Johnny Depp — Direct/Cross/Redirect
1,223 linesMS. MEYERS: Good morning, Mr. Depp.
MS. MEYERS: We heard a lot about some statements PLANE that May 25, 2022 that Mr. Waldman made. Do you remember that?
MS. MEYERS: And Mr. Waldman is your.attorney or was your attorney?
MS. MEYERS: Could we, please, pull up Defendant's Exhibit 1245, And this is already in evidence, so permission to, please, publish?
MS. MEYERS: If we could scroll down to the second page.
MS. MEYERS: Mr. Depp, do you see the statement here attributed to Mr. Waldman?
MR. ROTTENBORN: Objection, Your Honor. May we approach?
THE COURT: Allright.
THE COURT: Is this going to attorney-client?
MR. ROTTENBORN: It sure is. Yep. They refused to let him answer.
MS. MEYERS: This question was never answered -- never asked and it was never answered. There was no attorney-client privilege asserted to this specific question. Never asked.
MR. ROTTENBORN: This question still goes into the argument of whether or not Mr. Depp was -- had authorized Mr. Waldman, and they didn't let him answer any questions on that, so I think even:going to this is inappropriate.
MS. MEYERS: This question was never asked, Your Honor, and certain questions, he did answer. He answered when --
THE COURT: I believe the Motion in Limine was any question that he asserted attorney-client privilege will not be elicited at trial.
MR. ROTTENBORN: I think it goes broader than that to the subject matter.
THE COURT: That's not what the Motion in Limine said, was it?
MR. ROTTENBORN: No, I'I'm not representing that. I'm saying my argument here is that is shouldn't have to be phrased the exact same way for it to go to subject matter.
THE COURT: They're not going to change just an "and" or a "to," but it's a different question. We can go from there.
MR. ROTTENBORN: All right.
THE COURT: He didn't assert attorney-client privilege for it.
MR. ROTTENBORN: Okay. I'll be at the ready.
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. MEYERS: If we can have the exhibit backup. Thank you.
MS. MEYERS: Mr. Depp, when is the first time that you saw this statement by Mr. Waldman? +A ‘The first time that I ever saw this
MR. DEPP: The first time that I ever saw this statement was in August — when the piece was, the — when she — August 2020, when I was countersued by Ms. Heard, is the first time that I saw any of these statements.
MS. MEYERS: Can we, please, pull up Defendant's Exhibit 1246. And this is also already in evidence,
THE COURT: All right.
MS. MEYERS: Thank you. If we could scroll down to the second page or the third, perhaps. Thank you.
MS. MEYERS: Mr. Depp, do you see this statement that's attributed to Mr. Waldman here? A I do. 15. Q _ And when is the first time that you saw these statements? 17. A Same. When the countersuit was filed.
MS. MEYERS: And could we, please, go to Defendant's Exhibit 1247. And, again, this is already in evidence. If we could scroll down, please. Thank you.
MS. MEYERS: Mr. Depp, do you see the statement attributed to Mr. Waldman?
MS. MEYERS: And when's the first time that you saw this statement?
MS. MEYERS: After you saw these statements for the first time, did you form an understanding as to where they appeared?
MR. DEPP: No. Off the bat, I didn't know exactly. It just seemed like a lot of word salad to me. I didn't know where they'd come from — or I mean where they ended up.
MS. MEYERS: Mr. Depp, do you recall Ms. Heard testifying that you did not assist her in getting her role in Aquaman? Yes. I do. Yes. Yes, I do. Yes.
MS. MEYERS: And what is your response to that?
MS. MEYERS: Do you know when Ms. Heard first auditioned for Aquaman?
MR. DEPP: Strangely, I know the date. Well, yes, I do know the date because I was scheduled with my band, the Hollywood Vampires. We had done two shows at the Roxy, which is a place in Los Angeles, to rehearse for a -- we were invited to play at the Rock and Rio concert, which is a huge rock and roll festival. So we did the two shows to go to Rio and play there. Ms. Heard had wanted to come with me, and Whitney, her sister, had come as well. While we were there, in Rio, we were rehearsing, getting ready for the show, Ms.
MR. DEPP: Heard informed me that she would have to be going - she would have to get back to Los Angeles for an audition, meaning, basically, after our two-hour show or whatever. We had to -- we would have to get on the plane immediately to make it back to Los Angeles for this audition. And that audition was at Warner Brothers, it was whatever film it was.
MS. MEYERS: And when were you performing at the Rock and Rio?
MS. MEYERS: And what year?
MS. MEYERS: What do you-understand happened after Ms. Heard auditioned for Aquaman?
MR. DEPP: After Ms. Heard's audition, or possibly auditions for Warner Brothers, and, I suppose, the creative team, Ms. Heard expressed to me that the film was going to be — Warner Brothers had said that the film was going to be shooting in Australia. And Australia was a, for Ms. Heard, that was a potential problem, which —
MR. ROTTENBORN: Objection; Your Honor. May we approach?
THE COURT: Okay.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. ROTTENBORN: I don't know where I don't know where he's going to go with this testimony on the problem, but if he's going to talk about the dog issue and the visas in Australia, Your Honor has already made a couple rulings, I believe, in this case that that's not -- that's a collateral issue, that's something that's not coming in.
THE COURT: At the Motion in Limine, I said I wouldn't allow it in testimony, but then Ms. Bredehoft, in her opening statements, kind of threw everything out.
MR. ROTTENBORN: About:an Australia dog? I don't --
THE COURT: About the dog poop in Australia.
MR. ROTTENBORN: No, that's a different 16:dog.
THE COURT: Oh, that's different.
MR. ROTTENBORN: She addressed the dog poop on the bed. Believe me, I wish that hadn't --
THE COURT: Yes, okay. So you're just talking about the dog getting into Australia?
MR. ROTTENBORN: Ms. Heard and Mr. Depp had brought.dogs to Australia.
THE COURT: Right, I understand that.
MR. ROTTENBORN: But that, Your Honor, has been kept out.
MS. MEYERS: So, Your Honor, I assure you that he understands that he cannot --
MR. ROTTENBORN: He just said --
MS. MEYERS: Yes, he understands he can't reference, like, the legal issue. He's going-to. say there's an issue, generally.
MR. ROTTENBORN: He just testified that there's a problem with her getting in Australia. That goes over the line.
MS. MEYERS: I don't believe that that's true, Your Honor. I understood Your Honor's ruling. We tried to get in the fact of her pleading guilty to the false form issue, and we understand that that's --
THE COURT: He's saying there were problems. What else is he going to say?
MS. MEYERS: He is just explaining that because there was a problem, he was asked to intercede with Warner Brothers.
THE COURT: He was asked?
MS. MEYERS: To intercede with Warner Brothers. I assure you that he's not going to touch the specific issue at all.
THE COURT: Intercede with Warner Brothers? I have no idea what that means.
MR. ROTTENBORN: Have no idea what that means either. Even just saying there was a problem, I'think, runs afoul.
THE COURT: I think saying there was a’ problem is fine. We're not going into what the problems was or anything about Ms. Heard.
MS. MEYERS: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. That's fine.
MR. ROTTENBORN: And then there's -- okay. If he was asked to intercede --
THE COURT: With Warner Brothers.
MR. ROTTENBORN: Who's he going to testify he was asked by, other than Ms. Heard?
MS. MEYERS: Amber. He's just saying that Ms. Heard -- my understanding is he got this information from Ms.'Heard, which wouldn't be hearsay, as it's a statement of party opponent.
MR. ROTTENBORN: Well, we can take it as it comes.
THE COURT: Take it one at a time.
MR. ROTTENBORN: Okay. Appreciate it.
MS. MEYERS: I apologize, Mr. Depp. Could you please continue. What happened after Ms. Heard auditioned for Aquaman? 14. I was informed by Ms. Heard that the 15.film was going to be shooting in Australia. And that was of concern to her and - because it was of concern to Warner Brothers. So she asked if I would - because I had had a multi - for a few years, I had had a multi-film deal with Warner Brothers, and so we'd been in business together. So I knew these people, I'd been in - on films with them. So I - she asked me if I would speak to them. I made a phone call and I spoke to -
MR. ROTTENBORN: Objection. Hearsay, Your Honor.
MS. MEYERS: I don't believe he said anything yet. I think he was going to say who he spoke to.
THE COURT: Allright. Let's see. Overruled at this point.
MR. DEPP: I spoke to three — the three upper echelon, Disney's executive — excuse me, Warner executives, Kevin Tsujihara, Sue Kroll, and Greg Silverstein. And I told them that —
MR. ROTTENBORN: Objection. Your Honor, hearsay.
THE COURT: Allright. I'll sustain the objection. Next question.
MS. MEYERS: What was the result of you speaking with those individuals? Well, I can only say that ultimately she did get the job in the film. So hopefully, I suppose, I had curbed the worries to some degree. May 25, 2022 . 7188 Mr. Depp, do you recall Ms. Heard testifying that she saw you consume eight to ten MDMA pills at once while you were in Australia in March of 2015?
MS. MEYERS: How many - °
MR. ROTTENBORN: Objection. Beyond the scope of the question.
THE COURT: I'll sustain the objection. Next question.
MS. MEYERS: How many times have you done MDMA in your life, Mr. Depp?
MR. DEPP: Actually, not many. Not that many times. I would say, in my lifetime, maybe — in my lifetime, MDMA, six, seven, maybe.
MS. MEYERS: And how much MDMA have you done on those occasions? Not enough to properly — well, not enough to properly experience the — what the chemicals are supposed to do to you.
MS. MEYERS: Have you ever consumed eight to 10 MDMA pills at once?
MS. MEYERS: And why is that?
MR. DEPP: Because I'd be dead. I'm pretty sure I'd be dead. I think one would die, yes. Probably rather quickly.
MS. MEYERS: Mr. Depp, I'd like to show you some pictures from the home in Australia that Ms. Heard testified about.
MS. MEYERS: Could we, please, pull up Defendant's Exhibit 1817, which is already in evidence,
MS. MEYERS: Mr. Depp, do you recognize what's depicted in this photograph?
MS. MEYERS: If I touch this thing, will it make a mark?
MR. DEPP: Okay. So this chair, that one, here, was over here, and it was in pretty much — when I was turned around, toward — they were on swivel, so when I was turned around toward the bar, they faced the bar. When I turn this way, this chair, here, was in pretty much exactly this same position as this chair. It was face — well, I was facing Ms. Heard, who was — let's see. She was — if you're looking at the photograph, she would be about here (indicating),
MS. MEYERS: Could you draw a line in the direction where Ms. Heard was, relative to where you were sitting? 17. A _ Yes. Absolutely. So if I'm sitting here, she was over here, back here (indicating).
MS. MEYERS: Approximately how far away from Ms. Heard -- from you was Ms. Heard, if you can recall?
MS. MEYERS: And approximately where was your hand when the vodka bottle hit it?
MR. DEPP: It was leaning, my arm was — sorry, my arm was leaning on the marble bar, that was imaginary, see this, leaning kind of just leaning back and looking at Ms. Heard. She just walked away with the second bottle. I mean, she walked this way when she threw the first bottle, which is, actually, visible in the background, on the floor.
MS. MEYERS: Could you please circle where the first bottle is?
MR. DEPP: Oh, excuse me. Yeah. All that is the exploded first bottle (indicating) that went past my — that went past my head. And the second bottle hit right up here, where my hand is resting on the marble bar.
MS. MEYERS: Can we please pull up Defendant's Exhibit 1820 2] Q Mr. Depp do you recognize what's depicted in this photograph CIA RW DY PLANE! 77180 to May 25 2022 I A This is behind that very bar
MS. MEYERS: And what do you see on the floor in this picture?
MR. DEPP: I see what looks, to me, like a — some kind of napkin. It looks sullied, soiled, blood, I don't know. And I see glass in the corner, blood, obviously, on the floor, and a towel leaning up on some cab — something.
MS. MEYERS: Do you know how that bloody tissue got on the floor?
MR. ROTTENBORN: Objection. Calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MS. MEYERS: Do you know how the blood got on the floor, Mr. Depp?
MR. DEPP: I'm pretty — well, I know how the blood got on the floor. It came from my dripping finger. So that's why the tissue is — I'm 99.9 percent sure, since it is, it looks like it's got blood on it as well. I held my finger — held my finger with
MS. MEYERS: Was there a wall-mounted phone on that wall?
MS. MEYERS: Could we, please, pull up Defendant's Exhibit 394, which is already in evidence.
THE COURT: Yes, ma'am.
MS. MEYERS: Mr. Depp, do you recognize this text message?
MS. MEYERS: And what is this message?
MS. MEYERS: Sure.
MR. DEPP: Yeah, this is my text to the — to Dr. Kipper, who had just happened to be in town, telling him that I've had it and that I just lost a finger, fingertip.
MS. MEYERS: How long after your finger had been injured did you send this text message, if you can recall?
MR. DEPP: It's hard to tell because looking at the time stamp -- because it's 3/7/2015, 5:00, but I know that, because of Australia time, it was the 8th, and it was probably -- this was -- the whole thing lasted probably until about 2:00 p.m. or so, when -- that was when Kipper was called, Jerry was brought in, Jerry Judge, sorry, excuse me.
MS. MEYERS: So do you have an-estimate as to how long after your finger had actually been injured that you sent this message?
MR. DEPP: I don't think it was very long. I think it was probably within the next -- I'm sure it was in the next half hour or so. I would have had to sneak into a bathroom, lock myself in to type this out.
MS. MEYERS: And how were you able to send this text message to Dr. Kipper in the state that you were in?
MR. DEPP: Well, he wasn't available at the time, so you just sort of find your way through, don't you?
