JACKSON V AEG July 3

rd
2013
Dr. Sidney Schnoll
(Expert in Pharmacology, Neurology, Psychiatry; Addiction Medicine Specialist)
Plaintiffs' Expert Witness.
Continued direct examination by Michael Koskoff:
Q. Good morning, Dr. Schnoll.
A. Good morning.
Q. Doctor, I think when we left off yesterday, we were talking about the distinctions between addiction
and dependency. And you had talked about the fact that dependency, when a person is drug dependent,
they can go through withdrawal symptoms; is that right?
A. Correct.

Q. In fact, is that part of the definition of being drug dependent?

A. Yes.
Q. That you go through withdrawal symptoms? And you also mentioned that another part of that
definition is that the body builds up a tolerance to the drugs so that increasing amounts are needed to
reach a certain level; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, were there, in the year 2009, drugs on the market, pharmaceutical drugs, that could ease the
pain of withdrawal for people who had drug dependency?
A. Yes.
Q. What is the drug Suboxone?
A. Suboxone is a drug that combines, actually, two drugs. It combines Buprenorphine and Naloxone.
Q. Okay. Two drugs in Suboxone. Buprenorphine, and the other one was?
A. Naloxone.
Q. And what do those have -- without going into too much detail; we don't want to know the
Pharmacology.
A. Well, then --
Q. Without going into too much detail, what does that drug, Suboxone, do for a person going through
withdrawal?
A. Well, Suboxone occupies the opioid receptors.
Q. Okay. I guess you have to do it.
A. I have to do it, the Pharmacology.
Q. What is an opioid receptor?
A. The opioid receptor is a part of the nervous system and, actually, other parts of the body, where
opioid drugs combine to give the effect. So when you withdraw somebody, what you want to do is give
a drug that binds to the same receptor to which the drug the person is dependent on is binding, and you
want to give a drug that has a fairly long action, fairly long duration of action, and then you gradually
withdraw it. And that's the way you give a smooth withdrawal.
Q. So if you give this other drug, you're saying it attaches to those receptors that would normally get
opioid drugs?

A. Yes.
Q. And would it block the drugs from having an opioid affect or satisfy the craving?
A. Well, now you're talking about something totally different when you get into the craving.
Q. Okay. Well, you explain it.
A. So you're taking the drug, it binds to that same receptor, and -- how to explain this without getting
into a lot of detail --
Q. Well, maybe you can start off by explaining what a receptor is.
A. Well, a receptor is where a drug has its action take place. So the drug comes in -- say this is a
receptor (indicating). The drug comes in and binds to that receptor, chemically binds to that receptor.
When it does, there is a whole cascade of chemical events that occur, and that cascade of chemical
events results in the effect of the drug. So in order for the drug to have its effect, whatever that effect is
-- whether it's a hypertension drug, whether it's a drug to treat epilepsy, whatever -- it has to bind to
some receptor in order to get that action to occur.
Q. So now you have a person who's taking Opioids -- I'm a little out of order with my Opiates. But let's
say it's an opioid drug, like Demerol or something, and when that Demerol goes into their body, does it
bind with some receptor in the body?
A. Yes. The Demerol would bind to that opioid receptor.
Q. And then what is Demerol used for?
A. Pain.
Q. For pain. Okay. And so then does that have the effect of dulling the pain for a person?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, if the person doesn't want to take Demerol anymore, and they take this drug Suboxone, what
happens?
A. Well, if they take the drug Suboxone, it binds to that same receptor. And so it basically has a similar
action, and the person won't go through withdrawal. I mean, if you -- if someone is dependent, and you
precipitously stop the Demerol or whatever they're taking, it's sort of like falling off a cliff. You just go
into withdrawal. And you don't want that to happen, because it's very uncomfortable, especially for
somebody who is dependent and getting the drug for a medical reason. So you either gradually
withdraw the drug that they're taking, such as the Demerol, or you put them on a longer-acting drug
that binds to the same receptor that provides a smooth withdrawal. And you gradually withdraw that
drug, and it provides a smoother withdrawal. Using a long-acting drug is better than using a short-
acting drug.
Q. Now, so you told us what Suboxone is, and that contains -- one of the drugs it contains is something
called Buprenorphine. And I don't think we have to say more, but is sometimes Buprenorphine also

used alone for withdrawing people?

A. Yes. There are actually two products on the market, Suboxone and Subutex. Suboxone contains
Buprenorphine and Naloxone. Subutex is just Buprenorphine. And there are now generic drugs on the
market.
Q. And is there also a drug called Naltrexone?
A. Yes.
Q. What is Naltrexone?
A. Naltrexone, actually, is similar to the Naloxone that is in the Suboxone. It is a narcotic antagonist.
So what happens is, if you have, let's say, an opioid on the receptor, the narcotic antagonist knocks it
off the receptor. And when it knocks it off the receptor, it can cause withdrawal, but the other effect is,
it binds very tightly to that receptor. And then if you then take an opioid, like Demerol or morphine or
something else, it prevents it from binding to that receptor, because it has, using a fancy word, it has
greater affinity for the receptor than the other Opioids do so they can't bind to it. So you don't get that
opioid effect.
Q. So if the person takes Naltrexone and then takes an opioid drug, they will -- essentially, the opioid
is not going to work?
A. They're not going to feel anything. It's like they were taking water.
Q. And did they have also implants available in 2009 and before with Naltrexone?
A. There are people who have had implants compounded, but they are not approved by the FDA.
Q. And do some people use them off-label for treating withdrawal?
A. Not treating withdrawal but treating opioid dependence to prevent the person from going back on
the drug. So it would block.
Q. And then there's also a drug, I think probably everybody has heard about, called Methadone?
A. Yes.
Q. What does Methadone do?
A. Well, Methadone is an opioid drug, again. It is used for pain and also for treatment of opioid
addiction. And the advantage that Methadone has, it's very long-acting so that you only have to give it
once a day. And the same is true for the Buprenorphine; it's long-acting. And Methadone is used for
withdrawal, also.
Q. Now, in dependency when treating a person that is drug dependent, what is the most important
factor in determining if the person can or should go off the drug?
A. Well, if a drug is drug dependent, what you want to do is find out what the underlying medical

problem is that required them to take whatever drug they're dependent on in the first place. And you
want to make sure that if you're going to take them off the drug, you try to effectively treat whatever
the underlying problem is.
Q. Now, are there people who can't go off drugs because the underlying problem is persistent?
A. Yes.
Q. And what happens with those? For example, what if a person has chronic osteoarthritis, painful
osteoarthritis?
A. They may remain on an opioid for the rest of their lives.
Q. What about chronic back pain?
A. They may have to do that, too, if it's not treatable with other methods.
Q. Is there anything considered inappropriate, medically, about keeping a person on an opioid under
medical supervision for life?
A. No.
Q. Is there any health ramifications of it? In other words, is there anything that hurts their body to be
on an opioid under medical supervision for life?
A. No.
Q. Can people function when they are on opioid medications?
A. Yes.
Q. And they function as well as they could without taking opioid medications?
Ms. Cahan: Objection. Vague.
Q. Under some circumstances?
Judge: What was the question?
Mr. Koskoff: It says, under some circumstances, can people function as well on opioid medications
as when they're not on opioid medications?
Judge: Overruled.
Mr. Schnoll: If a person, say, as an underlying painful condition, and they take the opioid to treat that
painful condition, in fact they might perform better under the opioid because it will have reduced the

pain which could be causing problems for them.

Q. And does being on the opioid under proper competent and fit medical supervision, does that impair
a person's ability to function as a full-functioning human being?
A. No.
Q. Is there any famous people who have been opioid dependent over many years?
A. Yes.
Q. Give me an example.
A. John F. Kennedy.
Q. President Kennedy did?
A. Yes.
Q. And was he opioid dependent while he was President of the United States?
A. Yes.
Judge: Can I ask why? What was his underlying condition?
Mr. Schnoll: He had very severe back pain.
Judge: Back pain? Okay.
Mr. Schnoll: Yeah.
Q. And was he under competent and fit medical supervision for that back pain?

A. Yes.
Q. Did all right as a president, I think.
A. Depends on your political affiliation, I guess.
Q. Now, there are -- some people who take these medications become addicted; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And what's the difference? I think you mentioned yesterday, so I won't go over all of it -- you said
there are a lot of negative behaviors associated with addiction.

A. Yes.
Q. And what is the primary factor in determining whether one person becomes addicted and another
person doesn't? What's the most important determining factor?
Ms. Cahan: Objection. Asked and answered.
Judge: Overruled.
Mr. Schnoll: The most important factor is genetics.
Q. And in treating a person for addiction, can you tell me whether or not it's also important to
determine the underlying cause for the addiction?
A. You try. Yes, of course.
Q. And can addiction also be treated by competent and fit medical people on an ongoing basis?
A. Yes.
Q. Are there people -- question withdrawn. Now, we talked a little bit about Opioids and Opiates. Now,
first, I don't know if I asked you this yet, but what's the difference between an opioid and an opiate?
A. An opiate is a drug that is derived from the poppy, the opium poppy. And there's a chemical in the
opium poppy called the Baine. And that is the chemical that a lot of Opiates -- that's the basis for the
development of a lot of Opiates. Opioids are synthetic products that are not derived from the opium
poppy that have the same effect as an opiate.
Q. And are there a lot of different drugs that contain -- that are either Opiates or Opioids that are used
in medicine?
A. Yes.
Q. Is there some drugs, like heroin we hear about, is that an opiate drug?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that used in medicine on a regular basis?
A. It is not currently used in the United States for medical purposes.
Q. And what is the primary use of opiate and opioid drugs in good medical practice?
A. The primary use is for the treatment of pain.
Q. Pain?

A. Pain.
Q. And how common is the use of Opiates and opioid drugs in the treatment of pain?
A. Very common.
Q. Is there any drug for the use of severe pain that's used more commonly than opiate drugs?
A. No.
Q. And is Demerol one of the opioid drugs?
A. Yes.
Q. In other words, is that a synthetic rather than a natural opiate?
A. That is a synthetic.
Q. And if the person is being treated on an ongoing basis under good medical practice with opiate and
opioid drugs, do they become sometimes drug dependent?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that the exception or is that the rule, that they become drug dependent when they're on long-term
opiate treatment?
A. If they're on long-term opioid or opiate treatment, they will become dependent.
Q. And so in spite of this, is this drug used very commonly?
A. Yes.
Q. Is it the most commonly-used drug for pain?
A. Opioids are the most commonly prescribed drugs in the United States.
Q. Period?
A. Period.
Q. Opioids are the most commonly prescribed drugs in the United States?
A. Correct.
Q. Do some people who get treated with opioid drugs become addicted?
A. Yes.
Q. And is that a large percentage of the people who take the drugs or not?

A. It's not a large percent.

Q. What is the approximate percentage, if there is any good data on that?
Ms. Cahan: Objection. Calls for speculation.
Judge: Well, he may know. He's an expert in the field. But you can lay a little foundation for that.
Q. Are you familiar with the statistics on addiction?
A. Yes.
Q. Have you been doing this for your entire life, dealing with addiction issues and the addictive
properties of drugs?
A. For the majority of my professional career, yes.
Q. And is there any particular drug that -- drug class that you have concentrated the 30, 40 years of
your career on?
A. Opiates and Opioids.
Q. Do you advise drug companies on the effects of Opiates and Opioids?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you advise major drug companies in the United States on the effects of Opiates and Opioids?
A. Yes.
Q. Is Pinney associates considered one of the premier consultation firms in the United States to advise
drug companies on the effects of -- on the addictive properties of their drugs?
A. Yes.
Q. Are you familiar on an ongoing basis with the world's literature concerning the addiction of Opiates
and opiate drugs?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, can you tell me, how common is it for a person who is receiving Opiates and opioid drugs on
an ongoing basis to become addicted to those?
A. The figures indicate that maybe around 10 to 12 percent.
Q. And how does that compare to other products, such as alcohol?

A. It's approximately the same percentage.

Q. Some people can have a drink of alcohol or can't do it; is that right?
A. That's correct.
Q. And is that the same with Opiates and Opioids?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, you mentioned, sir, that these drugs are used in the treatment of pain. And is there such a
thing as a pain -- I think you brushed on this earlier yesterday, but is there such a thing as a pain
threshold?
A. Yes.
Q. What is a pain threshold?
A. A pain threshold is the level of pain at which somebody is feeling significant discomfort.
Q. And how variable from person to person are pain thresholds?
A. Quite variable.
Q. And I think yesterday you said there's a scale of a -- they use for measuring pain, 1 through 10?
A. Yes. There's what they call a visual analog scale. And they can go from 0 to 100 or 0 to 10. And
then you ask a person on that scale, with 0 being the absence of pain, and 10 or 100, depending on how
large the scale is, would be the most severe pain they can imagine. And then they will mark on that
scale or tell you, "My pain is" -- let's say it's the 0 to 10 scale. They'll say, "My pain is a 7," or "my
pain is a 9 or 10," or "My pain is a 2."
Q. And when a person is describing opiate or opioid drugs to treat pain, how do they titrate -- you used
the word titrate yesterday -- or calibrate the amount of drug to use?
A. Well, you usually start off with a low dose. And if I can give an example. Let's say somebody starts
off, they'll come in to see a physician, or see me, and they'll say, "my pain is a 9." and then I will start
with a relatively low dose of the opioid and start to increase the dose. And each time I see them, which,
when I would start to see a patient initially, would be very frequently. And I'd say, "Okay. Your pain
started at a 9. Where is it today?" and let's say they say, "It's still a 9." Well, of course I know I'm not
anywhere near where I have to go. But if they say "My pain is a 7," then I know the drug is starting to
affect their pain. And another question I always ask people when they come in for pain treatment is,
what is a level that you can tolerate, which would be that pain threshold where the pain becomes a
problem. So let's say the person came in and said "my pain is a 9," and they could tolerate a 3. So what
I would do would be to titrate that medication. Bring it up until I was able to bring that pain down to a
3, which would be the tolerable level for that person. And sometimes that happens quickly, and
sometimes it would take a fair amount of time to do that.

Q. Doctor, in -- I want to just go back to one thing you said about the addiction potential of opiate and
opioid drugs. If 10 to 12 percent of people can become addicted, why is it so commonly used? Why is
it, as you said, the most popular drug prescribed in America, Opiates and Opioids?
A. Well, because they're effective. They work. And, as I said, pain is the most common symptom that
brings people into a doctor's office.
Q. And over the last 10 years, have there been some new drugs that have been also found to be
effective in the treatment of pain?
A. Yes.
Q. That are non-opiate and opioid?
A. Yes.
Q. What kinds of drugs are they?
A. Antidepressant drugs; anti-seizure drugs have been found to be effective for certain kinds of pain.
Q. Okay. Now, doctor, earlier you mentioned that you reviewed the medical records of Michael
Jackson; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And they were all of the medical records that Dr. Earley relied upon in making his conclusions?
A. Correct.
Q. And in addition to that, you reviewed the depositions of the witnesses that Dr. Earley relied upon in
reaching his conclusions; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And in addition to that, you reviewed the autopsy records, the police files concerning this case; is
that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. I want to ask you some questions about Michael Jackson's use of opioid drugs. The records that you
saw, I want to begin in the year 1993. And at that year, did you review Michael Jackson's statement that
he had felt that he had a drug problem?
A. Yes.
Q. He used the term "addiction," in fact, didn't he?
A. Yes. Yes, he did.

