Closing Argument - Counterclaim

MS. BREDEHOFT: I get -- I get to say "Good afternoon." And I know you've been listening to everybody for a long time here, and I echo Ben's very strong "thank you" to all of you for this extreme service and extraordinary service. We really appreciate it. I'm going to go really fast and try to go as quick as I can so that you can get a break from us and go make your decision. I know you're probably itching to do it at this point. But this is very important to us, and we appreciate your listening, and we appreciate your being here.

MS. BREDEHOFT: I'm going to stay on this slide for a moment, and there's something that's very important on this slide that hadn't been brought to your attention by Mr. Depp's team. When you see the actual damages, go down to the last paragraph, if you will. It says, "Mr. Depp cannot recover damages for any harm that occurred after November 2, 2020." Do you-all see that? So what Mr. Depp's team got up here and told you through Mr. Chew this morning has nothing to do with this case. He had his chance in the U.K. The lawsuit was filed June 2018, six months before the op-ed. The trial was July 2020, the process ended, according to Mr. Marks, their expert, on November 2, 2020, and his damages stop then. He can't get reputational damages. He can't get his legacy back for his children. He can't get anything after that day from you. You can't restore his reputation. You can't give him anything. They didn't tell you that. But the Court told you that. And that's a very, very important thing here. He told this story. He had his opportunities.

MS. BREDEHOFT: He had his full opportunities to do all of that, and he came in here and lied to you and said he's here to get his reputation back. It's just one of many lies in this case, but it's a really big one because here we are, six weeks of your time, precious time, six weeks of this court's time for what? For nothing. Only to go after Amber. That's psychological abuse. He's going after Amber for nothing because he wants to put her through this again, the third time. So we're fighting back, and that's the counterclaim. She finally has said, "Enough. Enough." And we're asking you to finally hold this man responsible. He has never accepted responsibility for anything in his life. You've heard it this whole time. He hasn't admitted to everything. He's blamed everybody in the world, his agent, his manager, his lawyer, Amber, his friends, everybody, but he's never accepted responsibility for a thing he's done in his life.

MS. BREDEHOFT: But we're asking you to accept -- to make him accept responsibility, to hold: him legally responsible for his actions and to fully and fairly compensate Amber for what he has done by creating this concept of a hoax for the defamation that he has committed that you have heard so much about that just took wildfire and went off into negative media and has made Amber's life pure hell up to this day. We're asking you to do that, to compensate her, to be fair and hold him responsible so he stops. We don't want another lawsuit. We We don't want another lawsuit. We don't want anything else. We want to leave Amber alone and let her get on with her life and raise her child. So let talk about the counterclaim for a moment. These are Adam Waldman's statements. You've heard Mr. Depp say, "well, why aren't you suing Mr. Waldman?" Isn't that typical of Mr. Depp? He doesn't take responsible for anything, so how he's going to blame his lawyer. But the evidence is very clear on all three statements, and we'll show them to you in a minute,. that he says, "Adam Waldman, Mr. Depp's attorney, says these things." Now, Mr.

MS. BREDEHOFT: Depp says, oh, I didn't even know about those until the counterclaim. Well, we know that's not true because Mr. Waldman's testimony was two months before those statements were made, in February of 2020, Mr. Depp accompanied Mr. Waldman to the Daily Mail, the same place that all three of these statements were published, and he gave them two spliced audiotapes to try to make it look like Amber was the person who was committing the abuse. He went with him. He knew that Mr. Waldman was doing this. He knew that Mr. Waldman was launching a campaign against Amber to try to discredit her, and the timing of this, we're talking the statements now, are April and June of 2020. The trial is July of 2020. So they're launching an attack to try to discredit Amber before the trial in the U.K. That's what happened here. And that is Mr. Waldman, but it's Mr. Depp.