MS. MEYERS: How long after sending this text message did you see Dr. Kipper?
MR. DEPP: I don't recall, but I think it took them probably 30 minutes or more; 30 to 40 minutes to get there.
MS. MEYERS: And what did Dr. Kipper do when he first arrived at the home? ll A The first thing he wanted to. do was inspect the damage of my finger and try and figure out exactly what had happened, how it happened.
MS. MEYERS: And what did you tell Dr. Kipper about how your finger had been injured?
MR. ROTTENBORN: Objection, Your Honor.
MS. MEYERS: May we approach?
MR. ROTTENBORN: We've discussed this several times.
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. MEYERS: Your Honor, when they crossed Mr. Depp, they impeached him multiple times with prior inconsistent statements about the loss of his fingers. They showed him multiple text messages where they intimated that he was suggesting he had cut it off himself. There is a prior consistent statement,
MR. ROTTENBORN: This is no different from Ms. Heard's prior consistent statement that we argued and Your Honor didn't let it in about the abuse and certain times when she told her doctors that she had abused at certain times. Your Honor will remember in the designation argument on Dr.
MS. MEYERS: Kipper, Your Honor clearly -- Your Honor limited this, and I understand the argument is well, they've attacked this, so now we get to use it. To be consistent, Your Honor, Your Honor's kept out Ms. Heard's reports to her medical providers of abuse.
THE COURT: Well, you were putting your points in evidence.
MR. ROTTENBORN: I'm sorry?
THE COURT: You were putting those You were putting those points into evidence at that point.
MR. ROTTENBORN: No, even letting her testify that she had told, like, contemporaneous, consistent statements, consistent reports of abuse about — after certain incidents, Your Honor has kept out. If Your Honor lets this in, tomorrow's
THE COURT: You have two hours.
MR. ROTTENBORN: Yeah, thank goodness.
MS. MEYERS: May I?
THE COURT: You're not getting it into evidence, you're just asking him about it?
MS. MEYERS: Well Your Honor first of all I think that they tried to get Ms. Heard's prior consistent statements in on her direct testimony and I believe on her redirect you actually allowed her to say what she told Nurse Boerum under the theory that it was a prior consistent statement This is the exact same principal He's been impeached with a prior inconsistent statement and we're offering what he told Dr Kipper as a prior consistent statement
THE COURT: Tomorrow, the roles will be reversed.
MR. ROTTENBORN: Right.
THE COURT: So I'll overrule the objection.
MR. ROTTENBORN: Okay.
THE COURT: You can handle it on rebuttal
MR. ROTTENBORN: Okay. All right.
THE COURT: Thanks.
THE COURT: And Ms. Heard before. I told him that she had . 7199 thrown a bottle of vodka and smashed my — or smashed and cut my finger off, the tip of my finger, just the — a good chunk. J miss it.
MS. MEYERS: Mr. Depp, you heard Ms. Heard testify about an alleged incident of abuse on your honeymoon. Do you remember that?
MS. MEYERS: And when did you and Ms. Heard go on your honeymoon together?
MR. DEPP: I believe it was somewhere in the neighborhood of August, because I had just finished the film, maybe end of July, August. I'm not quite good on the exact date.
MS. MEYERS: Do you recall the year?
MS. MEYERS: And where did you and Ms. Heard go on your honeymoon?
MS. MEYERS: And what happened while you and Ms. Heard were together on the Orient Express
MR. DEPP: There were times when it was very agreeable, very nice, and then there were times when something had become dissatisfactory for her, and she would start the rant, the blooming of the -- of a fight would be on deck there. And at one point, it didn't -- I don't remember it lasting long at all. I just remember that I took a pretty good shot to the face, to the eye, to somewhere up here (indicating), so I had a bit of a shiner. But the -- it all ended and then everything got fine again. We'd go to dinner, and it was all fine.
MS. MEYERS: Did Ms. Heard ever apologize to you for giving you the shiner?
MS. MEYERS: Can we, please, pull up Plaintiff's Exhibit 162, which is already in evidence,
MS. MEYERS: Mr. Depp, do you recognize this photograph?
MR. DEPP: I do. It was with the — yes, the chef and the maitre d' and the staff were asking if they could take a photo with us, and they'd been very kind and given us a private dinner car.
MS. MEYERS: So where was this photograph taken?
MR. DEPP: That was in the — that looks like — yes, that's toward the back of the Orient Express, that's in the back train, bar compartment. And just out back, you could smoke on the sort of caboose or whatever. jo Q_ And what, if any, injuries do you have in this photograph?
MS. MEYERS: How did that happen?
MR. ROTTENBORN: Objection, Your Honor. Nonresponsive. She just asked how did that happen.
THE COURT: All right.
MS. MEYERS: I believe he was about to explain
THE COURT: Well, I'll sustain the objection. Go ahead.
MS. MEYERS: Mr. Depp, specifically, how did the injury in this photograph occur?
MS. MEYERS: Does this picture accurately reflect what you looked like on that date?
MS. MEYERS: Does this picture appear to have been photographed -- Photoshopped in any way? 13. A No. No. Think it would be difficult to photograph — or to start getting into sort of digital processing with a number of people in the shot, especially in a wide shot.
MS. MEYERS: Could we, please, pull up Plaintiff's Exhibit 1301, and this is a new one, Your Honor, so this is not in evidence.
THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.
MS. MEYERS: Mr. Depp, do you recognize what's reflected in this photograph?
MR. DEPP: Yes. This is the staff, it's the manager and his staff at the Raffles hotel in Singapore. Before we left, they asked if they could take a photograph with us.
MS. MEYERS: And when was this photograph taken?
MR. DEPP: Well, that would have been -— we were off the Orient Express. We stayed in Raffles, I believe, a couple of days, a few days. And then from there, we flew to San Francisco.
MS. MEYERS: So this photograph was taken after the photograph we just looked at?
MS. MEYERS: Your Honor, I'd move Plaintiff's Exhibit 1301 into evidence.
THE COURT: Any objection?
THE COURT: Any objection?
MR. ROTTENBORN: No objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. 1301 is in evidence and can be published to the jury.
MS. MEYERS: Mr. Depp, what, if any, injuries do you see on your face in this photograph?
MR. DEPP: I see pretty much the same. I see that the area in here has been -- well, is swollen and -- yeah, there's a bit of a shiner there.
MS. MEYERS: Thank you. We can take this down.
MS. MEYERS: Mr. Depp, do you recall Ms. Heard testifying that she punched you in the staircase incident because she thought of Kate Moss and the stairs?
MS. MEYERS: Yes.
MS. MEYERS: Do you have any understanding as to what Ms. Heard was referring to?
MS. MEYERS: And--
MR. DEPP: As Kate Moss, Kate testified, it was many, many years ago, and exactly what happened is what she said happened. I recall speaking with Ms. Heard about that very incident because of the down-pouring of rain because it was raining very heavily that day that Kate slipped. And I recalled the story to her-
MR. ROTTENBORN: Objection, Your Honor. Hearsay.
MS. MEYERS: May we approach, Your Honor?
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. MEYERS: Your Honor, this goes to Ms. Heard's knowledge. It's not being offered for the truth, but the fact that he told it to her. And she testified that she -- | mean, she implied very strongly that Mr. Depp had thrown Ms. Moss down the stairs, and if she knew that that was not true, that's certainly relevant to assessing her credibility.
MR. ROTTENBORN: She didn't imply that at all. You just saw the testimony this morning. She said she heard rumors that that happened and that went through her head.
THE COURT: I'll overrule the objection.
MR. ROTTENBORN: Okay.
MS. MEYERS: Please, continue, Mr. Depp, what.did you tell Ms. Heard about staircase -- or Kate Moss?
MR. DEPP: I'll make it easy for Mr. Rottenborn. Ms. Heard took the story and turned-it — into a very ugly incident, all in her mind. There was never a moment where I pushed Kate down any set of stairs. Yet, she's skewed this three times before.
MR. ROTTENBORN: Objection, Your Honor: Ms. Heard simply testified she heard a rumor, and: that's nonresponsive to the question.
THE COURT: Sir, hold on. There's an objection.
THE COURT: I'll overrule the objection.
MR. ROTTENBORN: Misstates the facts in evidence. THE.COURT: I'll overrule the objection.
MS. MEYERS: So, what, specifically, had you actually told Ms. Heard about the incident with Ms. Moss and the stairs?
MR. DEPP: Very simply that she had -- we were in Jamaica, I had left our: bungalow about three minutes-prior to. her, I was standing. outside, and suddenly rain starts just coming down like it's, you know, a.monsoon, and then I remembered looking and seeing Kate coming out the door, and there were three little wooden stairs. And she slipped, her legs went up (indicating), and she landed directly on her coccyx, on her lower back, and she was obviously physically in pain. She was hurt, she was crying. So I ran 2] over and grabbed her to make sure she was all right. That's it.
MR. DEPP: That's the -- that's all I ever -- that's the whole story. But then the rumor of it, I'd never heard a rumor of that before Ms. Heard grabbed hold of it. Like that. I'm sorry.
MS. MEYERS: Mr. Depp, we heard testimony from Ms. Heard's sister, Whitney during this trial. Do you remember that?
MS. MEYERS: And how would you describe your relationship with Whitney when you were in a relationship with Ms. Heard?
MR. DEPP: I liked Whitney very much. Initially, I mean, when I first met her, I liked her very much, and grew to love Whitney, very much. Because I was - it seemed - Whitney, Amber's sister Whitney, seemed to always get the sort of dirty end of the stick, and I felt bad for her, for that. Because it wasn't new. It had been there for life. And that was - seemed pretty obvious. So I took to Whitney very, very quickly. very easily. She was a very sweet kid. She was wonderful.
MS. MEYERS: What do you mean that Whitney got the dirty end of the stick?
MR. DEPP: It was kind of.a strange combination of loving sister, trusted sister and friend, and then, lackey. And then, you know, either the punching bag or the dart board, .or the recipient of some rather demeaning and ugly words. Or she would have wine thrown in her face.
MS. MEYERS: = And who was the source of those demeaning words and the wine that you just referenced? 13. A Oh, it would be Amber Heard, her sister.
MS. MEYERS: And how do you know that? <A _ Well, I witnessed quite a lot of it. The wine in the face was something that happened in New York, which I think that even made it into the papers. I believe that even made it into the papers. It was in an elevator.
MS. MEYERS: How did you first learn about that incident?
MS. MEYERS: What else did you observe of Ms. Heard and her sister Whitney's interactions during your relationship with Ms. Heard?
MR. DEPP: They were just constantly up and down. But I, you know, I could sense, I could feel that Whitney was trying to please her sister, trying to be up to snuff, and it just seemed like she got shot down.
MR. ROTTENBORN: Objection, Your Honor. This has gone beyond the scope of the question and his foundation for knowledge of that.
MS. MEYERS: Your Honor, I asked what he observed, you know, between them. I think this is responsive to that.
MR. ROTTENBORN: And his testimony as to what Whitney felt is...
THE COURT: I'll sustain the objection. Next question.
MS. MEYERS: Okay.
MS. MEYERS: Did you ever see Ms. Heard physically attack Whitney?
MR. DEPP: No, I've never seen any full-on blowouts, physical blowouts between them. Tons of verbal blowouts.
MR. ROTTENBORN: Objection. Beyond the
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. DEPP: I've certainly seen Ms. Heard: grab Whitney, push her, push her around. There were a number of - number. There were half a dozen times when we -- some of us, whoever was in the general vicinity, would have to leave. This is at Orange, when Whitney and Amber were living at Orange. Whitney and her boyfriend, at the time, Sean Krasinski, we actually had to leave the apartment --
MS. MEYERS: Why was that?
MS. MEYERS: When you say "fought," do you mean --
MS. MEYERS: When you said Ms. Heard would push scope. PLANE' May 25, 2022 Whitney around, do you mean physically push her or metaphorically?
MS. MEYERS: You heard Whitney testify that she lived in penthouse 4 at the Eastern Columbia Building for a time, correct?
MS. MEYERS: How did Whitney come to live in penthouse 4?
MR. DEPP: My recollection, when Whitney first came to stay at the Eastern Columbia Building, in penthouse 4, was she and her boyfriend, Sean, had broken up and she needed a place to go. And so, Amber asked if she could stay in penthouse 4, and I said, well, of course she — of course, you know.
MS. MEYERS: How long did Whitney live in penthouse 4?
MS. MEYERS: Did you ever ask Whitney to move out of penthouse 4?
MS. MEYERS: Why did Whitney ultimately move out of penthouse 4?
MR. ROTTENBORN: Objection. Foundation.
MS. MEYERS: It's his apartment, Your Honor. He was living there.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. DEPP: Whitney moved out of penthouse 4 long before the marriage. And it was due to an argument that Ms. Heard and Whitney had had, which had to do with Whitney working at the Art of Elysium with Jennifer Howell and those people. And Amber asked her to leave, get out.
MS. MEYERS: Your Honor, I know you anticipated having a motion at noon.
THE COURT: You can keep going. That's fine. We can keep going. How much longer on direct do you have?
MS. MEYERS: I have a bit.
THE COURT: Okay. That's okay.
MS. MEYERS: Mr. Depp, do you recall hearing testimony during Ms. Heard's case from Mr. Mandel?
MS. MEYERS: And who is that?
MR. DEPP: Mr. Mandel is my former business manager of 17 1/2 years, who, at a certain point, I discovered had been embezzling quite a lot of money, so I had to take action against him, and he JJ and my lawyers, 17 1/2 years, as they were in cahoots, as it were, and, so, yes, Joel Mandel is a — and in which they settled their case with me. They made their settlement. But, yes, it was the — that was a very — yeah, Joel Mandel is a very bitter man who ended up with a lot of money that I worked hard for over the years.
