Doug Bania — Direct/Cross
459 linesTHE COURT: Thank you. All right. Your next witness.
MS. LECAROZ: ‘Plaintiff calls Doug Bania, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. Can you spell the last name for me?
MS. LECAROZ: B-A-N-I-A.
THE COURT: Thank you. Sir, you can -- just a reminder that you're still under oath, okay, sir? Thank you
MS. LECAROZ: Since you testified in this case, the jury has heard testimony from Ronald Schnell and Kathryn Arnold. Are you familiar with their and Kathryn Arnold. Are you familiar with their testimony?
DOUG BANIA: Yes.
MS. LECAROZ: Were you asked to analyze their testimony and provide opinions in response?
DOUG BANIA: Yes, I was.
MS. LECAROZ: Have you formed opinions in response to the testimony of Mr. Schnell and Ms. Arnold?
DOUG BANIA: I have.
MS. LECAROZ: Generally what are those opinions?
DOUG BANIA: Generally, Mr. Schnell provided no evidence of a correlation between the Waldman statements and the hashtags and the spikes of those hashtags on Twitter. Second, based on my Internet and social media analytics investigation, I've concluded that the alleged comparable actors that Ms. Arnold came up with are not comparable with Ms. Heard. And then, thirdly, Mr. Schnell and Ms. Arnold both failed to provide any evidence of a causation, as it relates to the Waldman statements, causing any economic harm to Ms. Heard.
MS. LECAROZ: Allright. Let's dig into those opinions a little bit. ; You're familiar with the testimony. of Mr. Schnell that there are more than 2.7 million alleged negative tweets related to Ms. Heard between January 2018 and June 2021?
DOUG BANIA: Yes.
MS. LECAROZ: And what's your understanding of how Mr. Schnell identified those particular 2.7 million tweets?
DOUG BANIA: Yes. Essentially Mr. Schnell chose hashtags that he felt were negative toward Ms. Heard. Those hashtags range from #Justice for Johnny Depp, #AmberHeardisanabuser, #Amberturd, and the hashtag #wejustdon'tlikeyouAmber. So then he used those hashtags, and he searched through, using the Twitter API, searched through various tweets and then came up with any tweets that were used in those hashtags.
MS. LECAROZ: Did you conduct an analysis of those tweets?
DOUG BANIA: Yes. I was given that exact — the data that Mr. Schnell used on.a hard drive. ‘So, yes, I dug into that data as well.
MS. LECAROZ: And what was the purpose of your analysis?
DOUG BANIA: So what I'm trying to do, and what's at issue of the case today at this point, is, you know, were these tweets, did they contain the Waldman statements? That's what we're -- where we're at right now, or the Waldman statements. So I wanted to. analyze those tweets to determine which ones, and if any, contained the Waldman statements.
MS. LECAROZ: What's your understanding of what the Waldman statements are?
DOUG BANIA: So my understanding is they're the three -- there's three Waldman statements that were published in the Daily Mail. The Daily Mail is a U.K. tabloid, and Mr. Arnold was quoted in three of those articles. And those dates were on April 8th, 2020; April 27th, 2020; and on June 24th, 2020. And my understanding is that to May 24, 2022 those quotes, those quotes - sorry. I think I said the wrong name, but those quotes are the only remaining in this case.
MS. LECAROZ: Did you analyze the timing of the tweets that we were talking about as compared to the timing of the Waldman statements?
DOUG BANIA: And that's exactly what I did. So I wanted to look at the Waldman statements, look at the dates that they happened, and then analyze those as it compared to the Twitter data that J had.
MS. LECAROZ: Have you prepared a demonstrative that reflects that aspect of your analysis?
DOUG BANIA: Yes.
MS. LECAROZ: Your Honor, may I approach?
THE COURT: Yes. Did you show counsel?
THE COURT: Okay. Any objection to the demonstrative?
MR. NADELHAFT: What's this?
MS. LECAROZ: It's a summary. He
MS. LECAROZ: It's a summary. He provided a very long chart that does the breakdown of all the tweets by month starting in January 2018, and so this is just a summary of that, rather than going through it all month by month, It's derived from the same data.
MR. NADELHAFT: Then I guess I don't object. I can't know that for sure, but it's just going to be used as a demonstrative?
MS. LECAROZ: Yeah.
THE COURT: Just demonstrative, 1293? It's a demonstrative?
MR. NADELHAFT: That's fine. Yeah.
MS. LECAROZ: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Do you have it?
MS. LECAROZ: I'm sorry? We have it. We're going to put it on the screen.
THE COURT: ’ THE COURT: All right. So 1293 will just be marked for identification as demonstrative 20.and can be published to the jury.
MS. LECAROZ: Mr. Bania, can you explain to the jury what this demonstrative shows.
DOUG BANIA: Yes. So this shows the total hashtags and tweets that Mr. Schnell was analyzing. This is the summary data that -- they're tweets that are running from January 2018 to June of 2021, and, again, these are related to the four hashtags that I discussed.
DOUG BANIA: Whenever I get an assignment such as this, when I'm dealing with a defamatory statement that's allegedly gone viral online, where there's economic damages involved and there's a lot of data involved, I like to take the data, and I like to do a 30,000-foot view of the data to see what I'm looking at, to see if there's anything interesting, odd, different about the data. And the first thing that I noticed is 35 percent of the tweets were prior to the Waldman statements. So, again, remember my assignment is to determine if the Waldman statements are a part of the tweets that Mr.
DOUG BANIA: Schnell analyzed. So, obviously, if these tweets were prior to the Waldman statements, in no way could they have had anything to do with the Waldman statements. So that was the first issue that I noticed. Then, I noticed what I like to call kind of the "alleged defamatory time frame." And as I discussed, that's when the Waldman statements were published. That's the date down here (indicating). You know, the first one in the beginning of April, and the last one, which is the third one, was at the end of June. But what I found interesting is only 2 percent of all of the tweets happened during this Waldman statement period.
DOUG BANIA: So really these are just observations. And for me they were red flags that I made note of, and then I just continued with my analysis.
MS. LECAROZ: What other work can be performed in connection with forming your opinions about the purportedly negative tweets?
DOUG BANIA: Yeah. So now we realize that 35 percent are irrelevant and 2 percent, you know, only happened during this important period. I just continued to dig into the 2.79 million tweets that Mr. Schnell provided.
MS. LECAROZ: And, Tom, can we take that one down.
