER ON MARCH 23, 2009.

DATED THIS 30TH DAY OF APRIL, 2009.

WANDA GRAY, CSR NO. 7675 OFFICIAL REPORTER

WGA/SAG/DGA UNANNOUNCED-TO-CLASS

-------

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

     DEPARTMENT NO. 311      
     HON. JOHN SHEPARD WILEY JR., JUDGE

     WILLIAM RICHERT, ET AL., 

     PLAINTIFFS,     
     VS.


     WRITERS GUILD OF AMERICA WEST, INC., et.      al.


     DEFENDANT.        

     CASE NO. BC 339972 
     R/T BC 377780 (OSMOND)

     BC 352621 (WEBB)

     WEST, INC.,      

     

REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

WEDNESDAY, MAY 16, 2012

APPEARANCES:

     FOR THE PLAINTIFFS IN      JOHNSON & JOHNSON

     WEBB, OSMOND, AND      BY: NEVILLE L. JOHNSON, ESQ.

     RICHERT:      NOELLE C. BROWN, ESQ.

439 NORTH CANON DRIVE SUITE 200

BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90210 (310) 975-1080

FOR THE DEFENDANTS THE LATHAM & WATKINS

     DIRECTORS GUILD OF      BY: DANIEL SCOTT SCHECTER, ESQ.

AMERICA AND THE SCREEN 355 SOUTH GRAND AVENUE

     ACTORS GUILD:      LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071

(213) 485-1234

     FOR THE DEFENDANT      ROTHNER, SEGALL & GREENSTONE

     WRITERS GUILD OF      BY: ANTHONY R. SEGALL, ESQ.

     AMERICAN WEST, INC.:                510 SOUTH MARENGO AVENUE PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91101 (626) 796-7555

C

 LINDA L. COMSTOCK, CSR NO. 3741 OFFICIAL REPORTER

                                    -                                     ----

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; 
WEDNESDAY, MAY 16, 2012; 8:31 A.M.

     DEPARTMENT NO. 311      HON. JOHN SHEPARD WILEY JR., JUDGE

THE COURT: Good morning, everyone.

We are on the record; and, counsel, which matters are you appearing? Let's get appearances and find out exactly which cases you're on.

MR. JOHNSON: This is Neville Johnson, Johnson and Johnson, and I'm here on Osmond, Richert, and Webb.

THE COURT: So that's number one, two, and four on our calendar.

Somehow, number three, the Montana Caregivers, got stuck in the middle. And you know nothing about that case; correct?

MR. JOHNSON: No. I've been to Montana, but I don't know anything about the case.

THE COURT: I think it's about marijuana. That's my belief, and I think it's got nothing to do with these other three cases.

Let's get all appearances.

MS. BROWN: Noelle Brown also from Johnson and Johnson on behalf of plaintiffs Osmond, Webb, and Richert; so one, two and four.

MR. JOHNSON: I want to say this is Don Jasko, who is a consultant on all three cases and is also a lawyer.

THE COURT: And is making an appearance.

MR. JASKO: No. I'm just here as an expert, Your Honor, not as counsel.

THE COURT: All right. You are now on the record, however. And welcome. Let's continue.

MR. SEGALL: Your Honor, Anthony Segall in number four, Richert versus WGA for the Writers Guild.

MR. SCHECTER: Good morning, Your Honor.

Dan Schecter of Latham & Watkins. I represent the Directors Guild of America and the Screen Actors Guild. I apOlogize. I don't have the numbers correlated.

THE COURT: Well, I think that's one and two, Directors Guild is in the Webb case.

MR. SCHECTER: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: And the Screen Actors Guild is in the Osmond case; correct?

MR. SCHECTER: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Do we have other attorneys who are involved in Webb, Osmond, or is it Richert?

MR. JOHNSON: That's Mr. Richert.

MR. RICHERT: I'm the plaintiff in the WGA case. I'm five minutes late. I'm sorry.

THE COURT: You're certainly entitled to come sit at counsel table here. The case is named after you.

MR. RICHERT: Thank you.