Q. And that he was going to try to be treated for that problem?

A. Yes.
Q. Did you see that? From 1993 -- did you review all of the records from 1993 until the time of his
death, 2009, concerning his use of opiate and opioid drugs?
Ms. Cahan: Objection. Calls for speculation.
Judge: Well, all that were available, I suppose.
Ms. Cahan: That wasn't the question.
Mr. Koskoff: Yes. All that were available.
Mr. Schnoll: Yes.
Q. Now, first, I want to ask you about the period from 1993 to 1997. Is there anything in any medical
records, depositions, police report, witnesses' statements that says that Michael Jackson used any opiate
drugs between November of 1993 until December of 1997? Did you see any mention of any opiate
drugs at all?
A.
No, I did not.
Q. Then, in 1997 is there evidence that Michael Jackson did use Demerol at that time for a procedure?
For a
dental procedure?

Ms. Cahan: Objection. This is hearsay.
Q. Well, did he have drugs in 1997?
Mr. Koskoff: He can use hearsay.
Mr. Boyle: He's an expert.
Ms. Cahan: He can rely on hearsay in offering an opinion, but he can't republish that hearsay. And
those records are not in evidence.
Q. Do you have an opinion?

Judge: Okay. Rephrase.

Q. Do you have an opinion of what the Demerol was used for in 1997?
Ms. Cahan: Same objection, your honor.
Judge: Overruled.
A. Yes.
Q. What was it for?
A. It was for treatment of some procedures he was having.
Q. And from 1997 to February 2001, did he continue to use Demerol in the course of procedures that
were performed during that period of time?
A. Yes.
Q. And then in 19- -- is there any evidence from any witness from any deposition that he used Demerol
outside of the medical setting?
A. No.
Q. And in the period of time before 2001, did he then -- did he use Demerol on a number of occasions
at that point?
A. Could you repeat that, please?
Q. Yes. In the period of time in the two years just before 2001, did he use Demerol for treatments?
A. I don't think so. I think there was --
Q. Was that the period of time when he had the scalp?
A. Well, if he had the scalp, yes.
Ms. Cahan: Objection. Calls for hearsay.
Judge: Hold on.
Mr. Koskoff: I was -- withdraw the question.

Q. Was there a period of time when Michael Jackson used Demerol for scalp surgery?
A. Yes.
Ms. Cahan: Same objection.
Judge: Overruled.
Q. And did you review the records of a Dr. Farshchian?
A. Yes.
Q. And approximately when did Dr. Farshchian treat Michael Jackson?
A. It was early 2000s. I think it was 2002.
Q. And did he treat -- and what was the treatment Dr. Farshchian administered to Michael Jackson?
Ms. Cahan: Objection. Calls for hearsay.
Judge: Overruled.
A. He put a Naltrexone implant into his abdomen.
Q. Now, a Naltrexone implant is one of the devices you mentioned earlier that is used -- well, what's --
what was he using it for, Dr. Farshchian?
A. Dr. Farshchian was using the Naltrexone as a narcotic antagonist to block the effects of Opioids. So
if the Naltrexone implant was in place, and Michael took any opioid, it would block the effects of that
opioid so that opioid would not have any effect on him. He wouldn't feel anything.
Q. And did he use several of those Naltrexone implants over the next several months?
A. Yes.
Q. And according to the medical records, depositions, witnesses, police report, everything else you
relied upon, did Michael Jackson take any Opioids or opiate medications after that time in 2003 until
the year 2008?
A. I don't recall him using any. I don't recall him using any.
Q. Based on your review of the records, did you see any indication that he did use any Opioids during
that period of time?
A. I don't think he did.

Q. Now, when you -- as you reviewed the records in the case -- question withdrawn. So based on the
medical records, the depositions over the last 16 years of Michael Jackson's life, was he Demerol free,
drug free, for roughly 13 1/2 out of 16 years?
A. Yes.
Ms. Cahan: Objection. Calls for speculation.
Judge: Well, yeah.
Ms. Cahan: The records are really spotty, your honor.
Mr. Koskoff: Well, I'm going to object to speaking objections.
Judge: Sustained.
Mr. Koskoff: This is based on the records.
Judge: And define -- what time periods are you talking about?
Mr. Koskoff: This is based on the records from 1993 to the year 2009, up until, actually, the year
2008, up until he went to treat with Dr. Klein, which we'll talk about in a minute.
Judge: Okay.
Mr. Koskoff: Until 2008, which is a period of 16 -- up to almost 2009, 15 1/2 years. 13 1/2 of those
years were Opiate free.
Ms. Cahan: Same objection.
Q. By Mr. Koskoff: Is that correct?
Judge: Overruled.
Q. By Mr. Koskoff: Based on the records.
A. Based on the records, there was no evidence he was taking Opioids during that time.
Q. Is that consistent with a person who is a drug addict?
A. No.
Q. Did you see the defense expert? Did you read his deposition, Dr. Earley, where he said Michael
Jackson was a drug addict?
A. Yes.

Q. And he said he was going to die early from a drug addiction?

Judge: Did you see that testimony or read that testimony?
Q. Did you read that testimony?
A. Yes, I did. I thought I had answered.
Q. Do you agree with that opinion?
A. No, I don't.
Q. Doctor, based on your review of the records in this case and the depositions -- all of the available
records -- now, there may be records we don't know about; is that right?
A. I don't know.
Q. By definition, you don't know about them if you don't know about them.
A. Right.
Q. But based on all the records that we have, and the depositions of the witnesses that you reviewed, is
there -- have you seen any evidence that Michael Jackson ever took any type of medications without
them being prescribed by a doctor?
A. No.
Q. Have -- or a health care provider?
A. No.
Q. Have you seen any evidence in all of the records you reviewed that he ever took recreational drugs?
A. No.
Q. Have you seen any evidence in all of the records that you reviewed and that the defense expert,
apparently, reviewed that he ever self-injected in the absence of a doctor --
A. No.
Q. -- any drugs?
A. No.
Q. And the injectable drugs, based on the evidence

Judge: Hold on. Can you tell us what a recreational drug is as opposed to other drugs?
Mr. Schnoll: A recreational drug might be marijuana, or somebody going to a party and taking a pill at
a party to get high.
Judge: Something non-prescribed?
Mr. Schnoll: Something that's not prescribed for that person.
Q. And would recreational drugs be taken for purposes of the person getting high or to get some sort of
effect from the drug only?
A. That's why they would take it, to get high.
Q. Is cocaine a recreational drug?
A. Cocaine.
Q. Is there any evidence that Michael Jackson ever took cocaine?
A. No.
Q. Is there any evidence that he ever took heroin?
A. No.
Q. Did you see -- did Michael Jackson ever self-administer injectable drugs in the absence of a
medical person being on the scene?
Ms. Cahan: Objection. Calls for speculation.
Q. Based on the records you've seen?
Judge: Okay. Based on the records. You may answer.
Mr. Schnoll: No.
Q. Did any witness whose deposition you read ever accuse him of that?
A. No.
Q. By the way, we're going to ask you about it later, but was there one occasion when somebody said

he was with a doctor, and he actually asked the doctor if he could use the needle?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. That was in the presence of medical personnel?
A. Yes.
Q. Aside from that, was there any evidence that he ever used injectable drugs outside of a medical
setting?
A. No.
Q. Is there any evidence as to what Michael Jackson's -- that Michael Jackson was afraid of needles?
A. Yes.
Q. And was there evidence that he ever took medications in excess of the amount prescribed by the
doctors?
A. No.
Q. Is there any evidence he ever took any drug for the purpose of getting high?
A. There was one episode described when he got drunk, so that was one episode.
Q. And do you know of any other? And when was that episode? Was that --
A. That was when they announced or getting ready to announce the this is it tour.
Q. And aside from that, was there any evidence that he ever took any drug inappropriately?
A. No.
Q. Is that behavior consistent with a person who is a drug addict who is going to die early from drug
addiction?
A. No.
Q. Now, you mentioned the time that Michael Jackson said that he had a drug problem and that he was
going to go into treatment to get better; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you have an opinion, first of all, as to whether he was a person who wanted to be a drug addict
or not? drug-dependent person or not?
A. Since he was going into treatment, I can only assume he did not want to be a drug-dependent
person.

Q. And do you think that prior to that time -- do you have an opinion as to whether he was probably at
that time drug dependent?
A. He probably was drug dependent at that point. Could have been.
Q. And, by the way, prior to that time -- this is going back into the '80s -- are you familiar with a
significant injury that he suffered?
A. Well, he had the scalp injury, the burn. I think it was in a Pepsi commercial that he was filming.
Q. And following that, over the next several years, was there treatment and surgery for that burn?
A. Yes.
Q. And did he have narcotic drugs, opiate drugs in connection with those treatments?
A. Yes.
Q. And was it after that that he sought treatment after the scalp surgery and the Dangerous tour that he
sought treatment for his dependency?
Ms. Cahan: Objection. Vague. There were multiple surgeries over a number of years.
Judge: Was it after --
Mr. Koskoff: After the -- well, okay. I'll take it step by step.
Q. Prior to the Dangerous tour, in the very beginning of it, did he have scalp surgery?
A. Yes.
Q. And what kind of surgery -- tell the jury a little bit about what that surgery was for.
A. Well, that surgery was to repair the damage to his scalp. There was some contractions, and so they
inserted a balloon under the scalp to stretch the scalp back to a normal configuration and remove the
scar tissue.
Q. And did you -- based on your review of the records, your
Knowledge of this condition, is this a painful condition?
A. Yes. And in addition, I think -- I might not pronounce it properly -- Dr. Sasaki reported
he had neuroma formation at the time.
Q. Tell the jury what a neuroma is.
A. A neuroma is like a scar that forms on a nerve. When a nerve is damaged -- just if your skin is cut,
and you form a scar on your skin, if you have damage to a nerve, you can have a scar form, and that's a

neuroma. And that is excitable tissue, just like the nerves. And so it can be firing, just as the nerve does,
but it fires in an abnormal way. And so that can be very painful and disconcerting to the person who has
that neuroma. And it's often sort of like a burning kind of pain. I guess the best example would be, I
think most people have fallen asleep on their arm in a funny position, and you wake up and have that
tingling and everything. Well, that's what it can be like, but it's persistent. It doesn't go away. And also
it can be a sharp shooting kind of pain at the same time. So it's very uncomfortable and one of the most
difficult kinds of pain to treat.
Q. And there are Opioids -- appropriate drugs to use to treat a neuroma, this type of pain?
A. They can be used for that, yes.
Q. And in Michael Jackson's case, were they?
A. Yes.
Q. And, then, this is just prior to beginning the Dangerous tour; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And then they went on the Dangerous tour. And did you review the testimony of Dr. Finkelstein?
A. Yes.
Q. And doctor -- and based on that testimony, did you have an opinion as to whether Michael Jackson
was receiving opioid drugs during that period of time?
A. Yes.
Q. During the Dangerous tour?
A. Yes.
Q. And is it following that time that he went into -- he publicly announced that he felt he had a
problem with these drugs and wanted to become free of them?
A. Yes.
Q. Based upon your review of the medical literature, the charts, the depositions, the investigation, do
you have an opinion as to whether the evidence establishes that Michael Jackson was a drug addict?
A. Yes, I do have an opinion.
Q. What is the opinion?
A. The opinion: I don't know if he was an addict.
Q. When you say you don't know, what do you mean by that?

A. Well, I haven't seen any evidence that would give me the information that would allow me to make
a diagnosis of addiction.
Q. Is there evidence that would allow you to make a diagnosis of his being drug dependent at some
period of time?
A. Yes.
Q. What evidence is lacking for considering him to be a drug addict?
A. It would be taking drugs when not prescribed by a medical professional; taking larger amounts that
were prescribed; drug-seeking behavior; taking drugs that were not -- were not prescribed for him.
Those kinds of behaviors.
Q. And when you talk about "drug-seeking behavior," does that have a very special meaning for a
physician who is an addiction specialist?
A. Yes.
Q. And what is drug-seeking behavior? Suppose I have a headache, and I go to the doctor, and I say,
"give me a drug." is that drug-seeking behavior?
A. That could be drug-seeking behavior.
Q. Is that the kind of drug-seeking behavior that is an addict's drug-seeking behavior?
A. No.
Q. Okay. What is the difference?
A. If you're seeking a drug to treat a legitimate medical problem, that's drug-seeking behavior, but it's
not inappropriate and not part of addiction. However, if you're seeking drugs outside of a medical need,
that drug-seeking behavior is inappropriate and can be part of addiction.
Q. And in Michael Jackson's case, was there evidence that Michael Jackson had Demerol for treatment
of his back pain?
A. Yes.
Q. Is there evidence that he had -- that he got Demerol for treatment of his scalp pain?
A. Yes.
Q. Is there evidence that he got treatment for his -- for his dermatologic condition where he was being
treated by a dermatologist to get ready for these tours?
A. Yes.
Q. And are all of those -- the use of Demerol, can Demerol be an appropriate agent to use under those

circumstances at that period of time?

A. Yes.
Q. Was there any evidence that you saw that he was engaged in that kind of drug-seeking behavior that
you described?
A. Which type are you referring to?
Q. The addiction type of drug-seeking behavior.
A. No.
Q. So that the -- you mentioned that he did from time to time have these dependencies, these two
periods of time where he went and sought treatment?
A. Yes.
Q. Was that the nature of his drug problem? That he would sometimes get dependent?
A. Yes.
Mr. Koskoff: Is this a good time to break, your honor?
Judge: No. We started at 10:00. We can go 15 more minutes.
Mr. Koskoff: Okay.
Q. Doctor, I want to just ask you briefly about another type of drug, and that is the Benzodiazepines.
And people have heard a lot about them. And those are used for sleep and for what else?
A. Used for sleep, anxiety, sedation.
Q. And, again, were there times during the course of this period of time that Michael Jackson did take
Benzodiazepines?
A. Yes.
Q. Did he take them as prescribed by a physician?
Ms. Cahan: Objection, calls for speculation.
Q. Based on the records?

Judge: Overruled. You may answer.

A. Yes.
Q. Did you see any evidence from anywhere that he took them in excess of the amounts the physicians
prescribed?
A. No.
Q. Can people become dependent or addicted to these drugs?
A. Yes.
Q. And is there evidence that Michael Jackson ever became addicted to Benzodiazepines?
A. No.
Q. What was the reason why, based on the records and the depositions that you reviewed, why Michael
Jackson was looking for these or was prescribed these Benzodiazepines?
A. Well, he was prescribed a short-acting benzodiazepine, midazolam, versed, as part of a procedure.
And that's very common that midazolam is used for short-term procedures, such as cosmetic surgery,
dental procedures, short-term surgical -- can also be used for long-term surgical procedures.
Q. And can -- did he also use it for sleep?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that an appropriate use of a benzodiazepine?
A. Yes.
Q. Based on your review of the records of Michael Jackson, did he have a sleep problem?
A. Yes.
Q. And was that a longstanding one?
A. Yes.
Q. And how -- we're going to talk about Propofol in a minute, so let's not go there yet. But aside from
the Propofol , how was -- what treatments were given for his sleep problem?
A. He was given Benzodiazepines. There's also indication that he at one time was given Ambien for
his sleep problem. And he was also told at one point to take Tylenol pm for a sleep problem.
Q. And, now, there's another drug we heard a lot about, which is Propofol . And are you familiar with
the drug Propofol ?