MS. BREDEHOFT: The judge gave you three different instructions, and you all have them, he's acting as his attorney, he has the authority, so Mr. Depp is standing in the shoes of Mr. Waldman. Mr. Waldman is standing in the shoes of Mr. Depp. Michelle, can you, please, bring up the first statement. It says "Amber and her friends in the media use fake sexual violence allegations as both a sword and shield, depending on their needs. They have selected some of her sex violence hoax facts as the sword, inflicting them on the public and Mr. Depp." Now, what this statement is meant to imply is that Amber is lying about the sexual assaults and using them with the media to try to discredit Mr. Depp. That's the clear implications of this. Now, the first part of this is, this contradicts Mr. Depp's claims today, that the first time you ever heard about the sexual assaults that happened was in this case. It was in the U.K. case. This is the case that Mr. Depp brought in the U.K. And instead of Amber Heard trying to put this out in the media, she did exactly the opposite.

MS. BREDEHOFT: "Now, this article's not in your evidence, but at least some of you will remember it being shown, at one point, with the title that said that Amber was successful in being able to treat her allegations of the sexual violence confidential in that proceeding. And it was treated confidential. She did exactly the opposite. She didn't want to tell people this. And you know that. You watched her on this stand. It was heart rendering for her to have to do this with the cameras, no less. But what else is false about this statement? It's that there was no false statements of sexual violence. Ben went through all four on them, and I will not repeat them all. You heard the testimony, and interestingly enough, you didn't hear any stories that differed from that with Mr. Depp. He didn't get on the stand and say, you know, no, this didn't happen, to at least a couple of them, and he can't in Australia. He can't remember anything, likely. But if you just look at the pictures of the destruction in that house.

MS. BREDEHOFT: I mean, imagine painting those canvases and how long that took and how much hatred and rage you have to have for somebody to do something like that. Writing on the walls. Tearing up her nightgown and wrapping pieces of raw steak and putting it all over the house. Remember she also testified that he took her clothes and swiped them through all the paint before she left. You know these things happened. With respect to the malice on this one. You know he knows that he did these things. You know that he knows he was out of it for three days. And that's all that we need to prove for malice. But there's a couple more facts here, You can find whatever Mr. Waldman's done and you can find whatever Mr. Depp has done, and both of those are the same, for purposes of evaluating the verdict form. They stand in each other's shoes. When you have an agent, and that's what the jury instructions say, you can go with both. What did Mr. Waldman do?

MS. BREDEHOFT: There was an article about the sexual violence that he had pulled from the April one that went into the trial. Amber's testimony, she was sitting near him in the trial, Adam Waldman threw that newspaper down in front of her, defiantly. That's actual malice. And she was quite upset and you heard her testimony on the stand about that. He was just inflicting it on her. Remember Bruce Witkin's testimony? This was Johnny Depp's best friend for 40 years, until he testified truthfully four years ago, about the drugs and alcohol, and he stopped talking to him. There was a couple of really important things that Bruce Witkin said. One of the things is he said he met Adam Waldman. Once Adam said, do you have any dirt on the Mandels? And he said no, and that was it, then he didn't care. He is an attack dog. All he wants to do is attack and put dirt on people. The second thing that Witkin said, that I think was pretty instructive, was that Johnny Depp has deep-seeded anger issues that have nothing to do with Amber.

MS. BREDEHOFT: He remembered, even back when Johnny was married to his sister-in-law, he had extreme jealousy, even back then. And I think that's pretty significant. Remember, Mr. Witkin also just called in a few times to intercede in some of these fights with Johnny and Amber, when Johnny would become so angry. The last thing I thought he said, that was pretty important, was that Kipper and his whole group are a scam. You know, he said how is it that they can be sober doctors, you know, for these years and he's never sober? He's even taking pot all the time. How can you be sober? I thought that was quite instructive. But in any event, going back to -- that's the first statement. The second statement, Michelle, if you can bring that one up. Oh, before I go there, want to talk about a few more things from Mr. Waldman that you have in your pocket, to be able to find additional malice with him. Remember, he's the one that, after the U.K. trial, went to the LAPD with a notebook full of things and tried to get perjury charges against Amber.