THE COURT: It's a rare pleasure for me to meet the actual people who named these cases; so please do come and have a seat.

MR. RICHERT: Thank you. Actually, I've been the only one here for these past eight years. So I'm glad to be part of it today.

THE COURT: Do have a seat and be comfortable.

Now, let's just inquire in the back. Counsel, are you here on some other matters?

MR. SCHECTER: Your Honor, they're representatives of one or more parties, but they will not be making an appearance.

THE COURT: All right, then. Welcome to everybody.

Welcome to Department 311.

Now, who would like to summarize the status of the cases here this morning?

MR. JOHNSON: I'm happy to do so. All right.

With respect to Osmond, which is the Screen Actors Guild case, after a lot of wrangling, we reached an agreement with respect to the terms of engagement for the consultants. We just haven't received a signed copy yet. Maybe counsel could advise when we're going to get that.

THE COURT: Let's not -­ MR. JOHNSON: Well--

THE COURT: Let's not have interactions between counsel.

Why don't you address your comments to the Court.

MR. JOHNSON: The next thing that's supposed to occur is -- we have a settlement, an overall settlement agreement, with SAG, and money is supposed to get paid out and other things are to occur and they're supposed to -- they have to comply in certain respects and providing information and putting stuff up on the website and getting this fund paid out, but one of the aspects of the settlement is that

Mr. Jasko and Mr. Gervais, who have been engaged as consultants, are to performed an analysis and make recommendations, and we're just waiting to get that agreement signed.

with respect to -- we just got a report from SAG as to moneys which have been held up, which have been held by them, and we feel it is terribly inadequate, and our next step will be to talk to counsel, and then we will undoubtedly be back before this Court to talk to you about whether or not further information is going to have to be revealed.

One of the things that's happening in this case is that the Court has a continuing jurisdiction over all of these cases, and we want you to understand what has happened and get up to speed, and we believe supervision is necessary in some respects.

THE COURT: I'm sorry to interrupt here. I wonder if everybody wants to be on the record now or if you'd refer to proceed informally off the record.

What's your preference?

MR. SCHECTER: Your Honor, if I may be heard.

Mr. Schecter.

We've actually had a lot of difficulty, and there's actually a motion before the Court to be scheduled and fully briefed because of disputes about issues regarding compliance. I think we ought to have it on the record, less there be no debate later on what was said.

THE COURT: A single voice puts us on the record, which is the default, of course, at least until June 1st. Let me return to this subject that counsel have before you.

Mr. Johnson, right in front of you is a form that I

urge you to distribute to your colleagues on the defense side if you haven't seen that. Everybody take a copy. All right. I interrupted. So we are going to continue on the record.

MR. JOHNSON: So back to -- so with respect to Osmond, that's where we're at. Ken Osmond, by the way, was Eddie Haskell on Leave It To Beaver. If you want him to come to court just to -- we'll get him down here.

The next case I'll talk about is Richert. Richert is the WGA case. I can tell you that we represent some other parties in addition to Mr. Richert in the case. Mr. Richert has -- and you'll undoubtedly be hearing from him today -- his own issues and complaints that he would like to raise and -­ but from our point of view, I will say that we are pleased to say that the WGA has been cooperating with our consultants and they are in the process of finalizing a press release and getting certain moneys paid out to a charity in accordance with the terms of the settlement, and the next phase will be that the consultants will then go in and perform an analysis of how to make -- get -- how to make the system work better.

The last issue, then, we'll turn to is the Webb case, which is the DGA. I will say that it's been an extremely contentious case. It does not appear that the DGA and we are able to agree on much, and there is a motion that we had initially thought was going to be heard today but has now been set for August 1st, but counsel wants to move it to a week later. That's fine by us. And we have certain issues that we think you need to take a look at because -- this is an encapsulation of the argument overall.

Let me explain who the constituency is. The first case was brought on behalf of members of -- of people who were not in the WGA and this -- and, ultimately, the case was settled for members and nonmembers. What we are talking about here is what are called foreign levies. It's in the area of 200 million dollars so far that's been collected. When we brought the cases, virtually none of it had been paid out. Much of it has been paid out now, and this has been going on for some 15 years.