MS. MEYERS: Do you recall Mr. Mandel testifying in this case that you do not spend very much money on charity?
MS. MEYERS: That you do not spend very much money on charity?
MR. ROTTENBORN: Objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Do you want to approach?
MR. ROTTENBORN: May we approach?
THE COURT: Okay. SAM BR WN
MR. ROTTENBORN: This was covered in the Motions in Limine.
MS. MEYERS: Your Honor, they put in testimony in their case-in-chief from Mr. Mandel where he said Mr. Depp does not spend very much money on charity. I believe that opens the door for him to rebut that.
MR. ROTTENBORN: I have no objection to that. I don't remember that testimony. But I'm not doubting her. But if that came in, I have no objection to that limited thing. But if he's going to talk about some, you know —
THE COURT: Is that the only question on this?
MR. ROTTENBORN: If that's the only PLANE' Trial - Day 23 . 42 {214 to May 25, 2022 `question, I have no objection to it. But if they try to go beyond that, I think it runs afoul of the motion.
MS. MEYERS: My question is, what is your response to that?
MR. ROTTENBORN: That's fine. I have. no objection.
MS. MEYERS: Mr. Depp, just to remind you, my question was, what is your response to Mr. Mandel's testimony that you do not spend very much on charity?
MR. DEPP: My response is that Mr. Mandel is a very bitter man. And one thing about me, myself, personally, with regard to charity donations, sending money to a charity, I'd prefer - I don't - I would rather that my name were not on it. I don't want the name to be the important thing or the thing that people talk about. So when I donate money, I donate without my name being involved because I don't see that that's important, my name being there, in terms of money. Now, if I am able to visit hospitals, or if I'm able to meet with Make-A-Wish children, I've held onto the relationships that I've held onto within the Make-A-Wish Foundation and the Children's Hospital and the various, various other places, then, obviously, my name is involved. When we held premieres in Leicester Square for several films of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory --
MR. ROTTENBORN: Objection, Your Honor. This is, again, beyond the scope of his response to Mr. Mandel's testimony.
MS. MEYERS: I believe this is in response to Mr. Mandel
THE COURT: Overrule the objection.
MR. DEPP: Basically, when it was a public, let's call it a donation or whatever, I would talk to the studio. I would talk to Disney, I would talk to Warner Brothers, I would talk to whoever the studio was well before the premiere and make the premiere a benefit that would -- once we did, we benefited -- we did a benefit premiere for Great Ormond Street Hospital. We did a couple of benefit premieres for the Make-A-Wish Foundation. I mean, if you can turn a premiere with that many thousands and thousands and thousands of people there into a benefit, it works and it helps. But it wasn't presented under my name, you know. It was Disney's doing this or Warner Brothers is doing this. I'm not looking for the pat on the back, as it were. If I can make it happen, great. But I don't need the pat on the back. I don't need the adulation.
MR. DEPP: I don't need the attention. 14. Q Did you hear Ms. Heard testify that one of the charities she donated a portion of your divorce settlement to was the Children's Hospital of Los Angeles? <A Yes.
MS. MEYERS: What is your relationship with the CHLA?
MR. ROTTENBORN: Objection, Your Honor. Irrelevant to the issues. Irrelevant to the issues.
MS. MEYERS: May we approach, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Yes, ma'am.
MS. MEYERS: Your Honor, this is a different rebuttal point. This is -- Mr. Depp had a previous relationship with the CHLA when Ms. Heard selected that as one of the places to make a donation, and I think we saw her statement about the donation, when he donated the money to the CHLA, she said this was a newfound interest in the charity.
MR. ROTTENBORN: That's really an attenuated attempt to rebuttal. It's not relevant.
THE COURT: Well, she testified.
MR. ROTTENBORN: It's not relevant, and also -- they brought that out on cross-examination
MS. MEYERS: The CHLA came in on her ODA A RDN fe May 25, 2022 direct, though.
MR. ROTTENBORN: Understood. But the statement where Ms. Meyers is referring to, I believe came in on Ms. Vasquez's cross. I'm not going to say I'm a hundred percent certain of that, but I believe it did. Number two, this is kind of what we've been afraid of this whole time, which is they're going to talk about him going into the CHLA in pirate costumes, and you've heard Mr. Chew talk about how she doesn't care about sick kids and all that nonsense, It's totally unrelated. They're going to try to get, you know, have him to say that he marches around in a pirate costume.
MR. ROTTENBORN: That's so far beyond the scope of rebuttal.
THE COURT: I haven't heard any of that testimony yet. There was evidence in your
MR. ROTTENBORN: There's evidence about what? Her donating to the CHLA.
THE COURT: She's saying that when he made his donation in the area that's how it was [22 made his donation in the area that's how it was made, something along those lines.
MR. ROTTENBORN: I mean, I guess I don't have -- I guess if it's going to be like, hey, I gave to the CHLA in the past, that's fine. But if he's going to be talking about walking around in the pirate costumes and what a great guy he is with respect to CHLA, I think that goes beyond the scope of any sort of impeachment.
MS. MEYERS: Your Honor, I would also note that in Ms. Heard’s affirmative testimony, she did testify about, in her youth, volunteering at soup kitchens. This is really -- if they're going to bring in this to bolster her character --
THE COURT: That's not allowed.
MS. MEYERS: I understand.
THE COURT: I'll allow that question.
MS. MEYERS: Okay. Understood.
MR. ROTTENBORN: Thank you.
MS. MEYERS: Mr. Depp, what is your relationship with the CHLA?
MS. MEYERS: And what's the nature of that relationship?
MR. DEPP: Well, since, you know, sometimes there are Make-A-Wish kids who are in the hospital there, and their wish is to —
MR. ROTTENBORN: Objection, Your Honor.
MS. MEYERS: Your Honor, may we approach?
THE COURT: Okay. Sure.
MS. MEYERS: Your Honor.
MR. ROTTENBORN: This is why I --
MS. MEYERS: This is his relationship with the CHLA. I mean this is how --
THE COURT: You can ask limited questions. That was the rebuttal part.
MS. MEYERS: Okay.
THE COURT: 20 years. Now let's move on
MR. ROTTENBORN: That's kind of the problem with the limited question with him, is she problem with the limited question with him, is she can say what happened, and we all know where his testimony is going.
THE COURT: We're working on one question at a time.
MR. ROTTENBORN: All right.
MS. MEYERS: If I may.
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. MEYERS: In anticipation.
THE COURT: I appreciate that.
MS. MEYERS: I was going to ask whether Ms. Heard knew about that, the relationship with the CHLA.
MR. ROTTENBORN: Irrelevant.
THE COURT: What would be the relevance of it?
MS. MEYERS: She testified he was not charitable.
THE COURT: I'll sustain the objection at this time, okay?
MR. ROTTENBORN: Okay. Thank you.
MS. MEYERS: Mr. Depp, I'd like to take you back to May 25, 2022 exactly six years prior to this week, the week of May 21st, through May 27th, 2016. What happened at the beginning of that week?
MS. MEYERS: Excuse me, May 20th.
MS. MEYERS: Yes.
MR. DEPP: May 20th, the afternoon of May 20th, afternoon/evening, my mom made her exit. She -- she'd been fighting cancer numerous times, and for many years, and she fought all the way to the end. And, so, my mother passed away on the 20th of May. -- which does bring instant perspective into one's mind. I spoke to Amber that night, called her on the telephone, explained to her that my mom had passed, that Betty Sue had passed, and that I felt that the best thing we could do was to —
MR. ROTTENBORN: Objection, Your Honor. Hearsay. What Mr. Depp told Ms. Heard,
MS. MEYERS: We can move on. Your We can move on, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay: Yes, ma'am.
MS. MEYERS: Mr. Depp, what happened at the end of that week, on May 27th, 2016?
MR. DEPP: May 27th, my daughter's birthday. May 27th, I was not in Los Angeles. I was on the way to on tour. That was when Ms. Heard went for the restraining order. And, oh, yeah, also that was the day that Alice, Alice Through the Looking Glass, a film I had done, was opening.
MS. MEYERS: Did Ms. Heard know that you were out of town on May 27th?
MS. MEYERS: How would she have known that?
MS. MEYERS: How long were you going to be out of town on that tour?
MS. MEYERS: And did Ms. Heard know how long you'd be out of town?
MR. DEPP: I don't know if she knew exactly how long I'd be out of town, but it was a pretty extensive tour of Europe.
MS. MEYERS: How did Ms. Heard's actions on May 27th, 2016, affect you?
MR. ROTTENBORN: Objection, Your Honor. Relevance --
MR. ROTTENBORN: To this lawsuit.
THE COURT: Sir, if you could wait until the objection, please.
MS. MEYERS: Your Honor, this is one of the key --
THE COURT: If you want to approach.
MR. ROTTENBORN: How -- they're trying to bootstrap what she said on May 27th into the lawsuit. How what she did on May 27th affected him? That's not relevant.
MS. MEYERS: Your Honor, this is one of the key dates in this. And this is the date that the allegations essentially came out and the allegations that we contend were republished in the op-ed that she published in 2018. That op-ed is understood against the backdrop on what happened on May 27th,
MR. ROTTENBORN: This isn't a republication case, except their theory is that the tweet is republication, but 2018, this is not a republication of 2016. That's not what this case is about. That's not the theory of the case. The law doesn't support that. That's not what the case is about.
MS. MEYERS: It's her repeating what we contend are false statements she first made two years prior to.
MR. ROTTENBORN: That's exactly the point I was trying to make when I walked up here. That's what they're trying to do, and that's inappropriate. They're trying to get the jury to hold him --
MS. MEYERS: That's our theory of the PLANE On AM BR WN (7226 to 7229) May 25, 2022 case, Your Honor. I think we've made it very clear.
MR. ROTTENBORN: Liable for traditionally immune statements that were made in 2016.
MS. MEYERS: I think we've made it very clear that the op-ed that is at issue in this case is -- the defamatory statements are understood in the context of what happened in May of 2016.
THE COURT: You need to get to relevance. The objection is relevance.
MR. ROTTENBORN: Right. Because this case is about the statements made in 2018, and it's not a republication case. The jury cannot find Ms. Heard liable for statements she made in 162016, and that's exactly what Ms. Meyers is trying to get the jury to do through this testimony. So, therefore, how did it affect you is irrelevant. Yeah.
MS. MEYERS: Your Honor, I think that we've been very clear that what happened in May of 2016, when she made these statements public for the first time, color how the op-ed was understood by people. And I think that what happened on that date --
THE COURT: The statements made in 2018 in context with 2016?
MS. MEYERS: Well, our contention is that people understood the statements in the op-ed to be about Mr. Depp and to imply that he had been physically abusive because there had been a media circus around Ms. Heard's walking into court in May of 2016.
THE COURT: Right. You can ask those questions. That's not the question you just asked. So I'll sustain the question as to that.
MS. MEYERS: Okay.
MR. ROTTENBORN: I'l also ask that Your Honor consider -- I don't want say it in open court, for obvious reasons, but admonishing Mr. Depp the next time he makes a --
THE COURT: I just did.
MR. ROTTENBORN: Oh, okay. I didn't hear that.
THE COURT: I did.
MR. ROTTENBORN: I didn't want to say that. Thank you.
MS. MEYERS: Mr. Depp, what has it been like for you to listen to Ms. Heard's testimony at this trial?
MS. MEYERS: What has it been like for you to listen to Ms. Heard's testimony at this trial?
MR. ROTTENBORN: Objection. Relevance, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Insane. It's insane to hear heinous accusations of violence, sexual violence that she's attributed to me, that she's accused me of. I don't think anyone enjoys having to split themselves open and tell the truth, but there are times when one just simply has to because it's gotten out of control. It - horrible. Ridiculous, humiliating, ludicrous, painful, savage, unimaginably brutal, cruel, and all false. All false. I want - no human being's perfect, certainly not. None of us. But I have never, in my life, committed sexual battery, physical abuse, all these outlandish, outrageous stories of me committing these things, and living with it for six years and waiting to be able to bring the truth out. So this is not easy for any of us. I know that. But no matter what happens, I did get there, and I did tell the truth, and I have spoken up for what I've been carrying on my back, reluctantly, for six years.
MS. MEYERS: Thank you. I have no further questions.
THE COURT: Allright. Did-you want to take a lunch at this point? Okay. All right. Let's do that. Ladies and gentlemen, let's go ahead and take lunch at this time. Do not discuss this case with anybody, and'do not do any outside research, okay? Thank you. And don't break anything on your way out. Thank you.
THE COURT: All right. Sir, just a reminder that since you are back on the stand, do not discuss this case with anybody, to include your attorneys at this point.
THE COURT: If you can have a seat back there. We do have some other issues to take care of. Before we take care of the third-party motion, can I have attorneys come forward on our other issue.
THE COURT: All right. Did you do research? I want to know where you're at, at this point. So in rebuttal, designated rebuttal evidence -- rebuttal expert in this matter, not just to rebut certain expert but also all of the designations from the case-in-chief -- in the case-in-chief were also incorporated. I understand that. The difference I see with Ms. Heard's expert on the police policy was that that was just a rebuttal expert designated just to rebut a certain expert who did not testify. And I know you had an argument with that Oxford comma. I just don't agree with the Oxford comma. That's where we are.
THE COURT: Looking at this matter, an expert, rebuttal expert cannot testify just to a lay testimony as to witnesses; however, in this case, which I wanted to look into when you brought it up, is that we're talking about photographs and not testimony that came into evidence, and that the expert should be able to opine as to those, to rebut those particular photographs that are in evidence as to their authenticity. So that's where I'm at.
