Kathryn Arnold — Direct/Cross/Redirect

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Kathryn Arnold.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: I am an entertainment industry consultant, and I also serve as an expert witness.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Yes. So, I was - I've been in the entertainment industry for over 20-plus years. I started as an assistant at ICM, which is one of the largest talent agencies in Los Angeles that represents actors, writers, and directors, and I worked with a talent agent there. And then I also worked at Wayne Morris, for Wayne Morris as a script reader, so I was working on scripts that were delivered and submitted to for their writers, actors, and directors.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: After that, I went into development of film and television projects for a company based in New York called the Maltese Company, which actually produced animated television shows and features films based on Wall Street, you know, animated products, you know, like toys. Then I went to work with a company called the Guber-Peters Company. Guber-Peters was, at the time, one of the largest production companies in Los Angeles. They did films like Batman, Rain Man, Tango and Cash. We did TV shows like Witches of Eastwick. And there, I was involved in the development of scripts; we worked with the studio directly in terms of what casts would be attached to the scripts, and brought its directors and talent to those projects. I then went on to work in -- so I went on to work in the independent film world as a film producer.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: So I found the material, I would get the financing, I would get the cast and the director attached to the project, we call that "packaging," and then we would go and obtain financing for that either through equity sources or international sales and financing and bank financing.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: And then, I also went on after that, I produced five or six films with actors that you may know, including Salma Hayek, Vincent D'Onofrio, Kirstie Alley, Thomas Jane, Ethan Hawke. And then I worked with an international sales and production company, where I was the head of production, and I worked, again, on the development of scripts and the procurement of financing.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: So, I worked in both the independent world and the studio world, meaning independently financed or financed by the big studios, like Warner Brothers and Disney and Paramount, and such as that. That's the bulk of my work in the entertainment industry.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: A couple of them did. A couple of the independent films that I produced, one of them won -- called The Coriolis Effect won the Venice Film Festival in its category, and then I also produced another film that won the Heartland Film Festival, it's called the Crystal Award.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: So throughout that time, in between those jobs, I also worked in the corporate world. So, large studios like Warner Brothers and Disney and CBS would need corporate videos for their live events, so I would interview executives and interview their talent and then edit the piece together to create video and media for their live sales conferences that they had at that time. And then I also produced some commercials.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: So, earlier on in my career, I worked at the Los Angeles Olympic Organizing Committee, and I worked in the licensing department, where we handled the licensing of the Olympic logo, and we also worked with sponsors and suppliers who were funding those Olympic games, so it was a lot of contractual negotiations with the use of the license -- of the logo, as well as raising money for the games and working with those corporate sponsors throughout the two years prior to the games and then during the games themselves.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Well, I've had films in festivals. I've actually been very lucky to travel the world and gone to a lot of festivals with my films, both here in the United States and elsewhere. At one point, I was also hired to raise sponsorship funds for the Sundance Film -- Sundance Film Festival. They had a new program that they were starting to do online festivals, so I raised about a half million dollars for him in about a month.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Yes. I graduated from UCLA with a bachelor's degree in economics.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: So, as an entertainment consultant, having been in the business in both the independent and the studio worlds, as both a producer and an executive, I work with investment companies and production companies, who are looking to navigate the various inroads of Hollywood.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: It's a pre - the business is very different and unlike anything else, very relationship based, so I use my 20 years of experience to help them get casts, get financing, understand the distribution process, marketing process, and get them set up to be able to produce their films.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Yes.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: I've been involved in somewhere between 85 and a hundred cases as an expert, from beginning stages to testifying at court.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Yes, I have.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: On defamation?

KATHRYN ARNOLD: I believe three or four times.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Yes.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Almost all my cases have some form of damage relation - you know, economic damage is related to the case, so I would say in all of the cases that I've testified in, I've been qualified in damages.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Yes, I have.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: So, over the last 10 to 12 years, it's been about 50/50. So, I spent half my time working as a consultant and other half working with lawyers on their cases.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Yes.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Yes.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: So, I was asked to assess the -- any alleged damages that the op-ed piece in The Washington Post that Ms. Heard wrote, whether that has impacted his career in any way, particularly, did he lose any income or any economic opportunities because of the op-ed piece, specifically.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Yes.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: There were a lot of documents. I reviewed the pleadings of the case, the complaints, the discovery items, the responses to what they call interrogatories, which are the questions that the lawyers ask, both sides. I reviewed Mr. Depp's deposition testimony, which there were volumes of that, as well as Ms. Beard's. I also reviewed the deposition testimony of the experts that were proffered but had to do with the entertainment industry, you know, the agents and the management teams of both sides, launch now, the data expert. I also I reviewed emails and texts between the parties, between their families, between the management teams, the audio recordings, the visual recordings that have been presented in this case, and the previous cases that have been involved in the last couple of years. I also did my own independent research from general publicity and press and Is investigative articles, as well as those that are specific to the entertainment industry and utilized some entertainment industry specific sources to get some information that was helpful to our case - to the case.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Well, Mr. Depp has had an extraordinary career over many years, so it's a long one to look at. Obviously, he was a rising star in the late '80s and in the '90s, starting with 21 Jump Street, and you've heard all the films that I'm sure he's been in. He really started to break through when he worked with Tim Burton, the director and, of course, his character Jack Sparrow in Pirates of the Caribbean was, you know, world-renowned, and probably his biggest role. And he was, you know, a well-liked critically and within the industry and within the public as a movie star. And at the same time, his behavior in both on and off the set, in his personal life and in his professional life, start to interfere with what we would say, what everybody saw was his great talent.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: And it started, you know, there's some stories of issues that started back in the '80s and the '90s, but I would say, really, in the mid 2000s, between 2006 and was when the behavior started affecting his work to a certain extent, as far as lateness on set. And then as Ms. Jacobs, his talent agent, discussed with you in her deposition, it started to affect her ability to get roles and the industry's willingness to work with him, given the issues that he was having with both behavior, tardiness, drinking, and the drug abuse and, you know, other issues in his personal life. So it got more complicated for her to find him work, and I think it got harder for production companies and studios to hire him due to the challenges that that would put on a production.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Well, again, according to Ms. Jacobs, his agent, she mentioned that it started getting more challenging for her around 2010, the lateness on set was being made -- she was being made aware of that more and more often from production executives and the producers that she was working with on the Pirates movie; and not only Pirates, it continued on, on the other films, including Mortdecai and Murder on the Orient Express. And in around 2014, when he had the appearance, it was presumed that he was under the effects of alcohol at the Hollywood Film Awards in --