A. Yes.
Q. Have you treated patients who were addicted to Propofol ?
A. Yes.
Q. And have you reviewed literature on Propofol ?
A. Yes.
Q. Is there another name that Propofol is also used as?
A. The brand name is Diprivan.
Q. Okay. So that's Diprivan, so when we hear Diprivan -- d-i-p-r-i-v-a-n -- and Propofol , we're
talking about the same thing?
A. Correct.
Q. Okay. There's a chart which was, under your direction, we put together.
Mr. Koskoff: Have you seen it?
Ms. Cahan: Yeah. It's hearsay. We object to it.
Mr. Koskoff: Have any objection to it?
Ms. Cahan: Yes. It's hearsay. Object.
Judge: To the use of --
Mr. Koskoff: The chart, which is going to be basically the summary of the use of Propofol based on
his opinion based on the records that he reviewed.
Judge: Is that part of the --
Ms. Cahan: It's based on medical records not in evidence as well as the issues --
Mr. Panish: Why don't we wait.
Mr. Putnam: Sidebar.
Judge: Well, let me see it.
Ms. Cahan: Should probably do this at sidebar.
Judge: Let me see it now.

Ms. Cahan: Do you have a copy for the court?

Mr. Koskoff: Do we have a copy? I think it's in your binder, your honor. It's brown.
Judge: Is that it (indicating)? It's a multi-page?
Mr. Koskoff: It is a multi-page chart, your honor. You do have it or not?
Judge: Is it this one (indicating)?
Ms. Cahan: No.
Judge: That one (indicating)? Does it say "Demerol" at the bottom?
Mr. Koskoff: No. That's not -- I have a Demerol chart and a Propofol chart. I can go on to
something -- go into a different area --
Mr. Boyle: She does not have one. Maybe we can give her this one? Is that okay?
Ms. Cahan: I need to look at it.
Judge: I'll deal with it at the break.
Mr. Boyle: You don't want the judge to see it?
Ms. Cahan: I don't have a problem with the judge seeing it, but if we're going to talk about it, I need
to have it.
Mr. Boyle: We can give it back to you.
Mr. Panish: We're going to go on to something else.
Judge: Okay. Go ahead and move on for now.
Mr. Koskoff: Would you like me to go on to another area, your honor?
Judge: Yes.
Mr. Panish: Yes.
Q. Okay. Actually, the next area is going to be the Demerol area. Because we brought you -- in
discussing Demerol, we went up to the year 2008; is that correct, doctor?
A. Yes.
Q. And you mentioned that there was no Demerol used between I think it was 2003 and 2008 that you

could see from any records?

A. Correct.
Q. Okay. Now, in -- 2008, did you review the records of Dr. Klein?
A. Yes.
Q. And I think the jury's already seen some of the records of Dr. Klein.
Mr. Koskoff: I'll offer them, anyway. Can we offer Dr. Klein's records?
Ms. Cahan: We object. Hearsay, no foundation laid for them.
Judge: I would have hoped you would have figured out medical records before --
Ms. Cahan: Your honor, We offered a stipulation that they refused to accept.
Judge: I don't want to hear about it right now. I'll hear about it at the break. But medical records
should have been resolved prior to today.
Q. Let me ask you this, doctor: Did you review Dr. Klein's medical records?

A. Yes.
Q. And do you have an opinion -- did Michael Jackson see Dr. Klein prior to end of the year 2008 in
preparation for the this is it tour?
A. Yes.
Q. And what was the reason that he saw Dr. Klein? For what purpose?
Ms. Cahan: Objection. Calls for hearsay.
Mr. Koskoff: Based on his opinion.
Q. Is your opinion based on your review of these records? Your opinion about his use of Demerol?
Judge: Okay. Are you going to be introducing medical records?
Ms. Cahan: We are. And we're going to lay a proper foundation and present the testimony --
Judge: Are you going to be stipulating to the medical records?

Mr. Panish: Depends on what they are.

Judge: Well, okay. Everybody -- "depends this" and "depends that."
Mr. Panish: If they tell us the names -- I don't want to say it all in front of the jury.
Ms. Cahan: We need a sidebar.
Judge: Okay. Let's take a break. 15 minutes.
(the jury exits the courtroom)
Judge: What's the problem with the medical records.
Mr. Panish: Well, as far as anything that Dr. Earley relied upon, we're fine with stipulating to
admissibility. I just don't want to make a blanket for something I haven't seen. Anything that Dr. Earley,
their expert, relied upon, we will stipulate it can be admitted.
Judge: Is there something else that you're attempting to get introduced, get it resolved in advance? I'm
sure there's plenty of other doctors who treated Michael Jackson that you're going to want to admit.
Ms. Cahan: Yeah, your honor. Before we started trial, we tried for probably six weeks, if not two
months, to get Plaintiffs to agree to a very simple stipulation that -- can I speak, please?
Mr. Panish: I was speaking to Mr. Boyle, but if you want to talk to me, that's okay.
Ms. Cahan: That medical records and other business records, like financial records that were
produced in response to discovery requests that were produced with a custodian of records' declaration
or other indicia of reliability would be considered presumptively authentic, and that we could agree to
the admissibility of some of them unless there were issues related to them. They wouldn't agree to that
stipulation. And as your honor may remember, I think on the very first day of trial, they even took the
position that any medical records, because they've been passed through the estate for redaction of
irrelevant material, couldn't be used at all, and your honor would need to do an in-camera review of all
medical records before anything could be used. Obviously, as the trial has gone on, they sought to
produce all kinds of medical records; they've allowed us to use, for example, Dr. Metzger's records that
were redacted with Dr. Czeisler on cross. So we've never taken --
Judge: Which, by the way, I've ordered all of that unredacted and unsealed.
Ms. Cahan: Right. The sealing was separate from the redaction process that everyone agreed to, that
the estate could take out irrelevant medical information before the records were produced to the parties.
But, your honor, the point is that we sought a broad stipulation about business records, medical records,
for months. They refused to give it. We thought it was unreasonable, but we proceeded, then, to
develop our defense and get the witnesses necessary to lay the foundation for all these records properly,
because there wasn't a stipulation. We're still happy to enter into that, and that would save some time,
certainly. But that's not something Plaintiffs have been willing to agree to.

Judge: So what's the problem with their foundation for these records? Can you identify what the
problems are?
Mr. Boyle: Your honor, I think, you know, that was somewhat misleading, a little, what she said. The
stipulation that was sought was that every document produced to third-party subpoenas be admissible
in the case.
Ms. Cahan: No.
Ms. Stebbins: No.
Mr. Panish: Can he finish?
Mr. Boyle: That's what she just said, all business records, not just medical records. I mean, we just
agreed to stipulate that the medical records relied on by their expert, Dr. Earley, can all come into
evidence.
Judge: Okay. But that's not good enough, because, obviously, there's other medical records you want
to rely upon from physicians --
Mr. Panish: What are they? If we have a specific list, this doctor, this doctor, this doctor, fine. Now
we've said, every one that Earley relies on can be admissible. They're the same ones that he has
reviewed, meaning Dr. Schnoll. If they give us -- it's not a broad -- like every document. I want to
know specifically. And Earley, we know everything he reviewed that he relied on he said at his
deposition.
Ms. Cahan: That would be a misstatement, your honor.
Judge: You should have had this discussion a while ago.
Ms. Cahan: We tried to do that two months before trial started.
Mr. Panish: But they don't give us a list. They just said, "every document." we want a list, and I
asked for that on the record specifically.
Judge: Did you give him a list?
Ms. Cahan: Yes, of course we gave them a list.
Mr. Panish: No. Where is the list?
Judge: Do you have a letter?
Ms. Cahan: We can get them at the lunch break.
Judge: I'm going to start overruling objections, because we're not going to spend a month looking
into the custodian of records --

Ms. Cahan: Yes, your honor.

Judge: Doctors, custodians --
Ms. Cahan: We completely agree, and we think that would be the absolutely official way to proceed,
and that's what we want to do to streamline this trial and move things along. I don't know why they're
not willing to stipulate to the admissibility of medical records generally; what it is about what Dr.
Earley relied on is more reliable. And, by the way, Dr. Earley relied on Dr. Murray's police statement so
I assume they're not talking about that, in allowing everything that Dr. Earley has relied about.
Mr. Panish: That's not a medical record. I said -- that's again misleading, your honor. I said "medical
records that he relied on." we already know the position on Dr. Murray's statement. We don't need to
get -- she doesn't need to make that statement, because we know what the position is, and the ruling has
been made.
Ms. Stebbins: I think --
Mr. Panish: We're talking about medical records specifically.
Judge: Okay.
Mr. Panish: She made the objection.
Judge: I heard you. I want to hear from them.
Ms. Stebbins: Your honor, I think the proposed stipulation, insofar as it relates to medical records was
that medical records produced via a custodian of records' declaration, per agreement they passed
through the estate to redact irrelevant medical information that didn't relate to, say, addiction issues or
Propofol issues or pain issues -- for instance, if he had chicken pox, by way of example, that might
have been taken out of those records. They were produced to both parties in the case, they were relied
on by both parties' experts to varying degrees. The proposed stipulation was that anything that came
into the case that way produced by a medical practitioner through a custodian of records' declaration
and then produced to both parties would be presumptively admissible, unless there was a specific
reason to challenge. And then the parties reserve the right to challenge it.
Judge: This was a stipulation?
Ms. Cahan: We proposed it.
Ms. Stebbins: This was a proposed stipulation. And I still think it's a reasonable position that, you
know, it was all produced to Plaintiffs in discovery. I don't think there's any records that I'm aware of
that they're challenging the authenticity or they're saying are not proper medical records.
Mr. Boyle: Well, your honor, that stipulation wasn't presented to us just for medical records. That's our
point. It was for all these other records --
Judge: Okay. Mr. Boyle, the response will be, "We'll stipulate to the medical records, but we won't
stipulate to the business records." it's not "We're not going to consider anything at all, and let's just
figure it out when we get to trial at the 9th week." That's not the appropriate response, because I don't

want to spend another month dealing with custodian of records on medical.

Mr. Panish: I agree with that.
Mr. Boyle: Your honor, we agree. That was the first time that stipulation was articulated that way.
They were saying before, "all medical records." We don't know if they have something we don't have.
Judge: Mr. Boyle, medical records have been at the heart of this case --
Mr. Panish: No.
Judge: -- since it started.
Mr. Panish: How do we know --
Judge: The medical condition of Michael Jackson. Can you really make that representation?
Mr. Boyle: Your honor, we just -- if we have medical records --
Judge: I'm not going to be sustaining any hearsay objections.
Mr. Panish: We haven't objected.
Judge: You need to figure it out, because I'm not going to be sustaining any hearsay objections. I'm
not going to sustain theirs, but I'm not going to sustain yours, either, unless you can come up with some
legitimate reason why the records shouldn't come in. When I say, "legitimate," they're not authentic;
they didn't come from the doctor's office; there's a fraudulent signature on the verification, or
something of that nature.
Mr. Boyle: Your honor, we haven't objected to any medical records. They're the ones objecting.
Mr. Panish: They were using Dr. Metzger's --
Judge: They're objecting because you did not give them a similar courtesy with the medical --
Mr. Panish: That's not true.
Mr. Putnam: Yes.
Mr. Panish: Dr. Metzger -- he used Dr. Metzger
--
Judge: Mr. Panish, you two need to get together and figure it out. I'm just saying, if you can't figure it
out, I'm not going to sustain either of your objections. The records are just going to come in.
Ms. Stebbins: Your honor --
Mr. Panish: Your honor, we didn't object.

Judge: I'm getting off the bench now. You talk.

Ms. Stebbins: I think Plaintiffs' counsel was willing to propose a stipulation.
Mr. Panish: We're off the bench.
(Break)
Mr. Panish: Okay. Now, I'm confused. We will agree that any document that we received that, as a
custodian stipulation -- medical records, we agree that there's no need for the custodian to come.
Judge: Okay.
Mr. Panish: Now, as to that, other records aside, just talking about medical records now. Now, they
say that everyone reserves their right to do what?
Ms. Cahan: Challenge the admissibility or authenticity of medical records, if there's some indicia of,
you know, inaccuracy.
Mr. Panish: Well, let's say -- admissibility, I agree everyone can reserve the right on that.
Judge: Relevance or whatever, those types of objections.
Mr. Panish: Right. Whatever types of admissibility, whatever it is, okay, it's reserved. They want to
reserve it, fine. The other one I'm not clear about, though. Can you explain that?
Ms. Cahan: I've reviewed all the medical records. I don't think any of them appear to be fraudulent or
--
Mr. Panish: Well, if it's fraudulent, everyone can reserve their rights.
Ms. Cahan: Right.
Mr. Panish: If it's an issue where it's fabricated, whatever, everyone can reserve their rights. I'm okay
with that.
Ms. Stebbins: I think that's fine. If it's produced pursuant to a custodian of records' declaration, and
there's no indication it's fraudulent, and we reserve our rights on admissibility, I think we all agree.
Mr. Panish: And we got the records when we got the declaration, no problem.
Ms. Stebbins: Okay.
Mr. Panish: And we haven't objected -- and I know there was not a resolution, but we've allowed
them, so far, to use any records that they've wanted to during cross. Just so that's clear. We have not

objected.
Mr. Boyle: And, your honor, our only concern is -- we don't think it was intentional, but sometimes the
estate wouldn't always send us a copy of stuff, so that's why we were concerned that we actually had
these records.
Judge: Okay.
Mr. Panish: Right. So that takes care of that.
Judge: And, unfortunately, I didn't look at the chart during the break.
Ms. Cahan: Your honor, the chart's fine if the underlying medical records are coming into evidence.
And if we are agreeing to the stipulation, then the underlying medical records we agree would come
into evidence. And I think we should just clarify in the record, we're admitting the medical records of
the following physicians that are referenced in the chart in connection with the presentation of the
chart.
Ms. Stebbins: And, also --
Mr. Koskoff: Yes.
Ms. Stebbins: -- I would consider proposing that physician-produced records at deposition and
authenticated that way, we also stipulate to the same thing.
Judge: Like an Earley-type situation?
Mr. Panish: No, no, no.
Mr. Koskoff: A. Treater.
Ms. Cahan: Treating physician.
Ms. Stebbins: For instance, Dr. Metzger was deposed and produced records in connection with his
deposition. I don't know if he did a custodian of records' declaration because he produced records at the
deposition.
Mr. Panish: Well, he said they were his records, though.
Ms. Stebbins: Right. Assuming they were identified by the physician at the deposition.
Mr. Panish: Dr. Metzger's records were used, and no objection.
Ms. Cahan: Most of the medical records were authenticated through deposition testimony rather than
through a custodian of records' declaration, and I think we're in agreement there's no problem with
those.
Mr. Boyle: Yes. That's fine.

