WRITERS IN COURT OCT. 3 PART II

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

                            DEPARTMENT 322  

                    HON. CARL J. WEST, JUDGE

                   WILLIAM RICHERT, PLAINTIFF

                               VS.             .

                   WRITERS GUILD OF AMERICA WEST,

                          DEFENDANTS.

LEAD CASE NO BC339972


WILLIAM WEBB,      

     PLAINTIFF, CASE NO. BC352621

                 VS. R/T BC339972

DEFENDANTS.

                       

                       KEN OSMOND

                       PLAINTIFF,    

CASE NO. BC377780

         VS. SCREEN ACTOR’S GUILD

DEFENDANTSR/T BC339972

REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS MONDAY, OCTOBER 3, 2011

APPEARANCES:

                      FOR AWGACS: GIPSON, HOFFMAN & PANCIONE BY: COREY J. SPIVEY

1901 AVENUE OF THE STARS, SUITE 1100

LOS ANGELES, CA 90067-6002 (310) 556-4660

                      FOR PLAINTIFFS:    JOHNSON & JOHNSON

BY:                   NOELLE C. BROWN NEVILLE L. JOHNSON

439 N. CANON DRIVE, SUITE 200 BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90210

(310) 975-1080

WENDY OILLATAGUERRE, CSR #10978 OFFICIAL REPORTER

APPEARANCES (CONTINUED):

                      FOR PLAINTIFFS:     KIESEL, BOUCHER, LARSON

BY: PAUL R. KIESEL

8648 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90211-2910

(310) 854-4444

                      FOR DGA AND SAG:    LATHAM & WATKINS

BY: DANIEL SCOTT SCHECTER

ANITA P. WU

355 SOUTH GRAND AVENUE

LOS ANGELES, CA 90071-1560 (213) 485-1234

 FOR WGA: ROTHNER, SEGALL & GREENSTONE BY: ANTHONY R. SEGALL

510 SOUTH MARENGO AVENUE PASADENA, CA 91101-3115 (626) 796-7555

ALSO PRESENT: (TEL)DANIEL J. GERVAIS FOR KEN OSMOND DONALD JASKO OF DIGITAL ECONOMICS

              BILL RICHERT, CLASS REPRESENTATIVE

                                                   PART II

MR. SCHECTER:  (CONT.)…I THINK THEY SHOULD TAKE ME UP ON THE OFFER TO HAVE THIS IN-PERSON MEETING. WE'RE NOT HIDING MR. HADL; WE'RE NOT HIDING INFORMATION. WE WERE TRYING TO HAVE THE SIT DOWN, BUT WERE TOLD, TWO MONTHS AFTER WE SUGGESTED IT, THAT IT'S OFF THE TABLE AND THEY ARE NOT GOING TO DO IT. SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE CAN DO.

I'VE TRIED TO HAVE AN IN-PERSON MEETING.

I TRIED TO GET THEM ON THE PHONE. I SENT THEM MARKUP. I CAN'T DO MORE THAN THAT, BUT I CAN TELL YOUR HONOR -­ AND I CAN BACK THIS UP, IF I HAVE TO. I MAKE THESE SUGGESTIONS, AND THEN I HEAR NOTHING FOR AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME. AND THEN MR. JOHNSON SURFACES, FIVE WEEKS AFTER HE SAID HE WOULD SEND ME THE WGA DRAFT, I GOT IT. IT WAS ON THE EVE OF TRIAL. I RESPONDED TO HIM TO THE FIRST --

MR. JOHNSON:

YOUR HONOR, LET ME RESPOND -­

THE COURT:

JUST RELAX. I'M NOT GOING TO LISTEN TO IT. I USED TO STAND DOWN THERE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE TABLE AND GET A LITTLE AGITATED, AND A LITTLE EXCITED. I DON'T GET QUITE SO EXCITED ANYMORE. AND I DON'T NEED IT. I BELIEVE YOU BOTH. YOU BOTH HAVE GREAT CREDIBILITY IN THIS COURT. I'VE DEALT WITH YOU OVER THE YEARS. AND I'M GOING TO CONTINUE TO DEAL WITH YOU. YOU DON'T HAVE TO THROW DARTS AT ONE ANOTHER. YOU ARE DOING YOUR JOB.

MR. JOHNSON:

LET ME TELL YOU WHERE WE'RE AT. HE SENT -- THE LAST TIME WE SPOKE, ON JUNE THE 10TH, HE SAID, I WANT TO HAVE A MEETING WITH YOU. I SAID, WE'LL SIGN THE WGA AGREEMENT. WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO THIS ANYMORE. MR. JASKO WAS GOING CRAZY DEALING -- HE SENT OVER FIVE AGREEMENTS SAYING YOU HAVE TO SIGN ALL THIS EMPLOYEE TYPES OF AGREEMENTS.

AND MR. GERVAIS, WHO THEY SAID WHAT IS THIS? AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO SPEND ANY MORE TIME -­ WE'VE SPENT THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS ALREADY DOING THIS. SO I SAID, WE'LL SEND YOU OVER THE WGA AGREEMENT.

OKAY. IT'S MY FAULT. I SENT IT OVER FIVE WEEKS LATER. AND THEN, YOU KNOW WHAT HAPPENED? HE SAID, I'LL BE BACK IN THREE WEEKS. HE FINALLY GETS BACK TO ME AND SAYS, I WANT TO HAVE A MEETING. WE SAID, IT'S TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT TIME. THAT'S WHAT'S HAPPENING. WE'RE NOT NEGOTIATING ANYMORE.

THE COURT:

YOU HAVE A WAY OF ENDEARING YOURSELF TO PEOPLE SOMETIMES. AND THERE ARE TIMES YOU ARE EASY TO GET ALONG WITH –

MR. JOHNSON:

I'VE--

THE COURT:

I HAVE SEEN YOU IN BOTH MODES.

MR. JOHNSON:

LISTEN. HE'S A VERY GOOD LAWYER. AND -- HE'S A REALLY GOOD LAWYER, SO I GIVE THAT TO HIM. I'M JUST SAYING, THIS IS WHY WE'RE HERE NOW. IT'S BEEN SIX MONTHS. MY CONSULTANTS NEED TO GET IN THERE.

THE COURT:

OKAY. I'M GOING TO GET YOU IN.MR. KIESEL? THERE'S A VOICE OF REASON FROM THE BACK OF THE ROOM.

MR. KIESEL: THE ONLY THING THAT'S CURIOUS IS

THAT WE'RE HERE ON THE RECORD HAVING THIS HEARING AS WE ARE, BECAUSE REALLY I THINK WHAT HAPPENED WAS ABOUT A MONTH AGO EVERYONE AGREED, LET'S JUST MEET WITH JUDGE WEST WHO HAS A WAY OF BRINGING PERSPECTIVE THAT GETS US TO SOLUTION.

AND THEN THE AUSTRALIAN WRITERS GUILD WEIGHED IN, AND OTHERS WEIGHED IN WHO WANTED TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS JOINT MEETING. AND QUITE FRANKLY, I THINK ALL WE WERE LOOKING FOR WAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE A DIALOGUE ABOUT A COUPLE OF AREAS WE COULDN'T AGREE UPON.

AND RATHER THAN BEING ON THE RECORD AND TAKING THE COURT'S TIME IN THIS WAY, I THINK EVERYBODY WAS JUST LOOKING TO SIT DOWN AND HAVE A DIALOGUE TO REACH RESOLUTION. AND I THINK MR. SCHECTER, MR. SEGALL AND MR. JOHNSON WOULD AGREE TO THAT, AND IN FACT, THAT MIGHT BE THE BETTER APPROACH.

THE COURT:

WE'LL GET IT RESOLVED.

MR. KIESEL: I'M DONE.

