Doug Bania — Direct/Cross/Redirect
565 linesTHE COURT: Watch your step there. All right. Your next witness.
MS. LECAROZ: Plaintiff calls Douglas Bania, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Spell the last name for me.
MS. LECAROZ: B-A-N-I-A.
THE COURT: Thank you.
MS. LECAROZ: Your Honor, may I approach for just a moment?
THE COURT: Sure. Mr. Nadelhaft.
MS. LECAROZ: You told Mr. Marks that lie could not watch the proceedings, but lie's an expert.
THE COURT: He can stay. I went on autopilot.
THE COURT: DOUGLAS BANIA, being first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: Good afternoon, sir.
THE COURT: Yes, ma'am
MS. LECAROZ: Good afternoon, Mr. Bania.
DOUG BANIA: Good afternoon I
MS. LECAROZ: Would you please state your full name for the record.
DOUG BANIA: Yes, Douglas Bania.
MS. LECAROZ: Mr. Bania, what do you do fur work?
DOUG BANIA: I am an intellectual property damages and valuation expert.
MS. LECAROZ: Do you have any particular specialty in your line of work?
DOUG BANIA: Yes. My specialty is using Internet and social media analysis when I'm quantifying value or I'm calculating damages, or if I'm analyzing the impact of social media or Internet events.
MS. LECAROZ: Where do you work?
DOUG BANIA: I work at Nevium, which is located in San Diego, California.
MS. LECAROZ: How long have you worked there?
DOUG BANIA: Ten years.
MS. LECAROZ: What's your position?
DOUG BANIA: I'm a founding principal and an analyst.
MS. LECAROZ: I would like to talk a little bit about your educational background for a moment.
MS. LECAROZ: Where did you attend college?
DOUG BANIA: I received my bachelor's degree in cinema from San Diego State University. I g y graduated in 1997.
MS. LECAROZ: After you graduated in 1997, did you pursue another degree?
DOUG BANIA: Yes, I went directly to San Diego State University, got a master's degree in television, film, new media production.
MS. LECAROZ: Is there any particular reason you chose to go to San Diego State for that?
DOUG BANIA: The new media production side of that program, I really liked. This was a -- I graduated from there in 2000, so this was even before YouTube was founded, so the whole idea of putting film on the Internet, kind of analyzing Internet and using analytic tools to see how things are doing on the Internet is what -- that's what attracted me, and that's what I learned there as well.
MS. LECAROZ: What did you do after you got your master's degree?
DOUG BANIA: After my master's degree, I moved to Los Angeles and I was an independent filmmaker for a while, then I got introduced to intellectual property, and I started working for a small boutique JP firm back in San Diego.
MS. LECAROZ: What was the boutique firm you went to?
DOUG BANIA: What was the name of the firm?
MS. LECAROZ: Yes.
DOUG BANIA: The name of the firm was CONSOR.
MS. LECAROZ: And what did CONSOR do?
DOUG BANIA: CONSOR values intellectual property for various business reasons. They do litigation support services as well.
MS. LECAROZ: And when you say "intellectual property," what do you mean?
DOUG BANIA: When I talk about intellectual property, I'm mostly talking about copyrights, patents, and trademarks. I might include related IP and tangible assets such as domain names, websites, Internet accounts. But IP, for me, is mostly brands, publicity rights, copyrights, trademarks.
MS. LECAROZ: What type of work did you do while you were at CONSOR?
DOUG BANIA: I had various positions there, but I was a research analyst as a financial analyst; I was a director of business development. My last position there was principal.
MS. LECAROZ: And what kinds of things did you work !.5 . on?
DOUG BANIA: We worked on, you know, valuation. Our clients, you know, they needed valuation of their JP portfolio for maybe tax or estate reasons. You know, a lot of litigation support, like I'm doing now, somebody infringes on a trademark or publicity rights, that's actually the place I got my- my first expert witness job, I was a named expert on the right of publicity case representing the retired players of the NFL, against the NFL, using their name and likeness without permission. So services such as that.
MS. LECAROZ: How long did you work at CONS OR?
DOUG BANIA: I was at CONSOR for ten years.
MS. LECAROZ: And after CONSOR, where did you work?
DOUG BANIA: Nevium, where I am now.
MS. LECAROZ: And did you found Nevium?
DOUG BANIA: Yes.
MS. LECAROZ: What kind of work does Nevium do?
DOUG BANIA: Nevium does several things, provides several services. We value intellectual property for various reasons, tax, estate, M&A, business transactions. You know, we not only provide the value of a business, but we can break that value up, percent of the value, trademark policy or patent portfolio. We do litigation support, so like I'm here, I testify in cases, you know, maybe a false endorsement case, some use of a celebrity's name and likeness without permission; trademark infringement case, using a brand without permission; you know, a defamation case, such as this.
DOUG BANIA: Know what the impact of something that was posted online.
DOUG BANIA: So, the third kind of bucket of services we offer is brand modernization strategies. I think the best way to explain that is companies have business plans, they have marketing plans, they don't have IP plans. So we come in and work with customers, with our clients, understand their business and their marketing plans, and help them build an IP plan that fits in with those two so they can, essentially, make more money off their branded products and services.
DOUG BANIA: And I think what's important with all that is, you know, what differentiates us with competitors is we use Internet and website analytic tools in all, everything we do. You know, everything's online now, and understanding those tools when calculating value or calculating damages is important.
MS. LECAROZ: Do you have any professional certifications?
DOUG BANIA: I'm a certified licensing professional. That is a designation given by the licensing executive society, LES. LES not-for-profit organization that supports professionals, like me, who deal with a lot of licensing. But I'm a Google Analytics Individual by the Google Analytics Individual Qualification. That is a test given by Google for those that understand and pass the test related to Internet analytics.
MS. LECAROZ: Can you explain a little bit about what Google Analytics is?
DOUG BANIA: Yeah. So Google Analytics is a web service provided by Google, and it's used by business owners and website owners to understand the traffic that comes to their websites. So, essentially, once you signed up for your Google Analytics account, you're given a bit of code and you embed that code into your various web pages, then you can log in and see, like, who's coming to my website, what are they doing? Really, essentially, it's a tool for search engine optimization.
DOUG BANIA: You know, the goal of the web is to show up number one in Google organic, so then you'll tweak your website a bit, you'll look at your analytics, see if you're showing up on the first page of Google. If not, you can use those analytics, keep playing around, and try to end up on the first page of Google.
MS. LECAROZ: Are you a member of any professional organizations?
