Michael Spindler — Direct/Cross
180 linesTHE COURT: Thank you. All right. Your next witness.
MR. DENNISON: Plaintiff calls Michael Spindler.
THE COURT: Michael Spindler. You've testified previously, correct, Mr. Spindler?
RICHARD MARKS: Yes.
THE COURT: Allright. Just a reminder you're under oath, okay, sir? MICHAEL SPINDLER, being first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
MR. DENNISON: Good morning, Mr. Spindler.
MICHAEL SPINDLER: Good morning.
MR. DENNISON: = Can you remind the jury who you are and what you do? " A Yes. I'm Michael Spindler I'ma
MICHAEL SPINDLER: Yes. I'm Michael Spindler. I'ma forensic accountant. I'ma CPA, certified fraud examiner, amongst some other certifications. I'm with B. Riley advisory services, a national firm that does forensic accounting, bankruptcy and restructuring work, and business evaluations and appraisals. I've got over 40 years of experience.
MR. DENNISON: Are you familiar with the testimony rendered by Ms. Arnold in this matter?
MICHAEL SPINDLER: Yes,I am
MR. DENNISON: Do you understand that Ms. Arnold testified that Ms. Heard has suffered economic. damages resulting from three statements being made
MICHAEL SPINDLER: I do.
MR. ROTTENBORN: Objection, Your Honor. May we approach?
THE COURT: All right.
THE COURT: Yes, sir.
MR. ROTTENBORN: This is --
THE COURT: This transcript is in?
MR. ROTTENBORN: This is Mr. Spindler’s deposition transcript taken on -- this is volume 2, March 25th.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. ROTTENBORN: I asked him these questions, and he testified as follows.
THE COURT: Allright. "Are you offering anything -- you are not offering any opinion that would impact the 1.1 alleged defamation by Mr. Depp of Ms. Heard's . career." Allright. So it's not in his designation either; is that correct?
MR. DENNISON: I'm reading it. So thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. Sorry. We'll share.
MR. ROTTENBORN: And I have copies. He is essentially saying,."I'm just addressing what Ms. Arnold said, not rendering my own opinion on what the impact of alleged defamation is." And so 2.9 Mr. Dennison's questions just now was essentially - 6817 that. Said, "Have you developed an opinion on...
MR. DENNISON: I'm asking him about Ms. Arnold.
THE COURT: Yeah, he was asking about Ms. Arnold's opinion.
MR. DENNISON: He wasn't going to testify about his opinion.
THE COURT: Okay. If you want to, rephrase the question as to Ms. Arnold.
MR. DENNISON: Yeah.
THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. You may continue.
MR. DENNISON: Thanks, Mr. Spindler. Now, you'd indicated that you had listened to Ms. Arnold, and she testified on behalf of Ms. Heard relative to economic damages. Have you formed an opinion as to the testimony and opinion rendered by Ms. Arnold?
MICHAEL SPINDLER: Yes, have 22. Q = And what's that opinion? on A Mr W NY Re to . 1) May 24, 2022 I A It is not adequately supported, and it is unreasonable.
MR. DENNISON: There were multiple elements to that. analysis, both damages that related to her film career.and to endorsements. Have you analyzed both those issues?
MICHAEL SPINDLER: Yes, I have.
MR. DENNISON: What is your opinion of the claims that have been asserted relative to the film career and endorsements? ° A 'Okay. Well, first of all, with respect to her damages.calculation, there was no calculation, per se. She initially looked at these comparable actors and assumed to use that as. a basis for her numbers. She didn't provide the underlying calculation.
MR. DENNISON: She didn't provide underlying support, and then it appeared as though, in her testimony, she backed away a little from: that, but she still suffers from the issues of not providing detail of calculations or support for where those numbers come from. And she still, > to same extent. appears to be using some kind of comparable analysis.
MR. DENNISON: Allright. What is the type of analysis that you think is appropriate here?
MICHAEL SPINDLER: Well, I think, and as you heard from the last witness, I think that something that is anchored in facts, taking a look at historical compensation as a basis for anticipating future ‘compensation.
MR. DENNISON: Have you looked at. Ms. Heard's prior compensation? A Yes, I have. I've looked at tax returns that were provided for the period of 2013 through 2019. Q Why do you want to use historical earnings? A Well, once again, you want analyses anchored in fact. I don't believe Ms. Arnold has done that in her analysis. So here we've got some actual data. We've got some historical compensation, and as the last witness mentioned, that often provides somewhat of a basis for future anticipated earnings. In addition, I believe that Ms. Arnold herself said that she had hoped to be able to look at a renegotiated salary for Aquaman 2 and then use that as a basis for future compensation; that being the new kind of base, if you will.