MR. MURPHY: May I be heard on that?
THE COURT: Just wanted to let you know where I was.
MR. MURPHY: Absolutely, Your Honor. I did research over the past hour.
THE COURT: Think we all have.
MR. MURPHY: Yes. And what the cases say, Your Honor, is that exactly what Your Honor was saying before, the rebuttal expert is here to © testify to an expert opinion. I've got four cases holding that backwards, forwards, left and right.
THE COURT: Right. Okay.
MR. MURPHY: So this first one, which is Middle Northern District of California, 1985, defines a supplemental rebuttal cannot --
THE COURT: We can view cases -- I ° found cases in Virginia.
MR. MURPHY: I wasn't able to find | anything in Virginia.
THE COURT: I did -- well, Sammy did. I'm sorry. I apologize. I like to incorporate Sammy into my findings.
MS. BREDEHOFT: There is one point here. None of those photographs were objected to when they came into evidence. They all came into evidence, authenticated and came in.
THE COURT: But --
MS. BREDEHOFT: What are they rebutting? Are they now challenging to what was not objected to?
THE COURT: No, they're saying they can't do metadata.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Well ‘ Your Honor didn't let:in the metadata. THE COURT. I understand that: But the photographs >-
THE COURT: I'm sorry. I let in the dates, and she said this is when it happened. These are.different photographs. I mean...
MS. BREDEHOFT: But nobody objected to them when they came in, so... -
THE COURT: I don't think you have to object to them. Now they're in evidence, so an expert can opine as to an‘issue that will help the jury.
MS. BREDEHOFT: I think they would have May 25, 2022 had to object to them as inauthentic at the time, Your'Honor. One of the things is we have asked through discovery and our request for admissions is that they identify any that they claim were not authentic, and they did not do that. And then . when we moved the admission of them, there was no objection, whatsoever, other than the metadata, which came out.
THE COURT: How come they --
MR. MURPHY: I'm sorry, Your Honor?
MS. BREDEHOFT: So, how can they now say, oh, these unobjected-to photographs, we're going to object to them now and say they're not authentic. I don't know how they can do that. And they didn't identify them. David's got a lot on the different arguments for Neumeister separate than that, but I don't know how that -- why your ruling should change, Your Honor, and let him come in to rebut what nobody --
THE COURT: I still stand --
MS. BREDEHOFT: -- challenged.
THE COURT: -- that a rebuttal witness
THE COURT: That a rebuttal witness can't come in to rebut lay testimony, unless 2. somebody gives a medical opinion.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Right.
THE COURT: Right. My knee is sore, and an expert in medmal case can come in and say, well, no, actually the knee should be whatever, ° so--
MS. BREDEHOFT: Right. My point here is that he's not rebutting anything because nobody 10-challenged it. These were unobjected to. All the | photographs.came in unobjected to after the metadata came out.
THE COURT: Well, you don't -- rebuttal testimony doesn't have to be challenged. To bring in rebuttal testimony, you don't have to object to everything. They're rebutting your evidence.
MS. BREDEHOFT: If they didn't object to it, I don't think they deserve to be able to object.
THE COURT: You're saying if you don't object; you can't bring any rebuttal testimony in?
MS. BREDEHOFT: To challenge something you didn't object to.
MR. MURPHY: Essentially, Your Honor, I understand it as evidence requires authenticity under Rule 9, whatever it is to be admitted, it was admitted, therefore, it's been authenticated; therefore, the authenticity is not an issue, is what I understand Ms. Bredehoft to be arguing.
THE COURT: That's the weight of it, right? They can argue the weight of anything in evidence.
MR. MURPHY: But that returns to the overall point. Granted I'm not looking at Virginia case, Your Honor has. Time and time again, in these cases, they talk about rebuttal experts are here to oppose previous expert testimony. Over and over again.
THE COURT: But it doesn't have to be just expert testimony.
MR. MURPHY: I understand. I don't have the Virginia cite, Your Honor, but these cases, 4th Circuit, it's saying that's exactly what a rebuttal expert does, and, actually, not exactly, that's only what a rebuttal expert can do.
THE COURT: If they're only designated to rebut a certain expert, I agree with you.
MR. ROTTENBORN: What's the Virginia cite, Your Honor?
THE COURT: I have a few of them here. You might be able to get them from Sammy faster.
MR. ROTTENBORN: We can get them from Sammy.
MS. LECAROZ: We have Greer v. Commonwealth, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. I think mine was Hodges v. Commonwealth.
MS. VASQUEZ: We have that one as well, I believe so. I've read Hodges v. Commonwealth.
MS. LECAROZ: So I have Greer here. So in Greer, at trial, after Greer, the defendant, rested, the Commonwealth called the three experts as rebuttal witnesses. Over Greer's objections, the Court allowed the Commonwealth to elicit testimony from the experts that they evaluated Greer at the request of his counsel. We find no merit to Greer's contention that the trial court erred in allowing this testimony. The evidence was relevant because it provided background information about the experts and showed how they became involved in the case. So, there, Your Honor, we have Virginia Supreme Court saying it was not error to allow experts in rebuttal that had not been called in the case-in-chief.
MR. MURPHY: Your Honor, what I see here is this is talking about relevance. We're talking about an expert disclosure issue, the mechanism of disclosure and the defined roles of experts. That a much different issue than a relevance issue. What I see here is the relevance because it provided --
THE COURT: But they did disclose him as a rebuttal expert.
MR. MURPHY: Right. But it's talking about relevance. Not talking about purpose.
THE COURT: I think this is relevance.
THE COURT: I think this i is s relevance.
MR. MURPHY: It doesn't seem like, from what I'm seeing here, Your Honor, that the argument we're having right now was made. So I would say this case is not on point. There isn't any relevance to the testimony.
MS. LECAROZ: I think that's all we have from Virginia, Your Honor. We do have a District of Colorado case. We didn't have Hodges, I don't think.
THE COURT: That was not a Commonwealth case where the expert was DNA -- gave testimony on DNA.
MR. ROTTENBORN: Your Honor, just to be clear, Your Honor's made the ruling that Dr. Collins is out; is that correct?
THE COURT: That's correct.
MS. VASQUEZ: She's opining on just pictures as well, Your Honor.
THE COURT: No, that's not in the designation.
MR. ROTTENBORN: Your Honor, she reviewed pictures, but she's saying Amber's account doesn't match the pictures. That's totally different. -
MS. VASQUEZ: She has reviewed photographs.
THE COURT: But that's -- that's just commenting on Ms. Heard's plain testimony.
MR. ROTTENBORN: Yes.
MR. MURPHY: Actually, her testimony is she opines as to whether the injuries reflected in the photographs aren't consistent with --
THE COURT: No, I'm not going to keep going over that. I'll sustain the objection as to that expert.
MR. MURPHY: Your Honor, I recognize this is out of state, but if I can send you one federal case. It really addresses this issue.
THE COURT: Yes, sir, if you'd like to.
MR. MURPHY: So this is Boles v. United States Middle District of North Carolina. Literally, "rebuttal experts cannot put forth their own theories; they must restrict their testimony to attacking the theories offered by the adversary's experts." That's exactly what I understood Your Honor's ruling earlier to mean, and that's exactly what we're arguing now. And then, on the next page, talks about they don't address any of the defendant's expert reports, they offer their own theories. And that's exactly what our argument is here, Your Honor. They could have called Mr. Neumeister in their case-in-chief, as that's how he was designated. They chose not to do that. They fought against the photographs and our summary of the metadata coming into evidence.
MR. MURPHY: Your Honor sustained that objection. And then, additionally, they could have called Ms. Heard. They chose not to do that, as is their right. But for them to say they didn't have the opportunity, or I heard earlier the argument that trials are fluid, they don't know what evidence is going to come in. I mean, come on, the whole forensic order process, they knew these photographs were going to come in. They've known that for five years. So that argument, I don't think, `Oo to May 25, 2022 really holds any sway. And, again, it's essentially, their expert cannot rebut a fact witness, and I don't see this case holding that. That's essentially what their argument is. I did not find any Virginia law that said an expert witness, in rebuttal, can rebut a fact witness's testimony. Your Honor actually said Ms. Heard cannot testify to the metadata because that's expert testimony.
THE COURT: They're not rebutting a 1] fact witness. That's -- they're rebutting photographs themselves.
MR. MURPHY: Right. So if Mr. Ackert had been called in our defense and said these photographs are authentic, I wouldn't have this on AA KR WN = argument right now.
THE COURT: You can call him in rebuttal.
MR. MURPHY: He hasn't been called yet, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. MURPHY: And I would also point out There's nothing in evidence for him to opine to because of their objection.
MR. MURPHY: And I would also point out that Mr. Bercovici actually was designated in the opposition expert disclosure, it just had the language Your Honor said. I'm not trying to revisit that, I'm just trying to point out --
THE COURT: He was just rebutting that particular --
MR. MURPHY: I'm not trying to revisit that ruling. My point is, he was even included in the opposition expert disclosure, whereas Mr. Neumeister isn't mentioned, period, in that opposition expert disclosure. I wanted to point that out as well.
THE COURT: They're not using it as opposition; they're just using it as rebuttal.
MR. MURPHY: So then I will focus my arguments on rebuttal and this case law. And there's no Virginia case law I have found, a least, that said a rebuttal expert can rebut anything but expert testimony, That's their purpose.
THE COURT: I understand. I think in this particular case, just the photographs, in this limited, it's going to be extremely limited, as far as only photographs that are in evidence that he can opine on. There's not going to be talk about any discovery issues, period. General. No software issues. We have that. So it's just literally going to be photographs that are in evidence and his opinions on those photographs.
MS. LECAROZ: So, Your Honor, just so I understand your ruling, because. of the way that they entered the photographs into evidence, they submitted them as screen grabs of a photo. So, what Mr. Neumeister will testify to are the photographs that underlie the screen grabs, which are not necessarily the trial exhibits, but they are the underlying photo that is a part of the trial exhibit.
THE COURT: What is he going to testify to?
MS. LECAROZ: To issues with the underlying photos and the authenticity and issues with the photo-editing applications that the underlying photos -- underlying photos --
MR. MURPHY: The word "screen grab" does not appear in the disclosure. I don't even know what they are talking about. They are not screen grabs, Your Honor.
MS. LECAROZ: You can look at them, Your Honor. They are in our opposition. You can see. And Your Honor obviously dealt with this --
THE COURT: He's not going to opine about the ones that are in evidence? Con NO RW DY r
MS. LECAROZ: He's going to opine about the --
THE COURT: There was no objection about them being screen grabs at the time of trial, so we are not going to go back to that because they are in evidence as they are. So there is no objection. You could have objected to the authenticity of them as being screen grabs, I would have addressed that issue. But now you can't just let them in evidence and then say, oh, well, now those are screen grabs. I can't do that.
MS. VASQUEZ: Your Honor, may I just be May 25, 2022 heard on that one point. I believe I called them screenshots, not screen grabs, when I objected because the metadata --
THE COURT: We dealt with that.
MS. VASQUEZ: It was a picture of a picture. When I made my objection that it was a screenshot, that was -- my objection was that it is a screenshot. It will not -- I should have articulated that. When I said it was a screenshot, I was trying to articulate that it 1] wasn't authentic. Coon AN Oh SB WH NY
THE COURT: You didn't say that.
MS. VASQUEZ: I did say that. I said it's a picture of a picture, Your Honor.
MR. MURPHY: All I would respond to that is, Your Honor, it doesn't matter what she argued, what matters is Your Honor's ruling, and what matters is what came into evidence --
THE COURT: Well, if she objected to it. She did object to it because she did say it was a picture of a picture.
THE COURT: But] overruled their objection and allowed it into evidence.
MR. MURPHY: Without the metadata.
THE COURT: Without the metadata. But she wasn't saying about the metadata. She was saying it was a screenshot of a shot, so taking a picture from a computer or --
MS. VASQUEZ: An iPad.
THE COURT: And I allowed it in.
MR. MURPHY: I want to make sure I understand your scope clearly. Are they saying he's only going to be opining to photographs that, due to Your Honor's ruling, now have the black box over the metadata? Because what I will -- his disclosure doesn't have any of those pictures in it. There was -- none of those pictures with the metadata are in his disclosure. This is the first time hearing that's what he's going to testify to.
THE COURT: Well --
MS. LECAROZ: The photographs that he T DEPOS look at matched the photographs that came into evidence, -
MR. MURPHY: That's their brief, not their disclosure.
MS. LECAROZ: I understand that. But those pictures came from Bryan's disclosure and his report -- Mr. Neumeister, and same with the photo, obviously came in. He can talk about all the versions of that photo.
THE COURT: The ones that are in evidence over objection with screenshots, and he's going to testify that they are screenshots and that the original photo, fill in the blank?
MS. LECAROZ: Right. So he's not going to say original photo because of the way that the collection was done. There's an issue with the way the collection was done, so you can't say which of the photos is the original. This is the authenticity issue.
THE COURT: So he's saying you can't tell when they were taken?
MS. LECAROZ: He's saying you can't He's saying you can't ST confirm it, based on the way that --
MR. MURPHY: Additionally, Your Honor, again, the photos she's showing you in their brief, with the metadata on them. I have lived in this disclosure. Then -- that is not in his disclosure, so it's outside of the scope of his disclosure to testify about the photographs with the metadata on them.
MS. LECAROZ: This is his disclosure, Your Honor.
MR. MURPHY: That's not. Do you see metadata on these photographs in the --
THE COURT: It wouldn't matter if it's there or not.
MR. MURPHY: But that's what's in evidence.
MS. VASQUEZ: It's the underlying.
MS. LECAROZ: This is EXIF data that that is the photograph.