MS. BREDEHOFT: The LAPD said, we don't investigate those things. But he, then, went to a German newspaper and said Amber's being investigated by the NYPD -- or the LAPD for perjury. Do you remember that? That's malice. That's showing his intent to do harm to Amber. He also admitted that he speaks to That Umbrella Guy and you'll see that one text in there from the person from TMZ. That Umbrella Guy is the big lead of Johnny Depp's, you know, positive social media that is putting all the negative out on Amber Heard. And he also ended up getting knocked out of Twitter because he was abusing Amber. So, now, we go to the second counterclaim statement, and that is, "Quite simply, this was an ambush, a hoax. They set Mr. Depp up by calling the cops, but the first attempts didn't do the trick. The officers came to the penthouses, thoroughly searched and interviewed, and left after seeing no damage to face or property.

MS. BREDEHOFT: So Amber and her friends spilled a little wine, roughed the place up, got their story straight under the direction of a lawyer and publicist, then placed a second call to 911. Now, this is May 21. Now, the clear implication here is that they're saying that Amber got together with her friends, they decided they were going to set Johnny up to be charged for domestic violence, and, so, they called the police, tried to make up this whole story, get him arrested, but the police said there's no evidence here and went away. And they said, darn, and so they spilled wine and they, you know, busted up the place, and they called 911. They got advice from a lawyer and a publicist, called 911, and tried, again, to get Johnny charged. That's what this says. Now, we all know that's false, and it's heinously false. Because, you know, after these events happened, and Ben talked about a little bit of it, but I'll talk about the rest of it, and I'm going to try to do it really quickly.

MS. BREDEHOFT: But we all know Amber did everything in her power not to tell them who Johnny was, not to press charges, not to have him arrested. The exact opposite of this. But what were the facts of May 21st? He comes over, he's already been drinking, he's already high, and he is on a tear about feces in the bed from a month ago. And remember how Amber talked about when he gets into these drug-induced things, he gets into these paranoias, and he gets some idea in his head, and he just won't let it go. And that was his this time. Somebody put that feces in the bed a month ago. That was his spin. So she gets iO Tillett on the phone, he's in New York at the time. He's going -- they thought this is ridiculous, of course nobody did, and by the way, Boo has this huge problem, of course it was Boo, he's always doing this, but Johnny won't get there. So then they laugh. That makes him mad. Then he throws the phone at Amber, Amber screams out and says, ow, you just threw the cell phone at me. It hurt. iO says, Amber, get out of there.

MS. BREDEHOFT: Johnny gets madder, pulls her hair, grabs her and starts hitting her. So iO gets hold of Rocky Pennington, she comes over as quickly as she can. She goes over and gets in between the two of them. She puts her hands up on his chest. He pushes them down. And then she continues to stand in between them, and he's screaming loudly, ten times, Amber, get the fuck up. Amber, get the fuck up. Amber, get the fuck up. Loudly, loudly. Then his bodyguards hear this, they come in, they break it up. That's how that happens. But the next part of this, remember Josh Drew? And I think Elizabeth Marz was amazing in this one. Remember their testimony? After that, he goes and has to, you know, he always leaves a path of destruction as he's leaving, so he, you know, bashes up things, you saw Ben's pictures here, on the picture frames, knocks things over as he's going. Goes down the hallway, he's splashing the wine. He gets his bodyguards to let him into penthouse 5. That's where Josh and Elizabeth are trying to help with Rocky's beads thing for the next day.

MS. BREDEHOFT: And he comes in storming in and he says Get your bitch out of here And he's got the big magnum and he's mad And Elizabeth is just terrified She barely knows Johnny she's met him four times and she goes ripping out of there as fast as she can and Josh gets out of there Then what does he do He rearranges the furniture or he might have knocked something off you know one of the countertops or something I think is the testimony of his PLANE to May 27 2022 7900 bodyguards But you saw the pictures he went through and trashed that place again as he left Now the next part of this is the police coming IO calls the police he's in New York He calls the New York Police 911 He's afraid they're not going to get there fast enough He still remembers December 15 because he came in afterwards and saw all of the injuries on Amber and all the evidence and he's terrified that Amber's still in there the police haven't come and that Johnny's going to kill her So he calls a friend in LA and says Please call 911 We've got to get somebody there fast So she calls 911 So he have two calls and you'll see the call summary and the call summary shows those two calls really close in proximity here So it's not them uh-oh we didn't get the first police officers so we'll rough up the place and make a second one You'll see that they're like eight minutes apart up there But it took two hours to dispatch the two different ones and hours to dispatch the two different ones and Amber and everyone had any idea that the second one was coming The first ones come and you know we've talked about it We've shown you the pictures The police officers admitted that those pictures could very much have been what was there that night Remember Officer Hadden it was his first week on the job Officer Saenz was three years on the job at that point They say you know they tell Josh that if she will press charges if she'll give a name we can file a report and make an arrest She wouldn't do it You did hear from Detective Sadanaga, that's the domestic violence --