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Can you please repeat the question.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Sure. Well, we talked about the erratic behavior, the tardiness, the drugs and alcohol abuse. And the lawsuits have had a really big impact, not just this lawsuit, but previous lawsuits that Mr. Depp has been involved with, because there's a lot of publicity around anything that he does. And every time he has filed a lawsuit, it has brought to light various issues with respect to whatever that lawsuit was about, whether it's about, you know, about behavior or domestic abuse or drugs and alcohol and even spending habits.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: So every time a lawsuit has been filed, the press and publicity has been charged up and brought everything back to light. And it's been an unfortunate problem for - on that level for the industry to continue to work with him, even though all of this is out in the public.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Right.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Of course Mr. Depp has had some extremely, obviously, extremely successful films, but also in the, you know, four or five years prior to, you know, through Pirates, there were films that didn't do well at all and were considered what the industry calls a "bomb," which could have been Alice Through the Looking Glass, the Transcendence, Lone Ranger, and Mortdecai were films that just didn't perform; although, they were valued in their financing based on Mr. Depp's star quality and acting ability. Unfortunately, they just didn't perform. So as many hits as he's had, he's also had a lot of recent, what they call, "failures" in the business.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Ms. Jacobs mentioned, in her deposition testimony, that Mr. Depp didn't show up for the press conference in Mortdecai, which he was not only an actor for, he was also a producer, and he didn't show up. Apparently he was sleeping. So he wasn't able to make it.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Is the jury familiar with this already?

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Okay. So the Brooks litigation was - it was - there was a litigation around Mr. Depp had punched someone on one of the - I think it was a location manager on a set of a film called City of Lies. I don't know exactly what happened to that litigation. However, of course, again, it was written a lot about in the press, and, unfortunately, it came to the forefront that he had, you know, violent behavior, yet again.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Right.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: For quite a while. When you're a celebrity, such as Mr. Depp, you're in the limelight. Everybody wants to look at everything that happened. So after every movie or after every incident, there was usually press. But the ones that were more significant were the ones in the Hollywood - a couple of them in the Hollywood Reporter and one in the Rolling Stone.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: So, in 2017, there was an article in the Hollywood Reporter where the journalist discussed - I think the article was called "Pirates of the Caribbean, the Diminishing Return of Johnny Depp," that Pirates was - the last one was 5, right? That one didn't perform nearly as well as the other previous Pirates of the Caribbean films, and there was some discussion that the character-

KATHRYN ARNOLD: That was in the spring of 2017.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: It performed less well by over $200 million.i 5

KATHRYN ARNOLD: So in 2018, there was a Rolling Stone article that was an in-depth expose on Mr. Depp's life; again, his erratic behavior, the money he was spending on wine -

KATHRYN ARNOLD: There were emails between the publicity department and the co-chairs and some of the senior executives at Disney that they would forward the articles as they came out, both the Hollywood Reporter article and the Rolling Stone article, and they would make commentary. And Alan Horn, who was one of the co-chairs of Disney, used the word "sad," and I think one of the other executives used "depressing," that their film star was now being shown in this light to the public in the Rolling Stone --

KATHRYN ARNOLD: There was an article on October 28th, the Hollywood Reporter, October 28th, 2018, where the journalist had spoken to two writers at the film and they were talking about --

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Okay. So, on October 28th, the article, it was called - the article was about whether the Pirates of the Caribbean -

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Well, in the article, in October 2018, I it was about whether or not the Pirates franchise was going to be what they called reboot, redefined without Johnny Depp. And that was regarding two Is writers that were on the project.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: There was one other one.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: There was another article, there was an expose on the president of production, and it was also in Hollywood Reporter, and this is the one that Mr. Marks, Mr. Depp's expert, pointed to regarding the op-ed's impact on Mr. Depp's career. And the online article was, as Mr. Marks pointed out, published on December 20th, 2018, but the same article was in print on the morning of December 18th, 2018, which is the same morning of the op-ed. So that Hollywood Reporter article that Mr. Marks used to --

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Mr. Marks had used that article to show that Disney wanted to let go of Mr. Depp because of the op-ed, but it was actually printed in the Reporter the same morning that The washington Post article was printed. So there's no way that The Washington Post article had any impact on what the Hollywood Reporter journalist wrote. They were on the same morning. They were released simultaneously, interestingly enough.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Same article, yeah.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Right. So a lot of press was about the U.K trial and the lawsuit that Mr. Depp brought against The Sun in the U.K about the wife beater title that they used. So there was a ton of press around that, both at the time that it was filed and throughout, as documents were being shared with the public, and. then, of course, during the trial itself.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: I believe it was in July of 2018, about six months before the op-ed piece.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Again, in 2018, I believe.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Uh-huh.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: It was shortly after the article, so it was long before the op-ed piece was out.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: That was a really tough one on Mr. Depp's career because everything, every allegation of abuse and every text, every email, every audio, all the visual stuff was brought to light and made public. So not only did the public get to see it, but the industry was watching closely. And it's hard for studios, especially a studio like Disney, who is family oriented to be connected to a star that has texts about burnt corpses and violent behavior and video. So it was a big conflict for a lot of the people in the industry, how to navigate that if they're going to work with a star.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: As I was trying to say earlier, every time Mr. Depp brings a lawsuit, because he's such a well-known public figure, the spotlight goes on him. So every time a lawsuit was filed, whether against his business manager, against his former lawyer, even when he fired his talent agent, it becomes news. I mean, everybody talks about what could have preceded that? Why would that lawsuit have happened? And then they look at the details. So, again, the erratic behavior and the financial issues and the drinking and drug abuse was all part and parcel of every one of those, and it was brought to light, yet again, each time.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Well, Mr. Depp is claiming that he's lost money on Pirates 6 but Pirates 6 hasn't even been made yet, nor is there even a script that was, what we call, green-lit, moving towards production. So I don't know how you lose something that hasn't happened. I think that's what you're looking for me to say.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Objection. Leading.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Again, you can't claim damages for something that hasn't even happened. Whether he was in it or not in it or was going to be in it, or might have been in it, whether it was 2018 or now, there just is no Pirates 6. Not only did he not have a contract, even back in the day, 2018 or after that, no contract had been signed for a Pirates 6, it doesn't exist as we -

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Well, Ms. Jacobs said he didn't have a legal contract. Also, his agents at CAA said he had not, yet, negotiated a contract for Pirates 6. And, again, there's no script, so they haven't green-lit it, as we say. They don't have it cast with a director yet.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Zero.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Again, well, many things. The movie doesn't exist yet, so that's one. But even as important is that Disney, in their file for this trial, did not have the op-ed piece as part of all of the information that they had read and looked at and discussed. The conversations of Mr.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Depp not being in this whatever new version of Pirates, the franchise that goes forward, those were in discussion long before the op-ed piece even came out, and there are other factors that Disney was considering, the lateness on set, the cost overruns that that cost, which could go from hundreds of thousand dollars to millions of dollars when you have crews sitting around for two to four hours, eight hours, or even several weeks to a month, when the finger incident happened.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: So, on top of that, Mr. Depp is an expensive actor. He can earn between 20 and $25 million per movie, plus back end. So it's very expensive. So when you put that all together, the rising cost of Mr. Depp, his talent, the challenges that they had to keep it on budget because of his lateness and his tardiness, all of the other allegations that would affect a brand such as Disney, right? Someone talks about a burnt corpse does not necessarily coincide with the brand of Disney. So, there were many problems, and interestingly enough, there was a lot of conversation at - internally in the industry -