MR. DENNISON: Allright. Were there any years in particular that you focused on in your analysis as to Ms. Arnold's testimony?
MICHAEL SPINDLER: In terms of the historical compensation?
MR. DENNISON: Yes.
MICHAEL SPINDLER: Well, for 2013 through 2019 in total, her compensation was around $10 million for all those years combined. In 2019, the last of those years, her compensation was somewhere between 16.about 2.6 million and $3 million. Now, that's a - good year. That's known as a clean year. 18. Q What do you mean by a "clean year"?
MICHAEL SPINDLER: Well, you know, for example, 2019, you had -- Aquaman was released in December of 2018, and that was a successful film. So in 2019, 19° you've sot the benefit of that kind of success, you've got the benefit of that kind of success, and you also don't have the - any potential impact from the alleged defamatory Waldman statements that occurred in April of 2020. So 2019 is clean of all that.
MR. DENNISON: What did you understand Ms. Arnold's methodology to be?
MICHAEL SPINDLER: Her methodology initially appeared to be based on these comparable actors that.she had identified, and theoretically the compensation that they earned, although she doesn't identify what that compensation is or provide any support for it or any calculations. 13. Q_ What is your opinion of that methodology from an accounting perspective?
MICHAEL SPINDLER: That methodology was unsound. It's just unsupported. There are no numbers. There's no data that she provided in support for that.
MR. DENNISON: What methodology did you understand Ms. Arnold to adopt at trial?
MICHAEL SPINDLER: Okay. Looked like somewhat of a mix-and-match approach. She used different approaches, I believe, for different elements of PLANE Cr TIA Ah WN eS .-)& May 24, 2022 the damages. Although it's still a little bit unclear to me, a little bit vague. But there are four basic components that she was looking at, and we can go through those in any order you wish.
MR. DENNISON: Allright. With respect to the television series portion of her analysis, what do you understand that methodology to be?
MICHAEL SPINDLER: Okay.
MR. ROTTENBORN: Objection, Your Honor. May we approach?
THE COURT: All right.
MR. ROTTENBORN: There's nothing in his report talking about how’she's going to address different methodologies other than he just says." they're unsupported, that. Arnold's calculations are unsupported. Going through television versus movies he's not an expert in that, and he's not an expert in causation. He's a forensic accountant, and there's nothing in his report on that. Mr. Dennison wants to point out something.
MR. DENNISON: He's going to talk about He's going to talk about her historical earnings and the fact that -- the notion that you can't just simply attribute a million dollars to every movie theater -- movie' role she gets -- or, I'm sorry, television series episode she gets when her history is $200,000. It's directly within the...
THE COURT: Well, it goes to entertainment value, which Mr. Marks has already testified to.
MR. DENNISON: Right. But this is rebuttal testimony where she testified she was going to get a million dollars.
THE COURT: Right. I know. But I'm saying Mr. Marks went through that. This expert is not qualified to talk about the entertainment.
MR. DENNISON: But he's going to talk about the $200,000.
THE COURT: In relating to movies.
MR. DENNISON: In related to television on NM PWN
THE COURT: All right. I'm going to sustain the. objection.
MR. ROTTENBORN: Thank you.
MR. DENNISON: Just so I understand what the issue is because I want to be candid with you, I don't, I want -- T intend --
THE COURT: It's not in his designation, and he's not an expert in the entertainment field.
MR. DENNISON: I'm not going to ask him about entertainment issues. I'm simply going to 10:ask him what she made.
THE COURT: What's the relevance of
MR. DENNISON: Because he uses historical earnings as his basis.
THE COURT: He can't. He's not going
MR. DENNISON: He's just charted his historical earnings which had multiple components.
MR. ROTTENBORN: Which he just testified to the overall assorted earnings. He doesn't go anywhere into the components and what causes what. He doesn't explain those.
MR. DENNISON: No. But she made.a lengthy testimony as to what level of -- what elements of earnings were provided. And so each of those elements build into these historical earnings. And we indicated in this rebuttal testimony that he's going to rebut the testimony provided by the witness.
MR. ROTTENBORN: I gave him an opportunity in his deposition to be read Kathryn Arnold's testimony. I said, "What.do you have to i l.say about it?" After reading the transcript, he essentially said, "Well, she doesn't identify specific things." He's already testified to that. We have no problem with that, I mean, he does say she doesn't identify specific opportunities, but to go through and talk about "This is what she 18.would have made from TV," that's the entertainment part that does not come in.
MR. DENNISON: Yeah But he's not going to say This is what she would have made in TV May 24 2022 MR Rottenborn Well I don't know what he's going to say You think he's going to say with respect to TV?
THE COURT: This is what she made?
MR. DENNISON: This is what she made.