THE COURT: I'm going to allow that. We're going to allow that, very limited, and then you can have your rebuttal. May 25, 2022
MS. VASQUEZ: He can -- just to confirm, he can opine as to the metadata that's in the underlying photographs?
THE COURT: In the underlying photographs.
MS. VASQUEZ: Yeah, that is part of the screenshot.
THE COURT: Then they can redirect -- or cross-examine on it in their expert as well.
MR. MURPHY: That raises another related issue, Your Honor. Our expert, Mr. Ackert, as they know from the expert disclosure, has found versions of the photographs that do not have this metadata issue.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. MURPHY: And if they are now allowed to bring Mr. Neumeister to talk about that, I want to make sure that there's no reason that our expert cannot rebut that saying, I found X, Y and Z. I'm looking at Your Honor's earlier ruling of the disclosure and the timing of the photographs --
MS. LECAROZ: Mr. Ackert testified, at his deposition, that he couldn't opine as to any specific photographs to which he was going to offer an opinion that they were originals.
MR. MURPHY: That's not true, Your Honor,
THE COURT: That's fine. I mean, he's going to be your rebuttal expert, so he can opine to that. That's fine. Okay?
THE COURT: So does that resolve that issue? You have another issue?
MR. ROTTENBORN: One brief issue.
THE COURT: Okay. You were actually very quiet.
MR. ROTTENBORN: Mr. Depp testified, at the end of his testimony, just now, he said I've been living it -- living with it for six years and waiting to be able to get the truth out. I've spoken up for what I've been carrying on my back,
THE COURT: Uh-huh.
MR. ROTTENBORN: AI out of us up here know that that's not true,. because of the U.K. trial. He has had his chance and we believe we should be able to get in the U.K. judgment on that basis.
THE COURT: No.
MR. ROTTENBORN: It's a question about everything other than that --
THE COURT: Not to the judgement.
MR. ROTTENBORN: Not the UK. trial.
MS. BREDEHOFT: But he can testify to 13-anything else?
THE COURT: Right. Are you ready for the other motion?
MS. VASQUEZ: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay. Got that matter. Then let me take up the emergency motion for Mr. Tobin.
THE COURT: How are you doing, sir?
THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Tobin, if you could just come to the center.
THE COURT: Sure.
THE COURT: Thank you, sir. Give it to the other side. Mr. Tobin, if you want to.
THE COURT: I've got to make this relatively short, as you can understand, but I wanted to take up your motion. I had read your motion and the declaration and everything attached to it and all the cases. And I have reviewed it, so I'd rather you not regurgitate that, based on our time limit, but anything you wish to add to that is fine. If you want to -- if could focus you a little bit.
THE COURT: Allright. Yes, sir. As far as your comments about Virginia Rule of Evidence 2:508, that's a criminal Rule of Evidence, so that’s not.
THE COURT: Not your strongest argument. And as far as what goes on when the -- if the witness testifies, whether it's hearsay or it's third-party knowledge, that's something I'l] deal with at trial. So, again, not what I'm concerned with.
THE COURT: As far as Supreme Court Rule 314, which I would like you to talk a little bit about that, as far as intervention, and I've got to tell you where I'm at right now, the concern -- the issue I have with your argument is intervention, obviously, would make you a plaintiff or defendant in the case, and it has to deal with an issue that's germane to this case, and this is a defamation case. So if you could just tailor your argument to that issue, sir.
TOBIN: Sure. I'm happy to address the intervention. For the record, Your Honor, Charles Tobin, from the law firm of Ballard Spahr, here representing TMZ, which is the publisher for news and entertainment for the celebrity and entertainment industry. And, Your Honor, we're seeking to intervene simply to protect the relationship between reporters and their sources when it comes to reporting news in the public interest. As the Court noted, we really don't have a dog in this hunt, as far as Mr. Depp, Ms. Heard.
TOBIN: We're really here purely to the First Amendment-based issues, reporters' privilege and reporters and their sources. The intervention rule, as the Court is aware, allows intervention by anybody where the issue is germane to the subject matter of the proceeding. And certainly, Your Honor, the purported testimony, the proffered testimony of a former employee of TMZ, who purports to be in a position to disclose confidential information I learned during the operation of journalism, during his work as a journalist, is a germane issue that is being raised in this case. And, Your Honor, we would point the Court to the Tavss Fletcher Maiden & Reed v. Southern Bank & Trust case, 2013 Va. Cir. LEXIS 253. It's a Norfolk Circuit Court decision from 2013. And there, it was an interpleader action, the funds had been interpleaded into the court by two trust companies that were fighting over it.
TOBIN: And the man who had sold his property, who had no interest in the funds themselves, intervened in '13. the case because he was uncertain as to his liability for excess funds, which was an issue that was not directly in litigation between the two parties; it was not part of the cause of action between the two trusts fighting over the money that had been pleaded into the court. The Circuit Court held that, certainly, the rights of that man was going to be affected by the decision-making in the case. He would be prejudiced if he didn't have an opportunity to intervene, and no party was in the position to assert his rights. So, similarly, here, Your Honor, TMZ is a news organization, it routinely accepts information, as is common in journalism, under exchanges of promises of confidentiality. If it is not able to intervene in this action and neither of the parties is going to be in a position to assert the reporter's privilege, it is TMZ's journalist privilege that we're talking about, then the rights are certainly going to be prejudiced.
THE COURT: But the witness -- in all the cases, and I've reviewed the cases that you have, in those cases, the witness was compelled to testify and came and was forced to testify, so there was an issue about the privilege of the witness. It's my understanding, this case, this witness wants to testify and is not under subpoena.
MR. CHEW: That is incorrect, Your Honor. He's voluntarily here. A subpoena from this court would not be enforceable.
TOBIN: Your Honor, I have a copy of a subpoena that entered last night compelling Mr. Tremaine to give testimony in this case, and so he is coming under a compulsion under subpoena.
THE COURT: If he takes the stand and he asserts. some sort of privilege, then that's something I will deal with at that time.
THE COURT: Right. Exactly. That's what I'm saying. All your cases that you showed were the opposite, where they did assert the privilege.
THE COURT: Right. And I understand you might have some issues with a former employee and you have some avenues to go deal with that.
TOBIN: Once he testifies and the privileged is waived, we've lost our opportunity to intervene and proceed. And, Your Honor, the privilege -- I know Your Honor, you said you read the case law. I appreciate that.
THE COURT: Yes.
TOBIN: But the privilege, it has by the Virginia Supreme Court in the Brown case and applied by the Circuit Courts uniformly. It is very important unpinning of the relationship between reporters and sources and reporters and the public. Without the ability to enforce its promises by current employees or former employees, news organizations have absolutely no control over being able to enforce its promises.
TOBIN: And so, we would ask the Court to permit us to intervene and to assert the privilege that belongs to TMZ, which is the organization, after all, Your Honor, that would be responsible to the source if the privilege were waived.
THE COURT: I understand, Mr. Tobin, your argument. I appreciate it very much. Okay. Do the attorneys wish to be heard?
MR. CHEW: Yes, Your Honor. Good morning, your -- good afternoon, Your Honor, I would like to begin where Your Honor began. As a threshold matter, the Court should deny TMZ's motion to intervene. Intervention is not appropriate for the reasons suggested in Your Honor's questions. As Your Honor is well aware, intervention is only appropriate with leave of court, where a third party seeks to "file a pleading to intervene as a plaintiff or as a defendant to assert any claim or defense germane to the subject matter of the proceeding." Virginia Supreme Court Rule 3:14. As Mr.
MR. CHEW: Tobin, to his credit, has conceded, TMZ is not asking to file a pleading, it cannot properly categorize itself either as plaintiff nor defendant, and it seeks to assert no claim or defense germane to the subject matter of this action. Moreover, even if the privilege were applicable, which is not the case here, the testimony intended is directly relevant and would outweigh any qualified privilege as "an intervener must be asserting an interest that is part of the subject matter of the litigation." Hudson v. Jarrett, 269 Va. 24 at 32. Here, as Mr. Tobin stated, TMZ seeks to protect a potential -- seeks to protect potential information solicited from the third-party witness. Which is in no way a matter before this court. Citing Commonwealth v. Gill, 89 Va. Cir.
MR. CHEW: 323, a 2014 case denying a motion to intervene where the intervener filed it "to protect a property right not a matter before the Court." The outcome of this trial will not affect TMZ and it does not have a sufficient interest in the subject matter of this suit to intervene. See Tavss Fletcher Maiden & Reed, PC v. Bank National Trust, Co., 2013 Westlaw 5849140, granting -- and this is distinguishing. Granting the motion to intervene where the intervener's liability would be affected by the outcome of the litigation. Finally, Your Honor, TMZ lacks standing to object to testimony by a third party in this action because TMZ, as Your Honor pointed out, is not being compelled to testify. TMZ's reliance on the Philip Morris case for the proposition that the privilege cannot be circumvented by seeking confidential source information from an employee is inapposite, 36 Va. Cir. at 1.
MR. CHEW: One thing is noted, in that case, there's no testimonial privilege akin to that being enjoyed under the Fifth Amendment, which would allow a reporter to refuse to appear before a grand jury and answer questions. In Philip Morris, as Your Honor is aware, the party issued a third-party subpoena for records to trace confidential sources. Philip Morris is inapposite here as that case related to -- as this case is related to witness testimony, not records. As Your Honor suggested, TMZ’s quarrel, if any, is with Mr.
MR. CHEW: Tremaine, to the extent that he had an NDA that was enforceable, applicable, and that's not what we're hearing from Mr. Tobin. So, to the extent that TMZ, which is not exactly Edward R. Murrow, Your Honor, to the extent they have a beef, as it were, a cognizable beef, it is with Mr, Tremaine, it is not with Mr. Depp. And they clearly do not have standing to assert or to intervene because they are not intervening as a party, plaintiff or defendant. So we respectfully submit -- to the extent the Court disagrees, I can go into the arguments --
THE COURT: That's okay.
THE COURT: That's okay. All right. Yes, ma'am.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Your Honor, I would like to just weigh in from just a different perspective.
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. BREDEHOFT: That is because we're trying to deal with some important issues of privileged, et cetera, but from our perspective, representing Ms. Heard, we have issues with this witness separately, and I want to make them very clear for the record. This is somebody who should have been identified in discovery, was never. Second of all, it's not relevant whether -- apparently, what they're saying he's going to testify, and we have not had the opportunity to discover that, is he's going to claim that someone leaked to TMZ that Ms. Heard was going to obtain the TRO on that Friday, and, also, leaked the video, the kitchen video with Mr. Depp being rather violent.
MS. BREDEHOFT: And I'm almost certain he's not going to claim it's Ms. Heard, so I think it's never going to come in.
THE COURT: Ms. Bredehoft, I understand all that. Do you have any argument as to this particular motion?
MS. BREDEHOFT: No. My --
THE COURT: Okay. Then we can address yours --
MS. BREDEHOFT: My point is, though, if you balance the prejudice versus the probative you balance the prejudice versus the probative value, I don't even see how he can come in on foundation or hearsay or relevancy.
THE COURT: That's just not part of this motion at this time. Thank you, ma'am. Mr. Tobin, your motion, you get the last word, sir.
TOBIN: Thank you, Your Honor. I appreciate that the Court shook your head when he made the snarky comment, that this is not Edward R. Murrow. Obviously, the First Amendment applies 1] to everyone, citizens, New York Times, or TMZ, and this is a First Amendment-based privilege. Your Honor, the Philip Morris case is actually a very good case to answer Your Honor's question about the intervention of somebody else in order to assert the privilege. Their ABC was a defendant in the case, and it moved in order to prevent other people, a phone company. Oo On AM PWN
THE COURT: Right. But they were already in the case in that particular matter.
TOBIN: Understand. There is no other mechanic, though, so it would be an to May 25, 2022 interesting procedural issue for appeal, Your Honor, whether a journalist organization or anybody else who's a First Amendment holder would be denied intervention on a constitutional-based privileged. T also, just for the record, and for the merits of the case, if understood Mr. Chew correctly, he said this is not an issue in the litigation. This does not relate to an issue in the litigation.
TOBIN: Well, if it's not an issue in the litigation, if it's not part of a prima facie part of the defense, part of the allegations of the complaint, if it's impeachment evidence, if it's collateral to the main issues in the case, under the Brown v. Commonwealth decision of the Virginia Supreme Court, under the application of that privilege, in the Philip Morris v. ABC News, is not supposed to be compelled in this case.
THE COURT: Which, again, it's not being compelled, it appears.
TOBIN: Well, he is appearing by 22. subpoena, and it is a compulsory process, and will subpoena, and it is a compulsory process, and will have an obligation, unless he asserts privilege under oath, but it is our privilege, Your Honor, it's not an employee -- a loyal or a rogue employee's privilege to waive on behalf of its employer. This is an unusual situation.
THE COURT: You don't have to tell me about that.
THE COURT: This is not the first 1] unusual situation in this case --
THE COURT: I appreciate you coming in today, and I appreciate your arguments. Yes, sir. In this matter, under Virginia Rules Supreme Court 3:14, a new party may intervene as a plaintiff or defendant to assert any claim or defense germane to the subject matter of the proceeding. A new party may not intervene unless they assert some right involved in the underlying litigation. A party is not entitled to intervene merely because a byproduct of the litigation adversely impacts them, and the decision to allow intervention is within the broad discretion of the trial court. Here, the rights asserted are not germane to the trial. The central issues in this case are whether defendant defamed plaintiff and whether plaintiff defamed defendant through a theory of vicarious liability. The issue of the confidentiality of source has not come up as in other cases cited by EHM, which is the corporation that TMZ belongs to, is under their umbrella. In Brown v.