MS. LECAROZ: And, Mr. Bania, have you prepared’ another demonstrative that depicts that analysis that you were just describing?
DOUG BANIA: Yes.
MS. LECAROZ: Your'Honor, may I approach?
THE COURT: Yes. All right.
MS. LECAROZ: It's just a demonstrative. THE-COURT: Okay. We'll just see if he has an objection. I'll give you time to look at it, sir. Allright, Plaintiff's -- can you tum your microphone on? Sorry.
MR. NADELHAFT: No objection as a demonstrative.
THE COURT: Okay. All right. Plaintiff's Exhibit 1294 will be marked for identification as a demonstrative and will be published to the jury.
MS. LECAROZ: ‘Thank you, Your Honor.
MS. LECAROZ: Mr. Bania, can you explain what this demonstrative shows.
DOUG BANIA: Yes. This is showing the various spikes as it relates to the hashtags that Mr. Schnell testified about. This is actually an exhibit or a demonstrative that he used in his testimony. What this is showing are the largest spikes related to the hashtag #Justice for Johnny Depp. I don't know if you remember his testimony or any of his demonstratives. The other three hashtags did spike at the same time, but a very small spike. So what I'm showing you here are the six top spikes in Mr. Schnell's analysis.
DOUG BANIA: And what's important here, again, is the very first spike and the largest spike, again, happened before the Waldman statements. So what I'm trying to figure out is what tweets were related to the Waldman statements. So this number 1 spike, which was the biggest spike, was prior to the Waldman statements, so it's irrelevant to the case. And then the second thing I noticed that was interesting here is here are the dates in gray, right here. This is the time in which the Waldman statements happened. And you're going to notice, as we discussed before, only 2 percent of the tweets happened during that time, but I found it very interesting for such a viral event that has potentially caused such economic harm, there's no spikes in this area.
DOUG BANIA: And, actually, you're going to see that Mr. Waldman, you know, his statement came out here, in the first April 2020 article, then the second one came out here, and then the third one came out in June. There's actually a downward use of the spike -- downward use of the hashtags. So I'm not seeing any correlation as it relates to the Waldman statements and any spikes here as it relates to the hashtags Mr. Schnell chose.
MS. LECAROZ: Did you analyze each of the spikes that are depicted here?
DOUG BANIA: Yes. So what I did is I looked at the six different spikes, and you're going to notice that each spike represents a month. So the second spike, you know, was July of 2020, and so on to the sixth spike going to April of 2021. And what I did was, I don't know if you remember my last testimony when I went into Google search, and I'm able to go into Google search. I went in, and I typed in "Amber Heard," and then after you hit search, you can use the tool and you can go back in time. And I chose each six of these dates to go back in time to see what was the media talking about back then?
DOUG BANIA: You know, what was the general public being fed as it relates to Amber Heard back during those spikes? And what I found is none of them well, actually, I analyzed the top three search results because they represent 50 to 70 percent of what people click on. And what I realized that none of them have anything to do with the Waldman statements.
MS. LECAROZ: Are you aware of Mr, Schnell's testimony that the tweets using the four hashtags he looked at were mathematically correlated?
DOUG BANIA: Yes.
MS. LECAROZ: What does that mean?
DOUG BANIA: So what Mr. Schnell is saying, which is irrelevant to this case, is the four hashtags that he randomly chose, they tend to go up and down together, and that's why he had these spikes here. So the correlation there is how those four hashtags work or dance together going up.and down. But, first of all, the hashtags have nothing to do with the Waldman statements, and the fact that there's a correlation with the hashtags is irrelevant to this case because we're dealing with the Waldman statements, which none of that correlation analysis he did had to do with.
MS. LECAROZ: How do you know that the correlation doesn't have anything to do with the Waldman statements?
DOUG BANIA: CanT clear this at all? No. Oh.
DOUG BANIA: Can I clear this at all? No. Oh, yeah. Well, first of all, I. know because that would happen right here. You know, if when Mr. Waldman, one of his quotes was published, you would see a big spike right here. And then you would see maybe a little noise down here, and then the third time you might see a big -- second time .a big spike, and the third time, a big spike. That's not here so that's telling me no correlation between the Waldman statements and this hashtag use.
DOUG BANIA: Ll And then I've actually provided evidence that there's no correlation because I analyzed each of these spikes, and none of them had to do with the Waldman statements.
MS. LECAROZ: Is mathematical correlation the same-as causation?
DOUG BANIA: No.
MS. LECAROZ: Why not? I mean, correlation is simply a relationship between two or more variables or two or more.things. In this case, the correlation question is did -- when the Waldman statements were published, at the: same time, did you see a correlation with spikes in these hashtags? And, again, you - can we clear this? You see none of that right here. It's actually a downward trend. There's no spikes. There's no correlation. So, you know, again, Mr. Schnell provided no evidence of any correlation.
MS. LECAROZ: What correlation opinion did he provide during his testimony?
DOUG BANIA: Well, he provided the correlation that the four hashtags, you know, spiked together. But, again, A, the hashtags have nothing to with the Waldman statements, and the facts that they're correlating or moving together is irrelevant to the case because the case is. about the Waldman statements.
MS. LECAROZ: So what is causation then?
DOUG BANIA: So causation is where one thing causes a change in the other, So as it relates to this case, did the Waldman statements cause Ms. Heard to have economic harm? In other words, did the Waldman statements cause Ms. Heard not to make You know, so there's no causation that's proven here}. therefore, a damages analysis is not appropriate.
MS. LECAROZ: Did you hear Mr. Schnell testify that he agreed with your opinion in this case?
DOUG BANIA: Yes.
MS. LECAROZ: And what's your understanding of the 18. opinion that he agreed with?
DOUG BANIA: Well, he agreed that he failed to link the spikes in the hashtags on Twitter to the Waldman statements.
MS. LECAROZ: Did he try to do that? to May 24, 2022
DOUG BANIA: Well, he tried to do that.
MS. LECAROZ: Did he --
DOUG BANIA: Well, again, his analysis was looking at the word "Waldman" and looking at the word Waldmignon, and then trying to say that 25 percent of the tweets included those two terms. But first of all, Waldman isn't the issue here. It's the Waldman statements. And Waldmignon, I don't even know what that is, but it's not relevant to this case.
MS. LECAROZ: We can, I think, take that one down please, Tom. Mr. Bania, what other work have you done in connection with forming your opinions about Mr. Schnell's testimony?