MR. ROTTENBORN: That's not in this report. He just got Ms. Heard's tax returns, that's all he got these numbers from. There's no evidence in this report that he's --
MR. DENNISON: The witness can testify.
THE COURT: If he's not analyzing it in part of movies or TV, or --
MR. DENNISON: Right.
THE COURT: He's not.going to analyze what she would have made or future earnings.
MR. DENNISON: No. Nothing like that. He's going to say historical earnings are best of future earnings; that's what he's said throughout.
THE COURT: All right. T'll allow 9? that.
MR. ROTTENBORN: That's fair. Yeah. Okay. Thank you.
MR. DENNISON: Yeah.
MR. DENNISON: Sir, there were multiple elements of the analysis that Ms. Arnold did, one of which was the earnings from television shows. What was -- did you analyze what historical earning Ms. Heard had during the period that you were concerned with relative to television shows? 13. A Well, yes. During 2019 she entered into a contract in July of 2019 to appear in a television series at $200,000 per episode.
MR. DENNISON: Allright. What about endorsement deals? Did you look.at what she had made on endorsement deals during that period?
MICHAEL SPINDLER: She did have a contract with L'Oréal at” $1,625,000.
MR. DENNISON: All right. With respect to her movie roles, what were her historical earnings during that period?
MICHAEL SPINDLER: Well, certainly for the most recent ‘years, you had the Warmer Brothers deal, which was a four-picture deal. The first film was $450,000; then the first Aquaman was $1 million fee, base fee; then $2 million for Aquaman 2; and presuming that there was an Aquaman 3, that would have been $4 million.
MR. DENNISON: Okay. Why do you look at historical earnings as part of your analysis?
MICHAEL SPINDLER: Because you want your analysis to be anchored in facts. You want it to have a sound methodology, and you want to come up with a reasonable result. So if you take a look at, for example, the analysis that Ms. Arnold did, it didn't appear to be --.
MR. DENNISON: Let's just look at the analysis that you're doing. So what you said I think is you wanted them anchored in facts. Why? A Because that provides a sound basis for coming up with something with reasonable certainty. There is AICPA or American Institute of Certified Public Accountants guidance with respect to reasonable certainty and those are the basic elements of it. Thank you.
MR. DENNISON: No further questions.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. ROTTENBORN: Hello again, Mr. Spindler.
MICHAEL SPINDLER: Good morning.
MR. ROTTENBORN: I'm going to ask you a few questions that may refer to the statements in Amber's counterclaim against Mr. Depp. When I refer to those statements, I'm going to refer to them as the Depp/Waldman statements. Do you agree that we can both be on the same page what I'm referring to when I say that?
MR. DENNISON: Objection, Your Honor.
MICHAEL SPINDLER: That's fine. You can use your terminology. May 24, 2022 6831) to: Trial Day 22
THE COURT: I'I'm sorry. There's an objection, sir, if you could hold on.
MR. DENNISON: Can we approach?
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. DENNISON: We did this yesterday as well with a witness with this Depp/Waldman statement label. There's no direct evidence, in this case, and you just heard the argument. These are Mr. Waldman's statements.
THE COURT: I understand that's your theory of the case. But the jury instructions are not -- they to be Mr. Waldman's analysis, right? Not just --
MR. ROTTENBORN: I'm just using it so I don't have to say, "Do you understand that these statements that are the basis. for Ms. Heard's counterclaim" -- it's just the terminology.
MR. DENNISON: He knows what Mr. Waldman's statements are. He's doing that to drive home for the jury that somehow Waldman's statements are Depp's statements.
THE COURT: It's his theory.
MR. DENNISON: Yeah. I know.
THE COURT: I know, Mr. Dennison. I understand.
MR. ROTTENBORN: So, Mr. Spindler, when I refer to the Depp/Waldman statements, you understand me to be referring to the statements in Ms. Heard's -- counterclaim against Mr. Depp, correct? A: I'll understand that, yes. Q: Now, you're here to provide a rebuttal opinion to Ms. Arnold's -- part of Ms. Arnold's testimony, correct?
MICHAEL SPINDLER: Correct.
MR. ROTTENBORN: You're not providing an opinion on whether Ms. Heard suffered defamation by Mr. Depp, correct?
MICHAEL SPINDLER: That is true.
MR. ROTTENBORN: You're not offering an opinion as to any of the underlying facts.relating to whether Mr. Depp abused Amber, correct?
MICHAEL SPINDLER: That's correct.
MR. ROTTENBORN: You're not offering an opinion as to the magnitude of damages that you believe Ms. Heard may be entitled to if she proves defamation by Mr. Depp; you're just reviewing what” Ms. Arnold has said, correct?
MICHAEL SPINDLER: That's correct.
