Procedural
328 linesTHE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, this is a good time to break for lunch. We're going to break a little early, so don't talk to anybody, don't do any outside research, and we'll see you at 2:00, okay? Thank you.
THE COURT: All right. That was a first. I'm sorry.
MS. BREDEHOFT: I will say, Your Honor, that is the most bizarre episode.
THE COURT: I was going to say, I've never seen that before. I've seen a lot of things, but I've just never seen --
MS. BREDEHOFT: When he started driving --
THE COURT: I get it. So we will come back at 2.
THE COURT: Is there anything preliminary before we get to the next deposition?
MS. BREDEHOFT: We'll --
THE COURT: You'll work through them, and if I come back at 2, we should be able to take care of them fairly quickly?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Yes.
THE COURT: All right. We'll come back at 2. Thank you.
COURT BAILIFF: All rise.
COURT BAILIFF: All rise. Please be seated and come to order.
THE COURT: Are we ready for the jury? That's right. Your Exhibits, that's fine, yes.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Which one are we doing first? Are we doing Carino first?
MS. LECAROZ: Do you want to do Wasser first?
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. BREDEHOFT: We'll start with Wasser, Your Honor. I 1
THE COURT: All right. Wasser, okay.
MS. LECAROZ: So we have an agreement on moving in Defendant's 782.
THE COURT: 782 Defendant's, okay. All right. 782 in evidence.
MS. LECAROZ: And then we have a dispute on Plaintiffs 618.
THE COURT: 618. All right. What's 618? Give me a little bit of background about deposition.
MS. LECAROZ: This is Laura Wasser. She's a divorce attorney.
THE COURT: Divorce attorney.
MS. LECAROZ: And 618 is the judgment for the parties' divorce.
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. LECAROZ: I understand there's an ! 19 objection on relevance and hearsay grounds.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Correct.
THE COURT: So why are you getting the judgment of the divorce in? What's the relevance of this?
MS. LECAROZ: The relevance is that it includes a provision that dismisses the restraining order allegations that were filed, so it goes to, you know, the sort of resolution of that issue.
THE COURT: I think she testifies to that. Does she say that it was dismissed?
MS. LECAROZ: Who, Ms. Heard?
THE COURT: No, Ms. Wasser in the deposition.
MS. LECAROZ: Yes. Yeah, I believe so.
THE COURT: Okay. I remember reading that.
MS. LECAROZ: And so otherwise it goes ,to generally sort of the resolution of the -- g!
THE COURT: I'll sustain the objection then. She can testify to it, but it doesn't come into evidence, okay?
MS. BREDEHOFT: And then I have this one, Defendant's Exhibit 1455.
THE COURT: Defendant's 1455, right. Doing this the old-fashioned way.
MS. LECAROZ: We may need one of my colleagues on this one. There are a few objections: Relevance, hearsay, and with this particular witness a lack of foundation.
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. LECAROZ: This is an email exchange that doesn't include Ms. Wasser in any way, shape, or form
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Yeah. And it's true. It would otherwise come into -- I mean ...
THE COURT: There's no battle, not a big fight here, Ms. Bredehoft, I understand.
MS. BREDEHOFT: I think instead we can argue it with Carino.
THE COURT: Okay. I'll sustain the objection to it. That's it for Wasser?
MS. LECAROZ: That's it for Wasser, yeah.
THE COURT: Okay. Then you have Carino.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Yeah. We could -- we have different lawyers on this side.
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. BREDEHOFT: So I'll just come back up. I'll go grab my stuff and come back up.
THE COURT: Okay. Gotcha.
THE COURT: Sure. This is Dougherty, right?
MS. BREDEHOFT: No. This is Carino.
MS. VASQUEZ: Carino, Christian Carino.
MS. BREDEHOFT: I'm having trouble keeping up too, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Carino, okay.
MS. VASQUEZ: Your Honor, if I may use my computer...
THE COURT: That's fine. Who is Carino again?
MS. VASQUEZ: A friend of both Mr. Depp and Ms. Heard, and he served as an agent for Mr. Depp.
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. BREDEHOFT: He was actually Ms. Heard's agent first and --
MS. VASQUEZ: And then--
MS. BREDEHOFT: Then he turned into Mr. Depp's agent.
THE COURT: Depp's agent.
MS. BREDEHOFT: And he was the person who brokered a mediation between them while they were getting a divorce.
THE COURT: All right. Okay. All right. So which deposition are we looking at? , l O
MS. VASQUEZ: So first one, Your Honor, well, the first one is Plaintiff's Exhibit 1 that's already been admitted; it's the op-ed.