DOUG BANIA: Again, the assignment was to determine if the Waldman statements were part of the tweet. So I continued to dig in, you know, to the data. I believe the next step is now that I've excluded, you know, the 35 percent that was before the Waldman statements, because they're irrelevant, I wanted to really analyze from the April 2020 forward to see if any of those tweets, you know, contained the Waldman statements.
MS. LECAROZ: Did you prepare a demonstrative that reflects that analysis that you did?
DOUG BANIA: Yes, I did.
MS. LECAROZ: Your Honor, may I approach again?
THE COURT: Allright. Yes, ma'am, Thank you. Any objection, sir?
MR. NADELHAFT: No objection as a demonstrative.
THE COURT: All right: We'll mark it for identification as Plaintiff's 1295 as a demonstrative and publish to the jury.
MS. LECAROZ: So, Mr. Bania, did you consider the content of the statements made by Waldman as part of the work that you did?
DOUG BANIA: Yes, yeah, so here I reviewed the Waldman statements again, and what I wanted to do is I wanted to determine what, if any, tweets included the Waldman statements. So what I went -- and I went back to the Waldman statements and I came up with, you know, key terms and key themes for those Waldman statements, which are listed here. You know, the Waldman statements were about abuse hoax, sexual violence hoax, and fake sexual violence. So what J did is I- we're now dealing with 1.2 million tweets because, you know, we're starting in April 2020 because that's when the Waldman statements started.
DOUG BANIA: And what I did is I searched the 111.2 million tweets, you know, for these three phrases, and I determined that there were 751 tweets that included those key terms, which is 14.06 percent of the 1.2 million. And then as I was sifting and sorting and analyzing this data, I realized that a lot of these tweets have the exact same language. You know, it was interesting to see it was exact same tweet. Because I'm analyzing the language to see if it matches one of these three, I realized that a lot of these tweets were retweets, likes, or shares.
DOUG BANIA: So, therefore, I eliminated any of those shares, and I came down with 95 unique tweets. And then what I did from there is I analyzed those to determine if any of these terms were in there, and I identified five tweets that were related to the Waldman statements.
MS. LECAROZ: Do any of the hashtags Mr. Schnell analyzed include the words from the Waldman statements?
DOUG BANIA: No. No, they don't. And, you know, because I'm rebutting Ms, Arnold, you know, her testimony yesterday, she was saying that the Waldman statements caused these hashtags, then throughout her testimony, and she walked that back and admitted, no, none of these tweets have anything to do with the Waldman statements. They don't include the Waldman statements. You know, these hashtags are only hashtags that Schnell, in his opinion, felt that they were negative towards Ms. Heard. 20. Q Based on your expertise, what-are your overall opinions about Mr. Schnell's testimony and the Twitter hashtag data?
DOUG BANIA: PLANE to May 24, 2022 You know, Mr. Schnell provided no evidence that any of the tweets were related to the Waldman statements. Mr. Schnell, there's no correlation there. He also provided no evidence that there's any causation, that, you know, the Waldman statements caused any economic harm towards Ms. Heard.
MS. LECAROZ: Your Honor, I'm about to switch to a different topic. If you want to break now or push --
THE COURT: Allright. This is going to be a little while, I assume?
MS. LECAROZ: A little bit more, yeah.
THE COURT: Let's go ahead and break for lunch, ladies and gentlemen, okay? Do not discuss the case, and do not do any outside research, okay?
THE COURT: Allright. We'll come back Allright. We'll come back at 1:40 then; is that fine?
MS. LECAROZ: Thank you, Your Honor.
COURT BAILIFF: All rise.
COURT BAILIFF: All rise. Please be seated and come to order.
THE COURT: All right. Would you like to have your witness take the stand? Thank you, sir. All right. Are we ready for the jury?
MS. BREDEHOFT: A couple of things.
THE COURT: Okay. Sure.
THE COURT: Yes.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Your Honor, the attorneys for TMZ have told us that they have filed a motion with this court shortly ago.
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. BREDEHOFT: And want to have the opportunity to argue the motion to quash the deposition testimony of -- I think his name is Tremaine Morgan.
MS. VASQUEZ: Morgan Tremaine.
THE COURT: What's their basis to.do that?
MS. BREDEHOFT: To protect their sources. So she just want -- they asked us to tell the court that they had filed it and we would like the opportunity to argue it.
THE COURT: Not going to happen, okay? Wait.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. We also, with respect to the other one, Morgan Night. Is that his name? Oo AA & hm
THE COURT: Yeah.
MS. BREDEHOFT: The one that's testifying. I did want them to just represent what he's testifying to.
THE COURT: They said the trailer, Hicksville trailer.
MS. VASQUEZ: Correct.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. Anything else?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. Anything else?
MS. VASQUEZ: Yes, he was there, present, he observed.
THE COURT: But this is all Hicksville related, correct?
MS. VASQUEZ: Yes, yes.
MS. BREDEHOFT: But he was there?
MS. VASQUEZ: He was there present. He observed Mr. Depp and Ms. Heard interacting with
THE COURT: But it's all to do with Hicksville?
MS. VASQUEZ: It's all rebuttal related to Hicksville.
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Allright. We're going to do the voir'dire.
MR. ROTTENBORN: The one other thing we wanted -- we just wanted to get a sense -- sorry.
MS. BREDEHOFT: It's the gummy bears.
MR. ROTTENBORN: I just wanted to get a sense of who else they plan to call today because to May 24, 2022 I don't think, I don't know how long they are planning on going with Mr. Bania, but I don't think --
THE COURT: Is Mr. Night the next one?
MS. VASQUEZ: Yes.
THE COURT: So after you finish here, we'll have to excuse the jury so that we can have voir dire of Mr. Night.
MS. VASQUEZ: Okay. That's fine. Then we have two other depositions that we'd like to play, albeit they're short, that's CHLA and Jennifer Howell. I think -- is that it?
MS. VASQUEZ: We may be finishing a bit earlier today.
THE COURT: Do you have more witnesses tomorrow?
MS. VASQUEZ: Yes, but they're scheduled to testify tomorrow.
THE COURT: Just to let you know, if you finish early, I give you the time all the way to 5:30.
THE COURT: You'll take the penalty.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Allright. Are we ready for the jury, then?
THE COURT: All right. You may be seated. Do you need to approach for a moment? Okay.