Then shortly after that, we brought a case on behalf of the DGA. That case was brought on behalf of nonmembers of the DGA because these unions were collecting moneys on behalf of members and nonmembers and we settled that case on behalf of nonmembers.

The third case had to do with SAG. That case was brought on behalf of SAG members. SAG claimed that it never collected on behalf of nonmembers. All these cases have since been settled and -- but the Court retains jurisdiction on all these cases, and we say to the Court -- this is really most the fundamental aspect of it -- you, the Court, is the only entity that is insuring and protecting that there is compliance going on and it has to be -- make sure that this doesn't happen again and that they're performing in accordance with applicable rules.

And what they are doing effectively is that they are functioning as what are called collection societies, which are, in most cases throughout the world, governmental or quasi-governmental entities, nonprofit organizations. Here, however, what makes it unusual is you have labor unions performing this function, and what we have tried to set up is a system or some sort of a system of checks and balances, and you're one of the checks slash balances in this particular system. And what we've been trying to get all along is accountability and transparency, which are the two hallmarks of collection societies.

So the attitude of the DGA and now apparently SAG is "We give you nothing unless a court orders it. You are held to the firmest, strictest limits of whatever your settlement agreement is, and that's the way it goes. 

And we're saying no, it's a living, breathing relationship involving many tens of thousands -- over hundreds of thousands of people and talent, generally involving relatively small amounts of money, but we're talking about, you know, 40, 50 million dollars a year that goes through a particular union, et cetera.

So I think that more or less summarizes where we're at.

THE COURT: So in each of these three cases, Webb, Osmond

and -- it's pronounced Richert (pronouncing)?

MR. RICHERT: Richert. Thank you.

THE COURT: There's a signed settlement agreement? MR. JOHNSON: Yes.

THE COURT: What is the date of the settlement agreement in Webb, roughly?

MR. JOHNSON: That was about four or five years.

MR. SCHECTER: September, 2008, Your Honor, was the final

approval.

THE COURT: Okay. And how about Osmond? MR. SCHECTER: March, 2011, Your Honor. THE COURT: And Richert?

MR. SEGALL: I'm looking for the date, Your Honor. I believe it was April of 2010.

THE COURT: All right. And those settlements fully and finally resolve the litigation; so we're in a post settlement phase on all three cases.

Is that correct, Mr. Johnson?

MR. JOHNSON: Yes.

THE COURT: And does the defense concur? MR. SCHECTER: Yes, Your Honor.

MR. SEGALL: Yes.

THE COURT: And our two defense attorneys here today, between -- now, Mr. Richert, I want you to realize that you're represented by counsel. So it's not -- hold on just a moment, please. It's not a town meeting. It's not a therapy session. You pay my salary, and I am grateful. But formal Rules of Court apply, and so you've got to communicate through counsel.

MR. RICHERT: I would like to ask Mr. Johnson if I can

address the Court.

THE COURT: The way you do that is hand him a note. MR. RICHERT: Pardon me?

THE COURT: The way you do that is hand him a note; all right? We're going to have -- that's our process.

MR. RICHERT: I'd like to hand him this note. THE COURT: That's fine.

Let me just get a rundown. We've got the Directors Guild, the Screen Actors Guild, and the Writers Guild.

Who represents whom once again?

MR. SCHECTER: Mr. Schecter from Latham, and I represent the Directors Guild and the Screen Actors Guild.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. SCHECTER: And they are two separate cases that were filed some time difference apart but have been related, Your Honor.

MR. SEGALL: Anthony Segall. I represent the Writers Guild West, the sole defendant in the Richert case.

MR. SCHECTER: Your Honor, if I may. Very, very minor procedural point.

THE COURT: I'm going to just go right down the table here. Mr. Segall, you're next in line. I want you to add anything you want to to Mr. Johnson's little summary, his synopsis.

MR. SEGALL: I think his summary as to Richert was accurate, Your Honor. I think we're in compliance with the settlement agreement.