Judge: So those folks listed on the chart Christine Quinn, David Fournier, Dr. Klein, Dr. Hosny
Habashy, Dr. Virgil, these are all people that you can agree on?
Mr. Putnam: Yes, your honor.
Ms. Cahan: Yes.
Judge: Or agree that their records are coming in?
Mr. Boyle: Yes.
Ms. Cahan: Yes, your honor. What we can do is prepare a list at the break that have the bates numbers
and exhibit numbers for the clerk that we are agreeing are admitted in connection with the chart.
Judge: There is Dr. Conrad Murray referred to here.
Ms. Cahan: It doesn't have any details of treatment, so I think we're okay on that.
Mr. Koskoff: Right. And we do have the --
Judge: You have all the photos of what he was doing, pictures of Propofol .
Mr. Panish: It's in evidence.
Mr. Boyle: And, your honor, we do have records from him for the seven visits from 2006 through
2009.
Mr. Koskoff: And we do have the coroner's report which says he administered Propofol .
Mr. Panish: And it's admitted in evidence.
Mr. Koskoff: And we have Dr. Czeisler's opinion that he had a long-term administration of Propofol
and -- prior to his death.
Ms. Cahan: That is just based on the police report, again.
Mr. Panish: No, it's not. We went through that already.
Judge: Okay. All right. I think this chart's fine.
Mr. Putnam: Yes, your honor.
Ms. Cahan: We agree. And at lunch we will create by bates number and exhibit number the
documents, medical records that are admitted in connection with the use of this chart.
Judge: Okay. I don't know if you'll be able to do all of that at lunch.
Mr. Panish: We'll get it worked out. Maybe not by lunch, but by --

Ms. Cahan: Can I have that copy?

Mr. Koskoff: Can I put this up before the jury comes in so I don't have to struggle?
Judge: Yes. Should I keep this, or does that belong to somebody?
Ms. Cahan: That was mine, actually.
Judge: Okay.
Mr. Panish: Do you want one? Give her one back. All right. Ready to go now?
Judge: Okay. Call the jury.
(The jury enters the courtroom)
Judge: Mr. Koskoff, did you give this a number?
Mr. Boyle: We will.
Judge: I don't know if you did.
Ms. Cahan: It has 998 on the back of my copy.
Mr. Boyle: 988.
Ms. Cahan: Yeah. 988.
Judge: Jackson versus AEG Live. Let's continue.
Q. Doctor, before we broke, we were discussing Propofol , and we mentioned that you had treated
people in the course of your career who had been addicted to Propofol ?
A. Yes.
Q. And can you tell me, what -- first of all, what were the nature -- what were the kinds of people that
get addicted to Propofol ?
A. They were all people who were either anesthesiologists or people who worked in critical care units
in hospitals.
Q. And did they self-administer?
A. Yes.

Q. And did you ever know of a case where somebody became addicted from the administration of
Propofol by another person?
A. No.
Q. And how -- when they become addicted to Propofol , just what is the sort of typical thing that
happens to a person who is becoming Propofol addicted? How do they get the Propofol ? What do
they do? What happens to them?
A. Well, they steal it from the -- either the operating room or from the critical care unit where it's being
used and then will, you know, either take it home and inject it at home or inject it in the bathroom or
wherever to get the effect that they want.
Q. And is Propofol a long-acting drug or fast-acting drug?
A. It's a very fast-acting, short-acting drug.
Q. And does the effect of it last a long time, or does it disappear quickly?
A. After the infusion of Propofol is stopped, the effect wears off very quickly.
Q. So that is the -- are the circumstances under which the Propofol , people become Propofol
addicted, at all similar to the circumstances, based on your review of the medical records, that Michael
Jackson received Propofol over the years?
A. No. Totally different.
Q. And did he receive it in connection with both outpatient treatments and inpatient treatments for
various medical conditions?
A. Yes.
Q. By the way, how popular is Propofol as an anesthetic?
A. It's currently, I think, the most widely used anesthetic in the world.
Q. And is there another name that it goes by?
A. Yes. Diprivan.
Q. Diprivan. So is Diprivan the brand name?
A. Yes.
Q. And Propofol is the generic?
A. Propofol is the generic.
Q. Now, under your direction, was a chart developed which showed the use that -- the administration

of Michael Jackson of Propofol over the years? Again, starting with the Dangerous tour up until the
present time?
Mr. Panish: Do you have a microscope?
Mr. Schnoll: Yes.
Q. Okay. Now, first of all, was there any record that he ever received Propofol during the Dangerous
tour?
A. None that I could find.
Q. Okay. Was there -- did anyone ever say that he received it during that tour?
A. Yes.
Q. Who said it?
A. Debbie Rowe.
Q. And Debbie Rowe was his ex-wife; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And do you know whether he did or did not receive Propofol during that tour?
A. She, in, I think it was a deposition or whatever that I read, said that she wasn't sure. She called it
Propofol , then called it fentanyl. It wasn't clear. She didn't know the names. So I really don't know
whether it was Propofol or fentanyl or whatever because she wasn't clear on what it was.
Q. But at least somebody said -- and then -- she had some prior nursing background, Debbie Rowe,
didn't
She?
A. I don't think she was a nurse. She worked for Dr. Klein, and -- but I don't think she was ever a
licensed nurse.
Q. And she said that he had gotten Propofol administered to him during
That tour; is that right?
A. Yes. But, again, she didn't know whether it was Propofol or fentanyl.
Q. And what kind of a specialist was on that tour for Michael?
A. Well, at the time, she said there was an anesthesiologist who administered the drug.

Judge: I'm sorry. Can you clarify? Was that a tour doctor, or was that person described as a tour
doctor, or was that person just a doctor that she described who tended to him while he was on tour? Do
you recall?
Mr. Schnoll: I'm trying to recall. I think it was a doctor who just came in for the night.
Judge: While he was on tour?
Mr. Schnoll: And administered the drug.
Q. And he was an anesthesiologist, the person, whoever did it; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And did -- and what was it -- what was it given to him for?
A. Sleep.
Q. Sleep. Is that an appropriate use of Propofol , by the way?
A. For sleep?
Q. Yes.
A. No. It's not an approved use of Propofol .
Q. Is that the appropriate specialist to use when Propofol is indicated?
A. Yes.
Q. An anesthesiologist? Now, after that, between 1994 and 1996, was there any record of any Propofol
use under any circumstances?
A. I did not see any in the records I reviewed.
Q. And in the History tour in 1996, was there an anesthesiologist who made a couple of appearances
on that tour?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you remember his name?
A. I think it was Forecast.
Q. Well, I think we got that mixed up with the other tour.
A. Oh.

Q. Forecast, I think, was first. Was it Ratner?

A. Ratner.
Q. Do we know Dr. Ratner administered something to Michael on that tour?
A. Yes.
Q. Do we know what it was?
A. He would not say.
Q. In his deposition?
A. Right.
Q. Okay. And then certainly if it was Propofol for sleep, it would not be indicated; is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Now, in 1998, he had some dental procedures; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And there was a Dr. Quinn who gave Propofol ?
A. Yes.
Q. And was that appropriate to use under the circumstances of the dental procedures that he had?
A. Yes.
Q. And he had -- that was a number of different dental procedures in 1998, 1999. And then he had
some dermatological procedures with Dr. Klein and Mr. Fournier. But was David Fournier a nurse?
A. He's a nurse anesthetist.
Q. Okay. Was that an appropriate specialist to administer Propofol ?
A. Yes.
Q. And was that with some treatment with Dr. Klein?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Now that brings us up to 2002. And, again, there was a number of surgical procedures by Dr.
Klein. You reviewed Dr. Klein's records, did you not?

A. Yes.
Q. And was the administration of Propofol a proper use of that drug during those procedures?
A. Yes.
Q. And, also, Dr. -- these are all for limited procedures; is that right?
A. That's correct.
Q. In other words, this would not be a complete -- out for hours and hours and hours?
A. No. It wouldn't be out for hours and hours.
Q. Okay. And this Mr. Fournier, the registered nurse anesthetist, was the person who administered
under those circumstances; is that right?
A. That's right.
Q. And he had other plastic surgeries with Dr. Virgil and Dr. Habashy, and, again, was Propofol given
during those?
A. Yes.
Q. And more with Dr. Klein in 2004, more surgical procedures; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And then -- I'm sorry. 2003. And then from 2004 to mid 2008, May of 2008, is there any record of
him ever having any Propofol ?
A. No.
Q. And then in May of 2008, he saw a Dr. Adams who was -- who is an anesthesiologist, right, for
dental procedures?
A. Correct.
Q. And in the course of dental procedures, he had Propofol ; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Was it an appropriate use?
A. Yes.
Q. And Dr. Quinn gave it for a dental procedure. Was that an appropriate use?
A. Yes.

Q. And then Dr. Murray gave it for what indication?

A. Sleep.
Q. And was that an appropriate use?
A. No.
Q. And was he an appropriate fit and competent kind of a specialist? I mean, whether it was
appropriate to use it or not, was he a fit and competent kind of specialist to administer Propofol ?
A. No.
Q. Why not?
A. He was not an anesthetist or anesthesiologist.
Q. Based on your review of the records, was there any indication whatsoever that Michael Jackson,
prior to meeting Dr. Murray, was ever addicted to Propofol ?
A. No.
Q. "no" meaning?
A. No, he was not -- no evidence that he was addicted to Propofol .
Q. Okay. Was there ever any evidence, at least until he met Dr. Murray, that he was dependent on
Propofol ?
A. No.
Q. And based upon your review of the records, were there -- did he suffer from insomnia?
A. Yes.
Q. And were there any circumstances which made his insomnia worse?
A. Yes.
Q. What were the circumstances?
Ms. Cahan: Objection. Outside the scope --
Judge: Sustained.
Ms. Cahan: -- and cumulative.

Q. Assume -- by the way, have you read Dr. Czeisler's testimony?

A. Yes.
Q. And did you read that from his trial testimony?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Assume that Dr. Czeisler had said that Michael was suffering from insomnia and that he had
-- that his insomnia was worse during performance and touring; okay? Can you tell me whether or not
you have an opinion as to whether or not the use of Propofol was justified for treating the insomnia?
A. Yes.
Q. What is the opinion?
A. It's inappropriate.
Q. And would it be appropriate even if Michael Jackson requested it? Would that make it appropriate?
A. No.
Q. Is there evidence in the record -- question withdrawn. We went up in the course of the earlier
discussion, we talked about Michael's use and the administration of Demerol and the prescription of
Demerol to Michael over the years, and you pointed out the various blocks of time where there was
absolutely nothing. In the year 2008 did Michael again go to see Dr. Klein for dermatological
procedures in preparation for the this is it tour?
Ms. Cahan: I'm sorry. Did you say 2008?
Mr. Koskoff: Yeah. It was mid -- we have some slides. Have you looked at the slides? Do you have
any objection?
Mr. Panish: She said it was okay.
Ms. Cahan: Which slides are we talking about?
Mr. Koskoff: We're going to start with -- we have three exhibits. The first is exhibit 985. And,
actually, yeah -- I withdraw my last question. I'm going to go to 2009. April of 2009, although there
was some earlier visits to Dr. Klein.
Q. And starting in April of 2009, did you -- under your direction, did we make a graph showing the
Propofol administration to Michael Jackson?
Ms. Cahan: This is Propofol .

Mr. Koskoff: I'm sorry.

Q. Demerol administration to Michael Jackson?
A. Yes.
Mr. Koskoff: Okay. And that is exhibit 985-1. Can we put that up, please?
Ms. Cahan: No objection.
Mr. Koskoff: Actually, before we do -- leave it up there.
Q. But I want to ask you a question. Michael first went to Dr. Klein in 2008, at the end of 2008; is that
correct?
Ms. Cahan: Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence.
Mr. Koskoff: Well, it's going to come from Klein's records.
Q. Did he go for dermatological procedures where he received Demerol injections in the year 2008?
A. Yes.
Q. And what level -- at what level -- that's not on this chart. But at what level did he start the Demerol
in the 2008?
A. 100 milligrams.
Q. 100 milligrams?
A. Correct.
Q. Now, we talked a lot about tolerance and withdrawal. Can you tell me, first of all, what is -- what
does 100 milligrams mean in terms of Demerol? How is that characterized? If a person who had never
had a Demerol dependency, what would 100 milligrams signify?
A. If they never had -- it would be a good dose of Demerol.
Q. Is it higher than a person who had never in their life ever had a dependency? Would it be higher
than you would ordinarily start at?
A. It would be a little bit higher than you would normally have.
Q. Now, with a person with the history that Michael Jackson had, where you pointed to two times in

particular when he had Demerol dependencies, what does 100 milligrams mean to you as an addiction
specialist?
A. That that would probably be an appropriate dose.
Q. And if he had been receiving -- if he had been taking the Demerol between 2003 and 2008, what
would the 100 milligrams signify?
A. That would probably not be an effective dose, because he would have significant tolerance to the
Demerol.
Q. So do you have an opinion, based on a reasonable probability, as to whether Michael Jackson was
taking Demerol between 2003 and 2008 on a regular basis?
A. Yes.
Q. What is your opinion?
A. That he wasn't.
Q. And what would his levels be like if he was a drug addict, and he was taking Demerol on a regular
basis between 2003 and 2008? What would the levels of Demerol be like if he had normal tolerance
building up?
A. He would have to take a much higher dose of Demerol in order to get the desired effect.
Q. So he started off at 100 milligrams, and that was -- I know I don't have the slide. I'll try to correct
that right after lunch to show the 2008 visits to Dr. Klein. But then, after getting that starting dose of
100 milligrams, did he get that for a couple of times, and then did he gradually build up over the course
of his treatment with Dr. Klein?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Now, this chart, which is
Mr. Panish: 985-1.
Q. Yeah. This is 985-1.
Mr. Koskoff: It's actually, truthfully, not the one I really wanted. Okay. I got myself all -- I think I'm
in shape now. Let's put up exhibit 984-1.
Okay.
Q. Now, 984-1. This is a bar graph; is that correct?

A. Yes.
Q. And does that show the levels of Demerol that Dr. Klein started with when he was doing his
procedures in
October of 2008?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And that was that 100 milligrams, you said; is that right?
A. That's correct.

Q. And he had that on a number of occasions?
A. Correct.
Q. And then it went up -- in fact, he went up -- for how many months did he take just 100 milligrams at
these procedures?
A. It looks like it's through November, December.
Q. Okay.
A. Little bit of October.
Q. If he had been an addict, would that 100 milligrams have done anything for him in terms of
painkilling?
A. No.
Q. And then it went up in January. And you might be able to explain something to us here, doctor.
When a person has had prior drug dependency, what happens after they start taking the drug again, in
terms of their tolerance?
A. If a person has been previously dependent on a drug, and they go for periods of time without the
drug, and then the drug is reinstated, their tolerance goes up much more rapidly than if a naive person
had been given that same amount of the drug. And that's because of the prior history. And there's
obviously some memory in the central nervous system to that previous taking of the drug.
Q. And when you say "naive," what is that? Is that a person who never had the drug?
A. The person never had the drug, correct.
Q. So the person who has the prior tolerance, the prior dependence, and they start back on the drug, the
tolerance builds up more quickly?
A. The tolerance goes up more rapidly.