MS. VASQUEZ: I forgot a witness. Dr. Shaw is here and ready to testify today.
THE COURT: Is that live?
MS. VASQUEZ: Yes.
MS. BREDEHOFT: We didn't know about that, Your Honor.
MS. VASQUEZ: You were notified that he would be testifying today, potentially today, if we were running out of time.
THE COURT: All right.
MS. VASQUEZ: Sorry, I just forgot off the top of my head.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you.
THE COURT: Your next question.
MS. LECAROZ: Mr. Bania, before lunch, we were \12 talking about your opinions in response to the testimony of Mr. Schnell. Did you also analyze the testimony of Ms. Arnold in this case?
DOUG BANIA: Yes,I did. - 17. Q And are you aware of her opinion that Ms. Heard's career would have followed the same trajectory as that of Jason Momoa, Gal Gadot, Zendaya, Ana de Armas, and Chris Pine, if not for the Waldman statements?
DOUG BANIA: Yes. +A Yes.
MS. LECAROZ: What's your understanding of Ms. Arnold's basis for her opinion that Ms. Heard's career should have been similar to that of those identified’ actors?
DOUG BANIA: Ms. Arnold stated that when producers, or her industry's looking to hire talent.and actors, that it's important to best understand the public's perception of the actors that they're ’ considering and that it's important to — you're looking to social media to see what is happening with the actors they are considering for either a movie or even an endorsement opportunity with companies. So that was her approach.
MS. LECAROZ: And is that the process she followed in providing her analysis of those purportedly 16:comparable actors? 17. A No. Although, she stated that she went in and brought in these comparable, alleged comparable actors, and without really reasoning behind that.
MS. LECAROZ: Did you conduct an analysis based on your expertise in social media and Internet analytics of Ms. Heard compared to the actors to whom Ms. Arnold compares her?
DOUG BANIA: I did.
MS. LECAROZ: What did you find?
DOUG BANIA: Well, since Ms. Arnold stated that the proper approach is looking at the public perspective, looking into social media, and she did not do that, I felt that was the best approach to do this, based on her words. So, yes, I did go into, you know, best understanding, the public perspective of Ms. Heard and the alleged comparable actors using Q scores. But then I also went and did some analysis online and on social media as well.
MS. LECAROZ: Can you briefly remind the jury what Q scores .are? 17� A Yeah. In Q scores, measure how well a celebrity, could be a cartoon character, could be a sports person, how well they're known, how well they're liked and how much they're disliked. And it's an industry standard tool that's used. It's not just focused on the movies that they're in, not just focused on the movies that they're in, but it's focused on them as actors, but, also, what's happening in their personal lives that come to play as well. So, that's how Q scores are typically used. Q: Did you prepare a demonstrative that reflects the Q score analysis you completed?
DOUG BANIA: Yes, I did.
MS. LECAROZ: Okay.
MS. LECAROZ: Your Honor, may I approach again?
THE COURT: All right.
MS. LECAROZ: Thank you.
MR. NADELHAFT: No objection to the demonstrative.
THE COURT: Allright. We will identify Plaintiff's 1296 for identification and publish to the jury.
MS. LECAROZ: Mr. Bania, what point in time do these scores represent that aré reflected on your demonstrative?
DOUG BANIA: So this, these are the winter 2019 Q scores that are reflected here. And what was important for me is I wanted to find Q scores that represented Ms. Heard after Aquaman, and remember, 3. Aquaman is December of 2018. These Q scores were gathered January and February of '19, but before 5- the Waldman statements.
MS. LECAROZ: And what did you find based on the Q scores that you looked at?
DOUG BANIA: So, as you see here, on the left are positive Q scores, and the higher the number, the better. As you can see, you know, Ms. Gadot has the highest Q score out of the group of actors here, at a 28. But you're going to notice Ms. Heard has the lowest positive Q score. She has a 9. So I find that very interesting that if she doesn't appear to fit in as a comparable with these alleged comparable actors. I think what's also interesting is the average Q score for all actors being scored at that time, which include all of the alleged comparable actors here, score at an average of 17.
DOUG BANIA: And you can see, again, she is 9, well below that. And then on the right side, you're going to see the negative Q scores. So this is how much people dislike you. You know, so the lower the score is better. You can see Mr. Momoa's over here with a lowest at an 8. But if you see, Ms. Heard is over here at a 28, which was quite a difference. You know, a 20-point difference from Mr. Momoa. And also a 10-point difference, you know, from the average of all actors. So she is very much little.
DOUG BANIA: — her positive score is very low and her negative score is very high, which tells me that she does not fit in as a comparable as it relates to these alleged comparable actors.
MS. LECAROZ: What opinions did you form based on that Q score analysis?
DOUG BANIA: My opinions, as it relates to these Q scores, is, you know, Ms. Arnold used these actors as allegedly comparable actors. But, really, listening to her testimony yesterday, it appears that she has abandoned this approach. I don't think she's using these comparable actors or these alleged comparable actors anymore, she's more relying on her experience, and I agree with that.
MS. LECAROZ: Did Ms. Arnold offer a criticism of your use of the Q scores here?
DOUG BANIA: She did, yes.
MS. LECAROZ: And what's your understanding of what that criticism is?
DOUG BANIA: Well, what I believe she was saying is that I should have ran Q scores for these allegedly comparable actors after each of their breakout films. Which I disagree. First of all,
MS. LECAROZ: Scores doesn't work like that. Q scores are available twice a year, so it's not that I could pick a month or a different month for each of Q score actors. So | feel that, you know, what was important for me, and this: doesn't always happen when I'm using Q scores, you can get this perfect moment in time. As Ms. Heard said -- I'm:sorry, but as Ms. Arnold said, that, you know, Aquaman was Ms. Heard's breakout moment. You know, so these scores reflect that, that breakout moment. And they‘re terrible Q scores.
MS. LECAROZ: How would your analysis change if you How would your analysis change if you had.used Ms. Arnold's logic with respect to the timing of the Q scores that you looked at?
DOUG BANIA: I mean, if you really think about what Ms. Arnold was saying is she's saying that she thinks Q scores are the highest for each actor right after their breakout moment. So I would think, if anything, these Q scores could have been a bit lower because it's not right after their breakout moment. But, again, what's important for me is the fact that these scores reflect, you know, who Amber Heard was at the time before the Waldman statements, but after the Aquaman release.
MS. LECAROZ: We can take that one down, Tom. Thank you.