THE COURT: No objection.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Great. That's already admitted.
MS. VASQUEZ: No issue there. So the next one that we have a disagreement about is 571, Plaintiff's 5-7-1.
THE COURT: 571, okay.
MS. VASQUEZ: And if you'll indulge me, Your Honor, I'm sorry I didn't have these printed, but they are text messages between Christian Carino and Amber.
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. VASQUEZ: And we're happy to redact Mr. Carino's text messages --
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. VASQUEZ: If counsel would prefer, but these are clearly text messages between Ms. Heard, produced by Ms. Heard, and we are offering them, so it's, therefore, not hearsay.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Relevance. And then -- I and hearsay.
THE COURT: What do they say? Relevance?
MS. VASQUEZ: It's scheduling the meetings that Ms. Bredehoft just cited between Mr. Depp and Ms. Heard after the TRO.
THE COURT: Okay. Why is that relevant?
MS. VASQUEZ: Because she asked him to set up the meeting after she had the TRO entered against him to breach the temporary restraining order --
THE COURT: All right. I see.
MS. VASQUEZ: To meet with him
MS. BREDEHOFT: They testified to that.
THE COURT: I'll overrule the objection. It's all right.
MS. VASQUEZ: The next one --
THE COURT: Did you want the other texts redacted from him?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Can you enlarge it?
MS. VASQUEZ: Sorry.
THE COURT: No, I understand. I've got some readers if you need them
MS. BREDEHOFT: And I should have brought my glasses.
MS. VASQUEZ: It's 571, Plaintiff's 571.
MS. BREDEHOFT: So most of this --
MS. VASQUEZ: Based on my (indiscernible), please let me know Johnny's travel schedule, she's already overruled the objection.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Yeah. I get you. So I'm just making sure so the whole thing is coming in?
THE COURT: Right. That's what I'm asking you. Do you, if they can redact his texts and just have her texts, or do you want to have the context?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. All right. We'll leave it in.
MS. VASQUEZ: You're fine with Mr. Carino's messages?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Yeah.
THE COURT: Okay. 571 comes in without redactions.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Well, identifiers.
MS. VASQUEZ: Thank you, Your Honor. The next one, Your Honor, these were produced by Mr. Carino. He authenticates them on the transcript. It has his Bates stamp, CC. They do not have -- they have unknown contacts, unfortunately, above.
THE COURT: Okay. These are texts from p him?
MS. VASQUEZ: Text messages between Mr. Carino and Ms. Heard, again talking about the meeting and her expressing her love for Mr. Depp. So she is in gray, and he is in blue and that is all authenticated in the transcript.
THE COURT: Okay. What number is this?
MS. VASQUEZ: I'm sorry. 576.
MS. VASQUEZ: Plaintiff's 576. Again, I'm happy to redact Mr. Carino's messages. But, again, you know, this was Ms. Heard. She authenticates them in the transcript.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Can you scroll up?
MS. VASQUEZ: Sure.
MS. BREDEHOFT: I don't think these -- 7 these are a later date. I've got a relevance objection and foundation because she doesn't--
MS. VASQUEZ: This is '16.
MS. BREDEHOFT: 2017, it's a year later.
THE COURT: So why is this relevant?
MS. VASQUEZ: It's relevant because Ms. Heard is continuing to talk about how she I! ::::c: ::: out to Mr. Depp, again, despite the
THE COURT: But the TRO is not in place anymore then?
MS. BREDEHOFT: No, it's not.
MS. VASQUEZ: But that fact that she's still trying to reach out to him to try to get back together with him.
THE COURT: I'll sustain the objection to 576.
MS. VASQUEZ: The next one I have, Your Honor, is 577.
THE COURT: 577.
MS. VASQUEZ: Date on these also 2017, so based on Your Honor's prior ruling --
THE COURT: Okay. I'll sustain the objection.
MS. VASQUEZ: I assume you're sustaining the objection on relevance.
MS. VASQUEZ: And then 578 is the last one. Again, 2018, asking--
THE COURT: I'll sustain the objection to 578. Okay. Anything else for Mr. Carino?
MS. VASQUEZ: Anything for you?
MS. BREDEHOFT: You also said 179. Not like I'm helping you, but --
MS. VASQUEZ: Okay. Thank you, Ms. Bredehoft.
MS. BREDEHOFT: And then with Mr. Carino, then I was going to give it a shot here.
THE COURT: Give it a shot. Still sustained, but thank you. I think we've got everything else. And all these depositions are, like, in a regular place, like we're not at a circus or smoking cigars or anything else?