Q. And is that something of a challenge for a doctor treating such a patient, to make sure it's titrated
properly?
A. Yes.
Q. And fit and competent doctors, do they know how to do that, surgeons and people who use
Demerol?
A. Yes.
Q. Now -- then it went up to 200 milligrams; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And we can see in April, there seems like it went up to over 350 milligrams at one point; is that
correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And then it started to go down again?
A. Yes.
Q. And the last dose was back at what?
A. Last dose was down again to 100 milligrams.
Q. And -- now, let's go to 985-2, which shows the last -- well, actually, you know what? Before we do
that, let's go to -1 again.
Mr. Koskoff: And is there an overlay for that? Is there --
Judge: So is it a fallacy that somebody who's drug dependent just keeps asking for more and more
and more? If it's tapering off at some point, what accounts for that?
Mr. Schnoll: Well, obviously, the doctor was trying to taper.
Judge: Oh, I see. The doctor might have been intentionally trying to taper?
Mr. Schnoll: Yes.
Q. Is that the way -- see, now we may be entering a part that your honor is questioning here. The dose
goes all the way up to the top point and then starts to go down, and is that what doctors are supposed to
do to get people off drugs when they're being used for appropriate purposes?
A. Yes. Supposed to try to -- if the person is to come off of the drug, you try to taper them over time to
get them off the drug rather than precipitously stopping the drug.

Q. And is that what apparently, according to the records, Dr. Klein did?
A. It's looks like that's what Dr. Klein was doing.
Q. Now, this chart also discusses something else. It shows a gap between the first two administrations
of Demerol of 43 days. If Michael Jackson had been a drug addict, and if he wasn't getting drugs from
somewhere else, would there be any -- would he be suffering any symptoms during that period of time?
A. Yes, he would.
Q. Is there a record he was getting Demerol from anywhere else?
A. No.
Q. And then there are a few other days, and then there's a 14-day gap, a 22-day gap, a 31-day gap, a
14-day gap, and then they come closer together; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, let's go to the -- to the 985-2.
Judge: It's noon. So let's stop here before you start with this next graph. I'll see you back at 1:30.
Thank you.
Lunch break,,,,,,,,
Continued direct examination of Sidney Schnoll.
Q. Doctor, when we -- When we broke, I think you had just shown the jury a chart which showed the
Demerol usage of Michael in the -- With Dr. Klein in the few months before he died, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And the last Demerol administration was approximately when, if you remember?
A. The last -- Very last, I think June 22nd.
Q. And the amount of Demerol prescribed at that time was what?
A. 100 milligrams.

Q. And when his autopsy was performed, was there any Demerol found in his system at all?
A. No.
Q. Was there any metabolite of Demerol found in his system? In other words, this Normeperidine
that you had spoken of?
A. No.
Q. And can you tell us, knowing from the pharmacological properties of that drug whether at the time
of his death, that Demerol, given the history of its usage there, would have had any effect whatsoever
on him by the 25th of June?
A. It wouldn't have had any.
Q. Would it have had any effect on his insomnia at that point?
A. Probably not.
Q. In the earlier stage of the administration of it in April when he was getting the larger amounts,
could it have had an effect on his -- His sleep habits?
A. Yes.
Q. And what effect does -- What does Demerol do to sleep?
A. Well, when you're taking it, it could make you sleepy when you're -- When you're on the Demerol.
Q. And when you go off it?
A. If -- If you're dependent, you could have some insomnia for a while.
Q. Now, from -- By the way, in reviewing the records, Michael Jackson's medical records, were the
records all in his name, or were there some other names that he used in the -- That were used by the
Doctors in the records for Michael?
A. There were other names.
Q. And one of them is Amar Arnold, and there was one or two different names, is that right?
A. There were several different names. I don't recall them all.
Q. OK And is that something that, as a person who has treated celebrity athletes and -- And others
over the years -- Did you find that unusual?
A. No.
Q. Why is that?

A. Well, people who are celebrities often don't want other people prying into their medical records, so
they will use pseudonyms in order to protect themselves from -- From that level of prying. If you
want, I could give an example of --
Q. Could you?
A. -- A problem when someone didn't use a pseudonym. A hospital I was working in, Frank Sinatra
was admitted to the hospital after collapsing onstage, and the hospital computer system was overloaded
when everybody tried to get in to find out what happened to him. And that was not just physicians,
that was anybody who had access to the system. So this is not an uncommon --
Q. And so these celebrities often use other names?
A. Correct.
Q. And sometimes are prescriptions given in the name of an aide or someone else who is involved?
A. Yes.
Q. And there's been some testimony, I believe, that a prescription was given to Karen Faye for
Michael's behalf.
A. Yes, I saw that.
Q. Now, in addition to medications -- The medications you mentioned for pain that are opiate
medications, and there -- Of course, there are a lot of over-the-counter pain medications, aspirin,
Tylenol and all those, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And are there other prescription medications that are given for pain now that are not opiate-based?
A. Yes.
Q. What -- Could you give us a few examples?
A. One of them that's used a lot now is Lyrica. That's the trade name, its generic name is Pregabalin.
There's Neurontin, which is Gabapentin, Elavil, the antidepressant Amitriptyline, is used to treat pain.
Q. OK Are these -- Are these options for people who have a sensitivity for Opioids?
A. Well, they -- They can be options, and, also, they are used in specific types of pain.
Q. OK And here in California, we have medical Marijuana. Is that something that is also used for
pain?
A. Yes.
Q. And does that have other uses, as well?

A. People sometimes take it for sleep, they use it for increased appetite.
Q. And, again, this is medical uses for this drug?
A. Yes.
Q. OK Now I just want to go in a little bit into just a little bit of a different area. I don't have too
much more, because I'd love to get you to be able to go back home today if we could.
A. So would I.
Q. Do you have an opinion whether a Doctor -- You've reviewed Dr. Murray's background and
records, have you not?
A. Yes.
Q. And his history, his specialties and areas of specialties?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you have an opinion whether an interventional cardiologist was the right Doctor for AEG to
have for -- To hire for -- To treat Michael Jackson?
A. Yes.
Ms. Cahan: objection, assumes a hiring, it's cumulative, it's outside the scope of this witness's
expertise.
Judge: sustained.
Q. By do you have an opinion as to whether or not a Doctor with Dr. Murray's background was fit
and competent to treat Michael Jackson's history of pain problems?
A. Yes.
Q. What is that opinion?
A. No, he was not competent.
Q. Do you have an opinion as to whether a Doctor with Dr. Murray's background was fit and
competent to handle Michael's history of drug dependency issues?
A. Yes.
Q. What is that opinion?
A. He was not competent.

Q. Do you have an opinion as to whether a Doctor with Dr. Murray's background was fit and
competent to handle his sleep problems?
Ms. Cahan: Objection, outside the scope.
Judge: Sustained.
Q. Were there -- Do you have an opinion as to whether there were events which led up to the hiring of
Dr. Murray that made it -- Him suspicious as a candidate?
Ms. Cahan: Objection.
Judge: Sustained as to hiring.
Mr. Panish: Just ask a hypothetical.
Judge: If you want to ask a hypothetical, you can do that.
Ms. Cahan: This is also cumulative of testimony of Dr. Wohlgelernter.
Mr. Koskoff: I'm sorry. I was not here in court at that time. I apologize, your honor.
Mr. Putnam: Your honor, it wasn't just yesterday, this is something that was subject to --
Judge: No harm, no foul at this point.
Mr. Koskoff: I want you to assume that AEG Hired Dr. Murray.
Q. Do you have -- Do you have an opinion as to whether or not the -- He was a fit and competent
Doctor for them to hire?
A. Yes.
Q. What is it?
A. That he was not.
Q. And what is the reason why his background was not suited for this?
Ms. Cahan: Objection, outside the scope.
Judge: Well, "for this. " remember --
Mr. Koskoff: For the treatments of the pain problems, sleep problems that we've already outlined?
Judge: -- The pain and drug dependency is all I've allowed him to offer at this point.
Mr. Koskoff: Yes, your honor.

Ms. Cahan: Asked and answered, but --

Mr. Koskoff: The pain and the drug-related problems.
Judge: Overruled.
Mr. Schnoll: Could you --
Mr. Koskoff: Yes.
Mr. Schnoll: I'm getting lost here.
Mr. Koskoff: I want you to assume that AEG Hired Dr. Murray.
Mr. Schnoll: OK
Mr. Koskoff: And I want your opinion as to whether he was fit and competent to treat Michael's pain
problems.
Mr. Schnoll: No, he was not.
Q. Was he fit and competent to treat his drug history problems, his problems with his drug
dependencies?
A. No, he was not.
Q. And why is it that you believe that?
A. Well, what I know of Dr. Murray, he was an interventional cardiologist, which is a highly
specialized area of medicine. And interventional cardiologists have no background in treating
problems of treating substance abusers, they have no background in treating pain. They pass catheters
and look at hearts and do things like that which are totally unrelated.
Q. Doesn't he have a background -- Doesn't he have a degree and certificate in internal medicine?
A. Yes.
Q. Why wouldn't that qualify him?
A. Well, all of us start out with sort of general background in medicine. But then when we
specialize, we become sort of more refined, and it doesn't mean that we have expertise in other areas.
Q. Is there anything in the record which made you -- Which suggested that Dr. Murray did have any
competence in the area of sleep management?
Ms. Cahan: Objection, outside the scope.
Mr. Koskoff: I'm sorry. I apologize. Pain management.

Mr. Schnoll: No, there is nothing that indicated --

Q. And is there anything in the record that showed any competence in the management of withdrawal
and drug dependency?
A. No.
Q. Is there anything in the record that showed he was in the least way competent to administer
Propofol ?
A. No.
Q. Now, as an addiction specialist, has it been part of -- First of all, you said for over 30 years, you
treated patients with drug addiction problems, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And you had not treated patients in the last 12 years, is that right?
A. That's correct.
Q. But during the last 12 years, have you remained involved in advising major drug companies
concerning treatment for drug-addicted people?
A. Yes.
Q. And are you -- Have you maintained a currency in the world's literature regarding treatment
options for people who have drug problems?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you have an opinion, based on reasonable medical probability, if Michael Jackson had been
under the care of a fit and competent physician, he would have been able to get off all medications,
including Demerol, Benzodiazepines and Propofol ?
A. Yes, I have an opinion.
Q. And what is your opinion?
A. If his underlying medical conditions, the pain, the insomnia, had been appropriately treated, he
may have been able to get off of those medications or been treated appropriately for those problems.
Q. And if it was not possible to get him to treat the underlying conditions without medication, do you
have an opinion as to whether he could have been properly treated with medication by a fit and
competent Doctor
A. Yes.
Q. -- For those same conditions?

A. Yes.
Q. Do you have an opinion as to whether if he'd had a fit and competent physician, that he would
have been able to continue to perform as a musician?
A. Yes.
Q. What is that opinion?
A. That he -- He would have been able to continue to perform if he was appropriately treated for the
problems that he had.
Q. And what kind of care did he need? I think you already said it as --
A. Well, he needed -- I mean, the two major problems that I'm aware of were the pain and the
insomnia, and if he had someone who was knowledgeable in the treatment of pain and could have
treated his pain appropriately, it would have helped. Maybe having
A. Physical therapist or someone like that as part of the group working with him. And somebody
who was competent in understanding sleep problems, and approached his sleep problems in a way that
could have provided him with the rest that he desired.
Q. Would it have had any effect -- If he had been properly treated, do you think that he would have
been able to continue to work as a musician?
A. Yes.
Q. Would it have had any effect on shortening his work life as a musician?
A. No, it wouldn't.
Q. I want you to assume that Michael was not addicted to opiate drugs in 2009, but was dependent on
them. Do you have an opinion -- First of all, do you think he was dependent on them in 2009?
A. I'm not sure if he was. He might -- Might have been, but there's not a lot of evidence to support
that.
Q. Let's assume that he was -- Worst-case scenario, that he was dependent. Do you think that it was
probable that proper treatment would have been able to eliminate his dependency?
A. Yes.
Q. Now I want you to go one step further. I want to ask you this. I'm not supposed to ask this
question. Could you be wrong?
A. Could I be wrong?
Judge: Wait a minute. That's vague. About what?

Mr. Koskoff: Yeah, that is vague. But let's assume -- Let's assume that Michael really was addicted
to drugs in 2009.
Q. First of all, you don't see any evidence to support that, is that right?
A. No, I don't.
Q. Could -- But if he was addicted to -- To Demerol in 2009, do you have an opinion as to his
prognosis for successful treatment of an addiction -- Of his addiction if he had had a fit and competent
Doctor?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. What's your opinion?
A. He -- He could have been treated -- He could have been appropriately treated if he had the right
people available to assist him in the treatment of his problem.
Q. What was his overall physical condition, by the way, aside from addiction-related issues, as judged
by the autopsy?
A. The autopsy said he was really in very good condition.
Q. And did he -- Would that have been a good prognosticating factor in terms of his ability to combat
his addiction?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you tell me whether or not his having a mother like Katherine Jackson and two -- And his
three children -- Was that a prognostic factor, and how does that play?
A. Having the support of family and environment is very critical in helping to overcome addiction.
Q. Does his career play any role in whether or not he'd be a good candidate if he had been addicted --
Whether he'd be a good candidate for treatment?
A. Yes, it would play a role.
Q. What role does it play?
A. Well, some of the best outcomes in addiction treatment are in people who have a lot to lose if they
continue in -- In their addiction. I mean, this is true for physicians, pilots, people like that who could
lose their careers if they continue in their addiction.
Q. Would love of his fans play any role one way or another?
A. Well, he said he liked to do things for his fans. I read that. And so I think that that would have
been important for him.

Q. And, by the way, you said that the biggest factor leading someone to be an addict is -- Is genetics.
I think you said that was the most -- I'm not sure exactly how you phrased it, but that was the most
significant --
A. That's a key factor, yes.
Q. And based on Mr. Jackson's family, do you know of anybody in his family who had an addiction
problem?
A. No, I don't.
Q. Is that a good prognostic factor for him?
A. Yes.
Q. Did he have resources to pay for the best treatment if he had come under the care of a fit and
competent Doctor?
A. Yes.
Q. And is there anything -- Assuming now that he was not addicted, but that he had those periods of
drug dependency, is there anything about that, about his addiction or his drug-dependency problem that
would present any life-threatening situation for him?
A. No.
Q. Is there anything that would in any way cause him to die an early life -- An early death, as Dr.
Earley said he was --
Ms. Cahan: Objection, outside the scope. He's qualified as an expert only on effect of addiction on
life expectancy, not effect of anything on life expectancy.
Judge: Rephrase it.
Q. Do you have an opinion as to whether the -- Any drug-dependency issues, what they -- Any effect
they might have had on his life expectancy?
A. Yes.
Q. What is that?
A. That if appropriately treated, it would have had no effect.
Q. What are the problems that -- Do some drug addicts die early from various causes?
A. Yes.
Q. And what are the most prevalent -- What are the most prevalent causes for drug addicts and drug-

dependent people to die of?

A. Overdose, infection are very common.
Q. HIV ?
A. HIV , that's an infection, yes.
Q. And what other infections?
A. Bacterial endocarditis.
Q. And how -- How do these people get contact with these infectious things? Is it the drug itself that
causes them to contract these infections?
A. No.
Q. What causes them to get these infections?
A. The infections come from injecting with contaminated needles, needles either contaminated with
blood from somebody who has HIV Infection or a dirty needle that has bacteria on it that results in the
development of bacterial endocarditis or abscesses.
Q. Would you expect a person who has received all of his treatment with -- Of injectable drugs
through competent physicians to contract those kinds of infections?
A. No.
Q. And do you have an opinion as to whether or not, even if he had been addicted, which I know you
think he wasn't -- But if he was addicted, whether or not, given proper treatment, it would had any
effect on his life expectancy?
A. Yes.
Q. And what is that opinion?
A. If he got proper treatment, he would have had a normal life expectancy.
Q. And, by the way, are there drug-addicted musicians, people who have had histories of drug
addiction and musicians playing today after many years?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you name a band?
A. Keith Richards and the Rolling Stones.
Q. How long have they been playing?