MS. BREDEHOFT: Josh Drew testified that the police officer told him she's got a mark on her face there's property damage You know

MS. BREDEHOFT: Yes, that was.

MS. BREDEHOFT: No, it did make it in evidence.

MS. BREDEHOFT: No, no, no. Josh Drew. Josh Drew's came in. It came in.

MS. BREDEHOFT: It came in through Josh

MS. BREDEHOFT: You recall Josh Drew saying that the police officer told him, you know, if she'll give a name, we'll make an arrest. He definitely said that. But in any event, she would not; she would not cooperate. She didn't want to. But Detective Sadanaga, their domestic relations -- or domestic violence person said they should have done an incident report no matter what, even if they decided there wasn't a crime because domestic violence has the cycles, they 14. come back, and it's good to have the record for the next time that it might happen.

MS. BREDEHOFT: So she said they should have, under the circumstances, even if they didn't. And she also said that when they put verbal dispute only in those calls, it is a code that they use, and you'll see that it's twice on that call report to say that's why we didn't write a report. But at any rate, whether the police PLANE 62902 to `May 27, 2022 officers, you know, forgot about it two months later when they were first asked about it, whether they just decided she's never going to press charges, and you'll see on the cal! report they're insisting that to the second set. It doesn't make any difference. The point is, this is still false. This statement is still false because Amber did everything but try to press charges against Johnny Depp.

MS. BREDEHOFT: So they go away, and the testimony is that Josh and Amber and Rocky cleaned up because they have dogs, so they cleaned up a lot of the glass and the wine and those types. They had no idea the second police officers were coming by; and they certainly didn't call them and they certainly didn't -- they never talked to a publicist, she did talk to a lawyer, who gave her advice, and that's why she wouldn't tell them, you know, anything. She said, "I'm not going to cooperate at all." So, the second ones come, and you saw that, you've got the video cameras in there.

MS. BREDEHOFT: You see there's no effort by them to try to get, now, these officers to press charges against Johnny Depp. Just the opposite. Josh Drew doesn't want to even let them in the place. They come through quickly. Everything's fine. They wave, everything's fine. Are they trying to press charges against Johnny? No. They're not trying to do anything. They're trying to get them out of there, which makes this statement.a hundred percent false. Was it made with malice? Absolutely. There's nobody that thinks that Amber tried to press charges that night. Johnny knew that.

MS. BREDEHOFT: But the other thing that's very helpful, and what you should look at, is Defendant's Exhibit 772 and 773. Because, once again, the next day, Johnny apologizes to Amber. He says in two different text messages, that's 772 and 773, he says, "My profound apologies," in one of them, and "My apologies are eternal" in the other one. What is he apologizing for the next day, on May 22nd, if he didn't know that he did all of those things? And, by the way, remember Isaac Baruch even remembers the wine in the hallway. The police -- none of the police officers remembered the wine. And that's because they're busy and they've got a zillion other things going on, and they didn't remember this call two months later when they were asked about it. So, clearly, that's a hundred percent false. Clearly, they knew it. Clearly, there's malice in making that statement. They're trying to suggest that she's manufacturing evidence with her friends to try to frame Mr.