KATHRYN ARNOLD: The Jack Sparrow character had been exhausted, in terms of where it could go creatively, and I think the studio is looking for a way to renew the franchise but not necessarily base it entirely on the Jack Sparrow character, which is where it had been in the last couple years, evidenced by the lesser box office of Pirates 5 compared to the earlier ones.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: I think it reiterated the fact that he I was probably not going to be in the movie.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Very little. Hardly anybody even knew the op-ed existed before he filed suit. Anybody that I know. But certainly not Disney.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: According to what I've read of Mr. Allen Jacobs, an expert in statistical analyses, and from my own research on websites that are available to us, Mr. Depp's Q score, or if you're familiar with IMDb, which is Internet Movie Database which is available to the public and to the professionals inside, his Q score did not change dramatically; it was kind of in the middle, exactly, the high and low of his Q scores overall. It was in the middle, it was at 13, which is where it was a couple weeks before and a couple weeks after. So the op-ed didn't have any effect on his Q score, and that was reiterated by Mr. Jacobs in his deposition testimony.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Yes, that's when the lawsuit was filed.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Because the op-ed piece, for most people in the industry, kind of came and went without much fanfare or not much conversation was more about the I don't think very many people even knew it was written until the allegations were made by Mr. Depp in the lawsuit. It kind of came in and out of the radar very quickly if anybody even saw it at all

KATHRYN ARNOLD: So, Mr. Depp, so the article came, the op-ed piece came out December 20 -- 18 or 20 of 2018 -- in December -- I'm sorry, in January and February of 2019, he shot a film called Minamata, which was an independent film that he -- it was what we call a passion project. He loved the script and wanted to do it. He was able to film that after the op-ed piece. Then the Dior campaign, Sauvage, I don't know the exact dates of filming, but I do know it was aired throughout 2009, and it's my understanding that he still may have that contract with Dior, so he continued that product endorsement.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: In April sorry in the spring and the fall I believe it was Mr. Depp was able to do press for the film Waiting for the Barbarian He went to the Deauville Film Festival he went to the Venice Film Festival He was well received at the press conferences You know life was at the same level for him in terms of his popularity over in Europe. They were still - he was still working on press for the films. And then, of course, he was scheduled to film Fantastic Beasts in early November of 2020.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: It's no longer the case, correct.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: He was paid for it, but he does not star in the film.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: I don't know if it - I don't think it had any effect on his fan following. Again, his Q scores didn't shift and, clearly, has a strong fan base.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Mr. Depp.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Well, again, filing the lawsuits, bringing to light the issues. Is Mr. Depp doing that on his own according? And any statements that were made by his team, Mr. Waldman or anyone else, is associated with Mr. Depp, and those statements that came out, the defamatory statements, which we'll talk about in a minute, were also --

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Put out by Mr. Depp's team. So, in actuality, he's casing his own demise by bringing these lawsuits forward and continuing to kind of ignite the fire of negative publicity around both of them.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Yes.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: So, I was asked to look at the reputational harm and economic loss that Ms. Heard incurred due to the defamatory statements that Mr. Waldman, on behalf of Mr. Depp, made in April of 2020 and again in June of 2020.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Again, many of the same materials that I reviewed for Mr. Depp's case, which was the deposition testimony, the pleadings, the discovery, all of that was included, as well as expert testimony that was based on statistical analysis of negative social media campaigns that were created, as well as what happened. I talked to Ms. Heard's agents, I have read their depositions; I talked to her publicist, I've read her deposition; I talked to Ms. Heard, herself, to get a first-person accounting of what happened from her perspective, after those defamatory statements were made. And then, I looked at, you know, again emails back and forth and texts back and forth with studio, Warner Brothers, and other Is producers that the management team is working with e to get Ms. Heard more work.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Yes.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: So, Amber's had a long career for someone who is not -- you know, is fairly young It still. She was in over 50 productions, I believe including Aquaman and Justice League. But let's just say close to 50 productions. Well, certainly 50 productions before the defamatory statements were made. She's had, you know, a consistent working actor's career. Her agents were strategic as she started getting more work, that they wanted her to work with better and better directors, to have, you know -- the Danish Girl is a film that had a strong director and a strong critical acclaim.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: And then she went from that to getting Justice League, which is on the bigger budget, bigger-scale movie, and, of course, Aquaman and Aquaman 2. So her career was following a very nice, steady rise. She was on the precipice of a meteoric rise, you know, with Aquaman and Aquaman 2, prior to the statements.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Right. In Aquaman 1, there were many emails from the director and the producer and -

KATHRYN ARNOLD: She got emails from the director and the producer stating that they loved her performance -

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Certainly. Accolading emails. Emails of accolade from the director and the producer.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: The press really loved working with Amber. She was on the cover of many magazines after the Danish Girl, after Justice League, after Aquaman. She was the cover girl, I think it was, of Marie Claire, Elle, in U.K She had a cover story of a big magazine in Mexico, in Australia. There was one magazine called her woman of the year. Another one called her role model of the year. So she got a lot of press, you know. She did a lot of press, both in magazines, but also in the press tours and the press junkets that she did for the films.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Yes, there were a lot-

KATHRYN ARNOLD: There was a lot of them I don't remember all of them But it was, you know, GQ, Is Elle, Marie Claire, the big magazines, both here, in U.K, Eastern Europe, in Latin America, and in Australia.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Well, the press tour was doing well, and they wanted to give her a lot more press. And I think up until the defamatory statements came out, she was on deck to do a lot of press, and I then it-

KATHRYN ARNOLD: So the press and the requests for press went silent after the defamatory statements made, which, then, the negative social media campaign . , , , , , 6-512-- ensued after that.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Social media becomes a big part of how studios decide to use an actor or actress in a film because they want to know how the general public feels about them They want to know how the consumer feels about that actor. So, when there's positive social media, that's a good thing for the actor.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: When there is negative social media, it can be very bad, because not only can social media be directed at the actor or the actress themselves, but it can also be directed towards the movie, towards the movie company, towards the product that the actor or actress is working with, so it becomes very complicated and it can get very messy to continue working with an actor or an actress if there is a lot of negative social media around them

KATHRYN ARNOLD: After the Depp/Waldman statements, social media blew up with negative tweets and Instagram posts and, you know, Facebook posts, Snapchatting, and trolling, as we call it. It was just negative. According to Mr. Schnell, there was over 1.2 million negative tweets about Amber using hashtags that used the words in the statement of the Depp/Waldman statements, excuse me. That 1.2 million negative statements, between April of 2020 and November -- or January of '21. That's a lot of negative publicity. And there was just a lot of, what we call, "noise" around Ms. Heard and her work of any kind.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: So a negative social campaign would be when a fan base or, in this case, according to both the forensic statistical analysis, as well as Ms. Heard's agents and the product that she was working with, L'Oreal, and her publicist, it was a campaign that included both live accounts, live -- you know, people that actually have individuals, as well as what we call bots --