A. 50 years.
Q. And has he had addiction problems his whole life?
A. He's had --
Ms. Cahan: Objection, calls for speculation, lacks foundation.
Q. Based on your review of his book.. Of his autobiography?
Judge: Sustained. If he has some experience, then -- Sustained.
Mr. Koskoff: OK
Q. Have you read his autobiography, Doctor?
A. I'm reading it right now.
Q. OK And if -- If a person receives drugs under medical supervision, is there any reason why they
should -- And under medical prescription, is there any reason why they should not live a normal life
from the drug problem?
A. No.
Q. I just have one last question, and then I'm through for now. And that is, you are on the -- Are you
on the Editorial Board -- First of all, are you familiar with an article that Dr. Earley published about
Propofol addiction in 22 patients?
A. Yes.
Q. And what was the journal in which that was published?
A. Journal of Addicted Diseases.
Q. The Journal of Addicted Diseases. Are you familiar with that journal?
A. Yes.
Q. And how are you familiar with it?
A. I'm on the Editorial Board of that journal.
Q. For how long have you been on the Editorial Board of that journal?
A. Oh, my gosh. Probably 20 some odd years.
Q. You were not -- Were you one of the people who actually reviewed that article, or were you not?
A. No, I did not review that article.

Q. And does the journal have any ethical requirements for people publishing articles in that journal?
Ms. Cahan: Oobjection, outside the scope of this witness's expertise. And I think there's also some
confusion about what journal -- He said the Journal of Addicted Diseases. That's not the proper
journal for this study.
Mr. Schnoll: I'm sorry. It's Journal of Addiction Medicine.
Q. How long have you been on the Editorial Board of that journal?
A. Since it was founded I think about five, six years ago, maybe longer.
Q. OK And do you have -- Are there various ethical requirements for people who submit articles to
that journal?
Judge: I'm not sure where you're going with that. Maybe we should have a sidebar. Why don't you
talk to Ms. Cahan. Maybe it's something that's not -- Maybe it's not something we need a sidebar.
Mr. Koskoff: There's a question of foundation.
Q. Are you familiar with the journal -- First all, you're an editor of this journal, the Journal of
Addiction Medicine?
A. I'm on the Editorial Board, I'm not an editor.
Q. And as a person on the Editorial Board, are you familiar with the requirements for articles that are
being submitted to this journal?
A. Yes.
Q. Are there requirements with regard to the disclosure of conflicts of interest by authors who are
submitting articles to that journal?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you review -- Is this a copy -- This exhibit 989, is this an official copy of the -- Of the
requirements that were applicable to the -- To people submitting articles to that journal?
A. My eyesight is not that good to see that.
Mr. Koskoff: May I approach the witness?
Judge: Has the defense seen it?
Ms. Cahan: He took my copy away. I haven't had a chance to read it. I just got it after lunch. If I
could have that copy back --
Mr. Koskoff: Can we show it on the screen?

Mr. Panish: Just on his.

Mr. Boyle: On his.
Mr. Panish: On his screen.
Mr. Koskoff: Here we go. Thank you. Let me show the witness.
Judge: And this is exhibit number?
Mr. Boyle: 989.
Judge: Thank you.
Q. I'm going to ask you, is exhibit 989 requirements concerning the submission of articles for the
Journal of Addiction Medicine that you're familiar with?
A. Yes.
Q. And those have a requirement that includes the requirement to disclose various conflicts of
interest?
A. Yes.
Q. And is this -- Is this an authoritative -- In other words, is this the official -- An official publication
of this organization?
A. The Journal of Addiction Medicine is the official publication of the American society of addiction
medicine.
Q. And is this document reliable and authoritative for --
A. Yes. That's right on their website for authors regarding publications.
Mr. Koskoff: And you said it's reliable and authoritative. OK I have no further questions. Thank
you.
Judge: OK Thank you. Cross-examination?
Cross-examination by Ms. Cahan:
Q. Good afternoon, Dr. Schnoll.
A. Good afternoon.
Q. I'm going to start sort of back at the beginning where we started yesterday with your background,

because there are a couple of things I just wanted to make sure that I understood. You said that you
initially got interested in addiction work through your work as a resident and working in free clinics in
Philadelphia?
A. Yes. I was an intern at the time, actually.
Q. OK And Kermit Gosnell got you to volunteer at a free clinic in Mantua, and then you volunteered
at the help --
A. That's correct.
Q. -- Center -- The help free clinic? Is that what it was called?
A. No, no. The was called the young Greg society (phonetic), and I worked there for a while.
Q. And that was Dr. Gosnell's --
A. That was Dr. Gosnell's clinic. And then I began to work at the help free clinic afterwards. When
I volunteered there, I no longer volunteered at the Mantua clinic.
Q. And it was through some people you knew at the help free clinic that you got involved in giving
medical care to concert attendees, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And this is in like the late '60's or early '70's?
A. Yes.
Q. OK And you considered yourself a rock doc at that point, right?
A. Well, people called me that, yes.
Q. In fact, you came up with the term "rock doc," right?
A. At one point, yes.
Q. And I think you even said you copyrighted it.
A. Yes.
Q. What's a rock doc?
A. Somebody who worked at concerts and dealt with rock and roll.
Q. We heard some testimony from Ms. Seawright
A. Couple of days ago. Did you review her trial testimony?

A. What was her name?

Q. Jean Seawright?
A. No.
Q. OK So you didn't see her discussion of
A. Concern about rock docs as a category of physicians?

Mr. Panish: I'm going to object. She didn't testify about --
Judge: Sustained.
Q. By
Ms. Cahan: Are you aware of any testimony of any of plaintiffs' experts about a risk inherent in
physicians who treat -- Who go on tours with musicians?
A. Am I aware of risks who go on tour --
Q. Are you aware that there's some people who have testified, or -- That Doctors who go on -- The
risks attendant to Doctors going on tour with rock bands?
A. Yes.
Mr. Panish: I object, it misstates her testimony.
Judge: Overruled.
Mr. Schnoll: Yes.
Ms. Cahan: "Yes. " OK
Q. And do you think there's anything wrong inherently with Doctors who treat rock musicians or go
on tour with them?
A. It depends on what they do when they go on tour with them, and when they treat them.
Q. Do you think, as a category, those Doctors are less ethical than other Doctors?
A. As I said, I would have to know the individuals involved. I don't -- Who is included in the
category? I don't know who those people are.

Q. So you don't know anybody else who is a Doctor on concert tours?

A. I know some people who work at concerts, yes.
Q. OK And you did that yourself, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And fair to say that you never violated any of your ethics as a physician or did anything improper
when you were treating people in connection with giving medical care in connection with concerts?
A. That's correct.
Q. Nothing about that scenario sort of swayed you in your medical ethics?
A. Not that I can recall, no.
Q. OK So if you're a good, ethical Doctor, just because you're put in a concert setting doesn't make
you change the way you practice medicine, right?
A. That's correct.
Q. You're pretty passionate about music, right?
A. I -- I like music, yes.
Q. And you've attended concerts regularly for many decades?
A. Yes.
Q. And you testified yesterday about your work at concerts in the '70's running some medical tents,
right?
A. Medical facilities, yes.
Q. And those were set up to treat the concert attendees, correct?
A. Primarily, yes.
Q. OK And you talked about some of the bands that performed at concerts where you were running
medical facilities, right?
A. Yes.
Q. You mentioned Fleetwood Mac and the Rolling Stones?
A. Yes.
Q. You ran the medical facilities at a concert that the grateful dead and the band performed at?

A. Yes.
Q. Were you treating those -- The performers at those concerts?
A. There were times when I was asked to treat the performers because of some issues, yes.
Q. Were you hired to treat the performers?
A. I was hired to treat -- Provide medical care at the facility, whether it was the performers or other
people.
Q. Did you have an understanding when you were hired whether your principal job was to treat the
concert-goers, the guests, the fans, as opposed to the band? You were setting up big facilities, right?
A. They -- I was primarily involved in treating the people who attended the event, yes.
Q. OK And you were hired by the promoters for those concerts, right?
A. Yes.
Q. OK Not by the band?
A. Yes.
Q. Not by their managers?
A. Correct.
Q. OK And so you were treating the attendees, and sometimes band members, but you were being
paid by the promoters, right?
A. Correct.
Q. Did you think that created a conflict of interest for you?
A. Did I think it created a conflict of interest? As long as I acted ethically, no, I did not think it
created a conflict of interest.
Q. OK And you acted that way, right?
A. Yes.
Q. You took some form of the Hippocratic Oath when you completed medical school?
A. Yes.
Q. And that oath, among other things, tells you to put patient care first, right?

A. Correct.
Q. And you adhered to that oath in your work as a concert Doctor?
A. Yes.
Q. Even though you were being paid by the promoters for the concert and not the patients you were
taking care of?
A. Correct.
Q. And you haven't done this kind of concert work since the '70's, right?
A. That's correct.
Q. And when you were doing it, you would sometimes recruit other physicians to help you provide
medical services at the concerts, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you brought in people that you knew personally?
A. Yes.
Q. Your co-residents or friends who were Doctors?
A. Yes.
Q. So they were generally still Doctors in training?
A. Some of them were still Doctors in training, yes.
Q. They weren't all board-certified physicians at that point in their careers?
A. Some may have been. I can't recall precisely.
Q. But not all of them, right? If they were residents, they wouldn't have passed their boards?
A. They would not have --
Q. And you didn't run any sort of background checks on the Doctors that you brought in to help you
because you knew them, right?
A. That's correct.
Q. Didn't do any check into their credit history or their financial situation?
A. I knew most of them, and knew them pretty well.

Q. Didn't look at how much debt they had from medical school before you asked them to help you
out with these concerts?
A. No.
Q. And you said also, I believe yesterday, that there were times when instead of just doing one
festival, you'd go on a couple of -- You'd follow a band for a couple of shows on tour?
A. Yes.
Q. And -- The longest you did that for was like four or five days, you never went on a whole tour?
A. Correct.
Q. Because you had some friends who ran a sound company?
A. Yes.
Q. And so they'd go on tour, and you'd sort of join up with them for a few days and tag along?
A. Yes.
Q. And when you went on the tours, as opposed to the single concerts, you weren't there as a
physician, right? You hadn't been hired to provide medical care by the promoters of the tour?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you weren't paid when you would go with your friends on these tours?
A. That's correct.
Q. OK So to the extent that you were providing medical care for concerts, it was individual festivals
or outdoor concerts where you'd be hired by the promoters, come in, run the medical services, but you
never accompanied a band on tour -- You were never hired as a Doctor to accompany a band on tour,
right?
A. That's correct.
Q. So I think you said yesterday your involvement in this case began when a colleague of yours got a
phone call from plaintiffs' counsel.
A. Yes.
Q. And recommended you, to your understanding?
A. Yes.
Q. And that's a colleague at penny associates?

A. Yes.
Q. Penny associates does primarily consulting work for the pharmaceutical industry?
A. Yes.
Q. Helping the pharmaceutical industry manage risk attendant to drugs that they sell?
A. That's part of what we do, yes.
Q. Is that the focus of your work at penny associates?
A. That's the primary focus of my work, yes.
Q. And I don't think we talked about this on direct, but you're getting paid for your work on this case?
A. Penny associates is getting paid for my work.
Q. Right. And penny associates turns around and pays you a salary and, if you're lucky, a bonus?
A. I'm a salaried employee of penny associates, and there are bonuses paid at the end of the year if
there's money to pay bonuses.
Q. Right. So penny associates is charging $790 an hour for your time in this case, correct?
A. I -- I think that's the correct figure. I -- I don't know. I think it's the correct figure.
Q. OK And you've met with or spoken to plaintiffs' attorneys a number of times with regard to your
work on this case, right?
A. Yes.
Q. How many times have you had phone calls or meetings with plaintiffs' attorneys?
A. Probably between 10 and 15 times.
Q. OK How many hours have you billed for this case so far?
A. I have no idea.
Q. You don't keep track of that time?
A. It goes on a form that I fill out and I send in to penny associates, and then they, you know, tally it
up. But I'm also filling out that same form for other clients with whom we work, and so I'm -- I don't
look at each client and see how many hours I'm filling in for each person, for each client.
Q. OK Appreciate that. Let's see if we can estimate it. You were retained back in January?
A. Yes.

Q. And you've worked -- Can you estimate about how many hours a week or a month you've put into
this since you were retained?
A. It's very hard to say. There were weeks when I probably put in a fair number of hours, maybe
seven or eight hours, and then there would be weeks where I put nothing in, where I did nothing on this
case. So there was no consistent -- It would be hard for me to estimate how many hours.
Q. OK We'll come back to that. I think you said 10 to 15 times you think you've met or spoken
with plaintiffs' counsel related to this case.
A. That's correct.
Q. And who have you spoken with? I assume you've spoken with Mr. Koskoff.
A. Yes.
Q. Carey Reilly?
A. Yes.
Q. Alinor Stirling?
A. I think so, yes.
Q. Bill Bloss?
A. I don't recall speaking with him.
Q. Are you aware of anyone else that you met or spoke with from the Koskoff, Koskoff & Bieder
firm out in Connecticut?
A. I think Marylou Velez, I've spoken to her, yes.
Mr. Koskoff: My assistant, without whom I would be unable to function.
Q. what about plaintiffs' California counsel? Have you spoken to Mr. Panish?
A. I met Mr. Panish for the first time two weeks ago or so, when I was out here. And we said hello
and chatted about things unrelated to the case, pretty much.
Q. Have you met or spoken with Mr. Boyle?
A. I think I met him just here.
Q. Ms. Chang?

A. I don't know who Ms. Chang is.

Q. Mr. Glassman?
A. I've heard his name, but I don't know who he is.
Q. Ms. Farrell?
A. I have no idea who that is.
Q. How about Perry Sanders or anyone from his firm? Have you met with him in connection with
this case?
A. No.
Q. How about Casey Maxwell or anyone from her firm?
A. I don't know who any of these people are.
Ms. Cahan: They're all counsel for plaintiffs in the case, which is why I'm asking.
Mr. Panish: I would object to counsel testifying who is doing what. There's no foundation.
Counsel can't just make statements like that.
Judge: OK Sustained. The statement is stricken.
Q. have you met or spoken with Ms. Sandra Ribera or anyone from her firm in connection with this
case?
A. I don't know who that is, either.
Q. OK Any other lawyers for plaintiffs in this case that you're aware that you've met with or spoken
to in connection with your work on this case?
A. I -- I don't know.
Q. OK You gave a deposition in this case, right?
A. Yes.
Q. Before your deposition, Ms. Reilly typed up
A. List of opinions that you were offering for the purposes of the deposition, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And at the bottom of the list of opinions, there was a note?

Mr. Koskoff: I want to have a sidebar, please. Never mind.