DOUG BANIA: I'm a member of the International Trademark Association, that is an organization they're actually having their annual conference here in D.C., so I'm popping back and forth to that. I'm on their right of publicity panel.
DOUG BANIA: Just gave a presentation on Monday. I'm a non-attorney member of the American Bar Association. I'm on their copyright and social media committee.
MS. LECAROZ: Your Honor, at this point, Plaintiff would offer Mr. Bania as an expert in Internet and social media analytics.
THE COURT: Any objection. p2
MR. NADELHAFT: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. So moved. Thank you.
MS. LECAROZ: Mr. Bania, what were you asked to do in I this case?
DOUG BANIA: I was asked to analyze the impact of the - this - the allegations of domestic abuse made by Ms. Heard as it relates to her 2016 restraining order, and then asked, also, to analyze the publication of that alleged abuse in her 2018 Washington Post op-ed.
MS. LECAROZ: What work have you done in connection with forming your opinions relative to that?
DOUG BANIA: So, I identified the best tools to use in this case, which are Q scores, Google trends, and historic Google search results.
MS. LECAROZ: You used a few terms in there; I want to break them down a little bit.
MS. LECAROZ: What's a Q score?
MS. LECAROZ: Q score is, there's a Q score company that's been around for about 50 years and what they do is they measure how well a brand or a celebrity, a sports character is known and how much they're liked. And they also measure how much they're disliked.
MS. LECAROZ: Who else, besides you, uses Q scores?
MS. LECAROZ: Q scores are used by, you know, any company that, you know, organizations that license a celebrity or a brand to endorse their product or service. The PGA golf tour is actually using Q scores right now. They're using Q scores in Google search results. They have a pool of $40 million that they're doling out to their players. So depending on their Google search results and their Q scores and other metrics, I'm sure, they're using those to, you know, divide up that pool of money.
MS. LECAROZ: And I think you also mentioned Google Trends.
MS. LECAROZ: What's that?
DOUG BANIA: Google Trends is another service offered by Google. You know, as we know, everything starts with a Google search these days. There's been 5 billion daily searches on Google. Google Trends allows a user, like me or you, to go into Google Trends and analyze a search traffic for various key terms, anything you really want. Maybe there's a new football player and you want to see how that football player is trending compared to the team over time, or maybe something related to, you know, Ukraine or maybe a celebrity.
DOUG BANIA: So Google Trends just shows you what kind of search volume is happening during various points of time.
MS. LECAROZ: What are historical Google search results?
DOUG BANIA: So historical Google search results all search -- using Google, there's actually an area where you can go back in time and see what was showing up in Google during that time. It's really the best indication of what websites would have appeared back in time. Oftentimes, you know, I'm working with my monetization clients, we want to know, hey, how were you ranking years ago for your brand service or branded company? We'll go back in time and look. And then in litigation, you know, we're always going back in time.
DOUG BANIA: So we want to figure out what was most likely happening, what websites were served back then, and when you know what websites were served back then, you typically know what people were reading and thinking about.
MS. LECAROZ: Why do you choose these particular tools for your analysis in this case?
DOUG BANIA: Well, the Q scores, I really thought it was the best idea to understand Mr. Depp's Q scores right before 2016, before the abuse allegations, just so see where he was at. Then I wanted to see his Q scores right after the 2016 alleged -- abuse allegations. And then I wanted to see his Q scores after the 2018 Washington Post op-ed, just to see if there was any changes during that period of time.
MS. LECAROZ: And what about your decision to use Google Trends and historical Google search results?
DOUG BANIA: Yeah, I felt like those two tools together were perfect because what I wanted to do is understand -- you know, as I mentioned, everyone's going to Google to figure things out. What were people -- when people Google Johnny Depp prior to these alleged abuse allegations, what websites were coming up and what was the public consuming about him? Then I wanted to know that after and then after the op-ed. So I used Google Trends just to identify the dates in time in which. Then I went into the historic Google search results. I searched for Mr.
DOUG BANIA: Depp, and then I changed those dates to go back in time. And then I analyzed the top three websites of each
MS. LECAROZ: Based on the analysis you did in this case, have you formed any opinions?
DOUG BANIA: Yeah. My analysis shows that prior to 2016 and the allegations, the abuse allegations, Mr. Depp was not portrayed in a negative connotation. That's the first thing that I identified.
MS. LECAROZ: Did you form any other conclusions?
DOUG BANIA: I realized that those websites were coming up were mostly about his career, his characters, Johnny Depp as an individual, you know, with his interests. Then after the 2016 mark, you know, the majority of those results turned into negative things about the abuse allegations. And then, even more so after the op-ed, there seemed to be kind of a theme or a flavor of not only the abuse allegations, but his drinking and drug use.
DOUG BANIA: Did that answer your question?
MS. LECAROZ: Yes.
DOUG BANIA: Okay.
MS. LECAROZ: Yeah. Mr. Bania, have you prepared a demonstrative that depicts how you used Google Trends in this case?
DOUG BANIA: Yes.
MS. LECAROZ: Your Honor, at this time, we'd like permission to approach. I have hard copies.
THE COURT: All right. this?
THE COURT: Do you have a number for
MS. LECAROZ: I just -- we can mark it as demonstrative A, demonstrative A, B, and C. They're from his expert designation.
THE COURT: I understand, but is this something you're going to show the jury?
MS. LECAROZ: With your permission, we'd like to publish to the jury.
THE COURT: First, we need an evidence number. Start with. And then is there any objection? Is this something you might use as well?
MR. NADELHAFT: No objection, if this is where it came from
MS. LECAROZ: Yeah.
MR. NADELHAFT: No objection to the demonstrative.
THE COURT: A, B, C. I want to mark it.
MS. LECAROZ: Do you just need the next Plaintiff's exhibit number or do you want to do it some other way?
THE COURT: Plaintiff's exhibit number that we can mark it. 1236 is the next number. Mark it 1236. No objection to use as demonstrative, but it won't come into evidence, but we will show it to the jury. Okay. 1236.
MS. LECAROZ: Thank you, Your Honor.
MS. LECAROZ: Thank you, Your Honor. Tom, can we pull up Bania Demonstrative A. Just for the record, we've marked these as Plaintiff's 1236 for identification.
THE COURT: Do you want to publish to the jury?
MS. LECAROZ: Yes, please.
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. LECAROZ: And, Mr. Bania, can you explain for the jury what is depicted in this demonstrative that IS you prepared?