There are a few things going on. We published a 20-year retrospective review by a big accounting firm. The settlement agreement provides that after that, there are annual reviews done. We're about to complete the first of those annual reviews, which is done by another accounting firm, which is the Guild's regular audit firm. And, you know, right now, we have tension on this -- there's a cy pres provision in the settlement agreement where certain funds that

can't be tied to identifiable writers are paid to a charity, in our case, the Actors Fund, which is a 501(c) (3) charity. We're about, hopefully in the next few weeks, to pay them almost a million dollars.

THE COURT: All right, then. That's Mr. Segall's perspective.

Mr. Schecter.

MR. SCHECTER: Thank you, Your Honor.

Taking up the Directors Guild first, one thing we do agree on is -- I think it's the most contentious, Your Honor, and this is fully briefed in the motion that's before the Court --

THE COURT: What is the motion?

MR. SCHECTER: It is a motion that was brought by class counsel styled as a motion to compel compliance with the settlement.

THE COURT: That's Mr. Webb. MR. JOHNSON: Right.

MR. SCHECTER: Yes.

THE COURT: Mr. Webb's attorney.

MR. SCHECTER: Mr. Webb's attorney, Mr. Johnson's firm, brought a motion in their capacity as class counsel, again styled as a motion to compel compliance with the settlement agreement.

THE COURT: Which you have briefed an opposition.

MR. SCHECTER: Correct. And the reply has been filed and the briefing --

THE COURT: When was the reply filed? That's

Mr. Johnson's reply.

MR. SCHECTER: Early March, I would say. THE COURT: So that's done but not antique.

MR. SCHECTER: Correct. And needs to be heard. As Your Honor can tell, the motion was filed right around the time Judge west was about to retire and was preceded by several months of interaction informally and eventually in open court with Judge West.

Your Honor, I don't want to get too deep into the merits, but I'll respond at the same level as Mr. Johnson on this, which is we strenuously, strenuously disagree with the assertion that there's been any noncompliance with the settlement. In fact, class counsel acknowledged in writing in the last joint statement in January to Judge West that what class counsel is trying to do is impose terms outside the written settlement.

THE COURT: So, Mr. Schecter, in the interest of not provoking your colleague any further, I'm going to thank you for that summary and --

MR. SCHECTER: Your Honor, if I could just make a couple of points by way of context.

THE COURT: I am looking forward here and not back to what's been briefed. I can read the briefing. I'm sure it's extremely able.

MR. SCHECTER: I feel at a bit of a disadvantage because Mr. Johnson has given you a brief.

THE COURT: I'm going to have to ask you to rely -­ MR. SCHECTER: Okay.

THE COURT: -- on an experienced judge's knowledge that counsel will advocate when they can --

MR. SCHECTER: Sure.

THE COURT: -- and the more they do, the more they provoke each other.

MR. SCHECTER: Very well.

THE COURT: We're not deciding anything here this morning substantively. We're just going to try to size things up. I am trying to size things up procedurally.

MR. SCHECTER: And I'll limit --

THE COURT: One of the things I'm aware of is how costly this hearing is by the minute. So you've got some other things to do today, I know. So my goal is to get you to check number one off your list and go to number two.

So let me go back to the plaintiffs.

MR. SCHECTER: Your Honor, they need to cover the SAG case. If I could just address, then, only procedural matters in Directors Guild.

The settlement was finalized and finally approved in a judgment in September, 2008, and the motion that is before you is the product of discussions that started in September of 2011, so there were no prior issues regarding compliance, and that's fully addressed in the motionj and from our standpoint, that settlement has been effectuated, been performed, and the motion addresses the issues that class counsel has seen fit to raise, and we'll deal with that in due course.

In the Screen Actors Guild case, if I could, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. SCHECTER: Because I am counsel in both cases.