MS. BREDEHOFT: MS. BREDEHOFT]: "Depp. Nothing could be further from the truth on that one, and she did not want those police officers to press charges. Now, let's go to the third one. Oh, let's talk about the makeup just for a moment while we're going to the third one. This makeup thing, The fresh face, 992 natural. These were Adam Waldman planting these when he talked to the ECB people. Remember the testimony here. "So did you talk to Mr. Waldman? Did you talk to Mr. Waldman?" Mr. Waldman was trying to plant in all of these people's mind --

MS. BREDEHOFT: That somehow she wasn't --

MS. BREDEHOFT: I don't agree.

MS. BREDEHOFT: I don't agree.

MS. BREDEHOFT: I'm not lying, Your Honor. There --

MS. BREDEHOFT: MS. BREDEHOFT]: "No. We asked specifically about Adam Waldman. Your Honor will recall that. And they would say, "I don't remember. Yes, I did talk to him."

MS. BREDEHOFT: No, I didn't -- and I didn't say they said he planted it.

MS. BREDEHOFT: I accused him of planting it.

MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. Thanks.

MS. BREDEHOFT: "So, I didn't say that any of the witnesses admitted that Adam Waldman planted that. I'm saying he planted it, that's me arguing the planted. And that's because it's all the same thing. She wasn't wearing any makeup. She was natural. She wasn't wearing a stitch of makeup. Every one of them said the exact same thing. But why did you say that? She's an actor. She's not going to go outside her house, you know, without putting makeup on. And if she has bruises, why on earth, when she's been covering them up for four years, why on earth would she not put makeup on so she would cover those up? Why on earth would she not want to cover up those bruises. It makes no sense. But, you know what, guys saw her here -- you guys; sorry. You saw Amber on the stand, There were days where she didn't wear eye makeup. A lot of people think that she's not wearing makeup when she doesn't have mascara and eyeliner on.

MS. BREDEHOFT: She has different looks, and some of them are with eye makeup and some of them are without. And people misunderstand, especially people that aren't that good in makeup, a lot of men, frankly, go, oh, then she probably doesn't have makeup. And that's where that mistake happens. But you heard her testimony and you heard her makeup artist's testimony saying she doesn't go out of her room without concealer and foundation. She knows how to put these things in. And you saw Defendant's Exhibit 155, and you'll have the actual thing in there, that's the type of palette she used. And she was very adept at telling you what color she puts on for the different days of bruises. This is a woman who, for four years, did everything she could to cover up anybody knowing anything about this abuse. Do you honestly think she's just going to walk.around for the week with her bruises exposed? Of course she's not. Now, let's go to the third one, and this is the abuse hoax.

MS. BREDEHOFT: He said, "We've reached the beginning of the end of Ms. Heard's abuse hoax against Johnny Depp." Now, obviously, the defamatory meaning of that is that Amber's creating an abuse hoax. But there is no abuse hoax. I don't need to tell you all of the evidence because Ben did a beautiful job of just taking you through all of those different things. But I will point out a couple things for you, and that is, remember Bonnie Jacobs, the therapist. Dr. Hughes and Dr. Spiegel testified about Bonnie Jacobs' notes. And remember I was holding that -- you don't get to see them, but they testified that they went through them. Dr. Hughes testified that she also spoke to Bonnie Jacobs. She kept contemporaneous notes from 2011, when she first started seeing Amber, and the abuse is documented in those notes, is what Dr. Hughes testified, they start in 2012, both physical and sexual abuse.

MS. BREDEHOFT: Dr. Hughes testified to that.

MS. BREDEHOFT: No, Lam not. I am definitely not misstating that one. PLANE] to ‘May 27, 2022

MS. BREDEHOFT: Oh, it was. It absolutely was.

MS. BREDEHOFT: Dr. Hughes testified that Bonnie Jacobs' notes documented both physical and sexual abuse. She also said she talked to her and confirmed. That was the first day of her testimony.

MS. BREDEHOFT: He can argue whatever he wants. But that's absolutely what she said.

MS. BREDEHOFT: And then I asked Dr. Curry about them after that.

MS. BREDEHOFT: Yes. Well, her --

MS. BREDEHOFT: Characterization of it. Not, the actual notes did not.

MS. BREDEHOFT: Characterization. Dr. Hughes said these things were in her note.

MS. BREDEHOFT: Characterization of them, right.