DOUG BANIA: Yes. So this is the Google Trends data. You're going to see that it runs from 2004 into 2020. And you're going to notice the different spikes. Those spikes represent when people were searching for Mr. Depp. You're going to also notice here, I've got the redline, just showing the date when Ms. Heard filed the restraining order.
DOUG BANIA: Can I write on this?
THE COURT: You can touch the screen, yes, sir.
DOUG BANIA: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Uh-huh.
DOUG BANIA: So, here, I'm talking about, in this line here, is just the date and time in which Ms. Heard alleged the abuse and filed the restraining order. And then this line here, the December 18th, 2018 op-ed.
DOUG BANIA: And what I wanted to do is identify the peaks of interest in Mr. Depp. And you're going to notice here, I found 17 spikes of interest that I analyzed. And then the 51 key web pages we're going to get into later, I've analyzed the top three search results for each spike. And then, here, I analyzed the seven spikes after, you know, the 2016 allegations of abuse. And then, again, after the December 18th, 2018 op-ed.
MS. LECAROZ: Once you determined these spikes, the periods of significant interest and searches for Johnny Depp, on Google, what did you do with that information?
DOUG BANIA: So, again, the purpose of using Google Trends was just to understand when is the most interest in Johnny Depp. Because for some reason, when something was going on in the news and the media, people are turning to Google to search for Mr. Depp. So then I went to my web browser and then I searched for Johnny Depp in Google. But before I did so, I have a separate web browser, I call it my "work bench browser." You know, I don't log into anything. It's important to be logged out of Google because Google keeps a profile on you and your search results can be biased based on that profile. Then, also, when you go into a web browser, you have to clear your cache, you have to clear your history, clear all your data, and make sure you get the most unbiased search results possible.
DOUG BANIA: So I went into Google, I typed in Johnny Depp, and then I searched and set the time periods for the various points here that you see labeled with letters.
MS. LECAROZ: Do you have a demonstrative that shows an example of one of those points that you examined?
DOUG BANIA: Yes.
MS. LECAROZ: Okay.
MS. LECAROZ: Tom, could we go to the second Bania demonstrative, please.
DOUG BANIA: Yeah. So this is an example of, I believe it was spike, or point O in the Google Trends. So what I did, I went into Google, I cleared everything, as I told you, made sure I was logged out of Google. As here, you can see I typed in Johnny Depp, I hit the search, and then what I did is went to this tool area, which pulls a drop-down area for the date, and I set the date to match the Google Trends spike of November of 2004.
DOUG BANIA: Then I had these top three websites ! that came up. I downloaded those websites, and then I analyzed them.
MS. LECAROZ: So did you do -- undertake this analysis for each of the 17 points on the prior slide that we looked at?
DOUG BANIA: Yes, correct.
MS. LECAROZ: What did you do once you had your web page results, such as on this demonstrative?
DOUG BANIA: You mean when I reviewed each web page?
MS. LECAROZ: Yes.
DOUG BANIA: Yes, so what I was looking for is, you know, were these web pages or articles? Did they have anything to do with the alleged abuse? Did they have anything to do with his alcohol/drug Is use? Did they have anything to do with his work ethics? I basically, you know, tried to understand, you know, the content of each website or article.
MS. LECAROZ: Did you look at all of the results that ! turned up when you ran these historical searches?
DOUG BANIA: I only reviewed the top three.
MS. LECAROZ: Why did you choose the top three?
DOUG BANIA: I reviewed the top three because research shows that about 50 to 75 percent of the people only click on the top three. So I wanted to get the majority of the searches.
MS. LECAROZ: Tom, I think we can take that down for now. Thank you.
MS. LECAROZ: What did you determine about the results that you found for the period prior to Ms. Beard's first allegations of abuse?
DOUG BANIA: So, I determined that, you know, Mr. Depp was not portrayed in any negative connotation. The web results were about his life and his career, his acting, his - you know, pictures of him, you know, relationships he was in, you know, just pretty normal stuff.
MS. LECAROZ: And what did you determine about the top results after Ms. Heard's initial allegations in 2016 and then the republication in the op-ed in 2018?
MR. NADELHAFT: Objection, Your Honor. May we approach?
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. NADELHAFT: I'd prefer her not using the word republication, I think that's a legal tenn and then we're going to be -- I mean, she can say something different. I don't mind her saying something about it, but I think republication is a legal term which --
MS. LECAROZ: I mean, no objection to changing the use. We're in agreement.
THE COURT: Okay. There we go. We're I in agreement. Thank you.
MS. LECAROZ: Mr. Bania, what did you find about the results of the top web pages that you determined after Ms. Heard's initial allegations and then again after the publication of the op-ed?
DOUG BANIA: Yeah, so after the initial allegations in 2016, I found that the majority of them had to do with the alleged abuse. And then after I realized that the ones - the web pages that we're dealing with, the alleged abuse, then started talking about his drinking and drug - drinking and doing drugs.
DOUG BANIA: So it appeared to me that, you know, they became negative after 2016. But then after 2018, they even included, you know, the alleged abuse, but also included this - the drinking and drug use.
MS. LECAROZ: Did you form any opinions about the results that didn't refer to the allegations of abuse?
DOUG BANIA: That didn't? I formed an opinion It that - well, I'm not following your question, I'm sorry.
MS. LECAROZ: That's all right. We can move on. Did any of the results that you analyzed refer to Mr. Depp's work ethic?
DOUG BANIA: No.
MS. LECAROZ: Did you form any overall opinions about the results in the web pages that you looked at
DOUG BANIA: Yes. As I stated, you know, prior to following Ms. Heard's accusations of abuse? 2016, the web pages were just about his daily life and career. After the 2016 marker point, they tended to include - the majority of them included, you know, the allegations of abuse. And then after the 2018 op-ed, the ones that included the allegations of abuse were also talking about drinking and drug use.
MS. LECAROZ: What was your overall view of the connotation of those results, then?
DOUG BANIA: Yeah, Mr. Depp was portrayed in a negative connotation after the 2016 allegations of abuse, and even more so after the 2018.
MS. LECAROZ: You mentioned you also looked at Q ; scores as part of your analysis.
MS. LECAROZ: How are Q scores calculated?
DOUG BANIA: So Q scores, it's a survey of 1,800 people that happens twice a year. And what they do is it's Internet based, and they measure how well a celebrity or brand is known; how much they're liked and how much they're disliked. Q scores, you know, include sports figures, celebrities, even cartoon characters, brands. So that's how the scoring system works.