THE COURT:

WE'RE GOING TO GET IT RESOLVED, AND WE'RE GOING TO SIT DOWN. BUT I NEED TO HAVE A LITTLE MORE FOCUS. AND THIS FEELS TO ME THAT THIS THING JUST KIND OF HAD A GROUND SWELL OF EMOTION THAT BLEW IT ALL UP. AND WE'VE GOT TO GET IT BACK ON TRACK, FIND OUT WHAT THE REAL ISSUES ARE. CONSULTANTS GETTING INTO COLLECTIONS ISSUES. I DON'T THINK YOU ARE THAT FAR APART. AND I THINK MY VIEW OF WHAT'S TO BE DONE THERE IS PROBABLY OKAY, AND THAT WILL WORK.

AS FAR AS GETTING THESE CONSULTING AGREEMENTS, THAT WAS THE NEXT POINT. AND I'LL JUST TELL YOU WHAT MY COMMENTS WERE AFTER I WENT THROUGH ALL OF YOUR PAPERS. THIS IS FOR THE WRITERS GUILD, BECAUSE I HAVE SEPARATE NOTES FOR SAG. I WOULD EXPECT THE CONSULTANTS TO BE PAID, AS PROVIDED IN THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. TO THE EXTENT THAT DISPUTES ARISE CONCERNING THE -- OR REGARDING THE REASONABLENESS OF THE CONSULTANTS' FEES AND EXPENSES, THE PARTIES WILL BE EXPECTED TO MEET AND CONFER IN GOOD FAITH, AND IF WE CAN'T RESOLVE THE ISSUES, SUBMIT THEM TO ME BY A JOINT STATEMENT, OR INITIATE THE MEDIATION PROCESS, IF THERE'S ONE IN THE AGREEMENT AND SOMEONE WANTS TO DO IT.

IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THAT'S THE DEAL YOU MADE. AND THAT'S THE DEAL THAT I'M GOING TO ENFORCE. AND SO, YOU KNOW, WHETHER THERE'S PAYMENT FOR THE NEGOTIATE -- THE HOURS SPENT NEGOTIATING TO GET THE AGREEMENT, I'M NOT EVEN SURE YOU NEED THE AGREEMENT. BUT A SIMPLE, STRAIGHTFORWARD AGREEMENT WITHOUT OVERREACHING ON EITHER SIDE IS ALL YOU NEED.

MR. JASKO IS A CONSULTANT FOR THE CLASS.

AND HE'S GOING TO BE PAID AT 400 BUCKS AN HOUR. AND HE'S GOING TO WORK REASONABLY AND HE'LL BE PAID A REASONABLE FEE. AND IN ONE OF THESE CASES THE DEFENDANT PAYS UP TO $40,000. IF IT'S MORE THAN THAT, THEN IT HAS TO BE REASONABLE. IT SAYS HE'LL BE PAID A

I REASONABLE FEE, AS I RECALL. AND I'LL DETERMINE WHAT'S

REASONABLE. IT'S NOT THAT COMPLICATED. THIS IS NOT THAT DIFFICULT TO ME.

AND SO WHATEVER THAT AGREEMENT IS, THEY ARE NOT EMPLOYEES, SOME REASONABLE CONFIDENTIALITY PROVISIONS DON'T SEEM UNUSUAL TO ME, BUT I THINK WE COULD BOIL THIS DOWN AND WHATEVER THE REAL HOT BUTTON ITEMS ARE, WE'LL SIT DOWN AND TALK ABOUT THEM AND GET THEM RESOLVED.

MR. JOHNSON:

CAN WE DO THIS, YOUR HONOR? WE'LL GET ONE MORE STAB AT IT WITH SAG, AND THEN CAN WE JUST COME IN ON A SETTLEMENT BASIS AND WORK WITH YOU TO GET IT DONE?

THE COURT:

WE'LL TRY TO. I WANT TO SEE -- I WANT TO NARROW IT DOWN. WHEN YOU GIVE ME THESE PILES OF THINGS AND EVERY 12 TO 14 HOURS I GET ANOTHER REQUEST, WE'RE STILL WORKING ON IT AND WE'LL GET IT TO YOU LATER; TOMORROW AND THE NEXT DAY AND THE NEXT DAY, I GET KIND OF TIRED OF IT.

THEN WHEN IT ALL COMES IN AND I WADE THROUGH IT -- THIS IS ALL I READ BACK AND FORTH FROM WASHINGTON THIS WEEKEND. AND SO THERE'S A BETTER WAY TO DO IT. AND I WANT IT CRYSTALIZED A LITTLE MORE BEFORE I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU THE BENEFIT -- I'M NOT A WHIPPING BOY HERE. I WILL HELP YOU OUT WITH WHATEVER THE PROBLEMS ARE, BUT I WANT TO KIND OF CRYSTALIZE IT A LITTLE MORE.

AND I DON'T WANT TO IGNORE MR. RICHERT'S OBJECTIONS.

I READ THROUGH YOUR CONCERNS,

MR. RICHERT, AND I HAVE SERIOUS CONCERNS ABOUT THE ALLEGATIONS THAT YOU MAKE -- OR THE STATEMENTS YOU MAKE IN YOUR FILING, REGARDING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS SETTLEMENT. AND I AM HERE TO MAKE SURE IT WORKS AND MAKE SURE IT WORKS FOR PEOPLE LIKE YOU AND THE PEOPLE THAT ARE MEMBERS OF THE CLASS THAT WE CERTIFIED AND THAT ARE SUPPOSED TO GET THE BENEFIT.

I EXPECT SOME FOLLOW UP ON THOSE ISSUES.

THEY ARE NOT REALLY PRESENTED TO ME IN THE NARROW WAY THAT I PREFER TO HAVE THEM SO I CAN REALLY KNOW WHAT -­ YOUR OBJECTIONS ARE FAR BROADER OVER A LARGER SCALE OF COMMENTS. I'M NOT SURE WHAT JUDGE MORROW APPROVED OR DIDN'T APPROVE. I DON'T SIT IN HIS COURT; HE DOESN'T SIT IN MINE. SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO THERE NECESSARILY.

MR. RICHERT:

WELL, I'M REFERRING TO THE FACT THAT TONY SEGALL SAID I WAS A MEMBER OF THE UNION AND HE KNEW I WASN'T A MEMBER OF THE UNION, YOUR HONOR. AND THAT'S HOW IT CAME BACK TO YOUR COURT.

AND I'M CONCERNED BY THE FACT THAT

MR. GROSSMAN WAS A MAN WHO KNOCKED OUT ALL MY FRAUD CHARGES WITH A MEDIATION I NEVER ATTENDED AND OBJECTED TO. AND MR. GROSSMAN'S NAME IS NUMBER ONE ON THE ONE CONTRACT THAT I HAVE HERE WHICH IS THE WHOLE CONTRACT FOR THE ENTIRE THING. THEY MAKE IT SOUND SO MYSTERIOUS.

THERE WAS A WOMAN NAMED TERRI MIAL, WHO

WAS ABOUT A 75-YEAR-OLD LADY, AN EX-MANAGER, WHO RAN THE ENTIRE FOREIGN LEVY PROGRAM FOR THIS UNION FOR EIGHT YEARS, FROM HER DESK.

I HAVE HERE A CHECK MADE OUT TO CHARLES BUKOWSKI, THE POET, THAT SHE GAVE TO ME. IT'S $498. IT WAS MADE OUT IN 2003.

NOW, MR. SEGALL MIGHT SAY, WELL, HE DIED IN 1994. I JUST LOOKED AT IT AND I'LL BRING THAT TO SHOW THE JUDGE BECAUSE IT'S ABOUT A POET. THIS IS AMAZING. ALL THESE PEOPLE ARE -- I'M THE ONE WHOSE MONEY THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT, YOUR HONOR. THEY GOT PLENTY OF TIME TO MEET AND CONFER WITH EACH OTHER. THESE TWO MEN ARE DOING A DEAL RIGHT NOW FOR ANOTHER WRITER FOR UNIVERSAL PICTURES.