MS. LECAROZ: What other work have you done in connection with forming your opinions in this case?
DOUG BANIA: Again, taking advice from Ms. Arnold, it's important, she says the industry looks into social media, what their followings are like, you know, what's their numbers as it relates to their followers. You know, again, what is the public perception of them. So I analyzed their social media accounts, but prior to the Waldman statements, so...
MS. LECAROZ: And how did you do that?
DOUG BANIA: So what I did — I don't know if you're all familiar with the archive.org. They have a tool called the Wayback Machine. What archive.org does is it archives the Internet. So, you can go back in time to see what websites and web pages used to look like in the past.
DOUG BANIA: Not all the time can you actually get a celebrity's social media accounts to have been archived, but we were fortunate that each of the alleged comparable actors’ social media accounts were in archive.org, so I was able to go back in time, prior to the Waldman statements, to see what the following activity was for each of the alleged comparable actors.
MS. LECAROZ: Analysis?
DOUG BANIA: Yes.
MS. LECAROZ: Your Honor, may I approach?
THE COURT: Yes, ma'am. Thank you.
MR. NADELHAFT: No objection of the demonstrative.
THE COURT: Allright. Mark it for identification purposes, Plaintiff's 1297, and publish.
MS. LECAROZ: Mr. Bania, can you tell the jury what you found when you looked at the social media.
DOUG BANIA: Yes, so what I found — again, this is prior to the Waldman statements. You know, first thing you're going to notice here is not all actors use social media. You're going to see Mr. Pine doesn't have Facebook, Twitter or Instagram. And Momoa and de Armas don't use Facebook or Twitter. But what's important to look at is you have Ms. Heard prior to the Waldman statements with 3.8 Instagram followers and 142,500 Twitter followers. And then you move down to Gal Gadot, with 37 million Instagram followers compared to her 3.8 million. And, you know, the 2 million, 2.3 million Twitter followers compared to Ms. Heard's 142,000. And you can, then, even go down to Zendaya, with 65, -- million, .9. And 17.2 million Twitter followers. What this is telling me is, really, you know, more people are interested in Ms. Gadot and Zendaya and even Mr. Momoa than Ms. Heard, on social media. It just tells me a lot of people are interested in these actors as opposed to Ms. Heard, more of a following; Q scores, well liked, less disliked.
MS. LECAROZ: So kind of fits into the analysis of determining whether or not these alleged comparable actors are actually comparable.
MS. LECAROZ: Based on your expertise, what are your overall opinions about Ms. Arnold's analysis of the so-called comparing this-actors? Again, it appears that she has abandoned this approach, and I agree with that. I feel that through the Q score analysis and the social media analysis, that they're just not social media analysis, that they're just not comparable.
MS. LECAROZ: Tom, we can take that one down.
MS. LECAROZ: Mr. Bania, based on all the analysis you did in this case, what are your overall opinions?
DOUG BANIA: Yes, my overall opinions are that Mr. Schnell failed to prove any causal connection with the Waldman statements and the search or the hashtag activity, the spikes, as it relates to Twitter. There's no causal connection there. My second opinion is, you know, based on my social media and Q score analysis, Ms. Arnold's comparable, alleged comparable actors are not comparable. And then third, Ms. Arnold and Mr. Schnell both failed to prove any causation as it relates to the Waldman statements causing economic harm to Ms. Heard. So, you know, as a damages expert, which Ms.
DOUG BANIA: Arnold is, you need to take into consideration causation before you can calculate damages. You look at damages and you look at the alleged damaging event, and not only do you have to prove that a hundred percent of the damage is because of these Waldman statements. She didn't even consider COVID. It happened at the same time. You know, a lot of actors probably made a lot less money because of COVID. Maybe films didn't get made. And even when you do an analysis of damages, you prove causation, but you also have to look at everything else that might have caused this alleged economic harm. And she didn't look into any of that.
DOUG BANIA: She didn't even know what causation was. So I don't think damages is an appropriate approach in this case.
MS. LECAROZ: No further questions, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Cross-examination.
MR. NADELHAFT: Good afternoon, Mr. Bania.
MR. NADELHAFT: You're not a damages expert, correct?
DOUG BANIA: I am a damages expert, but not providing any quantitative damages opinions in this case.
MR. NADELHAFT: In this case, okay. And is it your testimony that only if a person repeats the Waldman/Depp statements that they can be related to the defamation? <A Say that one more time.
MR. NADELHAFT: = Are you saying that a person literally has to repeat the Waldman/Depp statements in a tweet for them to be related to the defamation?
DOUG BANIA: No. If you looked at my analysis, I did pick the three themes as it relates to the tweets, and I've analyzed those themes and I came up with five examples of when those themes were used.
MR. NADELHAFT: You ran searches for "abuse hoax, sexual violence hoax, and fake sexual violence," and ran all those in quotes, correct? So only if a person used a tweet with those words in that order and with that spacing would they hit on your searches, correct?
MS. LECAROZ: Objection. Compound.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DOUG BANIA: Yeah, so I used them in quotes because, you know, hoax could be used in many other contexts, so I wanted to make sure I was fitting my search with the theme of the Waldman statements.
MR. NADELHAFT: So if someone tweeted Ms. Heard faked sexual violence, that wouldn't appear in your searches, correct, faked with an "ed"?
DOUG BANIA: It would not.
MR. NADELHAFT: Okay. And if they used two spaces between abuse and hoax, that wouldn't fit in your search?
DOUG BANIA: That's correct.
MR. NADELHAFT: Okay. Did you -- and a tweet can only be 280 characters, correct?
DOUG BANIA: That's correct.
MR. NADELHAFT: So certain of the Waldman/Depp statements, a person could not tweet the whole thing in one tweet, correct, the whole statement in one tweet?
DOUG BANIA: * The Waldman statements?
MR. NADELHAFT: Correct.
DOUG BANIA: No. You could not tweet that — those entire quotes.
MR. NADELHAFT: Did you make any determination if there was an online bullying campaign against Mr. Depp after Ms. Heard's op-ed?
DOUG BANIA: I didn't look into any online bullying campaign for Ms. Heard nor Mr. Depp.
MR. NADELHAFT: Did you determine if there were tweets harassing Mr. Depp that quoted from Ms. Heard's op-ed?
DOUG BANIA: No. My assignment was to determine if the Waldman statements were part of the tweets that Mr. Schnell provided. I was rebutting him.