MS. LECAROZ: Do you have a demonstrative that reflects the Q score analysis that you prepared?
DOUG BANIA: Yes.
MS. LECAROZ: Okay.
MS. LECAROZ: Tom, can we have demonstrative C, please.
MS. LECAROZ: And Mr. Bania, what does this tell us about the Q score analysis that you completed.
DOUG BANIA: Yeah, so what this is saying, again, these spikes are the Google Trends that you've already seen, but what I've overlaid are his Q scores shown in the red, green, and purple area. As you recall, I wanted to find out his Q score prior to the allegation of abuse in 2016, where he had a positive Q score of 11 and a negative Q score - I'm sorry, a positive Q score of 35 and a negative Q score of 11. Then I looked at the Q scores after and then after the op-ed.
MS. LECAROZ: What did you determine about those Q IO scores?
DOUG BANIA: Yeah, so what you can see here, his positive Q score, which is represented in red, was a 35, and that was prior to the alleged abuse and the restraining order. Then after that, his Q score, positive Q score dropped to a 31. And what that's saying is less people liked him after - after the date of the 2016 alleged abuse.
DOUG BANIA: And then his negative Q score went up from an 11 to a 16, which is telling you that more people disliked him during that time frame.
MS. LECAROZ: What did you find about the final Q scores that you look at for Mr. Depp?
DOUG BANIA: Then you can see the Q score C, that I have there in purple, his positive Q score went from a 31 to a 29. His negative Q score went from a 16 to a 15. So, now, his positive Q score dropped again, from a 31 to a 29, meaning less people had a positive impression of Mr. Depp. And then his negative Q score did go from a 16 to a 15. So not as many people disliked Johnny during that time frame.
MS. LECAROZ: What are your overall opinions about the Q scores that you analyzed?
DOUG BANIA: So my overall opinions are, you know, as I mentioned earlier, I wanted to analyze the Q scores during this snapshot of time. I wanted to understand what they were before, during, and after the op-ed. And what this tells me is his positive Q score went from a 35 to a 29, and then his negative went from 11 to a 15. So what the Q score is telling me is that the public perception of Mr. Depp has been damaged. You know, they like him less and they dislike him more.
MS. LECAROZ: Based on all of the analyses that you I 1 completed in this case, what are your final opinions about Mr. Depp's reputation over this period of time?
DOUG BANIA: Yeah, so my opinions are that, you know, Mr. Depp was not portrayed in the negative connotation prior to the 2016 allegations of abuse. And then Mr. Depp's image, he was portrayed in a negative connotation after the 2016 allegations of abuse and then more so after the 2018 Washington Post op-ed. And then the Q scores represent that, you know, the public thinks he's damaged. They think less likely of him. His positive Q score has gone down, and they don't like him even more, because his negative Q score went from the 11 to 15.
MS. LECAROZ: I have no further I questions of this witness, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, let's go ahead and take our afternoon recess of 15 minutes. Do not discuss the case, do not do any outside research. Just stay right there for a second, sir.
THE COURT: Sir, since you're in the middle of your testimony, do not discuss the case, even with the attorneys, at this point, or your testimony. Okay, sir?
DOUG BANIA: All right.
THE COURT: You can step down. We'll be back in about 15 minutes, so let's come back at 3:35. Okay.
MS. LECAROZ: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay.
COURT BAILIFF: All rise.
COURT BAILIFF: All rise. Please be seated and come to order.
THE COURT: All right. Are we ready for the jury?
MR. NADELHAFT: Your Honor, we have one exhibit to hand up.
MR. NADELHAFT: Good. That means you're
MR. NADELHAFT: Only down one, right?
MR. NADELHAFT: That's right.
THE COURT: All right. 1639. Thank you.
THE COURT: All right. Go ahead and get the jury.
THE COURT: All right. Please be seated. All right. Cross-examination.
MR. NADELHAFT: Good afternoon, Mr. Bania.
DOUG BANIA: Good afternoon.
MR. NADELHAFT: Mr. Bania, you understand that this case is about the op-ed in December of 2018, correct?
DOUG BANIA: I understand this case to be about the allegations of domestic abuse both as it relates to the 2016 and republication of that in the 2018 Washington Post op-ed.
MR. NADELHAFT: You understand that Mr. Depp is only suing Amber about the op-ed from 2018, correct?
DOUG BANIA: My understanding is - based on my understanding of my analysis, which includes the 2016 allegations -
MR. NADELHAFT: That's your analysis. But do you understand what Mr. Depp is suing Amber for in this case?
MS. LECAROZ: Objection, Your Honor, to the extent it calls for a legal conclusion.
THE COURT: All right. I'll sustain the objection.
THE COURT: Next question.
MR. NADELHAFT: Did you read the complaint in this case?
DOUG BANIA: Yes.
MR. NADELHAFT: Did you understand that Mr. Depp was only suing for the op-ed, about the op-ed?
DOUG BANIA: Yes.
MR. NADELHAFT: Okay. And he was not, Mr. Depp was not y suing Amber, in this case, from his complaint, about the accusations she made in 2016, correct?
DOUG BANIA: That is my understanding.
MR. NADELHAFT: All right. And you're not able to separate out how Mr. Depp's reputation was impacted from the op-ed in 2018 versus how it was impacted when Ms. Heard filed for divorce in 2016, correct?
DOUG BANIA: That is not correct.
MR. NADELHAFT: Okay.
MR. NADELHAFT: May I approach, Your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes, sir. Thank you.
MR. NADELHAFT: Mr. Bania, you took a deposition in this case?
DOUG BANIA: Yes, I did.
MR. NADELHAFT: And I was asking you the questions in that case; is that right?
DOUG BANIA: That's correct.
MR. NADELHAFT: Okay. And you took that deposition on March 21st, 2022?
DOUG BANIA: That is correct.
MR. NADELHAFT: Okay. And you were under oath at the time, correct?
DOUG BANIA: Yes.
MR. NADELHAFT: Okay. And you're under oath to tell the truth, correct?
DOUG BANIA: Correct
MR. NADELHAFT: Can you turn to page 83 of your transcript, which is on the 21st page of the --
DOUG BANIA: I'm here.
MR. NADELHAFT: Okay. You see line 9?
DOUG BANIA: Yes.
MR. NADELHAFT: And I asked you "Are you able to separate out how Mr. Depp's reputation was impacted from the op-ed versus how it was impacted by when Ms. Heard filed for divorce?" And your answer was "No," correct?
DOUG BANIA: Correct.