As a very minor procedural point -- you were going through the roster -- I just want to draw the Court and counsel's attention that the Screen Actors Guild recently merged with a companion sister union, AFTRA. We have filed a notice with the Court and served with counsel advising the Court, counsel, of that. I don't think this will affect anything in the case, but there's a technical change in name and capacity. Our position is that it does not impact the settlement. Settlement needs to be effectuated and will continue to be effectuated, but I just wanted everyone to be aware that if the Court or counsel wants us to do anything further to the notice, we'll, obviously -- we'll do that.

THE COURT: That's wonderful. Now, I think --

MR. SCHECTER: I'm sorry. I just need to address the procedural points in SAG, if I could, that counsel raised.

THE COURT: Of course.

MR. SCHECTER: There is a matter of the consulting agreement, and I'll leave aside the debate about whose court the ball is in that needs to be finalized; and Mr. Jasko, who is here, and this other consultant, Mr. Gervais, are, under that settlement, to be consultants. We disagree with

Mr. Johnson's assertion that Mr. Jasko is a consultant in all three cases.

The one thing I want to stress for the Court -­ you'll see this in the papers -- is these are not identical settlement agreements. The cases are related, but each

settlement has fundamentally different terms, and that's relevant to this issue that's briefed in the DGA case.

And, lastly, Mr. Johnson recently was provided with a report for PricewaterhouseCoopers, which SAG was required to have prepared per the settlement. Mr. Johnson is going to raise some issues. We intend to work with him on those issues, and if we can't work it out, those will be before the Court.

Just to make clear to something that would not be self-evident, I ask the Court to bear in mind each of these settlements must be taken up individually because each of them has very fundamentally different terms and they were negotiated and effectuated individually and implemented over a very different time periods, Your Honor.

THE COURT: I understand, and I'm grateful for your statement.

(The Court handled an unrelated matter.)

THE COURT: We are back on the record in Webb, Osmond, and Richert.

Who would like to speak first? Mr. Johnson?

MR. JOHNSON: So we want to move the DGA motion within a week or so. What's the date that --

MS. BROWN: It's currently scheduled for August 1st.

This morning, counsel for DGA informed us that they would like to move it to the week of August 6th but not that Wednesday or Friday; so maybe the Thursday, August 9th?

THE COURT: All right.

(Discussion off the record.)

THE COURT: So what time is our August 9th hearing? THE CLERK: 9:30.

THE COURT: Is 9:30 agreeable? MR. SCHECTER: Yes, Your Honor. MR. JOHNSON: Yes.

THE COURT: So we'll see if notice is going to be necessary at the end of this. Actually, let's get that nailed down now. Do the parties waive notice?

MR. JOHNSON: Yes. MR. SCHECTER: Yes.

THE COURT: All right. And there's no need for notice.

I'm assuming from the waiver that parties feel competent to waive notice. So notice is waived.

What's item number two?

MR. JOHNSON: Well, I'd say with respect to five-year rule, we don't see any issues.

THE COURT: Everybody agrees there's no five-year problem.

MR. SEGALL: Yes, Your Honor.

MR. SCHECTER: Yes, Your Honor. I guess -- I'm not sure what would trigger a five-year issue; so my only hesitation is I don't know what matters could be before the Court, but I think if we're just dealing with post settlement compliance issues, I don't believe there's a five-year rule issue.

THE COURT: What I'm hearing you say is we're not going to bring a motion to terminate the case on the basis of the five-year rule.

MR. SCHECTER: I don't think the five-year rule applies to a case that was settled and there's a judgment, but I, frankly, have never looked at the issue, Your Honor.

I guess what I want to say is I'm not sure that we believe that we'll be in court in perpetuity, but I don't know that that's a five-year rule issue. I think the issue is how long does the court's jurisdiction go.

THE COURT: Respectfully, I can't put a fork in what you just said.

So within one week, I respectfully order that you file a statement that clarifies your position regarding the five-year rule. If no statement is filed, silence will be deemed assent to the proposition that the five-year rule is irrelevant to this case, which is to say liMy client will never advance the five-year rule as an argument about why we ought to win or somebody else ought to lose. II

Can I clarify that, or is that sufficiently clear?

MR. SCHECTER: That's clear, Your Honor. MS. BROWN: It's clear.