MR. NADELHAFT: In your analysis, when you testified before, you never looked to see if the op-ed was quoted anywhere, correct? May we approach?
THE COURT: Sure.
MR. NADELHAFT: I can withdraw.
THE COURT: Okay. Question's withdrawn. Next question.
MR. NADELHAFT: Now, you have no objection to Ms. Arnold's use of comparables, correct, just the use of comparables in general?
DOUG BANIA: I listened to her testimony. My understanding is that she abandoned that approach. But as it relates to my testimony today, my opinion was related to those specific alleged comparable actors, that they were not comparable.
MR. NADELHAFT: You're not offering an opinion as to who the appropriate comparables should be to Ms. Heard, correct?
DOUG BANIA: Correct.
MR. NADELHAFT: Okay. And you testified, just before, about the Q scores of Ms. Heard and the comparables, that was Plaintiff's Exhibit 1296, correct? I don't know what 1296 means.
MR. NADELHAFT: Okay. The demonstrative in front of
DOUG BANIA: Oh, mine? Yes, that's correct.
MR. NADELHAFT: And you said that those were all for the winter of 2019?
DOUG BANIA: I said Ms. Heard's were from the winter of 2019.
MR. NADELHAFT: Because isn't it true that none of the rest of these people were from the winter of 2019, correct?
DOUG BANIA: That's correct.
MR. NADELHAFT: Okay. In fact, Mr. Momoa's was from the summer of --
MR. NADELHAFT: Of 2020? 17. +A. That's correct. Not all alleged comparable actors had Q scores for that date. What was important for me is to get Ms. Heard's Q scores right after Aquaman but before the Waldman statements.
MR. NADELHAFT: So you weren't comparing apples to (6880 to 6883) 24, 2022 apples, correct?
DOUG BANIA: I wouldn't say that. I'm saying that it's not the exact same years.
MR. NADELHAFT: Well, so, in the winter of 2019, that Q score comes out, the field date -- the field work dates for that is from January 22nd, 2019, to February 7th, 2019, correct?
DOUG BANIA: That is correct.
MR. NADELHAFT: So that would be start -- so the field work would be starting almost immediately after Aquaman just came out, correct?
DOUG BANIA: Yeah. And her star-is-born moment, yes.
MR. NADELHAFT: = You'd agree that for the winter of 2020, where you took Jason Momoa’s Q score, would have more time to account for the rise in popularity of the film Aquaman, correct?
DOUG BANIA: Actually, if I use Ms. Arnold's suggestion, the celebrities tend to have, you know, the celebrity moment right after they have their breakout film; So, I disagree with that. I think maybe his Q scores could be lower as it relates to when I used them.
MR. NADELHAFT: You agree that for the winter of 2020, Mr. Momoa's Q score would have more time to account for the rise in popularity of the film Aquaman?
DOUG BANIA: I don't know if it accounts for the rise of popularity. Again, using Ms. Arnold's words, usually a Q score will be the highest after, right after the film, like I did measure Ms. Heard.
MR. NADELHAFT: May I approach, Your
THE COURT: Allright. Did you show --
MR. NADELHAFT: Oh.
THE COURT: Allright. Thank you.
MR. NADELHAFT: If you look on page 177 of your deposition transcript. Do you see that?
DOUG BANIA: I don't see a page with that, what you handed me.
MR. NADELHAFT: You don't see page 177? It's four pages, four pages per --
DOUG BANIA: Oh, yes. Thank you.
MR. NADELHAFT: And J asked you, at line 6 through 10, "You'd agree that for the winter of 2020, Jason Momoa’s Q score would have more time to account for the rise in popularity in the film Aquaman?" And you answered yes.
DOUG BANIA: At that time. As I'ma rebuttal expert to Ms. Arnold, based on her testimony, I've learned something new from her. QQ _ And you didn't look at Ms. Heard's Q score from summer of 2020, correct? 12. A_ She didn't have any. 13. Q _ And Ms. de Armas had a lower familiarity score than Ms. Heard, correct?
DOUG BANIA: I don't have that in front of me, but if you're saying that, yes. 17. Q Okay. And Ms. de Armas' career trajectory has gone up since the summer of 2020, correct? 20. A _ I don't know. I didn't analyze her career trajectory. QQ. Okay.
MR. NADELHAFT: Could you put up plaintiff's -- Trial Exhibit 1297. That was the demonstrative.
MR. NADELHAFT: Ms. de Armas has less Instagram followers than Ms. Heard, correct?
DOUG BANIA: Correct.
MR. NADELHAFT: And by -- Ms. Heard has more than double the Instagram followers of Ms. de Armas, correct?
DOUG BANIA: Yes.
MR. NADELHAFT: And isn't it true that you get more social media followers the longer you're on social media?
DOUG BANIA: Not necessarily. It doesn't work that way. It depends on many other factors.
MR. NADELHAFT: And so, Ms. de Armas had a lower familiarity score and less Instagram followers, yet, your testimony is that she would not be a proper comparable to Ms. Heard?
DOUG BANIA: That's correct.
MR. NADELHAFT: And you're not offering a different set of people who should be comparables, correct? ogee to May 24, 2022
DOUG BANIA: That's correct.
MR. NADELHAFT: Thank you. You can take that down.
MR. NADELHAFT: Now, you understand that Mr. Waldman has been banned from Twitter for life, for harassing Amber Heard, correct?
DOUG BANIA: I don't know that, But if that's the case.
MR. NADELHAFT: And you understand that Mr. Waldman appealed the decision to Twitter and they have confirmed his ban for life?
MS. LECAROZ: Objection, Your Honor. May we approach on this one?
THE COURT: Okay. Sure.
MS. LECAROZ: Pretty far beyond the scope of what this expert has testified to and also -
MR. NADELHAFT: He's talking about Waldman and Twitter.
MS. LECAROZ: He's not talking about 949 Mr. Waldman's use of Twitter. Mr. Waldman's use of Twitter.
MR. NADELHAFT: I can move on.
THE COURT: Okay. Move on.
MR. NADELHAFT: You agree that in looking at Mr. Schnell's data, 65 percent of the uses of negative hashtags relating to Ms. Heard occurred between April 1st, 2020 and June 15th, 2021, correct?
DOUG BANIA: Correct.
MR. NADELHAFT: And you would agree that five of the six highest spikes of the negative hashtags were after the Depp/Waldman statements, correct? 14. A Correct.
