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