THE COURT: All right. I'm just trying to get a common understanding, and the reason people go to law school is they want to die with all their options open; so I understand the conditional nature of the statement, but I'm just looking for some clarity. You now have time to investigate the issue, if you want to, and if you don't, you will be bound and we still have a record, and that's on the record for future reference.

All right. We're making some progress here. We've got two items checked off. Counsel, I praise you. There's a

reason that law students graduating allover the country want to be you. They want to be representing parties like this in a case like this in Los Angeles. You're making real progress. Keep it up.

Any further items this morning?

MR. JOHNSON: There's more history to be made, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. JOHNSON: Before I do that, let's just talk procedurally for a second. The way we've been operating all along with Judge West that's been very efficient has been the bulletin board on --

THE COURT: On which service? MR. SEGALL: LexisNexis.

MR. JOHNSON: LexisNexis. Can we continue to use that? THE COURT: I welcome that.

MR. JOHNSON: There's two other points, then, which is the following, is that --

THE COURT: However, I will continue Judge West's practice of insisting that all message board entries be joint statements. In other words, no blogging by individuals. So the message board is an extremely convenient way for us all to communicate, but entries by the parties have got to be jointly authored. And unlike Judge West, I do not wake up every morning and go to LexisNexis to see what's hot and what's new. So if there's something on the message board that you want me to look at, please notify Ms. Mata, say, "We put something there. We're not happy with this degradation of service with

------ -

the retirement of Judge West, but, sadly, it's our lot here with Wiley. II

So you'll have to let me know the old-fashioned way to check the message board, if that's agreeable.

MR. JOHNSON: All right. So the other two issues are as follows. We're at the point now where my firm wants to make a motion for post settlement attorneys' fees, and I don't know if there's going to be an opposition to it from SAG and WGA, and I'd like to know how you would like us to proceed procedurally. We're happy to do a joint statement or joint document, or we can do it the traditional way with a motion, opposition, reply.

THE COURT: Well, I think you can have shortcuts, if you want, but why don't we hear it April 9th at 9:30, and why don't you file briefing per code.

MR. JOHNSON: Okay.

THE COURT: Motion, opposition, reply. Just a thought. MR. JOHNSON: You're not setting the date April --

THE COURT: Did I say April? August 9th. August 9th.

One of those II A" months. The August 9th was the date I thought we just agreed on.

MR. JOHNSON: Second, also related -­ THE COURT: Is that satisfactory?

MR. JOHNSON: That's fine.

THE COURT: Is that agreeable to the defense? MR. SEGALL: That's fine.

MR. SCHECTER: Yes, Your Honor.

MR. JOHNSON: Also related to that, we don't know if

there's a problem yet as to consulting fees that Jasko and Gervais want from -- is it SAG? From SAG. If there's an issue on that, then we'll know by then. We'll do the same briefing.

THE COURT: Either brief it or submit a proposed stipulated order, and if everybody agrees, I'll sign it.

MR. JOHNSON: Okay.

MR. SCHECTER: Your Honor, we actually discussed a September time frame. We actually have not received invoices; so I don't even know the dimensions of the dispute. I think August would be a bit rushed. We haven't -- we don't have a signed engagement agreement with the consultants.

MR. JOHNSON: We can get the invoices in the next week. THE COURT: I'll set August 9th, and if somebody wants to change that, let me make clear that I urge you not only to use the message board but the telephone, if you'd like. If something boils up, the message board is fine. You're also welcome to call me. As long as it's before June 1st, it can be on the record or off the record, at your option. Invite a telephone call or a message board communication at any time. I've here to be of service to you. The faster you can get a decision, the better. If you need to change a date or something like that, for heaven's sake, let's not have

ex parte appearances to change dates on hearings.

MR. SCHECTER: I guess, so the Court understands, the reason I'm suggesting more time is we don't even know what the request is to know whether we have a dispute. I think an August 9th date essentially forces us into a contested

proceeding when we might be able to work it out. I don't know what the ask is, is the problem.