MR. NADELHAFT: And you're not able to separate out how Mr. Depp's reputation was impacted from the op-ed in 2018 versus the publicity surrounding when Mr. Depp sued The Sun newspaper in the United Kingdom when The Sun writer called Mr. Depp a wife beater, correct?
DOUG BANIA: Are you still reading from my deposition?
MR. NADELHAFT: No, I'm asking you a question now.
DOUG BANIA: Please repeat that.
MR. NADELHAFT: Q: You're not able to separate out how Mr. Depp's reputation was impacted from the op-ed in 2018 versus the publicity surrounding when Mr. Depp sued The Sun newspaper in the United Kingdom when a Sun writer called Mr. Depp a wife beater?
MS. LECAROZ: Objection. Compound, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. NADELHAFT: You're not able to separate out how Mr. Depp's reputation was impacted from the op-ed in 2018 versus the publicity surrounding when Mr. Depp sued The Sun in the United Kingdom, correct?
DOUG BANIA: A: My analysis shows that the web documents that I reviewed after the 2018 allegations -
MR. NADELHAFT: Respectfully, this is a yes-or-no question. This is a yes-or-no question.
DOUG BANIA: Please repeat the question.
MR. NADELHAFT: You're not able to separate out how Mr. Depp's reputation was impacted from the op-ed in 2018 versus the publicity surrounding when Mr. Depp sued The Sun newspaper in the United Kingdom?
DOUG BANIA: That was not part of my analysis, to carve that out.
MR. NADELHAFT: And you didn't? You were not able to separate it, correct?
DOUG BANIA: I didn't try to.
MR. NADELHAFT: And so you couldn't?
DOUG BANIA: I didn't try it.
MR. NADELHAFT: Okay. And you understand that the article Mr. Depp sued The Sun over had the headline that said "How can JK Rowling be genuinely happy casting wife beater Johnny Depp in the new Fantastic Beasts film," correct?
DOUG BANIA: I don't recall if that's one of the articles I reviewed.
MR. NADELHAFT: Q: Did you understand -- do you know if that article came out before Ms. Heard's op-ed?
DOUG BANIA: I don't know.
MR. NADELHAFT: Now, you're not offering an opinion as to how the op-ed for Ms. Heard, in December 2018, impacted Mr. Depp's career, correct?
DOUG BANIA: Repeat that, please.
MR. NADELHAFT: You're not offering an opinion as to how the op-ed from Ms. Heard, in December 2018, impacted Mr. Depp's career?
DOUG BANIA: Correct.
MR. NADELHAFT: Okay. And you're not offering an opinion as to how the op-ed from Ms. Heard, in December 2018, impacted Mr. Depp's reputation?
DOUG BANIA: What I'm doing is I'm -
MR. NADELHAFT: It's a yes or no. Are you offering an I opinion as to that or not?
DOUG BANIA: My opinion is related to his public image.
MR. NADELHAFT: You're not offering an opinion as to how the op-ed from Ms. Heard, in December 2018, impacted Mr. Depp's reputation, correct?
DOUG BANIA: I'm not talking exactly about his I!
DOUG BANIA: Is reputation, correct.
MR. NADELHAFT: Okay. And you're not offering an opinion as to how the op-ed from Ms. Heard, in December 2018, impacted Mr. Depp's public image, correct?
DOUG BANIA: I'm offering an opinion that after the Is 2018 _
MR. NADELHAFT: Q: It's a yes or no, sir. It's a yes or no.
MR. NADELHAFT: You're not offering an opinion as to how the op-ed from Ms. Heard, in December 2018, impacted Mr. Depp's public image?
DOUG BANIA: I am.
MR. NADELHAFT: Turn to your deposition transcript, please. And if you go to page 74, which is on page 19.
MR. NADELHAFT: And you see -- are you there?
DOUG BANIA: Yes.
MR. NADELHAFT: You see line I, starting on line 1, I asked you And you're not going to testify how the December 2018 op-ed impacted Mr. Depp's public image?
MR. NADELHAFT: "Answer: That's correct."
MR. NADELHAFT: That was your testimony at the time, correct?
DOUG BANIA: Well, the-
MR. NADELHAFT: That was your answer at the time, correct?
DOUG BANIA: The perception -
MR. NADELHAFT: Sir, that was your answer at the time, correct?
DOUG BANIA: Okay. Yes.
MR. NADELHAFT: And that was your answer on March 21st, 2022, correct?
DOUG BANIA: Yes, the date of the deposition.
MR. NADELHAFT: So that was a month and a half ago --
DOUG BANIA: Right.
MR. NADELHAFT: Correct?
MR. NADELHAFT: Okay. And you're not offering an opinion as to whether the op-ed from Ms. Heard made Mr. Depp more hireable or less hireable, correct?
DOUG BANIA: Correct.
MR. NADELHAFT: As to the articles that came up in the Google searches that you spoke about, it was -- you made the determination whether the articles had a "negative connotation" or not, right?
DOUG BANIA: Correct.
MR. NADELHAFT: So that's just your view, if the article had a negative connotation about Mr. Depp, right?
DOUG BANIA: Yes, that's my opinion, that they had a negative connotation.
MR. NADELHAFT: So if an article criticizes Mr. Depp's acting, for example, you're not considering that article as having a negative connotation about Mr. Depp, correct?
DOUG BANIA: Repeat that, please.
MR. NADELHAFT: So if an article criticizes Mr. Depp's acting, you're not considering that article as having a negative connotation about Mr. Depp, correct?
DOUG BANIA: Correct.
MR. NADELHAFT: Now, in your analysis of Google spikes, the highest spikes in searches for Mr. Depp was in January 2004, correct?
DOUG BANIA: Correct.
MR. NADELHAFT: I guess you guys have it. Can you put up the demonstrative, 1236?
MR. NADELHAFT: And can you see that, Mr. Bania?
DOUG BANIA: Yes.
MR. NADELHAFT: Can we make it just a little bigger. ,9
MR. NADELHAFT: Okay. So the -- if I'm understanding ! you correctly, A is where the most searches were I conducted about -- for Johnny Depp, correct?
DOUG BANIA: Correct.
MR. NADELHAFT: And that's from January 2004, correct?
DOUG BANIA: Correct.
MR. NADELHAFT: So that was 18 years ago.
DOUG BANIA: Correct.
MR. NADELHAFT: Okay. And that was when Ms. Heard was 18 years old?
DOUG BANIA: I don't know.
MR. NADELHAFT: Okay. The top spike, you mark as a I ,21 hundred, correct?