MR. NADELHAFT: Okay. And where you talked about the February 2020 spike -- and the 65 percent, by the way, éven includes the February 2020 spike of tweets, correct?
DOUG BANIA: That's correct. Well, there was no spike in 2020. During the Waldman statements?
MR. NADELHAFT: Well, the spike in February 2020 was before the Waldman statements, right?
DOUG BANIA: I would have — can we pull up the chart again, if you want to talk about the spikes?
MR. NADELHAFT: Sure. Can you put up 1294.
MR. NADELHAFT: Number 1.
DOUG BANIA: Number 1. Yeah, that spike happened before the Waldman statements.
MR. NADELHAFT: Okay. And there was hardly any activity in negative hashtags until February 2020, 10-correct?
DOUG BANIA: That's correct.
MR. NADELHAFT: And you understand that the spike in February 2020 was related to the partial tape that Mr. Waldman and Mr. Depp leaked to the Daily Mail, right?
DOUG BANIA: I'm aware that the articles related to Heard admitting to hitting Depp.
MR. NADELHAFT: And you understand that Mr. Waldman testified that Mr. Depp and Mr. Waldman met with the Daily Mail in person to provide the partial tape to the Daily Mail.
MS. LECAROZ: Objection. Your Honor.
MS. LECAROZ: Objection, Your Honor. a ©.
MR. NADELHAFT: She's talking about -- he talked about what the number 1 --
THE COURT: What's the objection?
MS. LECAROZ: Sorry. Lack of foundation.
MR. NADELHAFT: I'm asking if he knows, if he knows or doesn't.
THE COURT: Allright. Overruled.
DOUG BANIA: So, what's important to me is the fact that this spike is prior to the Waldman statements, 12. Q . Sir. Do you know if - do you know if Waldman testified that Mr. Depp and he met with the Daily Mail in person to provide the partial tape?
DOUG BANIA: No.
MR. NADELHAFT: In February of 2020. You don't know one way or the other?
DOUG BANIA: It's irrelevant to my opinion.
MR. NADELHAFT: Allright. And the spike in July of 2020 came right after the last defamatory statement by Mr. Depp and Mr. Waldman, correct? toot to May 24, 2022
DOUG BANIA: The July spike, which is number 2, is not related to the Waldman statements, and there are articles related to abuse between Heard and Depp and feces found in Depp's bed.
MR. NADELHAFT: And that's based on Google searches that you did?
DOUG BANIA: That's correct.
MR. NADELHAFT: But the July spike in time came after the June 27th, 2020 defamatory statement by Mr. Depp and Mr. Waldman, correct?
DOUG BANIA: That's correct.
MR. NADELHAFT: Okay. And five of the six spikes came after the defamatory statements, correct? 14. A After the Waldman statements, yes.
MR. NADELHAFT: Okay. Now, you testified before that you eliminated shares and likes of the Depp/Waldman statements from your analysis, right?
DOUG BANIA: Repeat that, please.
MR. NADELHAFT: Did you say that you eliminated shares and likes of tweets that included the Depp/Waldman statements?
DOUG BANIA: That's correct. When I was doing my analysis, I noticed the exact same text was part of many of these tweets.
MR. NADELHAFT: Don't shares and likes disseminate the negative information?
DOUG BANIA: That's quite possible.
MR. NADELHAFT: Okay. And you agree, right, that use of the term "Waldman" or “Waldman" occurred over 25 percent of the time in the negative tweets toward Ms. Heard from April 2020 through January 2021, correct?
DOUG BANIA: Although it's irrelevant to this case, it has nothing to do with the Waldman statements, that's what Mr. Schnell says.
MR. NADELHAFT: You don't disagree with the search results, correct?
DOUG BANIA: Although it has nothing to do with this case or the Waldman statements, I do not disagree.
MR. NADELHAFT: So if people are tweeting about Adam Waldman or Waldman at the same time as tweeting negative hashtags about Amber Heard that has -- it's your testimony that they have nothing to do with this case?
DOUG BANIA: The hashtags have nothing to do with this case.
MR. NADELHAFT: That's what you're saying?
DOUG BANIA: That's what I'm -- yeah.
MR. NADELHAFT: And even if they include the negative hashtags with Mr. Waldman's name and Waldman, you're saying they have nothing to do with the defamatory statements?
DOUG BANIA: All four hashtags that Schnell used had nothing to do with the Waldman statements. 11. Waldman, himself, has nothing to do with the Waldman statements. We're talking about the Waldman statements here. Waldman, I don't even know what that is, but, again, it has nothing to do with this case and it's not related to the Waldman statements. That's what is important.
MR. NADELHAFT: The reason you're saying it's not related to the Waldman statements is because someone didn't literally copy what Adam Waldman said in the Daily Mail and tweet it out?
DOUG BANIA: Well, I looked at enough tweets that 949 included the name Waldman that have nothing to do with anything negative or the Waldman statements. I mean, Mr. Waldman--
MR. NADELHAFT: They must have had the negative hashtags toward Ms. Heard because the only way § those would have been in the data you looked at would have had the negative hashtags towards Ms. Heard. It was looking at that universe, correct?
DOUG BANIA: First of all, I don't agree that "justice for Johnny Depp" is a negative hashtag toward Amber Heard. So, listen, the assignment was to determine if the tweets that Mr. Schnell presented were related or included the Waldman statements.
MR. NADELHAFT: In your review of the tweets related to Ms. Heard, you cannot point to any that were positive toward Ms. Heard, correct?
DOUG BANIA: Again, I was not looking for that.
MR. NADELHAFT: And you did not review the hashtag "justice for Johnny Depp" during the time frame from April 1st, 2020 to January 1st, 2020, to see to May 24, 2022 if there were any that were not negative toward Ms. Heard?
DOUG BANIA: I did not look into anything as it relates to anything other than what relates to the Waldman statements. That's what's at issue here today as we sit in court.
MR. NADELHAFT: And you didn't form any statistical analysis to rule out the Waldman statements' impact on the hashtags, correct?
DOUG BANIA: Correct.
MR. NADELHAFT: You did not analyze whether media and press coverage other than the Waldman statements affected Ms. Heard's career, correct?
DOUG BANIA: Correct.
MR. NADELHAFT: Looking at the exhibit that's in front of you, where you have the numbers here, those, you said, are related to Google searches?
DOUG BANIA: The 1 through 6?
MR. NADELHAFT: Correct.