MS. BREDEHOFT: No, she said --‘no, she said that the --

MS. BREDEHOFT: She says that the notes reflected physical and sexual abuse. She said that. That was her testimony. She did.

MS. BREDEHOFT: She absolutely did. I mean, she absolutely did.

MS. BREDEHOFT: No, I have not On NM HW N Pe

MS. BREDEHOFT: I have not submitted my I have not submitted my testimony at all. That's very important evidence from us because we could get those notes and we tried several times.

MS. BREDEHOFT: Thank you, Your Honor.

MS. BREDEHOFT: So, Dr. Hughes specifically characterized Dr. Jacobs’ -- Dr. Bonnie Jacobs' notes as reflecting both contemporaneous physical abuse and sexual abuse throughout the time period. Dr. Spiegel confirmed that later and said the same. When I asked Dr. Curry if she had reviewed those notes, she said, yes. But she had not comment --

MS. BREDEHOFT: And she did not acknowledge that that was in there.

MS. BREDEHOFT: Yes, he did.

MS. BREDEHOFT: I just said he 15.confirmed.

MS. BREDEHOFT: Dr. Spiegel confirmed that he had reviewed Bonnie Jacobs' notes as well, and when I asked Dr. Curry, she said she had ] reviewed them but she had no comment. But she also didn't deny that those were in there. Amber Heard testified that she went back, and because of Bonnie Jacobs's notes, she realized for the first time that the abuse started much earlier than she even realized before. She always had thought that it had started in 2013. When she went back and saw Bonnie Jacobs's notes, she realized that it had started much earlier, and she was very embarrassed by that.

MS. BREDEHOFT: Now, significantly, you remember that she testified about how she went -- she was first called upon to actually detail all of her events of abuse in February of this year, and she went through and took the notes, took photos, she took everything she had, calendars, everything, put it all together, and you heard about at least 64 pages of detail, accountability of that, and Mr. Depp's team has been able to not refute any of that. Remember they tried to impeach her and say, "Well, you didn't say that"? She said, "Yes, I did, on page 64." Remember that? It was a very, very difficult process for her because there was an awful lot of it, and she put it in great detail. Now, let's talk for a moment about the motive.

MS. BREDEHOFT: They call her a gold digger, right? But she obviously couldn't have done it for the money. Because first of all, remember the testimony of Laura Wasser, the divorce attorney? She said that California's a no-fault state and community property. So Amber doesn't have to have an abuse. She could have divorced him for irreconcilable differences, for abandonment, for adultery, for anything. She doesn't need an excuse, and she gets 50 percent of whatever he earns during the time of the marriage unless they had a prenup or postnup. The testimony from Michele Mulrooney was that Amber completely cooperated with the prenup and the postnup, but it was Johnny Depp, who I know you've already heard from Ben, called her up and fired her: He didn't want a postnup or a prenup. So she's entitled to 50 percent of everything he won -- he earns during that time. Now, we have Plaintiff's Exhibit 936 in evidence, and look at page 69. It says how much he made in 2015.

MS. BREDEHOFT: It was 43 million. Remember doc -- Mr. Spindler, Depp's expert, who said that he made 22 million in 2016. So you've got $65 million. Amber was entitled to 31.5 at least. That doesn't include all take back ends from, for example, Pirates 5. She was entitled to that money, so she didn't need to say anything, She could have said,

MS. BREDEHOFT: This is what Laura 1] Wasser testified to.

MS. BREDEHOFT: Listen, we can make this argument, Your Honor.

MS. BREDEHOFT: They are.

MS. BREDEHOFT: Laura Wasser -- yes, they are. Laura Wasser and Michele Mulrooney -- I'm sorry; Your Honor, but is this going against our time? Because we're already in tough time.

MS. BREDEHOFT: I mean, he's already done this three times. Okay.

MS. BREDEHOFT: Thank you.

MS. BREDEHOFT: It is.

MS. BREDEHOFT: Oh, I absolutely got that in.

MS. BREDEHOFT: I'ma hundred percent certain that --

MS. BREDEHOFT: It's in Laura Wasser's, and it is in Michele Mulrooney's. Laura Wasser has both the no-fault and the community property in there. Michele Mulrooney has the community property in there.