Judge: OK No objection?
Mr. Koskoff: My boss says to forget it.
Judge: OK Withdrawn. Keep going.
Q. do you remember the note that was at the bottom of the list of opinions that plaintiffs' counsel
typed up for you?
A. I remember there was a note there that Ms. Reilly was typing something to remind her to do
something. I don't recall precisely what it said.
Q. OK Do you remember that it was with respect to what you needed to say about being an expert?
A. As I said, I don't recall what it said.
Mr. Panish: He must have given me this for a reason.
Judge: I missed it. What is it?
Mr. Boyle: It's your rulings on Motions In Limine.
Ms. Cahan: May I approach, your honor? I'm going to try to refresh his recollection.
Judge: With the note? OK
Ms. Cahan: With the note. And I'll just draw your attention to the bottom of that second page there.
Q. Does that refresh your recollection about the note that plaintiffs' counsel wrote on your list of
opinions?
A. Yes.
Q. And what did plaintiffs' counsel say there?
A. It says "you must say you're an expert in these opinions. " and then it says "his background, he
coined the phrase 'rock doc' and has treated attendees at rock concerts. "
Q. Where it says you must say you're an expert in these opinions, that's all in capitals?
A. Yes.
Q. With a couple of explanation points?

A. Yes.
Q. And that was a reminder to you when you testified that to be qualified as an expert, you had to say
you were an expert, right?
A. I guess so.
Q. And it helps plaintiffs' counsel out if you say that you're an expert in the opinions that you're
offering for them in this case, right?
A. I presume so, yes.
Q. Right. And, again, plaintiffs are the ones who are paying penny associates for your time and your
testimony here today?
A. Correct.
Q. And then penny pays you your salary and, if you're lucky, a bonus?
A. Correct.
Q. OK I think we covered pretty well the background issues yesterday and today about addiction
and Opiates and Benzos, so I don't want to spend a lot of time on that, but I did just want to come back
to one thing you talked about yesterday with respect to people who can display what looked like signs
of addiction because their pain is being undertreated. Do you remember talking about that a bit
yesterday?
A. Yes.
Q. And there's a term in the field of addiction for this kind of situation, right?
A. Yes.
Q. Pseudo addiction?
A. Yes.
Q. Pseudo addiction is the term that people use for patients who display behaviors that are associated
with addiction, but who are only displaying those behaviors because their pain is being undertreated,
right?
A. Yes.
Q. So someone whose pain is being undertreated but is getting painkillers might resort to the streets
or shopping for Doctors to get additional pain medication to alleviate their pain?
A. Yes, people who are undertreated may show behaviors that can be construed as displaying
addiction kinds of behaviors.

Q. And those -- Those behaviors that could either be indicative of pseudoaddiction or addiction could
be Doctor shopping --
A. Yes.
Q. And can you remind us what Doctor shopping is?
A. Doctor shopping is going from Doctor to Doctor in order to receive medication, often the same
medication.
Q. But pseudo addiction is not the same thing as addiction, right?
A. Correct.
Q. Because if the pseudo addicts pain was being appropriately treated, you'd expect those behaviors
to stop?
A. Yes.
Q. Whereas if someone is truly addicted, those behaviors would -- They're not seeking the drug out to
alleviate pain, they're seeking it out for a high or for some other ancillary purpose?
A. Correct.
Q. And you talked also about physical dependency and how someone can be appropriately treated for
-- By a physician, take the right medication in the right amounts as directed by their Doctor, and still
get physically dependent on the drug?
A. Correct.
Q. And still suffer symptoms of withdrawal if they discontinue use of the drug?
A. Yes.
Q. So fair to say it's really hard to tell the difference between dependency addiction and pseudo
addiction sometimes?
A. It's part of what an addiction specialist does, to iron that out, yes.
Q. For other people, it would be really hard to tell, right?
A. Yes.
Q. Doctors who aren't addiction specialists could even have trouble telling the difference between
pseudo addiction, addiction and dependence?
A. Yes.

Q. Certainly laypeople -- You wouldn't expect laypeople to be able to look at someone and say, "that
person is an addict, that person is a pseudo addict because their pain is being undertreated, and that
person is being appropriately treated and is physically dependent"?
A. Look at them and say that? No, they couldn't look at them and say that.
Q. OK And so if Ms. Stebbins Bina and I were on the same dose of the same -- Taking the same
dose of the same medication -- Let's just -- This is a hypothetical -- And I was prescribed it by my
Doctor for back pain, and I was taking it as directed by my Doctor, and she had twisted her ankle a
while ago, she was fully recovered and kept taking it because she liked the feeling of taking the
medication, could anyone tell the difference between -- Just from looking at us and observing us
physically -- Sorry to make you the addict in this -- But could anyone just looking at us tell which one
of us was taking the medication as directed by a Doctor appropriately and which one of us was abusing
the medication?
A. They might be able to.
Q. How?
A. Well, if you were taking the medication appropriately and getting the treatment you needed at the
proper dose, you would not be able to really tell anything. But -- Sorry to accuse you of anything, but
if you were taking the medication inappropriately, you might be showing signs because you're taking
the medication for reasons other than treating a problem, so you are probably getting high. That's what
you're looking for on the medication. And that is something that somebody could see in terms of your
behavior. You have might be staggering around a little bit, nodding off. You'd be doing other things
that would show signs of inappropriate use of the medication.
Q. But there are times when someone has appropriate -- Been appropriately medicated by a Doctor,
say, for a painful procedure, and they seem a little loopy after it, or groggy, they're not focusing well,
but that doesn't mean that they're addicted to that drug, right?
A. Yes.
Q. So if you saw both of us and we both looked groggy, you wouldn't be able to tell on one instance
-- You wouldn't be able to tell whether one of us was abusing a drug or maybe had just come from the
Doctor and had some appropriate treatment?
A. I wouldn't know if they had just come from the Doctor, no, unless they told me.
Q. Correct. OK Under what circumstances is it appropriate for someone who has -- Was previously
addicted to opioid painkillers to take them?
A. If they have a severe pain problem that can only be treated by a pain-relieving medication, an
opioid pain-relieving medication, and it could be appropriate for them to take the medication to relieve
the problem.
Q. And, in fact, if you were to deny medication in that circumstance, that might actually trigger a
relapse, right?

A. It could trigger them seeking the medication or seeking relief in other ways yes.
Q. So it might seem a little counterintuitive, but there are times when not giving a former addict --
Opiate addict Opiates can actually cause a relapse, but giving them the Opiates appropriately under
appropriate supervision can actually help avoid that relapse?
A. That's correct.
Q. And just because somebody had a problem with Opiates in 1993 doesn't mean that necessarily it
would be inappropriate for him to be taking Opiates under a Doctor's care in 2009, right?
A. Correct.
Q. Is that part of the reason that you're unable to determine from the records that were available to
you whether Michael Jackson was addicted to Opiates?
A. That --
Judge: in -- In 2009?
Ms. Cahan: sure. Let's start with 2009.
Mr. Schnoll: that -- That could be part of it, but there are other things.
Ms. Cahan: right. We'll get to those.
Q. But you -- We talked about those medical records, Dr. Klein's injection of Demerol in -- In 2009,
right?
A. Yes.
Q. And just the fact that Dr. Klein injected Mr. Jackson with Demerol doesn't say to you, uh-oh, he's
relapsed, he's -- His dependency on Demerol is back, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Because Dr. Klein was administering it in connection with medical procedures?
A. Correct.
Q. And you talked about the tapering that you thought was a sign of appropriate medical care?
A. Yes.
Q. The medical procedures that Mr. Jackson was having done with Dr. Klein in 2009 included botox
injections?
A. That was part of it, yes.

Q. And facial fillers?

A. Yes.
Q. Is it typical for someone to get Demerol -- If you know. This may be something you don't have
experience with. But is it typical for patients to get injections of Demerol with botox or other facial
fillers?
A. I -- I don't know, I don't do those procedures.
Q. How commonly is Demerol used in the medical field these days?
A. Not very commonly used anymore.
Q. Why?
A. Well, it's -- We say it's a dirty opioid.
Q. What does that mean?
A. Because it has more effects than just the opioid effect. It has anticholinergic effects along with
the opioid effect. And in addition, there is -- If you give it over a period of time, you can have the
development of a metabolite, Normeperidine, which can be problematic.
Q. Fair to say that Demerol has fallen out of favor as safe, better Opioids have been developed over
the years?
A. Yes.
Q. OK And when did Demerol start to become less popular?
A. Probably in the '90s, maybe, people started saying that this is not a good opioid.
Q. Do you know whether most physicians that treat pain today keep Demerol on hand?
A. You're talking about pain physicians, people who specifically just treat pain?
Q. No. And thank you for clarifying. I'm talking about Doctors who give pain medications to help
their patients alleviate pain in whatever context.
A. You're talking about non-pain physicians?
Q. Right. Set aside pain specialists for purposes of this.
A. I have no idea.
Q. OK What about for pain specialists? How common is it for pain specialists to keep Demerol on
hand?

A. Probably not at all at this point. Pain specialists would not keep Demerol.
Q. OK And you stopped treating patients in 2001?
A. Yes.
Q. And before that, you reviewed pain medications for some of your patients, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. When was the last time you prescribed Demerol for any patient?
A. I don't dig deep into the -- The memory bank. Maybe in the 1970's.
Q. Would it change your opinions at all if Demerol, the use of Demerol to treat pain for botox and
fillers was not the standard of care in 2009?
A. Well, I don't -- I don't know. I'd have to -- You'd have to talk to -- I'd have to talk to specific
physicians as to why they might use it. But I -- I don't -- I don't know if it was or wasn't the standard.
Q. So you don't have expertise in what pain medications are used for dermatological procedures like
Dr. Klein was administering to Mr. Jackson?
A. That's correct.
Q. So for the purposes of your opinion where you didn't think that Dr. Klein's administration of
Demerol to Mr. Jackson in 2009 was problematic, that was from your perspective as an addiction
medicine Doctor, not based on some understanding of what dermatologists do and don't do to treat pain
for fillers and Botox?
A. I think what I said was that there was no evidence of addiction at that time, and that whether or not
it was the standard of care, I -- I don't know.
Q. And it would vary, as well -- Because, as you said, people's pain threshold varies, right?
A. Correct.
Q. Do former addicts tend to have a lower pain threshold than the general population?
A. Some of them do, yes.
Q. But there's just a lot of variability across the spectrum?
A. There is variability, yes.
Q. Did you see in your review -- You reviewed Dr. Quinn's records?
A. Yes.

Q. She's a dental anesthesiologist at U. C. L. A. ?

A. Yes.
Q. And Dr. Baxley's records?
A. Yes.
Q. He's a dentist?
A. Yes.
Q. And the other dental records from -- That were produced in connection with this case?
A. There were some other -- I don't specifically remember which were which.
Q. Did you see whether there were times that Mr. Jackson required anesthesia -- General anesthesia
for just a tooth cleaning?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that typical?
A. It's not typical, but there are some people who are very frightened of dental work and require that.
Q. OK So you're not offering any opinion about whether the type or amount of medication Mr.
Jackson was getting for dental or cosmetic procedures was proportionate or typical for those types of
procedures, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. If someone came to you back in 2001 or earlier, when you were treating patients, to be evaluated
and diagnosed as addicted or not to a medication, what would your workup consist of?
A. If someone is coming to me for pain, addiction, or both?
Q. Say someone shows up at your office and says, "Doctor, do you think I'm -- Do you think I'm an
opiate addict?" what do you do?
A. Well, I would gather a complete history on that person, as much information as I could get on
them in relation to their drug use, in relation to their medical history, family history. I'd do a complete
physical on them, probably get a urine toxicology screening on them.
Q. OK Let's talk about each of those. History. That's you ask the patient, "tell me about your drug
use. Tell me about any pain you're feeling. Tell me about your general health," correct?
A. Yes.
Q. When you do a history with the patient, you're relying on that patient to be honest with you, right?

A. Yes.
Q. To give you true and complete answers?
A. Yes.
Q. And that's something that's in the patient's best interest because that will allow you to best help
them, right?
A. Yes.
Q. Are there ever times in your practice in the tens of thousands of people that you treated where
patients weren't forthcoming with you?
A. Yes.
Q. Why would patients not tell you the truth about their medical history?
A. There would be many reasons. They might try to hide something, they might be concerned that if
they told me something, it would influence me in one way or another.
Q. Did some of those patients not want to stop using drugs?
A. Well, if they came to me to treat their addiction, they usually came because they wanted to stop
using drugs.
Q. But you're aware of situations where people are forced into rehab or an involuntary hold and are
assessed for whether they have drug-addiction issues, right?
A. Yes.
Q. So there can be scenarios where someone is being evaluated as a potential addict where they're not
interested in getting off drugs?
A. Yes.
Q. And in those scenarios, is it more likely than average that the person would not tell you everything
about their history of drug use?
A. I don't know. I don't think I ever looked at whether it was more or less likely. But, correct, they
might not tell me everything.
Q. OK And let's talk about -- You gave an example yesterday of how you titrate people on pain
medication.
A. Yes.
Q. And maybe they come and say they're at a nine, and you give them some medication, you see them

pretty soon after, and then they might say they're at a seven, or they may say that they're at a nine
again?
A. Correct.
Q. And you're trusting that they're giving you an accurate account of how they're feeling, right?
A. Correct.
Q. You're assuming that they're not coming to see you to get the drugs to get high, but to treat their
pain?
A. Correct.
Q. And that when they tell you they're still at a nine, they're still at a nine, and they're not just doing it
to get more drugs, right?
A. I assume that initially, yes.
Q. So there's a certain amount of trust inherent in the Doctor/patient relationship?
A. Correct.
Q. And if your patient isn't forthcoming with you, not only can it be a problem for the patient, it could
be a problem for you, as well?
A. It's more of a problem for the patient than for me.
Q. Right. But if someone is coming to you and saying, you know, "I -- I'm having terrible pain, I
need Opiates for my pain," and you're giving them Opiates based on your understanding that you're
their treating physician, but they're actually going to see three other Doctors, getting prescriptions from
them and taking those Opiates, too, that's a problem, right?
A. It can be a problem, yes.
Q. Would you continue to treat a patient who hid that kind of information from you?
A. It would depend on a number of different situations on whether or not I'd continue to treat them.
Q. But you'd have to give it some serious thought, right?
A. I would think about it, yes.
Q. Because if the patient is not being honest with you about their medical care, something terrible
could happen to them?
A. That's possible, yes.
Q. You could accidentally prescribe something that would have a bad interaction with another drug?

A. Yes.
Q. So getting back to the -- The hypothetical of someone shows up at your office and says, "Doctor,
I'm an addict -- Am I an addict?" you said you do a history?
A. Yes.
Q. And then you said you'd ask about their drug use information. And, again, there, you're relying on
the patient to tell you the truth about what they've been doing?
A. Yes.
Q. You take a family history?
A. Yes.
Q. And that's something that Mr. Koskoff asked you about a few minutes ago -- Right? -- Whether
you were aware of anything in the record about a history of addiction or other family members with
addiction for Mr. Jackson -- In Mr. Jackson's family?
A. Yes.
Q. And you're not aware of that at all?
A. No, I'm not.
Q. OK And just to be clear, you were looking at Mr. Jackson's medical records, correct? You
weren't given medical records for other members of his family?
A. I didn't see anything for other members of the family.
Q. You said your workup would also include a complete physical?
A. Yes.
Q. And that looks at, you know, blood pressure, look in the eyes and ears and mouth, and listen to the
chest sounds, and -- Same things as I would get if I went to the Doctor for a physical, right?
A. Depending on how good your Doctor is.
Q. And you also said a urine toxicology screen, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And that can detect certain drugs in the system at the time that the urine is analyzed, correct?
A. It -- It depends on what type of urine toxicology screen you request.