DOUG BANIA: I did not mark that, but Google Trends I , g I identified that spike as 100.
MR. NADELHAFT: And where it says 100, you don't know how many people actually searched for Johnny Depp at that point, correct?
DOUG BANIA: Well, the Google Trends algorithm marks the highest point of search as a hundred, and then everything is compared to that as a ratio or a percent. So if you notice, that A is a hundred, everything else is lower than that because everything is being compared to that highest point.
MR. NADELHAFT: Right. So you don't know how many people actually did the search for Johnny Depp in January 2004, correct?
DOUG BANIA: Correct.
MR. NADELHAFT: It could be a hundred or it could be a , million, right?
DOUG BANIA: I don't know.
MR. NADELHAFT: And you don't know if it's actually human beings doing these searches, correct?
DOUG BANIA: As opposed to?
MR. NADELHAFT: As opposed to bots or something like that?
DOUG BANIA: I did not do an analysis to determine if it was a bot or a human being, but Google Trends is a tool that's going to show you, during the time frame, the highest points of search interest as a hundred.
MR. NADELHAFT: Okay. But you don't know if it's humans, bots, my cat doing the searches, correct?
MS. LECAROZ: Objection. Asked and answered, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
THE COURT: Next question.
MR. NADELHAFT: Now, in all of these Google spikes, Ms. Heard's op-ed never came up as one of the top three searches in any of the Google spikes, correct?
DOUG BANIA: Well, that is correct because Google Trends is based on a search of a word or a name. And because Mr. Depp's name was not mentioned in that op-ed, Google Trends did not pick that up.
MR. NADELHAFT: So, a person does a search for Johnny Depp and the op-ed doesn't come up, correct?
DOUG BANIA: In my analysis, the op-ed did not come
MR. NADELHAFT: Okay. And, in fact, the red dotted line, all the way to the right, that shows when the op-ed was published on December 18th, 2018, correct?
DOUG BANIA: Yes.
MR. NADELHAFT: Okay. And the searches are actually going down right after the red line, correct?
DOUG BANIA: As opposed to the searches in 2004?
MR. NADELHAFT: Look at the red line. Look at the red dotted line, and you have two points here. Right there. And those go down from the time of the op-ed, correct?
DOUG BANIA: Correct.
MR. NADELHAFT: Okay. And isn't it true that the next, I guess, spike happens in March of 2019, correct? Right there.
DOUG BANIA: Yes.
MR. NADELHAFT: And do you know that it was March of 2019 when Mr. Depp sued Amber Heard in this case?
DOUG BANIA: No, I don't - I didn't look at that
MR. NADELHAFT: Right. You didn't look at any articles for that -- for this bullet, correct?
DOUG BANIA: That's correct.
MR. NADELHAFT: And since Ms. Heard's op-ed came out on December 18th, 2018, you would agree with me that, by definition, all the spikes you analyzed before December 18, 2018, could not have been caused by the op-ed, right?
DOUG BANIA: Correct.
MR. NADELHAFT: Okay. So articles about Mr. Depp's drug use, before December 2018, could not have been caused by the op-ed, correct?
DOUG BANIA: Correct.
MR. NADELHAFT: Okay. And you, in this chart, analyzed I only two spikes after the op-ed; isn't that right?
DOUG BANIA: That is correct.
MR. NADELHAFT: Okay. And the first spike you analyzed after December 2018 is V, correct?
DOUG BANIA: Yes.
MR. NADELHAFT: And is that from -- is that January 2020?
DOUG BANIA: Roughly, yes. ,2
MR. NADELHAFT: Okay. So that's -- January 2020 is over a year after the op-ed by Ms. Heard, correct?
DOUG BANIA: That's correct.
MR. NADELHAFT: Okay. And then the next spike you analyzed was T, correct?
DOUG BANIA: Yes.
MR. NADELHAFT: And that was in, approximately, ! July 2020?
DOUG BANIA: Correct.
MR. NADELHAFT: So that was a year and a half after Ms. Heard's op-ed, correct?
DOUG BANIA: Yes.
MR. NADELHAFT: And, again, none of the articles -- and I then you -- for V and T, if I understand it, you, then, analyzed the top three searches that came up I or the top three websites that came up after a search?
DOUG BANIA: Correct.
MR. NADELHAFT: Okay. And none of the articles you , analyzed in those Google spikes, after the op-ed, were the op-ed, correct?
DOUG BANIA: Correct.
MR. NADELHAFT: Okay. And isn't it true that the headlines of the articles, over a year after the op-ed, that you analyzed were about Mr. Depp suing the Sun in the U.K. for a Sun writer calling Mr. Depp a wife beater?
DOUG BANIA: You would have to pull those articles back up. I don't have those in front of me.
MR. NADELHAFT: Isn't it true that the article -- and IO just so I understand it, V and T, that would mean there were six articles, correct, that you analyzed?
DOUG BANIA: Correct.
MR. NADELHAFT: Okay. Isn't it true that the article on February 6, 2020, the headline was "Johnny Depp's disturbing alleged text messages read aloud in court as libel lawsuit begins"?
DOUG BANIA: Again, I don't have that article in front of me. I did produce those as part of my analysis. I don't have that in front of me. If you'd like to show it to me.
MR. NADELHAFT: And you understand that that was about y the lawsuit against the Sun in the U.K., not about the op-ed, correct?
DOUG BANIA: Again, I do not have that in front of me.
MR. NADELHAFT: Another article that came up, on February 27th, 2020, is one of the top three hits when you searched for Johnny Depp, what the -- the headline was "'Let's burn Amber': Texts allegedly sent by Johnny Depp about ex read in court"?
DOUG BANIA: I mean, if you want to talk about these articles, we need to bring them up.
MR. NADELHAFT: This is your opinion. You don't recall what articles you analyzed?
DOUG BANIA: I mean, there's a lot of articles here. I didn't memorize each title.
MR. NADELHAFT: There were six articles that you analyzed in the almost two years after the op-ed.
DOUG BANIA: But can you bring those up and we can talk about them?
MR. NADELHAFT: And on July 19th, 2020, the headline was "Hollywood nervously awaits fallout from explosive Johnny Depp trial." You don't recall, one way or the other, whether that was one of the articles in either V . or TI
DOUG BANIA: Again, I know, if you want to bring up my documents, I know document 9J, 9O, 9K, and 9M are mentioning the op-ed. Again, I don't have those in front of me.
