Day 19 · Adam Waldman & Others

At sidebar, Judge Azcarate reprimanded Benjamin Chew for violating her no-photography order by posing with an alpaca outside the courthouse. Chew apologized and cited a death threat against Vasquez; the judge warned of sanctions for future violations. She also disclosed that courthouse staff's children had filmed client arrivals from a balcony and posted to TikTok, which was removed. The court ruled Bercovici available only as a rebuttal witness per his designation.

Ashlee Stemland examined Bruce Witkin, Depp's longtime friend and former bandmate, as a defense witness. Witkin described Depp's cocaine and alcohol use from 2011–2016 and dismissed Dr. Kipper's sobriety program as "a scam." He testified to seeing a bruise on Heard's upper arm resembling a grab mark. He recounted being summoned to Depp's penthouse at 3am during an argument. Witkin's estrangement from Depp traced to prior depositions in which he testified truthfully about Depp's substance abuse.

Bredehoft examined Jacobs about Depp's 30-year career and his 2016 termination of her representation. Jacobs described a decline in professionalism—chronic on-set lateness and increased substance abuse—and confirmed his anger issues worsened over time. She disclosed she personally referred Dr. Kipper to Depp for sobriety support. Depp's 2020 deposition characterizing Jacobs as conflict-ridden was read into record and disputed. Asked about his current reputation, Jacobs said: "His lawsuits don't help."

Chew's cross of Heard's witness Tracey Jacobs elicited a direct denial series: she never witnessed Depp hit, throw at, or kick a woman, never saw marks on Heard, and knew of no other abuse accuser. Jacobs confirmed Depp was never fired during the period of acknowledged unprofessionalism. Chew then introduced Depp Exhibit 5, a financial document about a Bank of America loan secured during Depp's distress, and elicited deal terms: $5M for Orient Express and $25M for Pirates 5.

Bredehoft redirected Jacobs to reinforce that Depp's career had declined before the op-ed, with substance abuse among the causes. Jacobs corrected Bredehoft's characterization, clarifying she called Depp the 'biggest movie star' not 'greatest actor.' Jacobs recounted Depp's demand that UTA give him $20 million outright — not a loan — which UTA leadership declined. She confirmed the Rolling Stone article damaged his reputation and recalled no Pirates 6 option negotiations.

Heard's defense examines Adam Waldman, Depp's attorney since October 2016, cataloguing public statements he made to the Daily Mail in July 2020 characterizing Heard's allegations as a "hoax" and the May 2016 penthouse incident as a staged "ambush." Waldman confirms making the statements but invokes privilege on whether Depp authorized them. Bredehoft also establishes that Depp — not Waldman — first contacted Rolling Stone, and that Waldman provided two audiotapes to The Mail Online at a meeting Depp attended.

Waldman names roughly nine witnesses he believes show Heard was uninjured between May 21–27, 2016, and contends Marilyn Manson photos demolished her Thanksgiving 2013 claim. Rottenborn then establishes that Waldman regularly fed case information to social media personalities "That Umbrella Guy," "ThatBrianFella," and "TheRealLauraB" via phone and Signal. An RTL exhibit reveals Waldman publicly stated LAPD had opened a perjury investigation into Heard—a claim Rottenborn dismantles by showing it rested solely on Waldman's own complaint to an anonymous desk officer whose contact information Waldman cannot produce.

Depp's counsel Chew cross-examines Waldman on his professional credentials and independence. Waldman confirms he founded and owns Endeavor Law Firm (formed ~2007), holds the title of managing member, has clients beyond Depp, does not receive a W-2 from Depp, and was not trained by Depp as an employer. Bredehoft briefly objects to a question about legal services and reformulates it herself.

Heard's counsel called LAPD Detective Marie Sadanaga, the department's domestic violence coordinator, to establish what LAPD protocols governed the May 2016 penthouse call. Sadanaga testified officers must document all DV responses even when victims don't cooperate, and that "verbal dispute" language signaled no report was taken. She reviewed supplemental forms and incident report requirements—including mandatory documentation of observations, photos, and witness statements—for non-crime DV calls.

Depp's counsel Samuel Moniz cross-examined LAPD DV coordinator Marie Sadanaga on incident documentation thresholds and officer limitations. Sadanaga detailed three incident categories, with mutual "no fear, no injury" situations producing only a daily field activity log. She acknowledged officers cannot compel uncooperative victims to speak, but confirmed that visible injuries or scene evidence of struggle allow officers to pursue probable cause independently.

Bredehoft used redirect to pin down Sadanaga on mandatory officer obligations when injury or property damage is present. Sadanaga confirmed visible injury requires investigation to determine if a crime occurred, regardless of victim cooperation. She explained that DV incident reports exist to document patterns across multiple incidents—even non-crimes—so that a history is available if future crimes occur.