WHY IS MY LAWYER NEGOTIATING WITH TONY SEGALL? I MEAN, WORKING WITH HIM. ANYWAY, JOEL GROSSMAN'S NAME IS ON HERE TWICE. IT'S THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT; IT'S VERY SHORT.

THE COURT: WHAT CONTRACT ARE YOU -­

MR. RICHERT: THE FACT THAT --

THE COURT: SLOW DOWN.

MR. RICHERT: I'M SORRY, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: RELAX.

MR. RICHERT: I'M THE ONLY ACTOR WHO'S BEEN IN HERE ALL THIS TIME.

THE COURT: YOU COULD HAVE BEEN A LAWYER, YOU'RE DOING A GREAT JOB.

MR. RICHERT: I DON'T WANT TO BE A LAWYER.

THE COURT: TELL ME WHAT CONTRACT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

MR. RICHERT:

I'M TALKING ABOUT THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT THAT BINDS EVERYBODY, YOUR HONOR. [holds up SAG contract between SAG and MPAA]THIS IS THE CONTRACT. THIS IS THE BABY. IT'S A SECRET CONTRACT.

THE LAST NAME IS MR. HADL'S RIGHT HERE. MR. HADL SIGNS THIS AND HE SIGNS FOR UNIVERSAL PICT -- IS IT WALT DISNEY? IT'S UNIVERSAL, I'M SORRY. JOEL GROSSMAN SIGNED IT TWICE. THEY BOTH SIGN FOR STUDIOS. THESE GUYS ARE ADVISING ALL OF THE PEOPLE ABOUT MY MONEY.

THE COURT: OKAY. I STILL –

MR. RICHERT:

I'M UPSET A LITTLE. YOU SAID THROW DARTS. I DON'T WANT TO THROW DARTS.

THE COURT: I KNOW YOU ARE UPSET, BUT I WANT YOU TO CALM DOWN.

MR. RICHERT:

I'M OLD ENOUGH, ALMOST, TO BE MY OWN HEIR. I DON'T WANT TO WAIT ANOTHER SIX MONTHS FOR THESE GUYS TO FIGURE OUT -- IF YOU READ THE NUMBER E ABOUT SAG, WHAT IT SAYS IS IF THEY HAVE ANY DISPUTE, THIS GUY WILL CALL THIS GUY, MR. SCHECTER, AND THEN THEY'LL MEET AND CONFER WITHIN 36 MONTHS.

THE COURT: WE'RE NOT GOING TO WAIT 36 MONTHS.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED IN THREE YEARS.

MR. RICHERT:

YOUR HONOR, I WOULD LIKE TO SAY ALSO, THAT WHAT IS GOING ON HERE, EVERY TIME SOMEBODY SAYS ABOUT THESE FOREIGN COLLECTION SOCIETIES, WE DON'T WANT TO INTERFERE WITH THE FLOW OF THE MONEY FROM THE

COLLECTION SOCIETIES. WHY? BECAUSE IT MIGHT BE GOING TO AMERICAN CROOKS? DO YOU THINK THEY ARE GOING TO STOP SENDING IT, YOUR HONOR? NO. IT GOES OUT ALL THE TIME. I'VE GOT CHECKS FROM THEM. I'VE HAVE MOVIES. THE HAPPY HOOKER IS, YOU MAY HAVE HEARD OF IT, IT MAY BE -- GOD HELP ME, IT COULD BE 40 YEARS OLD NOW. I'VE BEEN GETTING CHECKS FOR IT ALL THE TIME; THAT WAS A NONUNION MOVIE. WHAT DID THEY DO WITH THE MONEY? WHERE WAS MR. BUKOWSKI'S MONEY FROM 1994 TO 2003? WHERE WAS THE MONEY?

I HAVE AN ACCOUNTANT, ROY MATLIN, WHO WORKS IN THE VALLEY -- HE USED TO BE MY ACCOUNTANT, WHEN I HAD MONEY. THE ONLY THING I GOT LEFT IS FREE SPEECH OUT OF THESE GUYS. IT'S THE ONLY FREE THING LEFT. AND I'M A NONUNION PERSON BECAUSE THEY ROBBED ME, YOUR HONOR. SO I DON'T WANT TO THROW DARTS AT THEM. I'D LIKE TO LOP OFF THEIR HEADS, FRANKLY.

THE COURT:

WELL, I UNDERSTAND THE FRUSTRATION --

MR. RICHERT:

IT'S MORE THAN FRUSTRATION.

THE COURT: WHATEVER IT IS, THERE COMES A POINT WHERE I CAN ONLY LISTEN TO SO MUCH OF IT.BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS I TAKE SERIOUSLY THE THINGS I PUT MY NAME ON. I INTENDED THIS TO BE, ALL THREE OF THESE SETTLEMENTS, TO BENEFIT PEOPLE LIKE YOURSELVES, TO IMPLEMENT AND RESULT IN YOUR GETTING PAID MONIES THAT HAD BEEN HELD BY THESE ORGANIZATIONS FOR A LONG TIME AND NOT PAID OUT. AND THAT'S WHAT

WE'RE TRYING TO DO.

I'M NOT GOING TO THROW THE BABY OUT WITH THE BATH WATER. I'M GOING TO STICK WITH THE PROGRAM FOR A LITTLE LONGER HERE TO SEE IF WE CAN'T ACCOMPLISH THE GOAL THAT WE SET OUT TO ACHIEVE. AND YOU HAVE TO HAVE SOME PATIENCE. I KNOW THAT'S NOT A GOOD THING TO TELL YOU. YOU DON'T LIKE THE MEET AND CONFER PROCESS. IT DOES TAKE TIME. SOMETIMES THESE CASES ARE LIKE TURNING BIG SHIPS AROUND IN SMALL CANALS. IT'S KIND OF DELICATE. IT'S NOT THAT EASY TO DO, BUT WE GET IT DONE MOST OF THE TIME. AND I THINK WE GET IT DONE PRETTY WELL. I'M NOT THROWING EVERYTHING OUT. IT ISN'T THAT SIMPLE TO BEGIN WITH.

BUT WHEN YOU WAVE A PIECE OF PAPER AT ME AND SAYS, THIS CONTRACT, AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT CONTRACT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, IT ISN'T VERY EFFECTIVE.

MR. RICHERT:

WELL, PLEASE, YOUR HONOR, I WOULD HAVE GIVEN IT TO YOU. THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT THE SAME THINGS THAT WERE IN FRONT OF YOU IN 2005. THEY GAVE YOU A SETTLEMENT THEN; IT’S GOT TO BE THREE PAGES MORE.

SO I'VE BEEN WAVING THIS TO MR. KIESEL AND MR. JOHNSON. THEY DON'T TELL -- I HAD A HARD TIME COMING HERE BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T GIVE ME ANY INFORMATION ABOUT THIS -- THE OTHER LAWYERS WHO DIDN'T SHOW UP TODAY, WINIKOW AND KAPLAN, BRAVE MEN. WERE GOING TO MAYBE HELP ME OUT, BUT THEY WENT TO MR. JOHNSON AND HE SAID, BILL RICHERT IS A NIGHTMARE AND UNCONTROLLABLE.

THE COURT: I DON'T THINK YOU ARE UNCONTROLLABLE. YOU HAVEN'T BEEN A NIGHTMARE HERE.

MR. RICHERT: THANK YOU.

