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