MR. MONIZ: As far as we know.
THE COURT: Okay. Please let me know ahead of time for that.
MS. VASQUEZ: I think --
THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Appreciate it. All right. Thank you.
MS. BREDEHOFT: We have one more. We have Dougherty.
THE COURT: Okay. What's yow- --
MS. BREDEHOFT: Dougherty is after this.
THE COURT: Thank you. Okay.
MS. VASQUEZ: So we'll get you that exhibit, Yow- Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.
THE COURT: We're doing these exhibits now on Fridays, so we won't have to do this after. This might be om last set of depositions that we have to do this like this.
THE COURT: Okay. Dougherty. And Dorothy is?
MS. MEYERS: This is the corporate representative of the ACLU.
THE COURT: Okay. ACLU corporate representative, got it.
MS. MEYERS: So first is the op-ed, which is already in.
THE COURT: Already in, okay. 1.
MS. MEYERS: So we don't have to discuss that.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Because we don't need to show this. I'm just objecting to all of these ,4 on hearsay because they're email exchanges -- t 15
THE COURT: You're withdrawing that one?
MS. MEYERS: We're withdrawing this.
THE COURT: What number, just for the record?
MS. MEYERS: It is Plaintiff's Exhibit
THE COURT: 6 you're withdrawing, okay.
MS. BREDEHOFT: I don't have an objection to Plaintiff's 7.
THE COURT: 7 is in. Does it need to be redacted?
MS. MEYERS: Identifiers?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Identifiers.
THE COURT: Identifiers, you'll get that for me, okay. 7 is in with identifiers. Okay. Plaintiff's ...
MS. MEYERS: So Exhibit 11, Your Honor, I have a copy for you.
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. MEYERS: It doesn't have the redactions.
THE COURT: I gotcha.
MS. MEYERS: The top email is from i Ms. Heard. I don't think there's a hearsay ,8 objection there. We just would like the bottom email included for context.
THE COURT: Any objection to the bottom email?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Yeah, actually, I do for hearsay. But also relevance.
THE COURT: To the top one?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Yeah. And it contains some hearsay as well.
MS. MEYERS: It's just asking the question about where they can -- where they can -- "Can you point me in the right direction to get a statement out?" And this is Ms. Heard responding to that inquiry.
THE COURT: Okay. So what is the relevance of her responding?
THE COURT: MS. :MEYERS: Her response is she's commenting about her concern about the publicity regarding the donations.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Why is that relevant?
MS. BREDEHOFT: MS. :MEYERS: Well, this portion of this deposition has already been admitted, so ...
THE COURT: All right. I'll allow it, not this bottom part. You don't want the bottom part coming in; is that correct, Ms. Bredehoft?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Right.
MS. MEYERS: I think it's necessary just for the context of what she's responding to. And I don't think there's any statements of fact.
THE COURT: Isn't it testified -- he testifies to it, doesn't he?
MS. BREDEHOFT: He testified to a lot of that, but yeah, he does testify to it.
THE COURT: He testifies to it, so I think that's fine.
MS. BREDEHOFT: And then we have to redact the identifiers as well? MS. :MEYERS: Yes.
THE COURT: Got it. 11 with the redactions. Okay.
MS. BREDEHOFT: And then -- go ahead.
MS. BREDEHOFT: MS. :MEYERS: This one, I think-- this one I think we can withdraw.
THE COURT: What number?
THE COURT: MS. :MEYERS: I'm sorry. This is Plaintiff's Exhibit 13.
THE COURT: 13 withdrawn, okay.
MS. MEYERS: We're going to -- this is Plaintiff's Exhibit 14, Your Honor, and I would just note that they're commenting about what Ms. Heard told them with respect to the op-ed, and I believe that the contents of this email are in the admitted testimony from Mr. Dougherty, already.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Hearsay, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. I'll sustain the objections to this.
THE COURT: MS. :MEYERS: Okay.
THE COURT: So it's just going to come in -- p fine. All right.
THE COURT: Okay. I know. That's
MS. MEYERS: Your Honor, this is communications including Ms. Heard about editing the op-ed, and so --
THE COURT: This is Exhibit 16?
THE COURT: MS. :MEYERS: Yes.
THE COURT: So this isn't being offered for the truth of the contents, but just to reflect how the op-ed was edited.
MS. BREDEHOFT: I don't think it's relevant, and it's also hearsay, Your Honor. This is not --
THE COURT: How it was edited, how is that not the truth of it? I'm just trying to figure it out.
MS. MEYERS: So there's not really statements of fact that we're offering for the truth just showing how the op-ed was changed. We would -- so to the extent there's emails where they said --
THE COURT: Right.