DOUG BANIA: Yes.
MR. NADELHAFT: Okay.
MR. NADELHAFT: Can we put up Plaintiff's 888.
MR. NADELHAFT: And we can just start at 1. Do you understand that your --
MR. NADELHAFT: Oh, thanks.
MR. NADELHAFT: And 888, it's page 76, these are the documents you relied upon for your opinion today?
DOUG BANIA: Yes.
MR. NADELHAFT: And are these the search -- where it has the different letters, these are the searches that you ran for the various time frames and the articles that came up for numbers 1 through 6, correct?
DOUG BANIA: No. I mean, obviously, document 1A is the Heard supplemental expert witness disclosure. These are — these are documents that I used throughout the time I've been working on this project. So these aren't related to those 1 through 6 numbers.
MR. NADELHAFT: Okay. These are documents you relied upon for your opinion today?
DOUG BANIA: These are documents that I relied upon when I presented my designation.
MR. NADELHAFT: For your opinion today, that you're offering today?
DOUG BANIA: Yeah, these are the documents that, yes, I've relied on throughout this entire — this case.
MR. NADELHAFT: Okay.
MR. NADELHAFT: And, actually, Michelle, can you turn, in this designation, to, let's see -- hold on one second. Can you just scroll down. Yeah, keep scrolling. Keep going: Keep going. Okay. Stop.
MR. NADELHAFT: This was the chart you provided with your designation for your opinions in this case, correct?
DOUG BANIA: Yes.
MR. NADELHAFT: Okay. And it's similar to the chart that we had before, we had before, with the 1 through 6, correct?
DOUG BANIA: That's correct.
MR. NADELHAFT: And where it has the various boxes, it's talking about documents 6E through 6H, for instance, related to Depp wanting to have Heard replaced on Aquaman?
DOUG BANIA: Yes.
MR. NADELHAFT: You prepared this chart, correct?
DOUG BANIA: Yeah, this was part of my designation.
MR. NADELHAFT: I would like to have this page as a demonstrative.
MS. LECAROZ: Your Honor, I do have an objection. If I might be heard.
THE COURT: All right. Do you want to come forward, please.
MS. LECAROZ: There's a specific reference to the U.K. ruling on this demonstrative.
MR. NADELHAFT: It's his report, and he hasn't changed. It's the same information -- he said, in his -- one, it doesn't say anything about the U.K. ruling, but then he put up a chart. and has testified that the various searches --
THE COURT: This is a chart that you made me cut, right?
MR. NADELHAFT: No, no, no.
MS. LECAROZ: So this is responsive to Ms. Arnold's testimony, which is different because the damages period is different. So, there is a Legacy reference. He did scrub it from the demonstrative that he used today for that purpose.
MR. NADELHAFT: Your Honor, he testified to six different times where he was saying it was not --
THE COURT: Why don't you just put his chart in he used as a demonstrative? The only 1.reason would be the patient isn't on there.
MR. NADELHAFT: But, one, that chart doesn't say anything about the U.K. judgment. The second would be --
THE COURT: The U.K. ruling.
MR. NADELHAFT: It just says U.K. ruling. We've been talking about the U.K. ruling. Your Honor, he has talked about -- in his opinion today, he's been saying that none of these searches, that none of the tweets are related to the Waldman statements.
THE COURT: Okay.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. NADELHAFT: And then he said the reason -- the way he found that was by looking at articles, by doing a Google search. That's what he testified to. I don't care so. much about this chart, but the articles that he --
THE COURT: I'I'm sorry. Are you moving page 99 in or page -- this is 99.
MR. NADELHAFT: 99 references articles that he used to determine that the searches were not related. He claims the searches were not related to the Waldman statements.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. NADELHAFT: Then 76 are the articles with the titles that include -- I mean, I will say they include something about --
THE COURT: I didn't know you were trying to move in 76. I was just looking at the graph. The graph, you're not caring about as much as this.
MR. NADELHAFT: The graph, I don't, correct,
THE COURT: We're off of 99. We're T DEPOS on N UN PWN just on 76. Any objection to 76?
MS. LECAROZ: I have -- I haven't confirmed at the moment. I wasn't aware that was part of it. That has the U.K. ruling.
MR. NADELHAFT: Here's the thing, Your Honor. He has said -- he testified, he testified that the way he determined that -- the way that he determined that the tweets weren't related to the Waldman statements --
THE COURT: I understand your argument, sir, but you're trying to put things in with the U.K. judgment on it.
MR. NADELHAFT: I know. But why -- but why -- they could have amended their disclosures. They never gave us --
THE COURT: I'm going to sustain the objection. Let's move on.
MR. NADELHAFT: Mr. Bania, other than -- so, as I understand it, your -- the way you determined that the tweets were not related to the Waldman statements was that you looked at time and then you ran certain Google searches, correct?
DOUG BANIA: Correct.
MR. NADELHAFT: And then the top three hits came up?
DOUG BANIA: Correct.
MR. NADELHAFT: And you were -- and then you looked through the article to see if the Waldman statements were there?
DOUG BANIA: So as it relates to any trending event, any defamation that's happened online, any allegations of economic loss because something went viral, going to Google, looking at the spikes in time and going back in time to see what was happening on these top three sites will give you an indication of the best results that were being served at that time. So something viral that's happening would appear, most likely, in those top three to May 24, 2022 results.
MR. NADELHAFT: And just so the record's clear, if we could go back to page 76 of this document.
MR. NADELHAFT: Number 6A through 6N, going to the next page, those are the headlines of the searches that you found?
DOUG BANIA: Correct.
MR. NADELHAFT: And you don't disagree that negative tweets toward Ms. Heard have continued throughout your -- throughout the analysis of the tweets, correct?
DOUG BANIA: I'm not looking at whether they're negative tweets or those hashtags are negative. I'm determining if those tweets are related to the Waldman statements.
MR. NADELHAFT: Okay. Do you have -- so you have no opinion whether the tweets were positive or negative towards Ms. Heard, that's what you're saying?
DOUG BANIA: Yes. I'm just analyzing whether or not they're related to the Waldman statements.
MR. NADELHAFT: Okay. Thank you. Nothing further.
THE COURT: Okay. Redirect.
MS. LECAROZ: I have no further questions of this witness, Your Honor. Thank you, Mr. Bania.
THE COURT: Sir, you can stay in the courtroom or you can leave.
DOUG BANIA: Thank you.