MS. BREDEHOFT: Right. And we put the tax returns in, and Spindler testified to the amounts. So you do the math, it's 31.

MS. BREDEHOFT: Right.

MS. BREDEHOFT: But we even asked it in a cross-examination question of one of them, the

MS. BREDEHOFT: To make these

MS. BREDEHOFT: No.

MS. BREDEHOFT: It was elicited.

MS. BREDEHOFT: No. Wasser -- he

MS. BREDEHOFT: No, you don't take into account debt.

MS. BREDEHOFT: I'm near end, yes.

MS. BREDEHOFT: I'm doing the motivation here.

MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. I'm going to move on, but I'm entitled to that.

MS. BREDEHOFT: So if you do the math, Amber's entitled to at least 31.5. What did she take? 7 million. What did she do with the 107 million? She gives it to charity. Or she intends to give it to charity. Now, they make much ado about the pledge versus donation, but both the corporate designees for ACLU and for Children's Hospital said donation and pledge are interchangeable. These are pledges. The ACLU corporate designee said you typically do pledges because of the tax benefits, and that's what she said.

MS. BREDEHOFT: She pledged it over a period of time because of the tax implications to it and because she was getting paid over the time. Now, if she started to make these donations. and you'll see that the first one was donations, and you'll see that the first one was on behalf of -- Mr. Depp's business manager, Mr. White, actually sent the letters with the hundred thousand for each of those. That was the initial ones. He was trying to take credit for those, and, in fact, both the ACLU and Children's Hospital got confused and gave the credit to Mr. Depp, not to Amber, for those. Then she made payments to both, and Elon Musk also made payment to both for 500,000 each, which she didn't count to her pledge, but they helped those organizations.

MS. BREDEHOFT: At the end of the day, she's made a million dollars in pledge -- in payments to them, but then got sued here and hasn't been able to because she spent $6 million in attorneys' fees. That is unrefuted. She still intends to pay those pledges, honor those pledges, and she's said that throughout. And I elicited from both the ACLU and from Children's Hospital they haven't expired; she can pay them whenever she wants to, and she fully intends to. But she has to get out from under this first. Now, who would blame a woman for giving a million dollars in charitable donations? Who would do that? That sounds like psychological abuse to me. Now, Mr. Mandel testified that Johnny Depp is not a charitable person, and he hasn't written any big checks for him. Mr. Depp got on the stand and says he does it unanimously -- anonymously, but Mr. Mandel would have been the one writing the checks and he says that didn't happen. Now, let's go to damages because I promised you I was going to go pretty fast here.

MS. BREDEHOFT: There's a few different types of damages, but one of the things that the Court has talked to you about, she told you that because we have defamation, it's invidious, and therefore it's very difficult to prove these. And so these damages to business reputation, inconvenience, embarrassment, are presumed. You don't have to prove those damages. And one great example of that is the testimony from Mr. Hamada at Warner Brothers. He didn't want to have to get in the middle of all this with Aquaman 2. They haven't even released it. So he didn't read anything in preparation for his deposition. He didn't talk to anybody before his deposition. He said that -- he tried to do technicals and say, "No, we never terminated her contract, oh, yeah, we did tell her we were probably not going to renew her option. And then we didn't change the script." But Amber got the script, and, yes, they did change it.

MS. BREDEHOFT: Then he said, you know, "No, we never negotiate salaries, but oh, yeah, we did negotiate --renegotiate Jason Momoa's and Gal Gadot's." So he just doesn't want to admit to any of these things. But what came out in Hamada's deposition -- and I hope you were listening carefully to this -- was the email from James Wan, the director, and Jason Momoa, her costar, who said they guarantee if they are in the film, she is going to be Mera in the film. Why would they do that unless they thought Warner Brothers was being unfair to her? And why did she get almost knocked out of it because of the defamatory statements? When they came out, they took on a life of their own. Ron Schnell, the Young Sheldon, I call him the Doogie Howser, our expert on IT, took you through and tracked how they tracked the defamatory statements, the language from the defamatory statements, how that went through the social media, in the negative social media. And it kept going and kept going.