THE COURT: I'VE TRIED TO ACCOMMODATE YOU IN MANY WAYS, AND I'VE WORKED WITH YOU. YOU HAVE HAD SOME GOOD IDEAS. YOUR CONCERNS ARE CONCERNS OF MINE. AND I'VE SAID I TAKE THEM SERIOUSLY. I EXPECT THEM TO BE RESOLVED, BUT, BROAD BASED, YOU KNOW, THE BROAD BRUSH THEY ARE A BUNCH OF CROOKS, FRAUDS, EVERYTHING ELSE, DOESN'T WORK. I ONLY WORK WITH SPECIFICS. AND I'VE GOT TO GET THE DETAILS. AND IF THERE'S TRUTH TO WHAT YOU ARE SAYING, THEN MAYBE THESE THINGS WILL BE UNWOUND.

MR. RICHERT:

I HOPE SO, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT:

BUT IN THE MEANTIME I THINK THAT THERE'S A GOOD REASON TO TRY AND KEEP THIS GOING, AND TRY AND GET IT SORTED OUT.

NOW, I DON'T KNOW. YOU DON'T LIKE THE CONSULTANTS THAT THE CLASSES HAVE RETAINED BECAUSE YOU THINK THEY ARE --

MR. RICHERT:

EXCUSE ME, YOUR HONOR, I NEVER SAID THAT. I TALKED TO MR. JASKO. HE DIDN'T TELL ME EXACTLY WHAT HE TOLD YOU -- NOT THAT HE TOLD ME ANYTHING MUCH DIFFERENT, BUT HE SAID I'M HAVING A HARD TIME. I SAID, WHO OVER THERE IS GIVING YOU A HARD TIME? I SAID, IS DAVID YOUNG NOT ALLOWING YOU TO SEE STUFF? HE SAID, WELL, THEY KIND OF GET TOGETHER AND THEY ARE ALWAYS BUSY WITH OTHER THINGS.

YOUR HONOR, IF YOU LOOK AT THE ANNUAL REPORT THEY JUST FILED, IT GOT 3.5 MILLION IN UNDISCLOSED STUFF AROUND MR. SEGALL'S NAME. THEY'VE GIVEN NO BREAKOUT AT ALL. THE MAIN POINT OF WHAT YOU SAID WAS THEY WERE GOING TO GIVE US A BREAKDOWN WHAT THE FOREIGN LEVIES WAS. BUT ALL THEY DID WAS SAY THEY SPENT SOMETHING LIKE $826,000 IN FEES TO DISTRIBUTE MONEY THAT THEY WON'T SAY WHERE IT WENT, OR WHO IT CAME FROM.

THE COURT: WELL, YOU HAVEN'T BEEN HERE IN A LONG TIME. IT'S NICE TO HAVE YOU BACK; WHOLE GROUP, COLLECTIVELY. I SAY THAT, TOO. BUT WE'RE HERE NOW.

WE'RE GOING TO GET ON TOP OF IT.

THERE'S BEEN SOME TIME AND SOME WATER UNDER THE BRIDGE, BUT THERE'S A GOAL HERE. AND THIS EVALUATION AND THE INVOLVEMENT OF THE CONSULTANTS, AND THE INVOLVEMENT OF THE AUDITORS WAS ALL DESIGNED TO GIVE US A BETTER PICTURE OF EXACTLY WHERE WE ARE SO WE CAN MAKE THIS THING WORK.

I EXPECT THAT TO HAPPEN. I'M NOT GOING TO LET A LOT OF GRASS GROW UNDER OUR FEET. WE'LL GET YOU BACK SOONER THAN LATER, BUT WE'RE GOING TO DO IT. AND IT TAKES A LITTLE TIME AND A LITTLE EFFORT.

THE LAST LIST I HAD BEFORE WE GO ON --

MR. SEGALL: YOUR HONOR, JUST SAY BEFORE WE LEAVE THIS. YOU'VE OBVIOUSLY READ SOMETHING WE HAVEN'T. MR. RICHERT DIDN'T SERVE WHATEVER HE FILED ON US.

THE COURT:

YOU DIDN'T SERVE IT ON EVERYONE, MR. RICHERT? YOU JUST FILED IT WITH THE COURT?

MR. RICHERT:

YOUR HONOR, I SENT IT TO THE LAST E-MAIL ADDRESS THAT'S ON HIS WEBSITE AT THE ROTHNER SEGALL FIRM. I KEPT SENDING IT OVER. IT KEPT COMING BACK. I DID THE BEST I COULD. I'LL GIVE IT TO HIM NOW. I'VE GOT IT RIGHT HERE.

MR. SEGALL:

THAT'S ALL I'M ASKING.

THE COURT:

WE DO WORK ON A PROCESS HERE WHERE EVERYBODY GETS A COpy OF EVERYTHING. AND WE COME IN -­

MR. RICHERT

 HERE, MR. SEGALL, I'M SORRY. I DOG-EARED IT A LITTLE BIT.

THE COURT:

THAT'S ALL RIGHT. TAKE YOUR TIME.

WE'RE GOING TO GET TO ALL THESE THINGS. ON THE AUSTRALIAN WRITERS' GUILD AUTHORSHIP COLLECTIVE SOCIETY'S LIMITED STATEMENTS, I REMEMBER GOING THROUGH THIS AT THE TIME OF THE APPROVAL. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT MY COMMENTS AT THE TIME OF THE APPROVAL THAT ARE NOTED IN THIS STATEMENT ARE JUST AS VALID TODAY AS THEY WERE THEN.THE WGAW IS OBLIGATED TO DISTRIBUTE FOREIGN COLLECTIONS TO THOSE ENTITLED TO THE COLLECTIONS. TO THE EXTENT THE WGAW IS HOLDING MONIES FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE AUSTRALIAN ASSOCIATIONS OR SOCIETIES' MEMBERS, AND THOSE MEMBERS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED, DISTRIBUTION SHOULD BE MADE. NOW, HAVE I MISSED IT -- IS THAT ACCURATE SO FAR?

MR. SEGALL: YOUR HONOR, I REALLY DON'T THINK

WE HAVE AN ISSUE HERE.

THE COURT: OKAY. I DON'T WANT TO KNOW WHAT ISSUES WE DON'T HAVE. IF YOU'VE GOT MONEY AND YOU KNOW IT'S PAYABLE SOME GUY IN AUSTRALIA, THAT'S A MEMBER OF THEIR GROUP, YOU ARE SENING IT TO HIM; AREN'T YOU?

MR. SEGALL:

ABSOLUTELY.

THE COURT:

THAT'S GOOD.

MR. SEGALL:

CAN I FOLLOW UP AND MAYBE CUT THIS SHORT?

THE COURT: YEAH.

MR. SEGALL: I SENT MR. SPIVEY AN E-MAIL YESTERDAY SAYING I DON'T THINK WE REALLY HAVE AN ISSUE. THEY FOUND NAMES AND TITLES ON OUR WEBSITE, WHICH ARE MONIES WE DON'T KNOW HOW TO DISTRIBUTE. IF THEY KNOW HOW TO DISTRIBUTE IT, WE'LL SEND THEM THE MONEY. AND I TOLD MR. SPIVEY, IN THE NEXT WEEK OR SO WE SHOULD SIT DOWN AND WE'LL FIGURE OUT WHAT THOSE TITLES ARE AND SEND THEM TO THEM.

WHAT THEY COULD HAVE DONE IS ACTUALLY CLAIMED THEM THROUGH THE WEBSITE; THAT'S HOW THE WEBSITE IS SET UP. BECAUSE THE TITLES THAT ARE ON THE WEBSITE ARE THE TITLES THAT WE DON'T KNOW HOW TO DISTRIBUTE BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE MEMBER NAMES. SOME OF IT IS NON-COVERED WORK FOR AUSTRALIAN WRITERS. WE'RE HAPPY TO HAVE THEM DISTRIBUTE THAT, AND WE'LL SEE THAT THAT HAPPENS.

THE COURT:

THE SECOND PART OF MY COMMENT BEFORE YOU TOLD ME WHAT YOU COULD DO AND WHAT DO WITH

MR. SPIVEY, IS IF YOU'VE GOT MONEY AND YOU KNOW WHO IT'S PAYABLE TO, MY UNDERSTANDING IS YOU ARE PAYING IT.

IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHO IT'S PAYABLE TO, THOSE INDIVIDUALS COULD PURSUE IT, MAKE CLAIMS IF THE INFORMATION IS ON THE WEBSITE; THAT'S FINE. IF THE AUSTRALIAN SOCIETY WANTS TO INITIATE COLLECTION ON BEHALF OF ITS MEMBERS, I THINK THEY ARE CERTAINLY FREE TO DO THAT.

MR. SEGALL: ABSOLUTELY.

THE COURT: AND IT'S NOT IN THIS LAWSUIT. IF THEY WANT TO FILE ANOTHER LAWSUIT AGAINST THEM OR PURSUE IT IN SOME OTHER WAY, THAT'S FINE.

I THOUGHT WE KIND OF CARVED OUT THE AUSTRALIAN GROUP SAYING, AT THE TIME OF THE SETTLEMENT, THAT IF THERE ARE NO PEOPLE IN THE AUSTRALIAN SOCIETY THAT HAVE RIGHTS TO THE MONEY, IT'S A NON-ISSUE. IF THERE ARE, THEY SHOULD BE PAID. I THOUGHT THAT'S WHERE WE ENDED UP WITH THAT.

NOW, MR. SPIVEY, DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS OR THOUGHTS ON THIS?

MR. SPIVEY:

WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT RIGHT NOW IS THE FACT OF THEM BEING PAID -- THEY HAVEN'T BEEN PAID. THE INFORMATION THAT HAS GONE ON THE WEBSITE HAS INFORMED US, THE AUSTRALIAN GUILD, THAT THE MONEY IS IN FACT BEING HELD ON NON-COVERED WORKS. THESE ARE WORKS THAT ARE NOT SUBJECT TO A U.S. COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT THAT THE WGA HAS COLLECTED. SO PURELY AUSTRALIAN, NEW ZEALAND TITLES.

SO AS I UNDERSTAND, WHAT MR. SEGALL HAS PROPOSED TO ME IS WE WILL SIT DOWN AND TRY TO IDENTIFY WHAT THOSE EXCLUSIVELY AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND TITLES ARE, WHICH THE WGA HAS NOW DISCLOSED ITrs HOLDING MONEY FOR, WHICH WE DIDN'T KNOW TILL THE WEBSITE WENT UP.

THE COURT:

THE WEBSITE WENT UP IN OCTOBER OF LAST YEAR?

MR. SPIVEY:

IT MAY HAVE GONE UP THEN, BUT THE SPECIFIC INFORMATION OF THESE TITLES, AND THESE INDIVIDUALS, DID NOT GO ON THE WEBSITE UNTIL THE LAST FEW WEEKS. BECAUSE OUR SOCIETY MONITORS THE WEBSITE CONTINUOUSLY, AND IT'S CONTINUALLY BEING UPDATED. SO THE INFORMATION IS CONTINUALLY RENEWING ITSELF.

SO THE INFORMATION THAT WE BROUGHT TO THE COURT'S ATTENTION, JUST WENT ON THE WEBSITE.

THE COURT:

WHY IS THIS STUFF JUST POPPING UP, AFTER A YEAR, ONTO THE WEBSITE? THAT'S -- I'M A LITTLE SUSPECT OF THAT, TOO. CERTAIN THINGS ARE FORTUITOUS, BUT TOO MANY COINCIDENCES AND THEN I WONDER WHAT'S REALLY GOING ON.

MR. SEGALL:

NO, YOUR HONOR. WE'RE REQUIRED, BY THE AGREEMENT, TO UPDATE THE WEBSITE AS WE'RE GOING ALONG AND IDENTIFY NEW TITLES.

THE COURT:

ARE THESE NEW COLLECTIONS?

MR. SEGALL:

YES. ABOUT 92,000 TITLES WENT ON THE WEBSITE SEPTEMBER 1 OF LAST YEAR. AND SINCE THEN WE'VE SUPPLEMENTED IT. AND WE'RE NOW UP TO, I THINK,

102,000.

THE COURT:

AND THAT CONFIRMS THAT AS OF OCTOBER OF LAST YEAR WHEN THE WEBSITE WENT UP, THE 92,000 TITLES WENT ON, AT THAT POINT IN TIME WE WERE SAYING YOU DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING FOR THE AUSTRALIAN GUILD, WHEN I DID THE SETTLEMENT.

BUT IF YOU GOT SOMETHING IN BETWEEN OCTOBER OF LAST YEAR AND THIS YEAR, YOU'VE UPDATED, AND THAT'S WHERE THOSE COME FROM?

MR. SEGALL:

AND NOW THEY ARE TELLING US THAT THESE ARE AUSTRALIAN TITLES. WE DIDN'T KNOW THEY WERE AUSTRALIAN TITLES. AND ALL THEY'VE GOT TO DO -- THAT'S EXACTLY THE PURPOSE OF THE WEBSITE. THE PURPOSE OF THE WEBSITE IS FOR US TO SAY TO THE WORLD, THESE ARE THE TITLES THAT WE HAVEN'T IDENTIFIED, THAT WE CAN'T TIE TO A PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL OR WHERE WE'VE IDENTIFIED A PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL, BUT WE DON'T HAVE THE INFORMATION TO DISTRIBUTE IT.

AND AS WE'VE GONE ALONG THROUGH THIS YEAR, PEOPLE STEP FORWARD AND MAKE CLAIMS TO TITLES. AND WE EVEN ALLOW REPRESENTATIVES, LAWYERS, OR OTHER SOCIETY TO MAKE CLAIMS FOR TITLES. SO THIS IS ACTUALLY HOW IT'S SUPPOSED TO FUNCTION.

THE COURT:

WELL, I THINK YOU NEED TO GET TOGETHER WITH MR. SPIVEY. THE AUSTRALIAN ISSUE SOUNDS TO ME LIKE IT CAN BE WORKED OUT.

MR. SEGALL:

I THINK SO.

THE COURT:

ONE OF THE THINGS YOU ARE DESCRIBING TO ME GIVES ME ALARM AND SOME CONCERN; AND THAT IS, IF A DISPROPORTIONATE AMOUNT OF THESE FUNDS ARE REPRESENTED BY TITLES THAT YOU JUST DON'T KNOW WHO THE PEOPLE ARE, OR WHERE THEY ARE, OR HOW TO GET RID OF IT SO YOU ARE JUST HOLDING THE MONEY, THEN THE PROCESS AND THE APPROACH, PROBABLY ISN'T AS EFFICIENT AS WE'D LIKE IT TO BE. AND MAYBE THAT'S WHY MR. JASKO, AND MR. GERVAIS CAN GIVE YOU SOME IDEAS ON HOW YOU CAN KNOW -- DO A BETTER JOB OF FINDING THE PEOPLE TO WHOM THE MONEY IS PAYABLE.

MR. SEGALL:

I THINK THAT'S ABSOLUTELY WHAT WE'RE DOING, YOUR HONOR. THE FIRST PHASE WAS TO TELL THE WORLD WHOSE MONEY WE HAVE, AND WHAT TITLES WE HAVE, IN THE HOPES THAT BY THE USE OF THE WEBSITE, PEOPLE WOULD CLAIM IT. SOME OF THOSE CLAIMS HAVE COME IN AND IT'S ENABLED US TO DISTRIBUTE SOME MONEY.

THE NEXT PHASE IS IF NOBODY CLAIMS IT, WHAT DO WE DO WITH IT?

THE COURT:

WELL, THERE MAY BE A LITTLE MORE PROACTIVE APPROACH TO FINDING PEOPLE AND IDENTIFYING THEM -- I DON'T KNOW.