MS. MEYERS: -- make comments other Yes.
THE COURT: Than that, I think we'd be willing to redact it, but where they're talking about revisions made to the op-ed, I think that's relevant to the --
THE COURT: And where is that at?
THE COURT: Is want to make sure I'm reading what you want to put m. Is MS. :MEYERS: In particular, this email here.
THE COURT: On December 11th?
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. MEYERS: And it's also talking about what Amber would like to do, and this is talking what language they're trying to put back into the op-ed which ultimately did end up in the op-ed.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Still hearsay, Your Honor, and relevance because the only thing that's at issue in this case is what ultimately was published and whether that was defamatory.
MS. MEYERS: Right. And this is the statement that was ultimately published that Ms. Heard supposedly asking to be included in the op-ed.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Well we already have the op-ed.
THE COURT: But I mean, that's for the truth of the matter asserted then it is hearsay, correct?
MS. MEYERS: Well it's reflecting that Ms. Heard wanted this statement in there, and so that's --
THE COURT: But it's not a statement from her, so I'm going to sustain the objection.
THE COURT: Okay. That's number 16.
THE COURT: All right. Next one.
MS. MEYERS: Your Honor, this is them pitching the op-ed to the Washington Post, and it's not so much the -- I mean, the part we're interested in is they say, "This is a piece by Amber Heard who you may recall was beaten up back during her marriage with Johnny Depp." It's not for the truth of that, obviously. It's for the fact that that's how they were pitching the op-ed to the Washington Post.
THE COURT: I'll sustain the objection. What number is that?
MS. BREDEHOFT: 17, Plaintiff's 17.
THE COURT: 17,Thank you.
MS. MEYERS: I would just point out, these are all read in, in the ...
THE COURT: I understand. That's why I don't -- but I don't think they -- you already have them in there. I don't think you get the hard copy too.
MS. MEYERS: Yeah. My one concern, I don't want to backtrack, is just that on the one where they're saying she wants this piece back in --
THE COURT: Right.
MS. MEYERS: That part is read in, but the actual piece is reflected in the document.
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. MEYERS: And it's the statement that's in the op-ed That is the subject of this action Honor
THE COURT: All right.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Still hearsay, Your
THE COURT: All right. Next one.
MS. MEYERS: This one, Your Honor, this is a, I think, a present-tense impression of how they understood the op-ed -- coverage of the op-ed after it was published.
MS. BREDEHOFT: And it's hearsay, Your Honor. Amber's not even...
THE COURT: Amber said ...
MS. MEYERS: They're making a comment that the coverage is referencing Mr. Depp.
THE COURT: Okay. So this is how it came out?
MS. MEYERS: Yeah. So this is USA covering the op-ed, and their comment is "So much for not mentioning JD." So it's a present-tense impression of this article covering the op-ed.
MS. BREDEHOFT: It's offered to prove the truth of the matter, so --
THE COURT: 21, I'll sustain the objection. All right. Next one.
MS. MEYERS: Your Honor, I think this is the same, and I would, again, argue that it's IS a present-tense impression.
THE COURT: Kind of amazing they just grabbed the entire op-ed and rewrote it using ...
MS. BREDEHOFT: Again, this is somebody from the ACLU writing, but Amber's not part of it. It's still hearsay.
THE COURT: All right. I mean, I can't remember the definition. They say that they just heard about it or is this coming over or is this later? I mean, a present-tense impression has to be --
MS. MEYERS: This is the day they sent the article, and then the response is that same day. So it circulated internally at the ACLU.
THE COURT: I'll sustain the objection. 22 is out.
MS. MEYERS: Your Honor, this is the pledge form that was provided to Ms. Heard.
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. MEYERS: It's just a cover letter, but the pledge form, that's the unsigned pledge form that they provided to Ms. Heard, Mr. Dougherty establishes that.
THE COURT: All right. Any objection to the pledge form? You don't want the top letter?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Actually, I have no O objection to the top letter. I have an objection to the pledge form because of foundation, relevance, and hearsay.
MS. MEYERS: Well, the foundation was laid --
THE COURT: In deposition. Okay. I'll allow 23. Does it need to have redactions? Or can I take the 23 I have?
MS. BREDEHOFT: I don't think it has identifiers.
MS. MEYERS: I don't -- I don't believe this has any identifiers.
MS. BREDEHOFT: It has a telephone p number
THE COURT: It has a phone number. Well, that's the phone number of Greenberg Glusker Fields, somebody. We'll take a look at because it looks like everything's fine on it. But take a look, if you see anything on it that you want. I'll keep it open for redactions just in case, okay?