THE COURT: The Commonwealth, there is an attempt by the criminal defendant to subpoena institutions in order to obtain the name of the confidential source. When the author of the article was subpoenaed, she refused to identify her confidential source on the stand. And in this case, it appears that the witness is willing to state the name of the confidential source without being compelled, voluntarily. Whether that breaches a nondisclosure agreement between Mr. Tremaine and EHM is not germane to this matter and can be litigated in a separate matter, if EHM so chooses. And while breaches of contract must be taken seriously, and the court does, any alleged breach is not germane to the underlying litigation here. That contractual action has no bearing on this case and is thus not germane to this litigation; therefore, I'll deny the nonparty, EHM Production's, motion to intervene.
MR. CHEW: Thank you, Your Honor. For the record, I've known Mr. Tobin for several years. I meant no snarkiness toward him.
THE COURT: You're just a snarky guy.
THE COURT: Yes.
THE COURT: For the record, yes.
TOBIN: For the record. So, I would ask, may I have the opportunity to object when Mr. Tremaine is questioned, question by question.
THE COURT: No, sir. You're not a ‘party to this case. However, I will note, for your record, your objection to his complete testimony, on behalf of your client.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Your Honor.
THE COURT: Microphone.
MS. BREDEHOFT: As with the Hicksville witness, Your Honor I would ask that we can voir dire him before the jury to find out when he contacted counsel and when they became aware. But I think, also, under the circumstances, in fairness, I think we should at least be able to ask him what he's going to claim.
THE COURT: Response.
MR. CHEW: Your Honor, I don't think that's appropriate. Certainly, I don't think a proffer is necessary or appropriate in this case,
THE COURT: I'm not going to do a proffer, Ms. Bredehoft, okay?
MR. ROTTENBORN: I'm sorry, so sorry.
THE COURT: Mr. Rottenborn, almost:at lunch.
MR. ROTTENBORN: But] truly am the messenger here.
MR. MURPHY: Can we just have one clarification?
THE COURT: That's fine. I think we need Ms. Meyers. ‘ on Ni BW NR
THE COURT: Well, if somebody could ] 1 just represent her here.
MR. MURPHY: T'm not trying to keep Your Honor.
THE COURT: No, I know you want to know what to do for witness.
MR. MURPHY: Yes. I heard that Your Honor said he can to the metadata. I would like to know what exactly that means because there's hundreds and hundreds of lines of metadata. And let me just say why this is important, Your Honor. I just read the brief, because I was off researching their opposition, and it talks about the metadata indicating this photo is 3. Your Honor, I have to say, Mr. Neumeister said, in his report, literally, "none of the photographs in Ms. Heard's
THE COURT: You can cross-examine on that.
MR. MURPHY: It's not in evidence, Your Honor. He literally said they're not in the trial exhibits, period, so how can he testify to that?
THE COURT: Mr. Murphy, we're going to see what's going to happen with the testimony, but if you want to get with counsel during the lunch break and see exactly which photos we're talking about which -- what, he's going to testify to.
MS. VASQUEZ: The one's in his report, Your Honor, part of this disclosure.
THE COURT: If you want to get with him, you can work it out.
MR. MURPHY: Who's my partner on that?
MS. VASQUEZ: Rebecca.
MR. ROTTENBORN: Would it be possible to get an updated time?
THE COURT: You can get it from Sammy. Let's just announce to everybody after lunch. Get back just one second. All right. So court will be in recess. Let's come back at 2, so everybody gets an hour for lunch, okay? 2:00.
COURT BAILIFF: All rise.
COURT BAILIFF: All rise. Please be seated and come to order.
THE COURT: Allright. Are we ready for the jury?
THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Depp, if you could, come back to the stand, please.
THE COURT: All right. Have a seat. All right. Cross-examination.
MR. ROTTENBORN: Thank you, Your Honor.
MR. ROTTENBORN: Mr. Depp, I'd like to start with the honeymoon that you and Ms. Heard took in late July 2015.
MR. ROTTENBORN: You testified that you took a train ride from Bangkok to Singapore; is that right?
MR. ROTTENBORN: And you claim that on this train ride, that Ms. Heard hit you in the face, correct?
MR. ROTTENBORN: And left a black eye, correct?
MR. ROTTENBORN: And--
MR. ROTTENBORN: Michelle, could you please pull up PX162.
THE COURT: Is that already in evidence?
MR. ROTTENBORN: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. Publish to the jury.
MR. ROTTENBORN: Thank you.
MR. ROTTENBORN: Mr. Depp, this is the picture that your counsel showed you both in your prior -- or showed you this morning, correct?
MR. ROTTENBORN: Okay. And that mark under your left eye is what you claim to be a black eye caused by Ms. Heard, correct?
MR. ROTTENBORN: Okay. Allright. But it's your left eye, the one close to the chef, that's what you said is your black eye, correct?
MR. ROTTENBORN: = Okay. And that-was the picture your team chose to show you, right? 17. A _ That's a picture someone showed me, yes.
MR. ROTTENBORN: Pull up Exhibit 1905, Michelle, please.
THE COURT: I'm sorry. Which number was it?
MR. ROTTENBORN: This is a new exhibit, Your Honor, 1905.
THE COURT: And that's defendant's?
MR. ROTTENBORN: Defendant's Exhibit 1905.
THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.
MR. ROTTENBORN: Ask for permission to publish it.
THE COURT: Ob. You want to put it in evidence?
MR. ROTTENBORN: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: Okay. Any objection to
MS. MEYERS: With the comments -- we have no objection to the photograph itself} we would ask the comments be redacted as hearsay.
MR. ROTTENBORN: Well, I would like to question the witness about the comments.
MS. MEYERS: I have to objection to the photograph being published.
MR. ROTTENBORN: Okay. Well, then let's wait a minute let's wait a minute.
MR. ROTTENBORN: Mr. Depp, you see here, this -- these are four pictures of you, right?
MR. ROTTENBORN: And below it they indicate that they were taken on July 24th, 2015, in Bangkok, Thailand, correct?
MS. MEYERS: Objection. Lack of foundation. Calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. ROTTENBORN: Correct, before the train ride. Because you didn't get on the train ride until the 25th; is that right?
MR. ROTTENBORN: Okay.
MR. ROTTENBORN: Your Honor, I'd ask for permission to publish this to the jury.
THE COURT: Allright. Do you --
MS. MEYERS: If it's just the photographs, we have no objection.
THE COURT: Allright. Do you want to May 25, 2022 redact the -- just have the photographs in it?
MR. ROTTENBORN: Sure. We'll do nineteen-oh -- yeah, 1905.
THE COURT: 1905, just with redactions, will be fine.
MR. ROTTENBORN: Thank you, Michelle.
THE COURT: Allright. Publish.
MR. ROTTENBORN: Thank you, Your Honor. Michelle, could you please scroll down to the bottom two pictures there.
MR. ROTTENBORN: Mr. Depp, in these pictures that were taken before you got on the train ride for your honeymoon, where you claim that Ms. Heard hit you and gave you a black eye, you have the exact same shadow or sunburn or mark under your left eye, the exact same mark, don't you?
MR. DEPP: That's the -- when you get a side light, you see the occipital bone, so that is the exact area.
MR. ROTTENBORN: Yep. And it's actually --
MR. ROTTENBORN: Yeah. But the picture is not being Yeah. But the picture is not being taken from the side, is it? It's been taken head on?
MR. ROTTENBORN: Yeah.
MR. ROTTENBORN: Right.
MR. ROTTENBORN: Uh-huh.
MR. ROTTENBORN: Just like lights on the side of a train car, correct?
MS. MEYERS: Objection. Calls for speculation.
MR. ROTTENBORN: You can take that down, Michelle.
THE COURT: Sustained.
THE COURT: It would be great if you --
THE COURT: Mr. Depp, if you can, wait for the next question. Next question.
MR. ROTTENBORN: Even the picture your team chose to’ show you on the train isn't accurate, is it?
MS. MEYERS: Objection. Calls for speculation.
MR. ROTTENBORN: Let's pull up Exhibit 1859, please.
THE COURT: 1859, is that in evidence?
MR. ROTTENBORN: No, Your Honor.
MR. ROTTENBORN: Mr. Depp, this is the same picture of the same -- the exact same scene displayed in PX 162 that you looked at this morning, correct?
MR. ROTTENBORN: Okay So this -- this post from the Eastern and Oriental Express's Facebook page you're saying that that's Photoshopped
MR. ROTTENBORN: Let's pull them up side by side, please. be) Your Honor, I move for the admission of this exhibit. We can just have the pictures. We don't need the...
THE COURT: Any objection to the. pictures?
MS. MEYERS: Objection. Lack of foundation. Lack of authentication. 12. Q__Is that you in the photo, Mr. Depp? 13. A_ It is me, but it's clearly — it's been —
MR. ROTTENBORN: Your Honor, I'd move to strike anything after that, first of all.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. ROTTENBORN: And would ask for admission of this photograph.
THE COURT: All right. Just the photograph? Are you going to --
MS. MEYERS: We maintain our lack of PLANE 25 2022 7282 to 7285 authentication Lack of foundation
THE COURT: All right. Over objection, I'll allow 1859 in evidence.
MR. ROTTENBORN: Thank you, Your Honor. Michelle, could I please get you to --
THE COURT: You need to redact it first.
MR. ROTTENBORN: We actually have one that we'll admit or ask to be admitted as 1858 that is just the picture.
THE COURT: I already have --
MR. ROTTENBORN: Okay. So we'll call this 1859, then.
THE COURT: So this is 1859?
MR. ROTTENBORN: Yeah. We just need’ to --
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. ROTTENBORN: We'll fix that exhibit sticker on the bottom and get you that. Correct, 1859.
MR. ROTTENBORN: And. Michelle. what And, Michelle, what I'd like to ask you to do, please, is to put the picture displayed as Exhibit 1859, just was admitted into evidence, next to PX 162 that was shown to. Mr. Depp this morning.
THE COURT: Okay. You can pub -- those are both in evidence.
MR. ROTTENBORN: Yeah. Can you try to make them the same size, please?
MR. ROTTENBORN: This is the exact same picture, isn't it, Mr. Depp?
MR. ROTTENBORN: No. You answered my question.
MR. ROTTENBORN: You answered my question, sir, thank you. Appreciate it.
MR. DEPP: You're very welcome. 17. Q Mr. Depp, you had that whatever mark it is, whether it's a sunburn, whether it's a shadow, whether it's the light reflecting, you had that same mark on your eye before you got on that train?
MR. DEPP: Well, it's pretty difficult to get a sunburn on a train. And the photo that was with the child -
MR. ROTTENBORN: Well, let's go --
MR. ROTTENBORN: Let's pull up Exhibit 1 -- actually, no.
MR. ROTTENBORN: Let's talk about Australia for a little
MR. ROTTENBORN: You testified you've never done ecstasy more than a handful of times in your life, correct? 14. A Six, seven times.
MR. ROTTENBORN: Now, you heard Ms. Heard's testimony; you've been sitting here. And I know you didn't look at her, but you heard her testimony. And you didn't hear her say you ingested eight to ten all at once? She says she came after being apart from you for some time, and there were eight to 10 gone from the bag, correct?
MS. MEYERS: Objection. Form.
MS. MEYERS: Objection. Form. Compound.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. ROTTENBORN: Yep.
MR. ROTTENBORN: Correct, correct, that's right. She didn't say threw ten at one time?
MR. ROTTENBORN: Okay. The fact is, Mr. Depp, you were asking for ecstasy, you who have only done it six times in your life, you were asking for ecstasy and cocaine within minutes of being admitted to the hospital after suffering your finger injury, weren't you?
MS. MEYERS: Objection. Compound.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. ROTTENBORN: Yeah. Let's pull up Plaintiff's Exhibit 393, please. to May 25, 2022
MR. ROTTENBORN: You just said you don't recall you were begging for any drugs?
MR. ROTTENBORN: Okay.
MR. ROTTENBORN: Okay.
MR. ROTTENBORN: So this has been admitted, Your Honor.
THE COURT: This is in evidence? Okay. You can publish.
MR. ROTTENBORN: And if you can, blow up the text, please, Michelle.
MR. ROTTENBORN: In this text message, Mr. Depp, after you suffered your finger injury, you just testified you don't recall asking for any drugs. You're texting Nathan Holmes, your personal assistant, "Need more whitey stuff ASAP, brother man and the E business." Now, we went over this in your
THE COURT: I'm sorry. If you say so, sir. And "whitey stuff" is cocaine? I would say. And "the E business" is ecstasy? Likely, yes. So I didn't recall that. Thank you.
MR. ROTTENBORN: Can you pull up Exhibit 1817, please.
MR. ROTTENBORN: This is a picture that you were showed -- shown this morning, Mr. Depp.
MR. ROTTENBORN: And you kind of made some illustrations on the picture and gave your account of what you see here. Mr. Depp, you testified previously that the vodka bottle that you allege cut off your finger was a handle of vodka, correct?
MR. ROTTENBORN: You already testified to that.
MR. ROTTENBORN: Right. This bottle, whatever it is, to the extent it's glass at-all, that's in the corner of this room, that's not a handle of vodka?
MS. MEYERS: Objection. Calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. ROTTENBORN: Well, actually what you testified to this morning, Mr. Depp, was that the bottle in the {11 comer was the handle. And there is no other bottle m the picture, is there? 13. A No, that's not what I testified. I testified that — may I touch the screen?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. DEPP: This is glass. This is glass. 17. Q Yep. And that's not a handle. Neither of those are handles of vodka?