THE COURT: I respectfully disagree. I would propose the solution of lunch together or maybe coffee or a mineral water or completely dry session that involves someone making a statement and someone making a responsive statement, sometimes described as a conversation.

So, counsel, I urge you to converse with each other.

The sooner, the better. If there's a problem, let me know and we'll change the date.

MR. JOHNSON: The last thing I want to say is the following. Mr. Richert, who is here, while he is my client, has a -- always -- wants to bring matters to this court that are on his mind, I guess is the best way that I can put it, and so I don't know how you feel about him addressing you. Judge West would sometimes allow him to talk on his own.

I will tell you there's a bit of history between myself and Mr. Richert, my firm, which included at one point cross-motions for me to dismiss him as a class representative and for him to dismiss me as counsel, which ultimately got worked out at the end of the day but -- and I will also say that, you know, but for Mr. Richert's standing up and -- has been a very -- is a difficult case for screen writers to bring because you go against your own union, and it took a certain degree of bravery for him to do that. I admire his pluck and courage in doing so; but, nonetheless, he is a fierce advocate and believes that there are issues out there that I have not addressed or that I'm not raising right now, and I'm simply

saying as his advocate that he feels that he needs to bring these to the Court's attention.

THE COURT: I understand what you've said. It creates an awkward situation when conflicts or disputes between an attorney and a client are played out in full hearing of opposing counsel on the record. I understand the urge to be heard.

Respectfully, I'm going to decline to give any client the opportunity to speak, other than through counsel. The ordinary method of litigating in court is you litigate through your lawyer and if you don't like your lawyer, you get a new lawyer, or if you want to represent yourself, you do that. But I am steering clear of getting involved in the attorney-client relationship here.

So Mr. Johnson is a very experienced lawyer. He decides in his professional judgment how best to represent the client. I've seen Mr. Johnson at work for years. He's a famous lawyer. Every lawyer and every client can have disagreements, but those are to remain private, and I'm going to trust counsel, who are duty bound, as well they know, to represent their clients' wishes. That's the traditional way, and we're going to stick with it. So I know that's not satisfying to an articulate man who's come to an inconvenient place to not be heard, but you are being heard.

MR. RICHERT: I am not being heard. I am a class action representative, Your Honor. I represent 20,000 American writers who are not here. I'm the only one to speak for them. Mr. Johnson is not a member of my class. He is not a screen

writer. He is an attorney. These men represent 200,000 people.

THE COURT: Now, what I've just said --

MR. RICHERT: I will shut up if you tell me to shut up. THE COURT: I'm directing the court reporter where

there's a conflict in speaking voices to report my voice and no one else's.

What I've just said is, respectfully, I am not going to permit you to speak. It's not the conventional approach, and it leads to trouble.

MR. RICHERT: There is trouble, Your Honor, already. THE COURT: Well, I may learn about that, or I may not, but I'm --

MR. RICHERT: I hope that the writers and the actors of Hollywood will somehow convey their concerns to you. We won't get them here through Mr. Johnson because we haven't in eight years. And I -- you're right. It is a difficult thing to get up here. Judge West made promises to me, and I signed the settlement.

THE COURT: I'm directing the court reporter to repeat my remarks. It's not common in CCW that we actually have an issue of courtroom control. It's supposed to be the palace of reason and --

MR. RICHERT: Well, in this case, it could be the dungeon of a certain kind of insanity, Your Honor, and it's very deeply within the vaults of these three unions and --

THE COURT: I don't usually have to look for what tools I have in my tool chest to try to enforce the ordinary rules of

courtroom decorum, but if it's necessary, I can look in that tool chest.

MR. RICHERT: I'm sorry. I didn't hear you.

THE COURT: If it's necessary, I can look in the tool chest of tools to enforce ordinary courtroom decorum, if someone wants to scale up the dispute.

MR. RICHERT: I understand.