KATHRYN ARNOLD: The fan base was very energized by I, Mr. - the Depp/Waldman -

KATHRYN ARNOLD: I'm sorry. I have a lot in my brain right now.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Great So the negative campaigning has been used both to, you know, let's fire Amber off of Aquaman to the product that she was having endorsement contract with, with L'Oreal, the makeup, and every time that L'Oreal mentioned Amber Heard and the product together, they would 4--tl---------------------6-5-16-- _1_4--tl---------------------6-5-16--

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Get harassed, her publicist's company was harassed. Any kind of movie that she was related to or television project that she was related to got negative attention from the social media world. Even the charities that she was involved with were getting hammered, if you will, or bombarded by negative social media, which made it difficult to work with Amber on any level because negativity was brought to their product, service, or film.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Yes.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Again, the statements -- I'm son-y, the social media campaign that had called -- you know, removing Amber from Aquaman or, you know, negativity from her relationship in that film, it always tended to use words that were inside the defamatory statements. They became hashtags, right? So, the defamatory statements, they were often reiterated in the tweets and the posts.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Well, first of all, it has to stop. So once it stops, then an actor and their team can work slowly and patiently in both - maybe it's O press reviews, maybe relationship with charity, maybe it's a small role in a movie and they do well, and they kind of rebuild their career. But it can take two, three, four, five years or more to rehabilitate your career. But first and foremost, it needs to stop. You know, it just needs to stop so that they can - the consumer can get beyond it and then they can reactivate their career by doing the work again.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Well, the reputation, I guess, depends on who we're talking to. But in the public, it's been very negative. In the industry, they like her work, but it's very- they can't work with her right now; again, because every time her name is mentioned, the negativity flares up again. So it doesn't make sense for them to try to make a movie, which costs millions of dollars, and then have a lot of negativity towards the film or the TV show or the product. So her world has been silent, in terms of opportunities, and even things that she wanted to work on are no longer available to her.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: For a long time, no. Then recently, she was able to do a small independent film from some people out of - who get their financing out of Europe. But up until that, no. She has not worked.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: I'd like to call Aquaman really, you know, Amber Heard's star-is-born moment. It was that moment where not only was she a good actor, !S but she was now world-renowned because she was in I the most successful film almost of all time, if not all time, but certainly for DC comics. She IS was on the poster with the very handsome Jason Momoa, and they were this couple, and she was !to strong and beautiful. And it was just this 111 extraordinary moment for her career to take off. You know, her agents were excited, the producers l were excited. Everybody just wanted to hit the ,14 ground running and let's do more. Let's do more work.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: So, for a limited time, in February 2021, there were conversations that Amber's -- I'm going to go technical with you. Her option for employment was not going to be exercised. So they may not have hired her again, even though she had a contract for it. There was some question as to whether she was going to be hired again on Aquaman 2.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: She did. Her management team fought very hard and they ultimately ended up hiring her, but also not only because of what her management ,9 team did, but Jason Momoa, the star, and James e 1110 Vaughan, the director, committed to her in an email saying if we are involved in this movie -

KATHRYN ARNOLD: I'm sorry, I'm just trying to understand this world. So her management team worked hard and Jason and the director were adamant that she was -

KATHRYN ARNOLD: According to the fact that they did a chemistry test with Ms. Heard, Ms. Heard and Jason Momoa in order for her to be hired, that is a good indication that they thought the two of them had good chemistry. Obviously, when you look at the movie, they have good chemistry, and the poster they have good chemistry. So, I think it's general awareness that they had good chemistry.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: He wanted her in the movie.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: There were no communications, whatsoever, that there was no chemistry between the two.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: I did not see any evidence of it.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Correct.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: She had zero leverage. She was I fighting for her life to stay in the film

KATHRYN ARNOLD: So, you may know this already, so I apologize if you've heard it before, I don't know what's been brought to your attention, but in a franchise such as - a potential franchise such as Justice League and Aquaman, the customs and practice is that the studio will make an agreement with the actor that incorporates potential future films. So if Justice League does well, they want to know what they're going to pay the actor for the next one and the next one and the next one. And in those successive terms in the contract, the fee for that actor customarily goes up. It can go up by 10 percent, 20 percent, 100 percent, it could double, what have you. And in the case, as Ms. Kovacevic stated in her testimony, that in a successful franchise, a movie that has made a 1.8 billion dollars, the actor's agents will go back and try to renegotiate that upcoming price tag. So if it was going to be X, they might want it to be 2X or 3X.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: That's the standard in the industry, to renegotiate your contract when there's many films in one single contract that each have their own price points.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Jason Momoa was able to renegotiate his contract very significantly from Aquaman 1 to Aquaman 2.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Went up from somewhere between 3 and 4 million to 15 million.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Yes.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Aquaman 1, she was paid $2 million.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: I'm sorry. I apologize. Aquaman 1, I believe she got $1 million. Aquaman 2, she was supposed to get $2 million. I apologize. There were a lot of numbers in that one contract. Aquaman 1 is 1 million. Aquaman 2 was going to be 2 million.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Right. Well, as you can see from Mr. Momoa's contact that went up exponentially, up to $15 million, Ms. Heard, I don't know if she would have gotten $15 million for the movie, but she certainly could have increased it by one or two million dollars or even doubled it. So, if it was 2, it could have been 4, or even 5 or 6, from Aquaman 1 to Aquaman 2 without any of this negativity that was recreated by the Depp/Waldman depending on the enthusiasm of had it just rolled statements.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: It was diminished.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Couple of things.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Yes.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: So there's two things. When two actors do well in a romantic relationship and, you know, they get married and they're going to have a baby, you know, you want to follow that through because part of what did well in Aquaman was not only the action sequences but to have a strong female character having a relationship with the strong male character, it's very empowering. So that was working for them in the first place. The poster for Aquaman that went around the world, one of the main posters, was of the two of them together standing proud and strong, right, being that couple. So naturally, as you go and develop scripts in the industry, you want to follow on the things that are working. And according to Ms. Heard, when she read the first script for Aquaman 2, she had a strong romantic part in the entire film and she also got to do some great action sequences at the end of that storyline and that script. So, she was featured predominantly throughout the script of Aquaman 2 when she first read it.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Well, she didn't have anything, so she wasn't getting the scripts when her colleagues were getting the scripts. She heard that through her agents. Then when she got the script, it was pared down from the first script, dramatically. They had her in the hospital very shortly in the first part of the movie, called act 1, they had her in the hospital, and they pretty much had her in the hospital and then was going to do this action sequence in the end. She trained five hours a day for several months with a trainer, to do this action sequence.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: And then when she got to set, two things happened. One, the costume designer said, I don't know what happened to your role, it got diminished.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: More importantly, though, this big action sequence that she was going to do at the end of the movie, in the third act, was cut out and they took it away from her. So it was radically reduced from what it was in the script and what she even trained for while she was preparing for the movie.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: I haven't seen the movie yet, specifically, so I can't really speak to that yet.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: I believe that in the first act of the movie, she was injured somehow or had something with the baby. I don't know exactly. I'm just going on what Ms. Heard told me about, that she ends up in the hospital early in new Aquaman 2 movie, and doesn't really come out until the end to kind of wrap things up, but all the interactions with Momoa's character and certainly the action scenes were taken out.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: As we talked about earlier, actively involved in the press and the promotion, whether that was on the press junket, what we call when they tour the world and the actors tour together and answer questions from the press, at those screenings and film festivals. And then, also, she was on the cover of magazines, usually after her movies, especially after Justice League.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Amber's not been involved in any of the promotion that's been done to date, or very little, particularly in teasers that I've seen called, you know, short little films about the making of and so forth. She's not featured in them. And also, specifically, there was a big event that Warner Brothers put on during the fandom, I think it was a DC fandom event, which is a big comic con-style event. And they invited all the actors, or majority of the actors that had strong roles in the film to participate, both in the posters and the artwork and also participate at DC fandom. And Ms. Heard was not invited to either be in the poster or be at the event. And, in fact, they told her she cannot come.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Absolutely. It means that nobody knows about her. She doesn't have the same part in the film. It's not going to take her on to her next movie. She's not being associated with the tremendous amount of promotion that's going to be made for this, you know, movie that everybody's looking forward to seeing. So she's not a part of it because of this negative campaign.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: So, prior to the defamatory statements, either around -- after or around the time that Aquaman 1 came out, she was in the TV show called The Stand, and it was based on a Stephen King novel. So, big book, you know, going to be a big TV show, and, again, Ms. Heard didn't do any press or promotion for that for the same reasons.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Right. So Ms. Heard was in -- they had done an article about her participation in this TV show, The Stand, the Stephen-King-novel-related TV show, and they were going to give her the cover picture and the cover story, and they took it away. I don't know if the article existed, but they certainly took away the picture and the cover story,