MR. DEPP: Well, it's that big. It's broken. The handle's at the top on those vodka bottles, sir.
MR. ROTTENBORN: If you combine all of that glass on the floor, that doesn't make up the amount of glass in a handle of vodka, does it?
MS. MEYERS: Objection. Calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Wait. There's an objection. Hold on. I'll sustain the objection. Next question.
MR. ROTTENBORN: There's no handle of vodka broken on that floor, is there, Mr. Depp?
MR. ROTTENBORN: Well, you testified this morning that you did see it, so it's good to get that clarification. Let's move on.
MR. ROTTENBORN: You also testified this morning that -- and I want to get this -- I want to make sure that we're on the same page here. You testified earlier this morning that there was no phone in the bar area downstairs; is that what you testified to?
MR. ROTTENBORN: Okay.
MR. ROTTENBORN: Okay. Let's pull up, Michelle, please, U.K. day 3, page 421. Mr. Depp, we've done this drill before. This is your testimony from the U.K., correct?
MS. MEYERS: Can I please have --
MR. ROTTENBORN: We don't have copies for everyone. It's on the screen right there.
MS. MEYERS: Your Honor, may I please -- I would like to have what he's -- the testimony of the witness.
MR. ROTTENBORN: Here, you can have my copy.
MS. MEYERS: Thank you.
MR. ROTTENBORN: Mr. Depp, you remember giving testimony in the U.K. trial for several days, correct?
MR. ROTTENBORN: Your Honor I --
MR. ROTTENBORN: Your Honor, J -- -- Bakelite -- This is my turn to do this, Mr. Depp. I'm sorry. On page 421, line 19, you were asked the question "And this telephone that you picked up was made of" -- I'm sorry, I'm going to go up one, line 15. "QUESTION: At one stage when you were in the kitchen screaming at Ms. Heard, you picked up a wall-mounted telephone. Do you remember a telephone in the kitchen? "ANSWER: No, ma'am. I remember a telephone in the bar area. "QUESTION: And this telephone that you picked up was made of Bakelite. Do you know what 161 mean by that? A retro telephone, wall-mounted but retro.
MR. ROTTENBORN: ANSWER: It was a wall-mounted telephone, but it was not Bakelite; it was a modern phone. It was plastic. oN NAP 1]
MR. ROTTENBORN: Will you scroll down, please.
MR. ROTTENBORN: "QUESTION: A phone that was a wall-mounted phone that was picked up by you, held in your right hand, and you were repeatedly smashing it against the wall in your right hand? "ANSWER: That i is possible. But I do not -- if that is the case, I do not believe I spent very much time on the phone. I remember ripping the phone off the wall." That was your testimony, correct?
MR. ROTTENBORN: Thank you.
MR. ROTTENBORN: You answered my question. Thank you. Mr. Depp, you've claimed before -- you've said, "If I'm angry and I've got to lash out or hit somebody, I'm going to do it. And I don't care what the repercussions are. Anger doesn't pay rent. It's got to go. It's got to be evicted." You'vé said that before, haven't you?
MR. ROTTENBORN: That's my question to you. You've said that before, haven't you? Well, actually, let's refresh your recollection.
MR. ROTTENBORN: Can you pull up -- and then get us to the Machine article, please.
MR. ROTTENBORN: Mr. Depp, you see the picture of you on 10:the lower left --
MR. ROTTENBORN: = - supposedly shirtless and wearing.a crown, I believe? You see the long paragraph above that that starts with "In the Mark Hotel"?
MR. ROTTENBORN: You see that? At the bottom of that, does this refresh your recollection that you said, "I have a lot of love inside me and a lot of anger inside me as well. If I love somebody, then I'm going to love them. If I'm angry and I've got to lash out or hit somebody, I'm going to do it, and I don't care what the repercussions are. Anger doesn't pay rent. It's got to go. It's got to be evicted." Did I read that right?
MR. ROTTENBORN: Thank you.
MR. ROTTENBORN: You can take that down, Michelle, please.
MR. ROTTENBORN: Now, Mr. Depp, you've also claimed that -- you've said before that if you want to be with a woman sexually, that she is rightfully yours, haven't you?
MR. ROTTENBORN: And you've also said --
MR. ROTTENBORN: Yeah. That if you want to be with a woman sexually, that she is rightfully yours.
MR. ROTTENBORN: You've also said that with respect to women that you want to be with, you've remarked, "I need, I want, I take," haven't you?
MR. ROTTENBORN: Can you pull up DX-883.
MR. ROTTENBORN: Can you pull up DX883, please.
MR. DEPP: You can pull what you like. I've never said those words. There's not enough hubris in me to say anything like that.
THE COURT: 883?
MR. ROTTENBORN: 883, Your Honor.
THE COURT: It's not -- is it --
MR. ROTTENBORN: It's not admitted yet.
THE COURT: Okay. 883.
MR. ROTTENBORN: Mr. Depp, these are text messages from you to Stephen Deuters on February 22nd, 2017, correct?
MR. ROTTENBORN: Mr. Depp, we can show the full, redacted. You looked at a number of text messages in this case, and the words "him" as identifier, that's you, correct, in every text message we've seen in this case?
MR. DEPP: Yeah, sure. It still doesn't mean it hasn't been screwed with. That's not anything that I've ever said or written.
MR. ROTTENBORN: Do you want to see the whole thing unredacted? We can look at that too.
MR. ROTTENBORN: I can assure you, I didn't type it up last night, Mr. Depp.
MR. ROTTENBORN: Your Honor, I move for the admission of Exhibit 883.
THE COURT: Allright. Any objection?
MS. MEYERS: Objection on relevance grounds, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Allright. Relevance. You want to approach for a moment? Let's just take a look.
THE COURT: Allright.
MR. ROTTENBORN: He testified to Ms. Meyers that he would never commit sexual battery. He just testified to me, "Those words would never come out of my mouth. I would never say that." It's relevant and it's impeachment.
MS. MEYERS: This is not -- there is no foundation that that's what he's talking about here. The words "sexual violence" or "assault" are not in that text message.
MR. ROTTENBORN: Your Honor, the jury can draw the inference from it that they want.
MS. MEYERS: This is not -- it's unclear what he's talking about. It's not --
MR. ROTTENBORN: I'm happy to admit the whole chain. I just figured every other time, they wanted to redact those words, so...
THE COURT: Do you want to see it unredacted to see the context of it for a redirect?
MS. MEYERS: I would like that opportunity, but I suspect I would like it admitted in redacted form.
MR. ROTTENBORN: I was just trying to do you a favor, Counsel,
THE COURT: I mean, it's impeachment to what he said, so I'll allow it.
MR. ROTTENBORN: Thank you, Your Honor. May 25, 2022
THE COURT: Okay.
THE COURT: All right. 883 in evidence as redacted.
MR. ROTTENBORN: Thank you.
MR. ROTTENBORN: Mr. Depp, you're aware that these text messages -- you can see the bottom right where it says "Depp," and then it has a number, 8129, those are produced by you in this litigation; you understand that, right?
MR. ROTTENBORN: Okay.
MR. ROTTENBORN: All right. Michelle, could you please -- let's take a look at the top text first. Mr. Depp, on February 22nd, 2017, you texted Mr. Deuters, "Right, exactly. Molly's pussy is rightfully mine. Should I not just bust in and remove its hinges tonight?" Did I read that right?
MR. ROTTENBORN: And the one beneath that, you say, "I want to change her understanding of what it is like to be thrashed about like a pleading mackerel." And then in all caps, you write, "I NEED, I WANT, I TAKE." Did I read that right?
MR. ROTTENBORN: Okay.
MR. ROTTENBORN: You wrote every other text that you produced that came from you in this litigation, didn't you? 14. A not necessarily. Sometimes you can give people your phone to people, and they text — Now, when you got off that plane from Boston --
MR. ROTTENBORN: When you got off the plane from Boston, you knew Ms. Heard was angry with you, didn't you?
MS. MEYERS: Objection. Calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. ROTTENBORN: And you understood her to be angry, right?
MR. ROTTENBORN: And you asked Mr, Deuters, same person --
MR. ROTTENBORN: You can take this down, Michelle, please. Thank you.
MR. ROTTENBORN: = --same person that you texted in that last exhibit, you asked Mr. Deuters to communicate 12. with her on your behalf, correct? 13. A_ I don't know what you're talking about. You'll have to explain.
MR. ROTTENBORN: You asked Mr. Deuters to communicate with Ms. Heard by text to speak to her about the incident, correct? About what incident? To speak to her about the plane flight. The plane? The Boston plane. The Boston plane. So you're saying —
MR. DEPP: The Boston plane. So you're saying that I influenced Mr. Deuters, I told him that he had to write this, and I had -- told him that he had to write that? Is that what you're saying?
MR. ROTTENBORN: No, no. It wasn't uncommon for Mr. Deuters to text --.to communicate with Ms. Heard on your behalf, correct?
MS. MEYERS: Objection. Calls for speculation.
MR. ROTTENBORN: He was your personal assistant; Mr. Deuters was your personal assistant, correct?
MR. ROTTENBORN: Right. He was one of them, right?’
MR. ROTTENBORN: ‘Right. And it wasn't uncommon for you to ask Mr. Deuters to communicate with Ms. Heard on your behalf, correct?
MR. DEPP: It wasn't uncommon for any of them to communicate with Ms. Heard on my behalf if I were on set or unavailable or any of that.
MR. ROTTENBORN: Or if Ms. Heard and you had had a fight, you would sometimes have them communicate with Ms. Heard on your behalf, correct?
MR. ROTTENBORN: Just a yes or no, Mr. Depp.
MR. ROTTENBORN: No. Just a yes or no. It was not uncommon for after you and Ms. Heard had --
MS. MEYERS: Objection, Your Honor. I'd ask that he be allowed to finish his answer.
MR. ROTTENBORN: It's a yes-or-no question, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Allright. Go ahead and ask your question again.
MR. ROTTENBORN: Thank you, Your Honor.
MR. ROTTENBORN: It wasn't uncommon for you to have one of your personal assistants communicate with Ms. Heard after you and her had a fight?
MR. ROTTENBORN: After the Boston plane fight, you had Mr. Deuters communicate with Ms. Heard, correct?
MR. ROTTENBORN: And you told him, "Send her whatever - message you need to send to placate” --
MR. DEPP: "I'I'm sorry. He's sorry. He feels bad," yes, because any other answer, you know, it would turn into with World War III.
MR. ROTTENBORN: Okay.
MR. ROTTENBORN: Can you pull up Exhibit 229, please. Your Honor, I think you know where I'm going here, and based on Mr. Depp's testimony, I'd ask to move for the admission of Exhibit 229.
MS. MEYERS: Your Honor, I -- can we please approach?
THE COURT: Sure.
MS. MEYERS: Your Honor, these are not Mr. Depp's words. These are the words of --
THE COURT: He's saying, "Just placate
MR. ROTTENBORN: He said, "Tell her what she needs to hear."
THE COURT: Sustained,
MR. ROTTENBORN: Okay. All right. Thank you.
THE COURT: Appreciate the try.
MR. ROTTENBORN: Mr. Depp, you were pretty angry after Ms. Heard got her temporary restraining order, weren't you?
MR. ROTTENBORN: And yet, you testified earlier this morning -- you claimed that you somehow were responsible for her getting the role with Warner Brothers, correct? That's what you testified to this morning. You also tried to get her fired from Aquaman, didn't you, after the temporary restraining order?
MR. ROTTENBORN: One question, sir. You tried to get 3. her fired from Aquaman after the temporary restraining order, didn't you?
MR. ROTTENBORN: Just yes or no, Mr. Depp. I don't --
MR. DEPP: Sir, I can't get it down to yes or no at all times. I can't please you with a yes or a no every single time.
MR. ROTTENBORN: It's a yes-or-no question, Mr. Depp: You tried to get Ms. Heard fired, didn't you? 13. A The answer's no.
MR. ROTTENBORN: Allright.
MR. ROTTENBORN: Let's pull up Exhibit 821. 17. Q Mr. Depp, is this --
MR. ROTTENBORN: This is a text message that you had with your sister, Christi Dembrowski. She was the first witness in this case, right? May 25, 2022 she can't fire Amber.
MR. ROTTENBORN: Yeah. This is a text message you had with her on June 4th, 2016, isn't. it?
MR. ROTTENBORN: Your Honor, move for the admission of Exhibit 821 as redacted.
THE COURT: Any objection?
MS. MEYERS: We would object on relevance grounds, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I'll overrule that objection. 821 in evidence.
MR. ROTTENBORN: And on June 4th, 2016, Mr. Depp, you texted your'sister, "I want her replaced on that WB film." Did I read that right?
MR. ROTTENBORN: And then after you sent this text to your sister following the temporary restraining order, you reached out to Guy Silverstein to have him fire Amber, correct?
MR. ROTTENBORN: Greg Silverstein, I'm sorry.
MR. ROTTENBORN: You reached out to Sue Kroll to get her to fire Ms. Heard?
MR. ROTTENBORN: Mr. Depp, you got your-chance to speak this morning.
MR. ROTTENBORN: Your Honor --
THE COURT: Mr. Depp, if you could just answer the question, sir, all right? Next question. Q: You reached out to Greg Silverstein to get him -- to try to get Amber fired from Aquaman, didn't you?
MS. MEYERS: Asked and answered.
THE COURT: Excuse me?
MS. MEYERS: Asked and answered.
MR. ROTTENBORN: It's a yes-or-no question that he hasn't answered yes or no.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. ROTTENBORN: Yes or no, sir? You reached out to Greg Silverstein to try to get Amber fired from Aquaman?