THE COURT: Thank you. It's important that people understand that the way to get your way in court is not to break in or speak louder, or else what we have is a lot more people breaking in and trying to speak louder. So there's a lot of rules that govern how to do things, a lot of procedures, a lot of courtroom conventions that date back for hundreds of years. They're time tested. They're imperfect. But America brags about the orderliness and the predictability and the lawfulness and the independence of its judicial system.

So, respectfully, I'm going to stick with traditional approaches to disagreements, which, after all, is what courts exist to resolve. So disagreements aren't unusual. These procedures are conventional. This case isn't over. There's a lot of options that everybody has. What I hope to do is to behave in such a predictable and rule-bound fashion the parties can predict my actions before I take them. I'm not going to innovate. I'm going to go by the book, this book, the Code of Civil Procedure. This book, the Civil Code. This book, the Evidence Code. And if I have made an error at any point, everybody's got lots of options.

----

So my goal is to be efficient, transparent, fair,

predictable and completely bound by the rule of law, rules that were set down before this dispute arose.

So we've got two matters tentatively to be heard on August 9th. We've gotten through three points that

Mr. Johnson wants to go through.

How many total, just to get an agenda here?

MR. JOHNSON: There's one other point I was going -- I should have mentioned as well, which is that counsel and I have to have a discussion about the compliance of SAG in terms of the most -- the latest statement that came from Pricewaterhouse and whether more data needs to be provided, and that's not dissimilar to some of the issues that are before the -- that are going to be heard on the DGA matter.

So I would like to tentatively put that on the agenda as well for that hearing on the 9th, please.

THE COURT: On August 9th. That's another possible motion.

MR. JOHNSON: Yes.

THE COURT: And we'll know if that's a motion by seeing whether a motion is filed or not.

MR. JOHNSON: Right.

THE COURT: And if you mutually agree, if all sides agree that the more efficient time is later for that third motion, that's fine. Just let me know, either by message board, phone call, or stipulated order. Any method of mutual, not

ex parte, communication.

MR. JOHNSON: In terms of your count, then, I think we're

at one -- I think we're at four motions.

THE COURT: Okay. Why don't you just review the motions. MR. JOHNSON: So we've got the consultant motion, attorneys' fees motion, actually in two cases, DGA motion and potentially SAG motion. So those are them all.

THE COURT: All right. So August 9th could be an action-packed day, and if there's anything else, I'm eager to hear about it, Mr. Johnson.

MR. JOHNSON: That's it.

THE COURT: That's the plaintiffs' agenda in all three cases.

How can I serve the defense? Have you got anything in addition to these four items?

MR. SEGALL: Writers Guild does not.

MR. SCHECTER: I don't believe SAG or DGA have any, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right, counsel. I sincerely look forward to looking with everybody. It appears to me we may be done this morning. All right.

MR. SCHECTER: Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: It's been a great pleasure to encounter this set of cases. I looked forward to working with all the parties and with counsel to be of service to you. That is my goal.

MS. BROWN: Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: I think you'll find it intellectually very interesting.

THE COURT: I can't promise always to rule in your favor.

Judges never can do that, but I can do my best to make sure the process is fair, predictable, and in accordance with law. Let me know how better I can serve you. Thank you.

MR. JOHNSON: Thank you.

THE COURT: We are in recess. MR. SEGALL: Thank you.

(Proceedings in the above-entitled matter. were concluded.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

     DEPARTMENT NO. 311      HON. JOHN SHEPARD WILEY JR., JUDGE

     WILLIAM RICHERT, ET AL.,      )

)

     PLAINTIFFS,      )

)

     VS.                    ) CASE NO. BC 339972 )

     WRITERS GUILD OF AMERICAN      ) REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE

     WEST, INC.,      )

)

     DEFENDANT.      )

) )

I, LINDA L. COMSTOCK, OFFICIAL REPORTER OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING PAGES, 1 THROUGH 26, INCLUSIVE, COMPRISE A FULL, TRUE AND CORRECT TRANSCRIPT OF THE PROCEEDINGS HELD IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED MATTER ON

MAY 16, 2012.

DATED THIS 29TH DAY OF MAY, 2012.

~

            ~             , CSR NO. 3741

OFFICIALRPORTER