KATHRYN ARNOLD: There weren't any. So, yes, effectively, because there used to be a lot of press, of course, and now there aren't any.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Again, for many years, no. For a good period of time, a year and a half, two years, until she got this small movie called the independent - Into the Fire.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: No.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Again, she had some passion projects. She was invited to do some charity work, and she also had her own passion projects that she loved and wanted to be involved with, and even travel for, but they decided it wasn't going to be a good idea because every time she appears, the social media negative, you know, campaign starts up again. So she hasn't been able to do any charity

KATHRYN ARNOLD: So, an endorsement is when an actor associates themselves with a product either for print, promotion, commercial, like Jennifer Aniston doing the water, you know, or Matthew McConaughey doing a car commercial. That's a product endorsement. He's paid to say that the product is good and be associated with the product.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Well, they're important on two levels. One, they bring a good amount of income to them when they're not shooting movies, so it's a good way to make money in between film roles. And also, it shows the studios and the production executives and the financiers that the actor is relevant in the community because of being associated with the product. So if it's a well-known product, that's really great; if it's a medium product, that's great, and so forth and so on. So you want to be, if you can, and if that's something that you like to do. Not everybody does, but if they like to do that, they can get a lot of value out of those product endorsements because the studio sees that there's a connection to the consumer, not just in a film, but also with product.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Yes.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: So Amber was hired by L'Oreal to endorse their product, the makeup line, and she had a $1.5 million contract for two years, and they were able to work -- they had 20 days of her work, you know, they had the right to work with her for 20 days. And she started the work, and , then when the defamatory statements came out, they essentially put a pause on working with her. So, they no longer brought her to photo shoots. They no longer had her do public events for the product, and basically said we love you but we can't work with you right now because it's just too much -

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Well, they put it on pause and haven't done any work, so she's not out there in the public eye related to the product. And they have decided to continue working with her at some point, once, as I said, this all quiets down, this trial is over, and hopefully the negative campaigns will stop. So they extended her contract, but they did not pay her for that extension.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: No.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Yes.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: First of all, I looked at Amber's career directly, and I wanted to see -- you know as I said earlier, she worked consistently and then she was on this kind of very large upswing with the big movies, Justice League and Aquaman, and The Stand with the Stephen King project. And then it stopped, right, so her work stopped. And then I looked at other actors that kind of grew up around the same time frame, grew up meaning they started their career and had the same time frame to start going from the smaller projects to the well-known director projects and the big movie projects.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: I looked at those actors and I then saw after they had their star-is-born moment, if you will, I wanted to see where their careers went. I looked at several actors to see, including Jason Momoa, her co-star, to see what happened in their careers after such a successful film as Aquaman came out.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: It's a very common methodology in the industry, to work with what we call comps. I think Ms. Kovacevic even used that word, "comp."

KATHRYN ARNOLD: With film, you try to find compared to film. With actors, you look to see comparable actors. So you can kind of- it's not a distinct, actual this is going to happen, but this is the probability, with a reasonable certainty, that with the right management team that she had and her acting ability and her books and the press that she was getting and should have continued to get, that her career would have been similar to these other actors.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Yes, I have.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Well, I wanted to look at actors that were in superhero films that had done really well at the box office. So, I looked at Jason Momoa, her co-star; I looked at Gal Gadot, who is in Wonder Woman; I looked at Ana de Armas, who was in blah, blah, blah blah, blah, blah blah.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Thank you, Bladerunner. I looked at Zendaya, who was in Spiderman; I looked at Chris Pine, who is in Star Trek and also Wonder Woman. About, you know, the similar age range, attractive actors, all with good acting skills, all able to do stunts. There are not that many actors to look at who do superhero characters, so it was a small pool to work from, but I took a wide range from those actors, both men and women, to see what could potentially happen to Ms. Heard's career.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Absolutely not. No two actors are identical. You can only look at that within a range of characteristics and work history, management team, and so forth.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Yes, I did. "

KATHRYN ARNOLD: So, Mr. Bania looked at calendar years in to assess, so what happened in December of, you know, 2017 or or '19, what happened in June, what happened in a very specific time frame, which works on some statistical analysis, but when you're talking about actors and the relationships to Q scores, Q scores are related to the actors' viability in the consumer's mind, if you will, how well known or how much they're coming up in conversation.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: So, Mr. Bania did not look at time periods of the actors that I compared them with to the film when it came out, so, like, right after the success of their big film, what was their Q score. But moreover, he just looked at them in a year range. So it doesn't coincide from actor to actor just because you look at it over time. You have to look at, specifically, after each of those individual's box office success with the particular film, you look at the Q score, high or low, during that, and then if it comes back up, if they have another film or another event that brings them in the limelight again.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: So it's not about time, it's related to a specific activity or event, and he did not do that