MR. SEGALL:

BUT, YOUR HONOR, WE HAVE A WHOLE DEPARTMENT THAT SPENDS ITS FULL TIME TRYING TO IDENTIFY THESE PEOPLE. SO IT'S NOT LIKE WE'RE NOT DOING OTHER THINGS. THERE WILL BE CERTAIN OTHER --

THE COURT:

WELL, YOU HAVE ELECTIONS, TOO, AND THEY ARE ALWAYS CONTESTED AND THERE'S A LOT OF FIGHTING GOING BACK AND FORTH. THAT'S A LOT OF FIGHTING BACK AND FORTH. I READ ABOUT THAT STUFF IN THE PAPERS, ONLY WITH A PASSING INTEREST --

MR. SEGALL:

WELL, LIKE PRESIDENTS WE CAN -­

MR. SPIVEY:

SO JUST TO -- IF I MAY ROUND OUT MY POINT, YOUR HONOR, JUST QUICKLY. ON THE MONEY THAT'S BEING HELD CURRENTLY, MR. SEGALL AND I WILL SIT DOWN AND TRY TO WORK OUT -- TURN OVER THAT MONEY TO THE AUSTRALIAN GUILD SO THAT WE CAN GET THE MONEY DISTRIBUTED BECAUSE WE KNOW HOW TO FIND THE PEOPLE.

ON THE SECOND ISSUE OF THE FACT OF THE MONEY BEING AMASSED IN THE FIRST INSTANCE, WE WOULD JOIN IN THE PLAINTIFF COUNSEL'S REQUEST THAT THE CONSULTANTS BE ALLOWED TO LOOK, AT LEAST IN SOME RESPECTS, AT THE COLLECTION PROCESS, TO AVOID THE SITUATION CONTINUING OF LARGE AMOUNTS OF MONEY TOWARDS NON-U.S. WORKS, WORKS THAT ARE NOT SUBJECT TO A U.S. COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT MAKING ITS WAY INTO THE WGA'S COFFERS, PUTTING US IN THE SITUATION CONTINUOUSLY WHERE WE HAVE TO GO TO THEM AND TELL THEM, YOU HAVE OUR MONEY, AS OPPOSED TO AVOIDING IT GOING TO THE COFFERS IN THE FIRST INSTANCE.

IF THE CONSULTANTS CAN MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO AVOID THAT, WE WOULD JOIN THAT REQUEST.

THE COURT:

LET'S SEE WHAT COMES OUT OF IT

ONCE WE SMOOTH OUT THE ROUGH EDGES. WE'LL GET

MR. GERVAIS AND MR. JASKO ON THE JOB, IN THERE, WITH THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE TABLE AND WE'LL SEE WHERE WE CAN GO WITH THAT.

MR. JOHNSON:

YOUR HONOR, THERE'S ONE OTHER ISSUE FROM WGA THAT'S ON PAGE SIX OF OUR JOINT STATEMENT, PARAGRAPH B, AND THERE WE DISCUSS -­ PARAGRAPH 69(B) (I) OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, WHICH REQUIRES THE WGA REPORT ON THE STATUS OF COLLECTION OF FOREIGN LEVY FUNDS. AND WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS THAT THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE TELLING THE PUBLIC RIGHT NOW, AND THEY AREN'T, BASICALLY HOW MUCH MONEY THEY'VE GOT; WHAT THEY'VE COLLECTED; THE DATE OF LAST COLLECTION; WHAT THE PROBLEMS ARE THEY ARE HAVING. AND WHAT THEY ARE DOING ABOUT THAT. AND WE THINK THAT THIS IS PART OF THEIR OBLIGATION SINCE THEY'VE TAKEN ON THIS OBLIGATION TO COLLECT AND PAY OUT THESE MONIES RIGHT NOW. IN OTHER WORDS, WE WANT TO GET THE MESSAGE OUT THE PUBLIC.

THE COURT:

OKAY. WHEN DID YOU TAKE THAT CONCERN TO THEM? IN THIS JOINT STATEMENT?

MR. JOHNSON:

YES.

THE COURT: DID YOU EVER BRING IT TO THEIR ATTENTION BEFORE THAT?

MR. JOHNSON: NO. BUT--

THE COURT: WELL, I JUST WANT THE SIMPLE ANSWER.

MR. JOHNSON: NO.

THE COURT: THAT'S -- YOU KNOW HOW I WORK.

YOU HAVE BEEN HERE ENOUGH. IF YOU CAN'T TALK ABOUT THE PROBLEMS AMONG YOURSELVES AND SEE WHAT -- AT LEAST MAKE AN EFFORT TO GET IT RESOLVED, THEN YOU ARE NOT TAKING MY TIME. AND I KNOW THAT THERE'S BEEN AN EFFORT. AND ALL OF THESE THINGS SEEM TO HAVE PERCOLATED UP, KIND OF AT THE LAST MINUTE. MAYBE THEY'VE BEEN BREWING, BUT NOBODY HAS BEEN TALKING ABOUT THEM. AND I EXPECT A LITTLE EFFORT TO TRY AND RESOLVE SOME OF THEM.

NOW, WHATEVER THEIR OBLIGATION IS UNDER THE JOINT SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, AND UNDER THE JUDGMENT, I EXPECT THEM TO COMPLY WITH IT. SO IF YOU ARE SAYING THAT THEY ARE NOT COMPLYING WITH SOME SPECIFIC PROVISION OF IT, THEN MR. SEGALL AND MR. SPECTER ARE GOING TO HAVE TO ANSWER TO THAT. IT'S THAT SIMPLE, BUT I'M NOT GOING TO DO IT WITH YOU ALL JUST SHOWING UP HERE.

MR. JOHNSON:

OKAY. SO WHAT YOU ARE SAYING -­ AND YOU SAY IT'S NOT -- I DON'T THINK IT'S IN EITHER OF THESE AGREEMENTS THAT THERE SHOULD BE A MEET AND CONFER PROCESS. BEFORE WE EVER COME AND SEE YOU ANY TIME, WE'LL DO THAT FROM NOW ON.

THE COURT:

YOU'VE BEEN TRYING TO TALK ABOUT THINGS BEFORE YOU CAME TO SEE ME. AND YOU WERE TRYING TO COME SEE ME ON A LIMITED COUPLE OF SIMPLE LITTLE ISSUES. AND THEN ALL THIS STUFF COMES IN AND THEY AREN'T THAT SIMPLE AND IT'S NOT THAT LIMITED.

MR. JOHNSON:

WELL, I THINK IT'S GOOD IF YOU SET A TIME LIKE YOU -- IT WAS REALLY GREAT THAT YOU SET THIS SO THAT WE COME AND IT MAKES US FOCUS ON --

THE COURT:

AND I'LL GET YOU BACK, TOO. I'LL SET YOU ANOTHER TIME. I LIKE SCHEDULES.

MR. JOHNSON:

WELL, WE LIKE SEEING YOU.

THE COURT: NOT REALLY.

LET ME JUST MAKE SURE ON THE SAG ISSUES, ON THE OSMOND CASE, THAT WE DON'T HAVE -- WHAT WAS THE DATE OF THE FINAL APPROVAL HEARING IN THE SAG CASE?

MR. RICHERT: I THINK IT WAS JUNE 2ND.

MR. SCHECTER: NO. IT WAS FEBRUARY 18TH OF

THIS YEAR, YOUR HONOR, 2011.

THE COURT:

THE FINAL APPROVAL WAS FEBRUARY?