MS. BREDEHOFT: And he tracked, all the way until a few months ago, over 2.36 million negative tweets, negative Instagrams, negative social media comments, about Amber that relate specifically to the information that was in those three defamatory statements. It took on a life of its own. They started to get Amber fired from Aquaman 2. They have continued to this day. They have followed her everywhere. Everybody has stopped wanting -- L'Oréal won't use her, even though they've kept her on from that time. She lost three different opportunities that were being discussed with her. The most significant part of that, though, is that Aquaman was the biggest blockbuster ever for DC films. It was the biggest. It was over a billion dollars. This was her opportunity for her star. Even the experts for Mr. Depp admitted this was her blockbuster, this was her mega. But what happened instead? As she's going through, as it's coming out, and in that 16 months they were going, "Well, nothing happened," yeah, a lot's happened.

MS. BREDEHOFT: She was -- had three different films she was discussing. She got the L'Oréal contract. She got The Stand. All of those things were happening because of Aquaman, And then everything shut down. She wasn't allowed to do publicity for The Stand. She wasn't allowed to -- she, you know, hasn't been allowed to do any L'Oréal. She gets shut down from her charitable organizations. She ended up not getting the Amazon movie, and then they gave her a hard time about Aquaman 2. And instead of the career trajectory of the other comparators, who all went way up -- and by the way, all the experts admit that that career trajectory went well for all the rest of them, and she's the only one that didn't have it. And the reason is because of the defamatory statements. So you have some very good information to help you on ascertaining those damages. Now, Jessica Kovacevic -- and I don't remember if you remember her, but she was her agent, she said, "Everybody just stopped talking. The producers don't want her. The directors don't want her."

MS. BREDEHOFT: Nobody wants her. We just can't get the traction, and we should have been able to get the traction. And they say it's because of those statements." So Kathryn Arnold gave you some good estimates on this, and they gave you a very good basis for it. And she didn't use Jason Momoa's or Gal Gadot's or the others, she used Amber's but used those comparators to show that they got big movies. that they got commercial opportunities, that they got these TV opportunities. But she used the base that Amber had. So she used the million from Aquaman that would be 3. She used The Stand's, you know, how much they got paid per movie. And what she estimated on those, and she went through those details, is that if you took that for the last two years and projected into the next three or four, that it's been 47 and $50 million that she could have had instead of her star being completely extinguished, and that's what happened to her.

MS. BREDEHOFT: The emotional distress damages are even more extreme here, and that is -- Dawn Hughes testified extensively about the PTSD and what she goes through, and every time she's called a liar, every time these hoax things come up, everything, it causes her to relive all of it. She talks about the panic attacks, the nervousness, the intrusive thoughts, the nightmares, all of the -- the sweats, the, you know, the anxiety that goes through all of this. It's significant. an NUWN PWN PLANE” {7930 to May 27, 2022 But probably the most compelling testimony that you could ever hear was from Amber yesterday and when she took the stand before. It has destroyed her life. This has consumed her. She's getting death threats. Her daughter -- they're threatening to put her daughter in a microwave, for God's sakes. She can't get away from this. It's everywhere, this media, this social media that has just taken off, has just consumed her life. As she said, "I'm a human being.

MS. BREDEHOFT: No human being should be put through this." Now, Johnny Depp sued for a hundred million -- for $50 million, and we sent the message back saying, "Fine. Then we're going to sue for a hundred million. Because look at what you've done to her." We're not asking you to give a hundred million dollars. We're asking you to just look at the damages in this case and just be fair and reasonable in whatever you determine by following the evidence and the instructions. But we do ask that you fully and fairly compensate Amber for everything that she's been through, both in terms of reputation and emotional distress. The very last point is punitive damages, and you surely have those in this case. We've asked for 350,000 for the punitive damages, and we would ask that you award that. Thank you very much.

MS. BREDEHOFT: Your Honor, can we get 1] any of those back from the sidebars?

MR. ROTTENBORN: Thank you, Your Honor.

MR. ROTTENBORN: Yes, Your Honor.