KATHRYN ARNOLD: In terms of the - I'm not quite sure I understand.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Oh.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Oh, okay. Sorry. So all those actors' careers, the ones I mentioned, they all either were steady rise or even a meteoric rise in terms of where their career went after their star-is-born moment. Then they got some other good films and maybe they got another film that performed extremely well. So it was a range, but they all were on an upward trajectory, without a doubt.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Well, the way that the industry works is usually, unless there is a force majeure or some really negative event, her career should have followed that same upward swing in about the same time frame, give or take six months to a year, but it would be very reasonable to believe that her career would have been on an upward trajectory within the range of those other actors.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Again, all those actors that we talked about all did multiple endorsement deals after their big movies or after their series of movies. Jason Momoa is on, you know, Rocket Mortgage and Harley Davidson, as well as five or six other companies. Zendaya is Lancome and fashion and water and jewelry. And Gal Gadot, Chris Pine and Armas, they have all done either a couple or many. And all of them have associated with a large brand, unlike Amber, who hasn't even been able to work on the one contract that she had. She certainly didn't get any others.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: They were significant if we follow the trajectory of her colleagues.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Well, as I stated earlier, so from Aquaman 1 to 2, it went from a million dollars to $2 million, right, so that was a pre-written contract, it doubled. So the agents were very excited, after the success of Aquaman, to go and Is negotiate a much higher fee, like they did for Jason Momoa. They weren't able to do that. So in that instance alone, it was more than likely a $2 million loss, just from that movie alone.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: It could have been two to four.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: So once, as Amber's agent, Ms. Kovacevic -

KATHRYN ARNOLD: I was doing okay.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Ms. Kovacevic said that once you get that quote of the $2 million from Aquaman 2, that kind of was like the baseline for any other movie she would have done. So any other studio movie would have started from there, and depending on the success of Aquaman and how much press she did maybe she would have done another great director, independent film, whatever, that $2 million for a studio film, and had it jumped to 4 million with the renegotiation, that, then, would have been the basis. So any future studio film that she would have done, any big budget film would have been the basis of 4 million and most likely had gone up from there, if she was able to get others, which she should have, just like the other actors.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Well, on The Stand, which was about the same time as Aquaman, but got -- the press and the promotion got cut off because of the defamatory statements and negative campaign, she got paid $200,000 an episode on The Stand.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: So, on a TV series of nine episodes, it's $1.8 million. So if she had, again, done other TV shows, it's very unlikely that whether she worked with a streamer or one of the networks, that her fee would have gone up from there. Her agents would have been able to use the leverage of the success of Aquaman 2 to put her, if she had done another television show, given rise to even a higher episodic fee. Some actors go up to $1 million an episode. Jason Momoa, in his TV show, got $1 million. So, there's an exponential range of where she could have gone.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Same thing. All the other actors were doing, over the course of a couple years' period, you know, anywhere from five, six, seven other endorsement deals. And Ms. Heard, realistically, could have gotten endorsement deals in other categories. L'Oreal is makeup, so probably not in makeup, but maybe water or clothing or jewelry or wellness or it could have been anything else. So she, too, should have, with a reasonable degree of certainty, gotten other contract deals based on the success of the films that she has been associated with and the TV shows she has been associated with.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: In terms of dollars, $1.5 million for L'Oreal for a two-year contract, and let's give her four other 1.5 or $2 million deals, which all those other actors, especially the ladies, have gotten, then you're looking at an additional $8 million of income over time. I'm not saying this is in one period. We're looking at as far back as the defamatory statements of 2020 to now, which is almost two years. And, again, as I said earlier, even when this is quiet, it will take three to five years for her to rehabilitate her career, if she can.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: So we have to look at it as a period of a minimum of five years. So when I say $8 million for an endorsement contract, it would have been over time.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Again, these other actors that we looked, and it's a wide range of them, some of them did bigger films, some of them gigantic films, but it is very reasonable to assume that I I f once you are in an Aquaman-style film, you'll either continue to do those, right, some of these franchises, as we know, go four, five, six films, I or she had the power to be in another studio film Is that had nothing to do with Aquaman.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: So, again, over the course of five years, it's very reasonable to consider that she would have been in at least one film a year, at a minimum of $4 million, because that's what her pricing would have been had she renegotiated. And it's important to note that in her Justice League contract, had there -- if there's an Aquaman 3, her price is set at $4 million.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: So it would be reasonable to assume and to believe that if she did a film a year for five years, at a minimum of $4 million a year, without any negotiation, which probably would have happened, but let's just say that baseline, that would be another $20 million over that time frame.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: That it would continue to rise. It's customary in the industry, as I talked about earlier, that the negotiations, especially with her agents at William Morris, her fees would have gone higher. So I'm just using a baseline without any ability to foresee in the future, but I already know she got negotiated for $4 million for Aquaman 3, so if we use that as a baseline minimum, but it very well would have gone up had her agents done the work that they wanted to do.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: So, again, it's really important that I looked at - hopefully you understand it, that it's over time. So, let's just say a minimum of five years that we're going to talk about these losses, and it could be more, but at minimum, if you look at the film, the television, and the endorsement contracts, it's very likely that Ms. Heard should have earned between 45 and $50 million over that time period.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Yes.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: May I step down?

KATHRYN ARNOLD: I'm sorry.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Do I stand?

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Hello. How are you?

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Only his association with Mr. Waldman, correct.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: I don't know.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: That was my analysis.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: That's what I was tasked with, yes.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: When you look at the time frame of when the Waldman statements came out and you look at what was going on with Ms. Heard's career prior to the statements and what happened after the statements, it's very clear to make that correlation, that they were caused by those statements and the campaign that followed afterwards, in terms of the negative social media.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: I'm not an expert in semantics.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: As I stated, and I clearly wanted to make sure that everybody understood, was that it was a time frame, you know, between which the Waldman statements were made and the negative decline in her career started happening, and in discussions with her agents and her publicist, there was a very tight timeline and a very close link to when those statements came out and when everything started pulling away from Ms. Heard.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Well, actually, both the words in the statements were used as hashtags in the campaign, as well as when the statistical and investigative analysis was done, along with the social media campaign, it turned out that 1 in 4 of the statements had Waldman or Waldman in them. So that was another connection that I was able to make between the defamatory statements and these negative -- negativity that the studios and the product endorsements and television and the press connected as well.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Again, that's outside the scope of my expertise.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: I said words from the Waldman statements appeared in hashtags.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: I've also seen them online myself.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: That was Mr. Schnell's analysis, and I do believe I went over that, yes.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Correct.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: That's one of them.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Also, in my conversations with Mr. Schnell, we talked about all the words that were in the statement that also appeared. So what JO he wrote in his report and what I had in my conversation may not have been the same thing.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: That's part of what I relied on, and I'm allowed to talk about that