MR. SCHECTER: 

YES, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: 

THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT CLEARLY ALLOWS FOR THE RETENTION OF THE CONSULTANTS. IF YOU CAN'T GET THAT DONE A TIMELY MANNER, AND I DON'T THINK EIGHT MONTHS IS A TIMELY WAY TO GET THAT RESOLVED, THEN YOU SHOULD BE BACK HERE. AND SOMEBODY SHOULD TAKE THE INITIATIVE AND GET THE GROUP TOGETHER. AND YOU GIVE ME A JOINT STATEMENT, I'M PRETTY RESPONSIVE. AND I WILL BE RESPONSIVE. AND I EXPECT THIS CONSULTANT ISSUE TO BE RESOLVED. I THINK THE REVIEW WILL NECESSARILY REQUIRE LOOKING AT THE COLLECTION PROCESS, SAME COMMENTS I HAD FOR THE WRITERS' GUILD, BUT NOT GOING INTO REINVENTING THE WHEEL WITH ALL THE FOREIGN SOCIETIES. SO, WHAT DO WE NEED TO DO TO FINALIZE THAT SAG  CONSULTING AGREEMENT AND MOVE IT FORWARD? THIS IS THE FIVE-MONTH DELAY AND EVERYTHING BETWEEN -­ WELL, LET'S GET IT DONE.

MR. SCHECTER:

YOUR HONOR, I WOULD AGAIN SUGGEST AND INVITE AN IN-PERSON MEETING. SO WE CAN AIR THINGS OUT.

THE COURT:

WELL, HOW ABOUT IF I GIVE YOU -­ YOU SET THAT MEETING AND DO IT IN MY JURY ROOM?

MR. JOHNSON:

YEAH, LET'S DO IT.

THE COURT:

AND YOU ALL MEET, AND THEN I'LL BE AVAILABLE. AND AFTER YOU ARE FINISHED POUNDING THE TABLE AND DECIDING YOU CAN'T AGREE ON ANYTHING, I'LL COME IN AND HELP YOU.

MR. SCHECTER:

THE ONLY REASON, YOUR HONOR, IS BECAUSE WE'VE GOT SAG PERSONNEL THAT -- I INTENDED TO HAVE SAG PERSONNEL AT THE MEETING.

THE COURT:

HOW MANY?

MR. SCHECTER:

I DON'T KNOW.

THE COURT: 

I'VE GOT 12 SEATS.

MR. SCHECTER:

I UNDERSTAND, BUT I DON'T THINK THEY SHOULD BE INCONVENIENCED TO COME DOWNTOWN WHEN I'VE OFFERED --

THE COURT:

WHERE ARE THEIR OFFICES?

MR. SCHECTER: HOLLYWOOD.

BUT I OFFERED THEM TO -- I OFFERED MR. JOHNSON --

THE COURT:

THEY'D COME DOWNTOWN TO YOUR OFFICE, WOULDN'T THEY?

MR. SCHECTER:

THEY'LL GO WHEREVER THEY ARE TOLD TO GO. BUT THREE MONTHS AGO I SAID, COME TO SAG. I'LL HAVE MR. HADL THERE. I'LL HAVE THIS PERSON THERE. I WON'T BELABOR IT. THAT'S ALL WE'RE TRYING TO DO NOW. SO I'LL BRING THEM HERE, YOUR HONOR.

I THINK WE OUGHT TO HAVE THE MEETING AT SAG. MR. JASKO CAN COME. MR. GERVAIS CAN COME ON HIS OWN OR IN PERSON, HE'S WELCOME. AND WE CAN TALK THROUGH A LOT OF THESE ISSUES. AND I THINK THE OTHER THING THAT OUGHT TO HAPPEN IS WE OUGHT TO GET A MARKUP BACK TO OUR LAST VERSION OF THE CONFIDENTIALITY AND THE ENGAGEMENT LATER. AND WE'LL SEE HOW FAR APART WE ARE.

MR. JOHNSON: 

MY CONSULTANTS ARE NOT GOING TO NEGOTIATE, FOR EXAMPLE, NON-HARASSMENT OF THEIR PERSONNEL AGREEMENTS AND STUFF RELATING TO FIRES AND FIRE ESCAPES AND THINGS LIKE THAT, WHICH IS BASICALLY WHAT WE DID IN THIS AGREEMENT.

LITERALLY, IT WAS JUST WAY, WAY FAR APART FROM WHAT WGA HAD PRESENTED TO US. SO WE WOULD LOVE TO COME HERE AND YOU CAN SEE FOR YOURSELF WHERE WE'RE AT.

MR. SCHECTER:

YOUR HONOR, COUNSEL SAID THAT HE DIDN'T KNOW THERE WAS A MEET AND CONFER OBLIGATION. THERE'S ALWAYS A MEET AND CONFER OBLIGATION, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOUR OPPOSING COUNSEL SAYS, LET'S MEET AND CONFER. I SENT A MARKUP ON APRIL 28TH. IF THEY DON'T WANT TO SIGN THE NON-HARASSMENT THAT'S STANDARD POLICY, I GET THAT. BUT I ALSO SENT A MARKUP TO THE BASIC ENGAGEMENT LETTER, I THINK IT'S TWO AND A HALF TO THREE PAGES WITHIN A WEEK, WHATEVER TIME PERIOD

WORKS WITH THEM, SEND ME BACK A MARKUP.

MR. JOHNSON:

YOUR HONOR, WE'RE DONE -­

THE COURT:

JUST RELAX.

MR. SCHECTER:

APPARENTLY, YOUR HONOR, HE'S DONE.

THE COURT:

I'M NOT LISTENING TO EITHER ONE OF YOU. I'M WRITING DOWN WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO, AND I'M JUST TRYING TO BLOCK IT OUT.SO I'M GOING TO SET A FURTHER STATUS CONFERENCE ON 10/26 AT 11 O'CLOCK -- 10 O'CLOCK. I EXPECT TO HAVE A JOINT STATEMENT FILED, CRYSTALIZING THE ISSUES ON THE CONSULTANT AGREEMENT WITH SAG, AND THE ISSUES REGARDING THE ENGAGEMENT LETTER WITH KPMG.WILL WE HAVE THE DRAFT REPORT BY THEN, MR. SEGALL?

MR. SEGALL: I THINK SO, YES. 10/26? YES, WE SHOULD.

THE COURT: WHEN WILL YOU HAVE IT?

MR. SEGALL: THEY HAVEN'T GIVEN US A HARD DATE.

THE COURT: WHAT'S THE BEST ESTIMATE?

MR. SEGALL: THE BEST ESTIMATE AT THIS POINT IS BY THE END OF THE MONTH. SO MAYBE IF YOU WANT TO

PUSH IT BACK --

THE COURT: 

IF YOU DON'T HAVE IT, WE'LL COME BACK IN NOVEMBER. WE'LL COME BACK EVERY MONTH UNTIL WE GET THESE THINGS IRONED OUT AND GET IT DONE.

I WANT COUNSEL HERE AT 8:30 ON THE 26TH.

I WILL MEET YOU WITH INFORMALLY TO GO OVER YOUR JOINT STATEMENT AND THE ISSUES THAT ARE ON THEN.

AT 10 O'CLOCK WE'LL HAVE A HEARING AND I'LL MAKE SUCH ORDERS AS ARE NECESSARY TO IMPLEMENT THIS SETTLEMENT AND GET IT BACK ON TRACK. ALL THREE CASES SET. I'M ASSUMING THAT SOME OF THESE ISSUES WILL GO BY THE BOARDS AND WE WON'T HAVE TO GO BACK THROUGH EVERYTHING YOU GAVE ME FOR THIS CONFERENCE. BUT IF THEY DON'T, WE'LL DEAL WITH THEM.

SO, THAT MEANS YOU HAVE GOT TO HAVE YOUR MEETING -- AND YOU NEED TO SIT DOWN -- YOU CAN'T BE FINISHED, MR. JOHNSON. YOU HAVE TO BE CIVIL. AND YOU HAVE TO SHOW UP, OR SEND MR. KIESEL, OR DO SOMETHING. IF YOU CAN'T TAKE IT --

MR. JOHNSON:

I CAN TAKE IT.

THE COURT:

-- SEND KIESEL. BUT ONE WAY OR ANOTHER, SIT DOWN WITH MR. SCHECTER AND HIS PEOPLE, MR. HADL, MR. JASKO. SEE IF YOU CAN'T TALK ABOUT THESE THINGS AND FIGURE OUT WHAT THE REAL PROBLEMS ARE.