MR. ROTTENBORN: You reached out to Sue Kroll --
MR. ROTTENBORN: No, no, no. Mr. Depp, you reached out to Sue Kroll to get her -- to try to get her to help you get Amber fired from Aquaman, didn't you? <A No.
MR. ROTTENBORN: And you reached out to Kevin Tsujihara to try to get him to help you get Amber fired from Aquaman, didn't you?
MR. ROTTENBORN: Mr. Depp, this is a text message that you sent to Christian Carino on August 15th, 2016, correct?
THE COURT: This is already in evidence, correct? Or if it's --
MR. ROTTENBORN: Parts of it are.
THE COURT: Oh, so not this --
MR. ROTTENBORN: Not this version.
THE COURT: Well, this can't be 857, then. Mr. Rottenborn, you can't do this to me.
MR. ROTTENBORN: I'm sorry, Your Honor. Understood. We'll call it 857A.
THE COURT: 857A, okay. Allright. Yes, sir. Thank you.
MR. ROTTENBORN: My apologies, Your Honor.
MR. ROTTENBORN: Mr. Depp, you sent this text to Christian Carino on August 15th?
MR. ROTTENBORN: Okay. And in this text that you sent to Christian Carino -- Christian Carino is the person that used to be Amber's agent and then was your agent for a time, correct?
MR. ROTTENBORN: And in this text, you --
MR. ROTTENBORN: Oh. Your Honor, permission to publish, please.
THE COURT: You want to put it in evidence first?
MR. ROTTENBORN: Yeah. Move for admission of 857A.
THE COURT: Any objection?
MR. ROTTENBORN: No objection.
THE COURT: 857A, as redacted, will be in evidence.
MR. ROTTENBORN: Thank you, Your Honor.
MR. ROTTENBORN: And in this text Mr. Depp you said She's begging for total global humiliation She's going to get it I'm going to need your text about San Francisco brother I'm even sorry to ask but she sucked Mollusk's crooked dick and he gave her some shitty lawyers I have no mercy no fear and not an ounce of emotion for what I once thought was love for the gold-digging low-level dime-a-dozen mushy pointless dangling overused flappy fish market I'm so fucking happy she wants to go to fight this out She will hit the wall hard and I cannot wait to have this waste of a cum guzzler out of my life I met a fucking sublime little Russian here which made me realize the time I blew on that fifty-cent stripper I wouldn't touch her with a goddamned glove I can only hope that Karma kicks in and takes the gift of breath from her. Sorry, man, but now I will stop at nothing. "Let's see if Mollusk has a pair. Come see me face to face. I'll show him things he's never seen before, like the other side of his dick when IJ slice it off." Did I read that right?
MR. ROTTENBORN: Now not long after this, you met Mr. Waldman in the late summer or fall of 2016, correct?
MR. ROTTENBORN: And he's been your attorney since then, correct?
MR. DEPP: Yes, sir. QQ And you met with him with the Daily Mail in London in February 2020, didn't you?
MR. ROTTENBORN: You and Mr. Waldman, together, met with the Daily Mail in London in February 2020, didn't you?
MR. ROTTENBORN: Yeah. That you two met with people from the Daily Mail in London in February 2020. <A Was that during the London trial?
MR. ROTTENBORN: No.
MR. ROTTENBORN: Nope, In February.
MR. ROTTENBORN: Okay. To the extent Mr. Waldman testified that you did, you don't dispute that, correct?
MR. ROTTENBORN: Okay. You don't disagree with Mr. Waldman's testimony that you and he met with people from the Daily Mail in London in February 2020, correct?
MR. DEPP: If that's Mr. Waldman's testimony, then — There was a very brief freakout that Ms. Heard had in our cabin just before this dinner. I can't remember why, but there were many. I remember taking the photograph, though I mean, I remember being there. I remember meeting the chef and all, but I — I mean, the quality of the photo's not great. The quality of the other photo that he shows is prettied-up.
MR. ROTTENBORN: Okay.
MR. ROTTENBORN: Right.
MR. ROTTENBORN: The same month that the Daily Mail released alleged tapes between you and Amber, correct?
MS. MEYERS: Objection. Calls for speculation. Lack of personal knowledge. 6/ (7/314 to 7317) May 25, 2022 J A Alleged tapes?
THE COURT: I'll sustain the objection. Next question. ‘Q Now, Mr. Depp, you testified — and I wrote it down before lunch -- you said, when Ms. Meyers asked you something about, you know, “How does it feel to make you" -- or "how does it feel to be here?" you said, "I've been living with it for six years and waiting to be able to get the truth out." Do you remember saying that?
MR. ROTTENBORN: You also said, "I've spoken up for what I've been carrying on my back," something to that effect. Do you remember saying that?
MR. ROTTENBORN: And you've claimed several times in this proceeding, Mr. Depp, that this trial is your first chance to tell your story, haven't you?
MR. ROTTENBORN: But that's just not true, is it, Mr. Depp? That is not true.
MR. ROTTENBORN: Okay. Well, here's the thing: You -- the fact is, Mr. Depp, when Dan Wootton wrote an article that was published in The Sun calling you a wife beater, you brought a lawsuit against The Sun in June of 2018, correct?
MR. ROTTENBORN: And that was six months before Ms. Heard ever wrote her op-ed, correct?
MR. ROTTENBORN: And in the summer of 2020, there was a several-week trial in London against The Sun, correct?
MR. ROTTENBORN: That's not my question, Mr. Depp. In the article that The Sun wrote that you sued over, you sued for Mr. Wootton calling you a wife beater, correct?
MS. MEYERS: Objection. Asked and answered.
THE COURT: Sustained. Next question.
MR. ROTTENBORN: And mm the trial that you subsequently brought, you called a lot of witnesses, right?
MR. ROTTENBORN: Many people testified on both sides of the trial, correct?
MR. ROTTENBORN: And many exhibits were introduced, correct? 11. A_ Like a trial, yes. 12. Q. And you, just like in this trial, you were on the stand for several days in that trial, correct?
MR. ROTTENBORN: And that trial involved the same factual issues that you are litigating here, which is whether you committed domestic violence against Amber Heard?
MS. MEYERS: Objection. Calls for a legal --
THE COURT: Sustain the objection. OMNI NM Rh WN Sustain the objection. Next question
MR. ROTTENBORN: You brought that case against The Sun because you were angry at The Sun for calling you a wife beater, correct?
MR. ROTTENBORN: And you went through that trial in London, correct?
MR. ROTTENBORN: Mr. Depp, you've had a chance to tell your story, haven't you? 12. A No. There were many limitations in the U.K. trial.
MS. MEYERS: Objection. Asked and answered.
MR. ROTTENBORN: No further questions, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Allright. Redirect.
MS. MEYERS: Thank you
MS. MEYERS: Mr. Depp, Mr. Rottenborn asked you some questions about the U.K. trial. Why do you feel that this is the first time that you've actually had an opportunity to tell your story and, as you said, get off -- get the load off your back?
MR. DEPP: As the U.K. trial was me suing Dan Wootton and The Sun for defamation for calling me a wife beater, the U.K. have different -- well, there are different laws; there are different ways they handle things. There are also limitations in evidence. Some things can be brought up; some things cannot be brought up, Mr. Rottenborn,
MR. ROTTENBORN: Your Honor, this calls for a legal conclusion. He's talking about limitations in evidence in English --
MS. MEYERS: Your Honor, he's talking about his experience testifying.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. DEPP: He'll be okay. Yes. There was a very -- everything is quite boxed-in with regard to what can be said, what can be spoken about. So Ms. Heard provided information to The Sun as their star witness, but the case was not brought against Ms. Heard; it was brought against The Sun newspaper, journal, whatever it is.
MS. MEYERS: Mr. Rottenborn referenced that you were on the stand for multiple days.
MS. MEYERS: Yeah. What was the nature of that
MS. MEYERS: And whose attorney was that?
MS. MEYERS: Can we please pull up DX857A.
THE COURT: Allright. It's already in evidence, so you can publish it.
MS. MEYERS: Mr. Depp, do you recall seeing this text message when Mr. Rottenborn was questioning you?
MS. MEYERS: Can you explain what you're conveying to Mr. Carino in this text message?
MR. DEPP: I mean, I'm in total shock that this is happening to me, that my entire life on the planet has been brought to the head of a pin with all this completely utterly false information. So I am-- yeah. When you're accused of horrific acts and things that you have not done, when it's actually some very ugly things that are going out there into the world about you on a nonstop basis
MR. DEPP: And my family might. Everyone that I've met, the people that supported me, suddenly I'm scum. And why? Never had to happen. One little lie. So, yes, very angry.
MS. MEYERS: Could we please pull up Defendant's Exhibit 821.
MS. MEYERS: Mr. Depp, do you recall seeing this text message when Mr. Rottenborn was asking you questions?
MS. MEYERS: Yes. Would you care to explain what you're trying to convey in this text message?
MR. DEPP: Well, Warner Brothers was about to find — they were about to find themselves in quite a dilemma, as the person that they had just cast —
MR. ROTTENBORN: Objection, Your Honor. Lack of foundation as to what Warmer Brothers knew or thought.
THE COURT: Allright. If you could, just wait for the question. I'll sustain the objection. *o May 25, 2022 Next question.
MS. MEYERS: Mr. Depp, without explaining what Warner Brothers felt, why did you send this text message to your sister, and what were -- excuse me -- strike that. What were you trying to convey to your sister when you sent this text message?
MR. DEPP: Honestly, I felt responsibility for having gone to those people and, you know, painted such a beautiful picture.
MR. ROTTENBORN: Objection. Hearsay, Your Honor. Now he's talking about what he said to Warner Brothers.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MEYERS: Please continue.
MS. MEYERS: So, sorry. You can continue.
MR. DEPP: I felt it was my responsibility to get the truth to Warner Brothers about they were going to -- what they were going to end up facing down the line, which is two franchises that would be -- would be causing problems for one another, especially as all the -- any news, any press, any media that came out about me at that time had been turned into, you know, I was Charles Manson, you know, I was the worst thing on Earth. And they just kept coming. It was like a -- it was like a nonstop fire. So my responsibility, after having painted a beautiful picture of her for them, was to tell them, "I think you'd better" --
MR. ROTTENBORN: Objection, Your Honor. He's getting into what he claims he told Warner Brothers or wanted to.
MS. MEYERS: He's saying what he wanted 14-to tell them. He's not saying what he actually told them.
THE COURT: I'll sustain the objection. Next question.
MS. MEYERS: Mr. Depp, you mentioned two franchise films with Warner Brothers. What two franchise films were you referring to?
MR. DEPP: There was Aquanet -- I mean Aquaman, sorry -- Aquaman and Fantastic Beasts, the one that I was in.
MS. MEYERS: And why did you feel a responsibility with respect to those two franchise films?
MR. DEPP: Warner Brothers was starting to get quite upset about some of the things that were being said about me in the press that were constant, constant, constant hit pieces, and, you know, on one level, yes, it's just acting. It's just movies. But it's business and it's your word, and I had given my word to them and I had to —I felt responsible in — that J had to tell them exactly what was going on and to — that it was going to end up helping. QQ. And which of those two film franchises were you a part of?
MR. DEPP: I'I'm sorry? 17. QQ. Which of those two film franchises were you a part of? <A J was in Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, and I was in Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald.
MS. MEYERS: Could we please pull up DX883.
MS. MEYERS: Now, Mr. Depp, do you recall seeing these text messages during Mr. Rottenborn's
MS. MEYERS: And you didn’t seem to recall these text messages; is that fair?
MS. MEYERS: Do you remember --
MS. MEYERS: Do you have any understanding of what you're referring to in this text message or these two text messages?
MR. DEPP: No. Honestly, if somebody else had borrowed my phone or something and made this text to Stephen, possibly. But I don't understand -- I don't have that kind of -- I don't write like -- I don't have that kind of hubris or expectation, That's quite grotesque text.
MS. MEYERS: Can we take that down /Q (7326 to 7329) 25, 2022 please. Can we please pull up Defendant's Exhibit 1821].
MS. MEYERS: Mr. Depp, do you recognize this document?
MS. MEYERS: Okay. And do you see -- Mr. Rottenborn asked you some questions about whether there was a telephone in Australia.
MS. MEYERS: And you recall that telephone being there?
MS. MEYERS: Can we please pull up Defendant's Exhibit 1820.
MS. MEYERS: Do you recall me showing you this text message earlier on? Or excuse me. Do you recall me showing‘you this picture
MS. MEYERS: Okay. And J think I asked you whether you recall a phone being mounted on the wall in the left of this picture. Do you remember that?
MS. MEYERS: And what was your answer to that?
MS. MEYERS: Mr. Depp, Mr. Rottenborn asked you some questions about your honeymoon. 1] Do you remember that?
MR. DEPP: Yes. 13. Q = And I believe you had testified that you and Ms. Heard were on the Orient Express together?
MS. MEYERS: Where had you been prior to being on the Orient Express?
MR. DEPP: We had been in Australia and then made it over to Thailand to catch the Orient Express.
MS. MEYERS: If we could, bring up Plaintiff's Exhibit 162 again. Transcript of J Conducted c
MS. MEYERS: Mr. Depp, do you know who took this picture?
MS. MEYERS: And despite what Mr. Rottenborn showed you about the -- of the picture of you prior to this, do you see a bruise on your face in this picture?
MR. DEPP: I see, like, what looks like a pretty decent shiner and kind of scratched-up nose, yes.
MS. MEYERS: And do you recall how you got the scratches and the shiner?
MS. MEYERS: Mr. Depp, did you ever physically abuse Ms. Heard during your relationship?
MS. MEYERS: No further questions.
THE COURT: Allright. Sir, you can have a seat next to your attorneys. Thank you.