KATHRYN ARNOLD: The fact that she was called the hoax can be related to Amber Heard's an abuser, but, no, those words were not used, correct.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Correct.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Correct.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: I don't have his declaration or report in front of me, but we can look at it together, if you'd like to.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: According to Mr. Schnell, yes.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Well, no, we also look at the timeline because those campaigns were not active prior to the Waldman statements, and then they started appearing. So there is some connectivity there as well.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Well, you also want to -- I also looked at Ms. Heard's career after the divorce proceedings and other lawsuits that she was either involved with or was discussed. And her career might have had a pause, but she was able to overcome that when she did Aquaman and she did The Stand, both very prominent productions, and there was no dramatic downturn in her career after any publicity.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: No, there's dust.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: There's just dust, and I'm just distracting myself.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: No notes. It's really just that, just dust.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: As I was saying, her career was moving forward, and she had been able to overcome the negative publicity surrounding the divorce or the initial filing of the U.K. lawsuits or any other lawsuits. Anything that she was associated, she overcame that; she did Justice League, she did Aquaman, and she did The Stand, and she got the L'Oreal contract all after that. The only time her career slowed down and stopped was at the same time that those defamatory statements came out.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: No, I said it ignites the fire mostly around Mr. Depp.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Excuse me, please.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: That was in context of when I was asked about Mr. Depp's career. That was not in context of when I was asked about Ms. Heard's career.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: It is and isn't. The protagonist in the case in the U.K. was Mr. Depp. Ms. Heard was a witness to that case, she was not a part of the case. So most of the negative press went --

KATHRYN ARNOLD: There was negativity, yes, about Amber about the case. Yes.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Right.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Well, again, it was a close time frame. The negative statements were much closer time frame to the press and publicity around Aquaman and The Stand than the U.K. case, which was months later. So, again, I will look at the defamatory statements as kind of the igniting force, and it promoted and kind of more oxygen was put on the fire when the U.K case came out. So it kind of became a snowball effect of, you know, the mattress lit and it kept getting stronger and stronger.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: No.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: What time frame are you talking about with the bad publicity from the U.K case, so we can at least be specific on time frames?

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Five-year time window from 2020 to the two years that we're at now, plus the three years moving forward I in terms of the time frame, and it would take 1! someone, who's been under this much duress, to kind of rehabilitate their career. That's when we talked about the five years.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Before the Waldman statements, as I said, she was able to overcome that, and she got great jobs and was getting endorsement contracts.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: It can be the instigating event, if you want me to call it that. We'll call the Waldman statements the instigating event of the torrential rain of social media tactics that went on, have gone on for years, yep.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Well, it's like a fire. If one tree burns then more air or wind is added to it, then the next tree burns and the whole forest burns. But if that first fire hadn't started with the first tree, there would have been no loss of acreage, so you can look at it with that same analogy.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: I'm not a firefighter. I'm not going to go there with you. But, obviously, we know that a single match can cause thousands of acres to burn, so we can leave it at that.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Yes.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: I don't know.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: I have no idea.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: If one believed it, yes.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: It certainly has been discussed. We don't have any proof or video of anybody defecating on the bed.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: That's a good thing.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Correct.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Waldman, as you said, didn't talk about defecation.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: That story, you're going to ask me for a causational link between that poop story and her demise. No, I'm not going to do that, nor can I.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Can I make it? No, I can't.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Well, again, I did, and I have, and I stand by them.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: The time frame and the instigation and, if you will, the rallying of the forces. Again, it's like a lit tree, it's going to ignite anything. It's like free game afterwards. So, that was the instigating event, if you will, and that's what I looked at, yes.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: I was tasked to look at that specifically, and that's what I was asked to limit it to. I was not asked to look at anything else.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Yes.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: You can look it up. If you did, I'll I go with that.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Actually, I didn't watch Baywatch, but he certainly had the physique for it, so ...

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Right.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Yes.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: In TV or film?

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Okay. I don't have Mr. Momoa's resume memorized.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Yes, it was.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Yes, he was.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Yes, he is.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Yes.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: You mean Justice League, in a movie like that, yeah.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: I didn't see that one.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: No.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: No.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Correct.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Yes.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Yes.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Which happened post Aquaman.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: He's not the lead, though.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: In Dune, no, he's not the lead.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Huh?

KATHRYN ARNOLD: No, but I've seen the movie.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Again, I didn't read the book.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Oh, man, dude.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: I don't know that for sure, no.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Again, I don't have her resume. If you want to show it to me, we can count them together.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: I don't know, I don't follow his fan base.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: I said I don't follow his fan base. I understand him as a prominent actor in the business, but I don't follow his fan base.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Of course. You can look at numbers, but I don't keep a watch on his social media , feed. All right. You indicated that Gal Gadot is in Wonder Woman? Is Yeah, she's the star.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: I know. She's good too.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Yes.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Which one are you referring to?

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Excuse me, I honestly don't remember her being as one of the main characters. I know it was The Rock -

KATHRYN ARNOLD: I've seen it on her resume, but I'm not a fan of the Fast and Furious.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: If you're going to talk about apples to apples in that exact movie, yes.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Not yet.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: In what movie they were in together? Oh, in Justice League?

KATHRYN ARNOLD: I haven't counted the screen time, so I can't really say.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Zendaya, yeah.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: I guess when you have a name with a Z, it works, I guess.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Right.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Yes.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Yes.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Well, as I was explaining to you, how I chose them, when you look at superhero characters, there's not that many to pull from. So I just I tried to -- I worked on pulling characters that were in superhero movies that was about the same age range within ten years, as you've noted to me, thank you. Also just where her career could have gone. I said they were comparables, they're not identical. So you can just look at what their career has done either before that superhero movie, been in others, or the one they were in, and then you look at where her career should have gone. Even though she may not have been at the stature of a Zendaya at that time, you can still look at it as a comparable trajectory of what happens when you're in a blockbuster movie. It's just a reference point.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: It's not meant to be identical, they're not meant to be the same ,16 people, not even to have the same career. It's I meant to be a reference point. Simple as that.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: But Ms. Heard was in the biggest blockbuster movie, and the light that shines on Jason Momoa will also shine on her, so you have to look at in context of the biggest movie that DC -

KATHRYN ARNOLD: And also one of the biggest box office films ever, probably within the top ten, because I've looked it, right? So that light is going to shine brighter on her than someone who wasn't in that movie. Again, it would have just helped her and her career move forward, not stalled it and her world be silent afterwards.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Actually, no. I did use meteoric with someone like, let's say, Gal Gadot or Zendaya, but I actually gave you a range and gave the jury a range that they weren't all going to all have a meteoric rise. Some of them were going to be smaller. The numbers I gave do not represent a meteoric rise. A meteoric rise is when Jason Momoa goes from, I don't know, 4 million, 5 million to a $50 million payday. That's a meteoric shift in our business. But when someone has contracts that actually go from one million to the first one, two million, and then four million, that is standard for a franchise that is perceived to do well. So, I base those calculations on very specific numbers that were already contracted. I wanted to stay within reality and look at the numbers that were already contracted for Ms. Heard, and just move out forward on one film a year, maybe a TV show here or there, and some endorsement contracts, which is very typical for an actor in our business to make that kind of money.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: It just is what happens.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Incorrect. In the Aquaman Justice League -- it's actually the Justice League contract because they're associated, so Aquaman 2 is paid 1 million. Then in Aquaman 2, it was written that she was going to earn 2 million, and if there's another one, it was written in the terms she would get 4 million. So, there actually was a contract that Ms. Heard signed with the studio.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Aquaman 2 hasn't come out yet, so...