I JUST SEE A BUNCH OF PEOPLE -- YOU ARE -- WORK YOURSELF INTO A FRENZY AND I DON'T THINK YOU'VE REALLY GIVEN IT THE EFFORT TO TRY AND GET IT RESOLVED.

MR. JOHNSON:

WHEN DO YOU WANT THE JOINT STATEMENT?

THE COURT:

 I WANT TO GIVE YOU A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME TO GET TOGETHER. CAN YOU -- WHAT'S THE 26TH? THAT'S A WEDNESDAY? I'D LIKE TO HAVE IT BY THE FRIDAY BEFORE, WHICH WOULD BE OCTOBER 21ST.

NOW, DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY TRIALS, OR ANY OTHER ISSUES, GOING ON VACATIONS, OR YOU'RE GOING TO BE GONE FOR THE NEXT 10 DAYS SO THAT THEY CAN'T MEET OR CAN'T TALK, OR CAN'T DO ANYTHING?

MR. SCHECTER:

CAN I JUST CHECK WITH MR. HADL?

THE COURT:

YEAH.

MR. JOHNSON:

I'M GONE THE 10TH THROUGH THE 14TH OF THIS MONTH, BUT OTHERWISE I'M HERE.

MR. RICHERT:

I JUST HAVE A PERSONAL REQUEST, YOUR HONOR. I WOULD LIKE TONY SEGALL TO TELL THOSE GUYS TO TAKE THAT STUFF DOWN THEY WRITE ON THE WGA WEBSITE, ABOUT HOW BAD THIS THING WAS FOR WRITERS TO HAVE TO GO THROUGH SUCH AN ORDEAL IN COURT.

THE COURT: I DIDN'T SEE THOSE. WERE THOSE ATTACHED TO YOUR STATEMENT?

MR. RICHERT:

YEAH, BUT THERE'S MORE OF IT ON HIS WEBSITE, YOUR HONOR. AND HE KNOWS IT. AND IF HE COULD JUST NOT MENTIONED THAT IT WAS FILED BY A NON-MEMBER WHEN HE SAID I WAS -- THOSE THINGS HURT A PERSON'S CAREER, IF THEY EVER WANT IT.

THE COURT:

YOU SHOULD NOT BE PENALIZED FOR PURSUING SOMETHING THAT HAD MERIT THAT HAS BEEN ADOPTED BY THIS COURT THAT WE'VE MOVE FORWARD WITH. AND I DON'T THINK THE WRITERS GUILD OR SAG OR THE DIRECTORS' GUILD, IF THEY HAVE A WEBSITE, SHOULD BE PUTTING UP THINGS THAT ARE NEGATIVE TOWARD SOMETHING THEY'VE AGREED TO DO. AND THEY ARE PARTICIPANTS IN AND PARTIES TO THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND SUBJECT TO THE JUDGMENT, AND I'M NOT SAYING, MR. SEGALL, THAT YOU'VE DONE WHAT MR. RICHERT SAYS HERE --

MR. SEGALL:

I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT.

THE COURT:

WELL, I'M NOT TOO CLEAR ON IT EITHER, BUT I EXPECT -- AND IF THERE ARE NEGATIVE COMMENTS BEING MADE ALONGSIDE THE MANDATORY DISCLOSURES THAT GO ALONG WITH THE PARTICIPATION OF THE SETTLEMENT, THAT'S INCONSISTENT WITH WHAT I BELIEVE TO BE GOOD CONDUCT. AND I KINDA LIKE GOOD CONDUCT.

 MR. SEGALL:

I'M HAPPY TO LOOK INTO IT.

MR. RICHERT:

I WILL SEND MR. SEGALL SOME OF WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT AND COPY EVERYBODY ELSE SO HE CAN BE CLEAR ON IT.

THE COURT:

I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. YOU DIDN'T GIVE IT TO ME, SO I CAN'T -- I'M NOT GOING TO COMMENT ON IT, BUT I'M WITH YOU. I'M SAYING --

MR. RICHERT:

THANK YOU.

THE COURT: -- WE SHOULDN'T BE BAD-MOUTHING A DEAL THAT WE'RE ALL IN. WE'RE IN A DEAL TOGETHER. THEJUDGMENT HAS BEEN ENTERED. I EXPECT IT TO BE COMPLIED WITH. I INTEND TO ENFORCE IT.

AND IF SOMEBODY IS DOING SOMETHING TO FRUSTRATE IT, AND THEY ARE ONE OF THE PARTIES THAT'S SUBJECT TO THE JUDGMENT, THEN I'M NOT GOING TO BE VERY HAPPY WITH IT, BUT WE'LL DEAL WITH IT. THAT'S NOT HARD TO FIGURE OUT.

MR. RICHERT:

THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. I'LL SEND YOU WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT.

THE COURT:

WELL, WHATEVER YOU SEND ME, YOU HAVE GOT TO SEND TO EVERYBODY ELSE. THERE'S NO ONE-WAY COMMUNICATION HERE. IF YOU FILE SOMETHING WITH THE COURT, YOU MAKE SURE IT'S SERVED ON EVERYBODY.

MR. RICHERT:

I CERTAINLY WILL.

THE COURT:

AND YOU'VE GOT EVERYBODY'S ADDRESSES. YOU PROBABLY HAVE GOT MORE PAPER FROM THIS CASE THAN YOU EVER DREAMED OF.

MR. RICHERT:

I PROBABLY HAVE MORE THAN THEY DO.

THE COURT:

 OKAY.WHAT ELSE DO WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT?

MR. SCHECTER:

NOTHING FURTHER FROM THE DGA OR SAG, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT:

IS EVERYBODY HAPPY?

MR. RICHERT:

IT COULD BE A PLEASURE. YOU'VE DONE YOUR BEST, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT:

WE'LL TRY AGAIN.AND WE HAVE TO HAVE A SHORT LEASH. YOU

HAVE GOT TO COME BACK EVERY MONTH. WE'LL KEEP DOING IT. MAYBE I SHOULD HAVE BEEN ON TOP OF IT AND WATCHING AND SAYING YOU SHOULD COME BACK EVERY THREE MONTHS KNOWING THAT YOU COULDN'T GET ALONG. I DON'T USUALLY APPROACH THINGS THAT WAY, BUT I EXPECT TO GET IT DONE.

MR. KIESEL: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

MR. RICHERT: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

(THE PROCEEDINGS WERE CONCLUDED.)

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

                                                    DEPARTMENT 322         HON. CARL J. WEST, JUDGE

                                      WILLIAM RICHERT,   

                                      PLAINTIFF,          

                                      vS.                       LEAD CASE NO.

                                                                  NRITERS GUILD OF AMERICA WEST,   BC339972

DEFENDANTS.   WILLIAM WEBB,         

                                       PLAINTIFF,         CASE NO. BC352621

                                                    VS.    R/T BC339972

DIRECTORS GUILD OF AMERICA, INC. 

                                      DEFENDANTS.     

                                 KEN OSMOND,         

                                       PLAINTIFF,   CASE NO. BC377780

                                                    VS.   R/T BC339972

                                                                  SCREEN ACTORS GUILD, INC.   

                                    DEFENDANTS.       

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )

I, WENDY OILLATAGUERRE, OFFICIAL REPORTER OF rHE SUPERIOR COURT, DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING PAGES, 1 THROUGH 61, COMPRISE A FULL, TRUE, ~ND CORRECT TRANSCRIPT OF THE PROCEEDINGS HELD IN DEPARTMENT 322 IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED MATTER ON ~ONDAY, OCTOBER 3, 2011.

DATED THIS 1ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2011.

WENDY OILLATAGUERRE, CSR #10978 OFFICIAL REPORTER