After dismissing the jury for the lunch recess, the court reconvened at 1:42 p.m. At sidebar, Heard's attorneys Rottenborn and Treece argued Bercovici's disclosure was supplemented to allow independent testimony about LAPD officers' conduct and that the counterclaim gave grounds for broader designation. Depp's attorney Dennison countered that the designation's opening language plainly labels Bercovici a rebuttal expert. Judge Azcarate held firm: designation controls, Bercovici remains a rebuttal witness only.

Heard's counsel Adam Nadelhaft examines Ron Schnell, a Berkeley Research Group director, walking through Unix kernel work at Bell Labs, IBM, and Sun Microsystems. Schnell describes founding startups including one with Sylvester Stallone, and running the U.S. v. Microsoft antitrust monitorship as special master. Nadelhaft tenders him as an expert in statistical and forensic analysis of social media; Depp's counsel Wayne Dennison requests voir dire.

Wayne Dennison opens voir dire of Ron Schnell by asking whether Schnell's tweet and hashtag analysis connected to Adam Waldman's statements — a substantive methodology challenge rather than a qualifications inquiry. Heard's counsel Nadelhaft objected, and Judge Azcarate sustained, clarifying that voir dire is limited to the witness's expert qualifications. Dennison requested to approach the bench and the court permitted it.

At sidebar, Dennison attempted to use voir dire to probe whether Heard's social media expert had a damages nexus under a prior motion in limine ruling limiting his testimony. Judge Azcarate clarified that voir dire is for qualifying experts, not exploring damages scope. Dennison conceded the witness was obviously qualified. The court formally admitted him in open court as an expert in statistical and forensic analysis of social media.

Ron Schnell presents Twitter API analysis showing 2.38 million negative hashtag uses against Heard from 2020–2022. Three demonstrative charts (1900–1902) show spikes correlating with Waldman's statements. Schnell found 25% of negative tweets referenced Waldman, and discovered Waldman statements in the Daily Mail and Vanity Fair predating April 8. Adopting Depp's expert Bania's framework, he concludes a substantial correlation exists.

Wayne Dennison challenged Ron Schnell's Twitter analysis on recross, establishing that all four hashtags predate Waldman's 2020 statements — "justice for Johnny Depp" existing since 2013. Schnell conceded he can show only mathematical correlation, not causation, and cannot explain why spikes occurred. Dennison highlighted that Schnell's chart omits Waldman statement dates entirely. Schnell's Waldman-connection opinion was adopted from Bania's expert disclosure, not independently derived.

Nadelhaft uses a brief redirect to reinforce Schnell's statistical findings. Schnell reaffirms that every sampled "justice for Johnny Depp" tweet was negative toward Heard, that over 25% of negative tweets referenced Waldman, and that post-April 2020 volume roughly doubled. One objection on foundation was sustained; a rephrased question confirmed the negative trend continued. Schnell closed by stating cross-examination changed none of his opinions.

Estate attorney Michele Mulrooney testified she was retained in early 2015 to represent Amber Heard in postnuptial agreement negotiations with Depp's counsel Dana Lowy. Three email exhibits document the deal progressing through confidentiality agreements and financial disclosures. The negotiations ended when Depp called Mulrooney directly, called her "a bitch," and fired her on Heard's behalf; Mulrooney believed he was intoxicated based on slurred speech. No postnup was ever finalized.

Chew cross-examines Mulrooney on the authority behind her departure as Heard's postnuptial attorney. She repeatedly confirms Depp had no power to terminate her representation. She cannot recall who paid her fees or the specifics of her follow-up with Dana Lowy. She places the end of her attorney-client relationship within a few days of Depp's call.

On redirect, Bredehoft elicited two brief confirmations from Mulrooney: that no substantive communications from opposing counsel Dana Lowy followed Depp's terminating call, and that Mulrooney had no doubt the caller was Depp. The redirect sealed the record established on direct, leaving both the abrupt end of negotiations and Depp's identity as caller uncontested.

Chew examined Kovacevic, Heard's WME talent agent, about Heard's career trajectory and harm from Waldman's statements. Kovacevic traced Heard's rise through Justice League and Aquaman but testified her career did not benefit as expected after the franchise's success. She cited a lost Amazon film with Gael Garcia Bernal and a scrapped TOD's campaign as tangible harm, while acknowledging no documentary proof. Chew read Waldman's "hoax" quote into the record and confirmed WME was aware of it.

In redirect, Bredehoft methodically establishes a gap between expected and actual career outcomes. Kovacevic testifies Aquaman had no performance issues, tested extremely well, and should have produced significantly higher earnings, more studio interest, and larger endorsement fees — none of which occurred. L'Oreal renewed at the same flat fee. The change.org petition and apparent bot activity are introduced as context. Ana de Armas is named as a post-Aquaman career comparable.