MR. NADELHAFT: And when you say "mentioning the op-ed," does that mean that it just references that Mr. Depp sued Amber Heard in Fairfax?
DOUG BANIA: No. It talks about how he's alleged to have abused her. Doesn't relate to the op-ed.
MR. NADELHAFT: Doesn't it say, another headline, from July 19th, 2020, the headline was ''Hollywood nervously awaits fallout from explosive Johnny Depp trial''?
MS. LECAROZ: Objection. Asked and I 8 answered.
THE COURT: I'll sustain the objection.
MR. NADELHAFT: You understood that was about the lawsuit against the Sun in U.K., correct?
MS. LECAROZ: Objection. Asked and answered.
MR. NADELHAFT: I didn't ask about that.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DOUG BANIA: Again, I would like to talk about these 16 articles, but I need to see them.
MR. NADELHAFT: On July 19th, 2020, the headline was "Johnny Depp vs. Amber Heard: All the nasty bits of the U.K. trial- and it's all nasty." That was in point T, correct?
DOUG BANIA: Again, I do not have that list in front of me. If you'd like to bring that up, we can talk about it.
MR. NADELHAFT: And you understood that was about the lawsuit against the Sun in the U.K., correct?
DOUG BANIA: I do not.
MR. NADELHAFT: Okay. And on July 19th, 2020, the headline was "Johnny Depp: Claims in the Sun he beat ex-wife 'complete lies,' court told." That was the quote, correct?
DOUG BANIA: I don't see that here.
MR. NADELHAFT: That was in your report, correct?
DOUG BANIA: I would have to look at the documents again. I would be happy to discuss them, if you would bring those up.
MR. NADELHAFT: And then you previously had a chart that had articles from November 2020, correct?
DOUG BANIA: I'm sorry? Say that.
MR. NADELHAFT: You previously had a chart that included articles from November 2020, correct?
MS. LECAROZ: Objection, Your Honor. O May we approach, Your Honor?
THE COURT: Sure.
MR. NADELHAFT: I should be allowed to ask him that. I'm not going into what happened.
THE COURT: No, I'm going to sustain the objection.
MR. NADELHAFT: Okay.
THE COURT: BY MR. NADELHAFT:
MR. NADELHAFT: You understood it was Mr. Depp's decision to sue the Sun, correct?
DOUG BANIA: I don't know That's not part of my analysis
MR. NADELHAFT: Now, you talked about Q scores in your direct testimony, correct?
DOUG BANIA: Correct.
MR. NADELHAFT: Okay. And you testified about three particular Q scores for Mr. Depp, right?
DOUG BANIA: Three periods of time is - the Q scores that I analyzed.
MR. NADELHAFT: And you're not offering an opinion as to why Mr. Depp's Q scores changed, correct?
DOUG BANIA: That's correct.
MR. NADELHAFT: And Q scores can go up and down for actors for any sort of reason, correct?
DOUG BANIA: That's possible.
MR. NADELHAFT: Do you recall testifying that they could go up and down for any sort of reason, in your deposition?
DOUG BANIA: Yeah, they can go up and down for many different reasons.
MR. NADELHAFT: So you're not offering an opinion that Mr. Depp's Q scores were damaged because of Ms. Heard's op-ed, correct?
DOUG BANIA: That's correct.
MR. NADELHAFT: And in comparing the Q scores from before the op-ed to the Q scores after the op-ed, Mr. Depp's Q scores dropped by two points, correct?
DOUG BANIA: I don't have those Q scores in front of me, but if you're looking at them-
MR. NADELHAFT: We can show the third page of this demonstrative.
DOUG BANIA: What was your question, please?
MR. NADELHAFT: Mr. Depp's positive Q scores from B to I C dropped by two points, correct?
DOUG BANIA: Yes.
MR. NADELHAFT: You're not an expert on statistics, correct?
DOUG BANIA: Correct.
MR. NADELHAFT: And even though you're not an expert, you have an idea about what the term "statistically significant" means, correct?
DOUG BANIA: Yes.
MR. NADELHAFT: And statistical significance is a measure of whether your findings are meaningful right to you need statistics. And you don't know if there's any significance to a drop in two points in positive Q score, correct?
DOUG BANIA: There absolutely is. When you're ordering Q scores, points at a time -
MR. NADELHAFT: Mr. Bania, go to your deposition, 1110 page 113, which is on 29.
DOUG BANIA: Okay.
MR. NADELHAFT: At 10, page 113, line 10, it says "So you're not offering an opinion as to the significance of a change in Q score, correct?" "Answer: Correct."
DOUG BANIA: Well, you're talking about statistically a difference. What I'm talking about is how we use Q scores in the industry. When you see a Q score that's dropping from a 31 to a 29, there's an issue. Is this somebody you really want to hire to endorse your products or service? No, probably not. You want to look into why. Why? What is going on in the public to make these Q scores drop like that?
MR. NADELHAFT: And you don't know exactly the significance between five or six points drop in Q score, correct?
DOUG BANIA: Correct.
MR. NADELHAFT: Okay. Now, and it shows here that Mr. Depp's negative Q score actually got better from point B to point C, correct?
DOUG BANIA: Correct.
MR. NADELHAFT: So that's actually better for Mr. Depp, correct?
DOUG BANIA: Correct.
MR. NADELHAFT: Okay. And you understood -- do you understand that Dr. Allen Jacobs reviewed your opinions in this case?
DOUG BANIA: Yes.
MR. NADELHAFT: And you understand that Dr. Jacobs reviewed additional Q score data, correct?
DOUG BANIA: Yes.
MR. NADELHAFT: Okay.
MR. NADELHAFT: Can we, please, put up, p , p p I Plaintiffs Exhibit 889 at 117.
MR. NADELHAFT: Mr. Bania, do you understand this is a chart of Mr. Depp's Q scores from winter 2012 through summer of 2021?
DOUG BANIA: Yes.
MR. NADELHAFT: Do you have any reason to question the scores that are shown in this chart?
DOUG BANIA: Like I said in my deposition, I've not received the actual data to build this chart, but I don't have any reason to not believe that this is accurate.
MR. NADELHAFT: As I understand, Q scores are performed on a celebrity like Mr. Depp twice a year, correct?
DOUG BANIA: Yes.
MR. NADELHAFT: So there is winter of a particular year, and then there's summer of a particular year?
DOUG BANIA: Yes.
MR. NADELHAFT: And the winter scores come out around February; is that right?
DOUG BANIA: I don't have that information in front I of me, but sounds right.