MS. MEYERS: And then, this is, Your Honor, this is internal communications concerning the donations.
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. MEYERS: I think the key portion that we would like in is --
THE COURT: Just the second page?
MS. MEYERS: Well, and their understanding about the contents of that. I think this is a business record.
THE COURT: All right. For the record this is Exhibit 24?
MS. BREDEHOFT: So there's a lot of this I have objections to, Your Honor. I don't have a problem with --
THE COURT: I think that's what they want is just the --
MS. BREDEHOFT: Yeah, if they want to
MS. BREDEHOFT: Just redact everything except for that particular section ...
THE COURT: I think they probably want the two above it, but I don't know. Are you okay with this? -,10
MS. MEYERS: That's --
MS. BREDEHOFT: That's hearsay. That's hearsay. And it's -- in fact, it's talking about--
MS. MEYERS: These are communications internally about the contents of this and where the information came from
MS. BREDEHOFT: It's got Elon laced in here. They have me laced in here, you know, they have -- if they're offering it to prove their records and what they have for the donations, that's fine, but that middle section, there's no reason for them to have the other parts of this.
MS. MEYERS: The other portions, I believe, are --
MS. BREDEHOFT: There's even an email from me in there.
THE COURT: I understand. So which parts would you want other than just that middle part?
MS. MEYERS: I would like -- I would like up through here, Your Honor, because it's providing explanation for what's reflected in here. And then --
MS. BREDEHOFT: That's hearsay, Your Honor, and it's not relevant. They're trying to inject Elon into this.
MS. MEYERS: It's under -- there was a business records foundation laid.
THE COURT: Well, I understand it's a business record foundation, but just the email itself is still hearsay. So is there an exception to hearsay you've got for me?
MS. BREDEHOFT: And relevance for the rest of it, and prejudice. They're trying to inject me in here. They're trying to inject Elon in here.
THE COURT: How much she's giving.
MS. BREDEHOFT: What are they offering them for?
MS. MEYERS: I mean, most of these are actually inquiries about Ms. Heard.
THE COURT: I'll sustain as to hearsay, but if you want to agree that's the part that you want to put in, that's fine.
MS. BREDEHOFT: So this section right here?
THE COURT: This section in the middle of page 2, that's Exhibit 24 with redactions, okay?
MS. BREDEHOFT: And then the identifiers, because there's identifiers in that too. So it's just this section, right?
MS. VASQUEZ: Yeah.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay.
THE COURT: All right. What else we got?
MS. MEYERS: Then this last one is communications about a statement concerning Ms. Heard.
THE COURT: This is Exhibit 25?
MS. MEYERS: Yes. And this is really --
MS. BREDEHOFT: That's hearsay, Your Honor, and relevance.
MS. MEYERS: This is reflecting that the comment about the donations is not accurate. So it's not -- the statements themselves are not being offered for their truth.
THE COURT: What's the relevance?
MS. MEYERS: Internal communications about the donation.
THE COURT: What's the relevance of it?
MS. MEYERS: This goes to the fact that Ms. Heard did not complete the donation that she said she would.
THE COURT: He testified to that, right? I'll sustain the objection to 25.
MS. VASQUEZ: Okay.
THE COURT: All right. Do you have any--
MS. MEYERS: And then this last one is --
THE COURT: You said this was the last one. back.
MS. BREDEHOFT: She did, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I can have Judy read it
MS. MEYERS: This is truly the last one.
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. MEYERS: And I believe this one is a business record. This was pulled from their system, and Mr. Dougherty testifies to that. It's just the portion reflecting her --
THE COURT: Okay. Any objections or redaction?
MS. BREDEHOFT: No. Just messy, but I guess --
THE COURT: Okay. 27's in.
MS. MEYERS: Is it redacted?
THE COURT: It's already redacted to what you need, right?
MS. MEYERS: Yes, I believe so. They had only provided that.
THE COURT: All right? Do you have any other ones, or is that it?
MS. BREDEHOFT: No. I decided all of is mine were hearsay.
THE COURT: Okay. Good. Thank you for helping me. Have a good day. All right. Thank you. Thanks for playing.
MS. BREDEHOFT: No problem.
MS. MEYERS: I'm sorry there were so many.
THE COURT: That's okay, Ms. Meyers, I I appreciate it. I'm glad we just got them all ! 17 done. That helps.
THE COURT: Are we ready for the jury?
MS. BREDEHOFT: We are, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you for your patience, ladies and gentlemen.