KATHRYN ARNOLD: The third one is still on deck, as they say.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: She was paid $2 million for Aquaman, 2, Aquaman 2.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: She was contracted to be paid, and when the movie goes, that's what she will get paid, that's what I said.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Right. If Aquaman 2 does even nearly as well as Aquaman 1, there's going to most likely to be a third one, so we can look at that as a precedent that was set in writing, actually.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: If it was the first or the second one. But if it's the fifth in the series, I assume that you're referring to Pirates 5, it performed well at the box office, yes, but certainly not in comparison to some of the other ones. And that's where a studio like Disney will look at to say, has that franchise had its run or do we need to change it?

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Well, an $800 million payday has to be put in the context of the budget that it costs to get that movie and then the market thereafter. And with the increasing cost in not only Mr. Depp's fees, plus the other actors' fees, plus general production costs that are getting more expensive, then you put in the marketing cost, which are sometimes one, two, or three times the budget of the film, a film like that, a studio can spend 6 to 800 million just making and marketing the film.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: So, $795 million is a lot of money. And it seems like a really good box office, but is you have to put into perspective of what's spent on production, marketing, and the overhead cost that the studio takes. Again, it's all in context of what the budget of the film and the marketing of the film is.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Yes.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Again, I know some of the movies that she's been in. I don't remember about Deep Water. I don't even know if that's out yet, to be honest.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Yes, she was.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Right. After her big stars - star-is-born moment, yes, she's gotten a lot more big roles, which is what we had hoped for Ms. Heard.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: It was like the first big, you know, studio movie that got a lot of attention. I believe that is one that we can look at as a marker for her, sure.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: I did.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: It was years ago. I don't know exactly what role she played, but she was in that movie. And from that, her agents used that as leverage to get her more movies.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Are you saying that's the only thing she was, she was a gigantic, naked billboard?

KATHRYN ARNOLD: I don't remember the movie well enough to know.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Right.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Are you talking about Batman?

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Sure.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Several.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: He was Batman.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: You're a movie buff, yeah.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: I think he was, you're right. ' I 1

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Definitely.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Don't know.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Correct.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Unless it's contractual.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: I believe so. She was also in Knives Out, which is probably even a bigger breakout role for her, but, again, I chose Bladerunner because it's a similar role. You have to start somewhere. But Knives Out probably was her big moment in

KATHRYN ARNOLD: He is in Wonder Woman - well, Star Trek being a blockbuster, but not necessarily a superhero movie.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: He plays a love interest to Gadot.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: I don't remember exactly the role he played. I didn't see it in the movie, just know it from his resume, to be honest.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: I hate to say I'm not a Star Trek fan.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: I did know that he starred, that's why I used it.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Again, we can go over this a couple more ti mes, and I'm happy to do so. All I wanted to do is look at, from a small pool of people that have been in huge franchise movies -- well, superhero movies and give you a sense of what the range is or what someone's trajectory can be. Again, they are not apples and apples. They're not both green apples or both red apples. I was just looking at a range. It's what we do. It's what we do in the industry; it's what you do to kind of get a sense of how much you're going to pay an actor, what they're worth in the foreign market and domestic market.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Right. You asked me why I chose him, which is what this conversation is about. Again, I chose him because he was part of Star Trek and Wonder Woman, but mostly because he was in Wonder Woman. I don't recall the exact time frame of what came first, but the fact that he is in both of them is consistent with what actors of this yoke tend to do once they're in a movie like this.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Chris Pine has been an actor, he's been a well-liked actor. He was in both Star Trek and in Wonder Woman.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Pardon me?

KATHRYN ARNOLD: He's had a good career.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Yes.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: She was on the precipice of a great career. She didn't have a chance to negotiate for that yet or be in those movies.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: I didn't say meteoric. I said ,5 consistent. I don't know. She could have a meteoric rise, but I was talking about consistent with Ms. Heard.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: One in Aquaman. Who's the other title character?

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Wonder Woman, right. She's Wonder Woman. Oh, and you mean Jason Momoa. Sure.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Yeah.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Again, there are not that many in the pool to pick from. I'm not going to put - compare the actors that haven't been in either large, what we call, tent pole movies or franchise movies or superhero movies, so I wanted to work within those parameters, and that's what I did. So those are the actors I chose, yes, and to show what type of work happens when you're in a big movie and what happens afterwards.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Again, they were all in superhero or movies that did very, very well at the

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Not like a lead character like Jason Momoa. But to your point, there are many actors that have no career prior to a breakout role and then have a meteoric career and have had no career prior. So you don't always just look at the past; it's helpful, and with Ms. Heard, she had good reviews, so that's what I looked at. But if you look at other actors and they have their first role and all of a sudden they become a superstar, from one role, so that happens in our business. It just does.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Incorrect.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Jason Momoa.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Yes.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: His agent did.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: No, his agent is at William Morris as well, so she told me that.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: No, but in 25 years of being in this business, I understand the basis of which actors are paid when they're in blockbuster films and then they're in large-budgeted studio films. So it's not a leap to kind of understand where the actress may- again, I really didn't want to try to be speculative in my analysis. I wanted to work with the numbers that Amber had contracted for already and just take it from there, and said if she had done one movie a year and one series and done product endorsement, that's how I got to a number. So I wasn't looking to take her on a meteoric rise.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: I wasn't looking to give her the same career as Jason Momoa, I took her numbers that her agents have actually negotiated and worked from there.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Correct.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Right.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Well, again, with someone like Ms. Heard, who is in a blockbuster film of a team at William Morris and my discussions with William Morris, that's what they were looking to negotiate for her on other projects. So I got some of that information from her management team directly.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: I think that's the job of an agent, get as much money as possible.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: Right. But agents are working with people in the industry and have their finger on the pulse of what's going on, so they know who is marketable and the prices that all the streamers are paying these days.

KATHRYN ARNOLD: No. Again, what I was talking to, William Morris, in terms of the pricing, that they are aware of not only for their own client but what's out on the marketplace, and it's pretty consistent. And I've also worked with other actors in other cases that have gotten similar contracts, so I'm familiar with the rates of endorsement contracts.