MR. NADELHAFT: And so, would you know when the summer scores come out?
DOUG BANIA: I don't.
MR. NADELHAFT: And this chart shows --
MR. NADELHAFT: Permission to publish the chart as a demonstrative, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Any objection?
MS. LECAROZ: I don't think this witness has laid an appropriate foundation for it, Your Honor.
MR. NADELHAFT: He said he has no reason to question the Q scores.
THE COURT: I'll allow it as a demonstrative.
MR. NADELHAFT: And, so, this chart shows Mr. Depp's positive and negative Q scores, correct?
DOUG BANIA: Correct.
MR. NADELHAFT: And the positive Q scores are in blue?
DOUG BANIA: That's correct.
MR. NADELHAFT: Can you blow it up a little bit, Michelle.
MR. NADELHAFT: And the negative Q scores are in red?
DOUG BANIA: Yes.
MR. NADELHAFT: Okay.
MS. LECAROZ: Objection. Your Honor, may we approach for a moment?
THE COURT: Yes.
MS. LECAROZ: I'm sure this goes beyond the November 2020 cutoff as data --
MR. NADELHAFT: I wasn't trying to do that intentionally...
THE COURT: All right. So are you done with it, then.
MR. NADELHAFT: No, I'm not done with it. But I won't--
THE COURT: You're not going to comment on it?
MR. NADELHAFT: I won't comment on November.
THE COURT: All right. He won't comment on that. We're making sure.
MR. NADELHAFT: Yeah, I won't.
MR. NADELHAFT: Mr. Bania, the positive Q score for Mr. Depp in the winter of 2012 is 42, correct?
DOUG BANIA: It's in - yeah, it's in between 40 and 45.
MR. NADELHAFT: Okay. And did you check the actual Q scores that Mr. Jacobs demonstrated in his report?
DOUG BANIA: No. My analysis was a snapshot of time. I wanted to know Johnny Depp's Q scores directly before the 2012 allegations - 2016 allegations of abuse and after.
MR. NADELHAFT: Okay. And you see here that the positive Q scores for Mr. Depp dropped from 42, in the winter of 2012, to 35, in the summer of 2016, correct?
DOUG BANIA: Yes.
MR. NADELHAFT: That's a seven-point drop, correct?
DOUG BANIA: Yes.
MR. NADELHAFT: And that's before Ms. Heard had her divorce filing, correct?
DOUG BANIA: That's correct.
MR. NADELHAFT: And that drop in Mr. Depp's positive Q scores could have nothing to do with Ms. Heard's op-ed, correct?
DOUG BANIA: Correct.
MR. NADELHAFT: And that drop could have nothing to do with the allegations Ms. Heard made after the divorce filing, correct?
DOUG BANIA: Correct.
MR. NADELHAFT: And would you agree that the positive Q scores actually start to show an increase for Mr. Depp after the op-ed? There's a decrease and then there's an increase?
DOUG BANIA: Yeah.
MR. NADELHAFT: And the same for the negative, that Q scores -- there's a bit of a positive and then it goes down, correct?
DOUG BANIA: Yes.
MR. NADELHAFT: So, really, the op-ed had no effect on Mr. Depp's Q scores, correct?
DOUG BANIA: As I mentioned, my analysis looked at the snapshot of time and it shows that he was harmed, you know, from before the allegations of abuse in to after the op-ed in 2018.
MR. NADELHAFT: You looked at three Q scores and you could have looked at one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18. I won't even count the 2021 scores. Q scores, correct?
DOUG BANIA: Yeah.
MR. NADELHAFT: And you looked at three, right?
DOUG BANIA: That's correct.
MR. NADELHAFT: And that's what you're basing your opinion on, that the op-ed damaged Mr. Depp's Q scores?
DOUG BANIA: Sir, what you seem to misunderstand is these sores -
MR. NADELHAFT: My question is -- your counsel can come back and ask you whatever they want.
DOUG BANIA: You need to -
MR. NADELHAFT: Your Honor.
THE COURT: Sir. Sir, if you could answer the question.
DOUG BANIA: I'm sorry. That's fine.
DOUG BANIA: I didn't hear your question.
MR. NADELHAFT: You looked at two Q scores instead of I 2 Q stores, correct?
DOUG BANIA: That's correct
MR. NADELHAFT: Did you look at the Q scores, at all, after the Dan Wootton article that came out in April of 2018?
MS. LECAROZ: Objection Asked and ! s answered, Your Honor.
MR. NADELHAFT: I don't think I asked that.
THE COURT: Overruled on that.
DOUG BANIA: No.
MR. NADELHAFT: Okay.
MR. NADELHAFT: Thank you. I have nothing further.
THE COURT: All right. Redirect.
MS. LECAROZ: Do you recall that?
DOUG BANIA: Yes.
MS. LECAROZ: Is that something that you do in situations other than in your analysis in this case?
DOUG BANIA: Yeah. Yeah. So in non-litigation, when we're building brand monetization strategies, especially if you're going to work with a celebrity or an athlete, you want to look at what's going on out there, you know, about that personality because celebrities and athletes, you know, Q scores can go up and down. You want to analyze the time and see what's going on out in the media. Do I really want my client to license in a celebrity that there's problems out there or an athlete? So, yes, it's important to look at this.
MS. LECAROZ: And I believe you were asked whether you're offering an opinion, in this case, about the impact of the op-ed on Mr. Depp's public image.
MS. LECAROZ: Do you recall that?
DOUG BANIA: Yes.
MS. LECAROZ: And I believe you testified that you are offering an opinion on that; is that right?
DOUG BANIA: Yes.
MS. LECAROZ: What's that opinion?
DOUG BANIA: Well, the opinion is that he's portrayed in a negative connotation after that date.
MS. LECAROZ: And with respect to the Q scores that you analyzed, Mr. Nadelhaft was asking you about the three points in time that you looked at. Why, in your opinion, was it appropriate to look at just those three Q scores?
DOUG BANIA: As I was trying to e:,.'])lain, you know, Q scores do go up and down. We're analyzing a period of time. We want to see what's happening right before an event, during that event, and if there's another event, after that event. And that is our area of analysis. So that's why just these three sets of Q scores are the appropriate way to analyze this.
MS. LECAROZ: Thank you. I have nothing further, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Is this witness subject to recall?
MS. LECAROZ: He is, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Sir, do not discuss your testimony with anyone since you are subject to recall. But since you are an expert, you are allowed to stay in the courtroom, if you wish.
DOUG BANIA: Thank you, Your Honor.