MR. ROTTENBORN: And you said that you want your analysis to be accurate in the facts, right? 11. A _ Anchored in facts.
MR. ROTTENBORN: Anchored in facts. You agree what an actor earns in one period isn't necessarily reflective of what he or she may earn in future periods, correct?
MICHAEL SPINDLER: Correct. And that's because what you see here is —
MR. ROTTENBORN: Role -- an increase in the number of roles may lead to greater income, correct?
MICHAEL SPINDLER: I'm sorry. Could you repeat that? I was speaking, didn't hear.
MR. ROTTENBORN: One of the reasons that what you earn in one period may not be reflective of what an actress may earn in future periods is because an increase in the number of roles may lead to greater income, correct?
MICHAEL SPINDLER: The number of roles or the particular project itself, yes.
MR. ROTTENBORN: Sure, Getting better roles may lead to greater income, correct?
MICHAEL SPINDLER: Correct.
MR. ROTTENBORN: And the same is true for an endorsement, as an actress's profile grows, the amount of money that she may be able to earn from endorsements grows as well, correct?
MICHAEL SPINDLER: It can. It depends.
MR. ROTTENBORN: So what'Ms. Heard earned from, say, 2013 to 2019 that you testified to isn't necessarily reflective of what she might earn over the next five years, correct?
MICHAEL SPINDLER: Not necessarily. -It is a good indicator, though.
MR. ROTTENBORN: And you'd agree that from 2013 to 2019, in terms of earnings and star power, that Ms. Heard's career trajectory was on the upswing, correct?
MICHAEL SPINDLER: There was a slight increase during that period of time in her earnings from 2013 through 2019.
MR. ROTTENBORN: And you'd agree that that was as a result of getting more lucrative roles, right?
MICHAEL SPINDLER: Yes.
MR. ROTTENBORN: Now, you're not a causation expert, right? You're just a damages expert?
MICHAEL SPINDLER: That's correct. 12. Q. So you're not testifying as to whether | the Depp/Waldman statements caused her to lose any roles, correct? 15. <A That's correct.
MR. ROTTENBORN: And you're not offering any opinion as to whether the Depp/Waldman statements kept her from being-considered for roles that she otherwise would have been considered for, correct?
MICHAEL SPINDLER: That's correct. I'm not testifying on causation issues.
MR. ROTTENBORN: And you can't speak to what And you can't speak to what opportunities may never have materialized for Amber as a result of the Depp/Waldman statements, correct?
MICHAEL SPINDLER: Yeah. I've not done those calculations.
MR. ROTTENBORN: And you don't have an opinion about whether or not Ms. Heard could have renegotiated a * contract for Aquaman 2, correct?
MICHAEL SPINDLER: That is not part of my work.
MR. ROTTENBORN: And you don't have an opinion on the impact that additional exposure or press coverage or magazine covers or interviews would have had on Ms. Heard's career, correct?
MICHAEL SPINDLER: Correct. I'm just looking at Ms. Arnold's calculations.
MR. ROTTENBORN: You've never served as a expert witness before to calculate damages based on lost roles by an actress resulting from defamation against that person, correct?
MICHAEL SPINDLER: I've been involved in defamation cases, but I've not done the calculations as an expert.
MR. ROTTENBORN: And there's never been an instance in which you.have served as an expert witness in a case to calculate damages based on alleged defamation against.an actress, correct?
MICHAEL SPINDLER: Correct.
MR. ROTTENBORN: And you're not offering any expert opinion on what impact the alleged defamation by Mr. Depp has had on Ms. Heard's career, correct?
MICHAEL SPINDLER: I'I'm sorry, one more time?
MR. ROTTENBORN: You're not offering any expert opinion on what impact the Depp/Waldman statements by Mr. Depp has had on Ms. Heard's career, correct?
MICHAEL SPINDLER: Other than taking a look at Ms. Arnold's calculations.
MR. ROTTENBORN: And you're not offering any expert opinion about what impact, if any, social media coverage of this case or of Ms. Heard may have had on Ms. Heard's career, correct?
MICHAEL SPINDLER: Correct. That's other experts.
MR. DENNISON: Can we approach, Your Honor?
MR. ROTTENBORN: No further questions.
MR. ROTTENBORN: No further questions. Thank you.
THE COURT: All right. Approach.
MR. DENNISON: We'll be doing --
THE COURT: Okay. Changed your mind. All right. Thank you, though, Jamie.
THE COURT: Redirect.
MR. DENNISON: Thank you, Mr. Spindler. I have no questions for you.
MICHAEL SPINDLER: Okay.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you, Mr. Spindler. You can have a seat in the courtroom, or you are free to go.
MICHAEL SPINDLER: Thank you, Your Honor.