Q. Is there a urine toxicology screen that would find any kind of -- All drugs?
A. Well, you could do some things that could find a lot of -- A lot of drugs, and -- For instance, I
would set up with the laboratory a very specific screen that went much beyond what the standard
screens would offer.
Q. So what is the -- What does the standard urine screen check for in terms of illegal drugs?
A. It looks for Opioids, looks for THC, looks for Benzodiazepines, barbiturates, pcp , things --
Cocaine, things of that sort.
Q. Just to be clear, though, if the urine tox screen is positive for Opiates or Benzodiazepines or
barbiturates, that doesn't necessarily mean the person is an addict, right?
A. That's correct.
Q. Because they could be taking them appropriately under a Doctor's care?
A. That's correct.
Q. And there's no single blood test or urine test that says, you know, green, this person is an addict,
and red, this person is not?
A. Correct.
Q. It's -- It's a more complicated analysis?
A. Correct.
Q. You're looking at behavioral factors as well as physical factors?
A. Correct.
Q. It's dependent on what the patient is telling you about their behaviors, or what other people are
telling you about their behaviors?
A. And what you see about their behaviors.
Q. Right. And that's -- You were one of the first people in the field of addiction medicine, right?
You helped the field grow substantially?
A. There are people who say that, yes.
Q. And it's been -- You've seen a change in the way addiction is treated over the course of your career,
right?
A. Yes.
Q. I think you told me last time that -- At your deposition that people used to not know how to take

care of addicts, and they would just be dismissive of them?

A. Yes.
Q. And the field has really developed and become more sophisticated over the last few decades?
A. Yes.
Q. And I would assume that the general understanding of most Doctors has improved, right?
A. Yes.
Q. There is now a program in all medical schools where there's some teaching on recognizing
addiction?
A. Some. Not enough.
Q. But addiction specialists are the best people to be diagnosing and treating addiction?
A. Yes.
Q. And even otherwise competent Doctors might not have the level of sophistication necessary to
address a complicated or recognize a complicated addiction issues?
A. Yes.
Q. So somebody could be a good pediatrician, but that wouldn't mean that they would necessarily be
good at diagnosing an opiate addiction?
A. Yes.
Q. And it's also not always black and white whether someone is addicted to a drug, right?
A. Right.
Q. Reasonable minds can sometimes differ?
A. If the evidence is clear, then it's pretty clear.
Q. Sometimes the evidence isn't clear?
A. It would depend on what evidence is available.
Q. And for someone like Mr. Jackson, who had a history of drug dependency --
A. Yes.
Q. But also had a history of having a lot of medical procedures and pain issues, that's a particularly
tough case to determine whether there is addiction or dependency or pseudo addiction or what's going

on, right?
A. Could be, yes.
Q. Because there are a lot of variables that have to be parsed out, a lot of different factors?
A. Yes.
Q. And it's your belief that there were underlying issues of pain and insomnia?
A. Yes.
Q. And you said you reviewed the trial testimony of Dr. Czeisler?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you see his testimony about the fact that insomnia is a symptom, usually, and not a
disease in and of itself?
A. Yes.
Q. So there's underlying potential causes for insomnia, too, right?
A. Yes.
Q. So you'd have to dig down for all of that to get to the root cause or causes of the insomnia?
A. Yes.
Q. And likewise for pain, something where -- You said you use a scale, sometimes 1 to 10 or 1 to 100,
for people to self assess their pain?
A. Yes.
Q. There's not an objective measure of pain, right?
A. No.
Q. So different people can experience the same thing, you know -- You could poke my finger with a
needle, and someone else's finger with a needle, and we might feel a different amount of pain from
that?
A. Correct.
Q. And I might feel a different amount of pain when you did it to me today or a week from now,
depending on what else was going on with me?
A. Correct.

Q. And so there's a lot of -- Strike that. Is there a lot of overlap in treatment of pain and treatment of
addiction?
A. Yes, more -- More and more these days.
Q. And why is that?
A. Well, because they are two very undertreated problems and people get very confused, as I
mentioned, between dependency and addiction. And so there's been a lot of confusion as to if
somebody who is on pain medication for a period of time is actually addicted or dependent, then it's --
The physician knows that. And, also, if there are patients who have a history of addiction and need
pain medication, you need somebody with very a specialized background in order to treat them
effectively.
Q. And they're pain specialists, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And those pain specialists often will refer some of their patients to addiction specialists to help
determine whether someone is seeking pain medication for legitimate pain or might be abusing the pain
medication, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. So there's often -- Addiction specialists and pain specialists can work in conjunction sometimes?
A. Yes.
Q. We talked a little bit about how it would be hard for people who aren't addiction specialists, either
other types of physicians or laypeople, to recognize whether someone is addicted, dependent or pseudo
addicted?
A. Correct.
Q. Is the same true for withdrawal? Is it hard for people who aren't addiction specialists to recognize
when someone is in withdrawal from a drug?
A. They would recognize something, but they might not be able to specifically recognize the
withdrawal syndrome, but they would see something.
Q. Right. So for opiate addiction -- Opiate withdrawal, let's take that as an example. The symptoms
of opioid withdrawal include shivering?
A. Yes.
Q. Chills?
A. Yes.

Q. Runny nose?
A. Yes.
Q. Tearing of the eyes?
A. Yes.
Q. Sometimes dilated pupils?
A. Yes.
Q. And goose bumps?
A. Yes.
Q. Those are all nonspecific symptoms, right?
A. Well, those can be nonspecific, but when they're all put together, they're pretty clear what it is.
Q. To you?
A. Yes.
Q. But to me, it might look like somebody has the flu?
A. It could.
Q. Or a bad cold?
A. Probably not a bad cold.
Q. Probably the flu?
A. Probably the flu.
Q. OK You'd agree, wouldn't you, that even most medical professionals who don't specialize in
addiction couldn't recognize the constellation of symptoms characteristic of withdrawal?
A. I don't know if I would agree with that. That's pretty clearly taught in medical schools today, and
I would think most -- Most practicing physicians would be aware of that.
Q. So you think most medical professionals who are not addiction specialists can recognize the
constellation of symptoms that withdrawal causes?
A. Of opioid withdrawal.
Q. OK But what about other types of withdrawal?

A. Other types of withdrawal might be a little more difficult.

Q. Do Doctors these days, general practitioners or other non-addiction specialists, see a lot more
opiate withdrawal than they used to?
A. I -- I don't know specifically if they are or aren't. I don't know.
Q. You said Opiates are the most commonly prescribed drugs in this country today, right?
A. That's correct.
Q. Has that always been true?
A. I -- I don't know. I know it's been that way for the past ten years or so, but I don't know -- I'd
have to look at the record.
Judge: We'll take the break at 3:00.
Ms. Cahan: Sure. I'll just -- A couple of minutes.
Q. We talked a little bit about Propofol and your history of treating people who were addicted to
Propofol ?
A. Yes.
Q. And you said you've seen tens of thousands of patients over the course of your career?
A. Yes.
Q. How many were Propofol addicted?
A. Probably five or six.
Q. Out of tens of thousands?
A. Yes.
Q. I'm not going to try to -- We were doing some math yesterday, and it got ugly, so I'm not going to
try to do that. But fair to say well under 1 percent?
A. Yes.
Q. Extremely rare?
A. Yes.
Q. And those were all people in the medical field, I think you said anesthesiologists or people who
worked in a critical care unit?

A. Yes.
Q. What's the critical care unit?
A. Critical care, what used to be called intensive care units, ICU'S. This is where the most critically
ill patients are seen because they are constantly monitored.
Q. And those are the people who would have access to Propofol ?
A. The --
Q. The people who work in the CCU or the operating room?
A. People who work in those areas, yes, because that's where the Propofol would be.
Q. Right. Can't get it at a pharmacy?
A. Shouldn't be able to get a prescription for it, no.
Q. Right. And don't get a -- Aren't given Propofol to take home from your Doctor's office?
A. That's correct.
Q. And at the time that we -- We took your deposition, we -- We talked about those few patients that
you had treated for Propofol . You -- And do you remember whether you had an opinion at that time
about whether they were addicted to Propofol as opposed to just abusing Propofol ?
A. I don't recall precisely what I said. I think some of them were addicted to Propofol , but I think
most of them were just abusing it.
Q. OK And when did you come to the conclusion that some of them were addicted to Propofol ?
A. Probably when I was seeing them.
Q. So this was the transcript of your deposition? (shows transcript)
A. Yes.
Q. And you were asked, "you said that you've seen people who have abused Propofol . Have you
ever had a patient who was addicted to Propofol ?" what was your answer at your deposition?
A. I said, "I'm not sure they were addicted, but they were abusing the drug. "
Q. OK But today you're sure that some of the people you saw were addicted?
A. I said they might have been.
Ms. Cahan: This is probably a good time for the break, your honor.

Judge: OK 15 minutes.
(the following proceedings were held in open court, outside the presence of the jurors:)
Judge: Take some time to read that. I want you back here in ten minutes and we'll discuss it.
(15-minute recess taken. )
(the following proceedings were held in open court, outside the presence of the jurors:)
Judge: OK I provided you the transcript from Ms. Seawright's testimony, and then I placed on
counsel table a jury instruction that I'm proposing to give the jury. Have you had an opportunity to
read the transcript, and also read the jury instruction?
Mr. Panish: Yes.
Mr. Putnam: Yes, your honor.
Judge: Any arguments, comments, modifications?
Mr. Panish: I would -- I don't think it's necessary. You instructed them in the transcript at page 9488
through 9489. If the court is inclined to give another instruction, I would suggest some modification.
Judge: How do you want it modified?
Mr. Panish: First of all, the first sentence, that's what you said, so that's OK The second sentence --
I mean, are you -- Could I ask the court what is the purpose of saying it violated a court order?
Judge: What is the purpose? To let them know it violated the court's order.
Mr. Panish: well, is that to put some punishment on Ms. Seawright?
Judge: I didn't say Ms. Seawright did. But I think the jury should know that it violated the court
order. I've repeatedly instructed them as to certain things, and testimony came in that violated that
order, and it's an extremely important issue in the case.
Mr. Panish: I don't disagree that the testimony came in that was in violation of the order. OK? I
didn't know she was going to say that. I wish she didn't. So be it. So I would say this testimony
violated a --
Judge: I notice Mr. Putnam is biting his tongue.
Mr. Panish: Your honor, I mean --

Judge: We had -- Mr. Panish, we had this discussion so many times --

Mr. Panish: I agree.
Judge: -- That I am really quite surprised. I don't know if you saw my face, but I couldn't even
believe that this testimony came out.
Mr. Panish: I didn't know she was going to say it, either.
Judge: I couldn't believe it. We were talking about it just a minute or two before the answer came
out. And I just --
Mr. Panish: I couldn't believe she said it, either.
Judge: I couldn't believe you didn't have a discussion with her before she got on the stand to say that.
This is your crucial human resources expert. We had this discussion so many times. This is a central
issue in the case, and I was surprised you had no discussion with her about this.
Mr. Panish: It says I did, if you read the testimony. We told her there's an order, if you read the
testimony, your honor --
Judge: then maybe I should say not that this testimony violated the court order, but that Ms.
Seawright violated the court order. Would you prefer that? I don't think you do.
Mr. Panish: Your honor, first of all --
Judge: I prefer not to do that.
Mr. Panish: Can I say something?
Judge: You may.
Mr. Panish: I know you're upset. OK? I could tell that for the last two days.
Judge: I'm not upset. I just think this is appropriate. I think it's entirely appropriate.
Mr. Panish: You're upset. OK? First of all, if you look, I told her -- OK? -- Not to do it. And I
asked her that, and all I was trying -- That's why when they started cross-examining on that point, it's
an assumption and all that, I couldn't believe it was happening, because I've never said it to any of the
witnesses.
Judge: well, that was appropriate, to ask about assumptions. We talked about that.
Mr. Panish: But to suggest that she didn't have an opinion. All right. Whatever. She said it --
OK? -- I accepted she said it. I told her not to say it before she testified. We told her about the
Motion Ln Limine. It was said. OK? So what I would ask -- And, obviously, you're going to give an
instruction. I think it unduly highlights it, but I understand what you're doing. OK? So I would say
-- I would ask that the court say this testimony violated a court pretrial order prohibiting any testimony

by any expert on this issue. I would then continue what you said, all the way to the end, and I would
say "as I have instructed you, you --" and then whatever that instruction is, "you determine, it's up to
you, not what any expert says. "
Mr. Putnam: Your honor, I understand why he would like to dilute what was done here. I think that
one need only look at the exact transcript you've given us to see exactly what happened yesterday when
he asked it. We specifically and very pointedly objected to what exactly followed, and he went and
asked it anyway, and it was provided specifically, this testimony. So I would ask that it be given in this
very, very precise way that you have proposed.
Mr. Panish: That's not what happened. I asked the question -- The court said that I could ask the
question if she had an opinion.
Judge: No. I said you couldn't -- The assumption, that it was OK to ask about the assumption.
That's what --
Mr. Panish: And they've heard it over and over. All I ask -- Not what her opinion is.
Judge: The assumptions.
Mr. Panish: Not her opinion. I wasn't trying to get out the opinion. I know a little more than to do
that. OK? Give me a little credit. If I wanted -- I asked her just while I was trying to show that she
had an opinion and that she's not allowed to give it. That's all. Because to rebut -- The cross-
examination was that she didn't have any basis or opinion in that area, and that was -- It wasn't, "is it
the reason you gave your assumption?"
Judge: This is my concern. My concern is we're nine weeks into this trial, and this is getting into
mistrial situations. That's my concern. I don't want to go there. I don't want to end up in a mistrial
situation.
Mr. Panish: I don't, either. Do you think I want a mistrial?
Judge: Mr. Panish, listen to me. I don't think you do, I don't think the defense does after nine weeks.
That's why I just don't want to go there, I don't want this type of error to happen. I don't want it to
happen again, which is why I am going to ask that you talk to your experts, every expert, because as
you notice, if you read my Motion In Limine --
Mr. Panish: I know it's our obligation.
Judge: Listen to me, please. The Motion In Limine order, if you notice, there's a -- a caption at the
top, and that talks about every expert is to only make assumptions about hiring. Every expert. And
then I go on to specifically talk about the individual experts. So that rule applies to every single expert
in the case. I specifically did that for a reason.
Mr. Panish: and you --
Judge: so I'm going to expect from this point forward that every expert, you will speak to them and
advise them about my Motion In Limine order, and that they are not to -- To make the statements that
have been prohibited. OK? Every expert.

Mr. Panish: I agree. I have been. I know it's the attorney's obligation, it's the attorney's obligation
to advise all witnesses of all Motions In Limine. That's been my practice, that's what I did. And it
says that you caution counsel, is what it said in your order, to do that, and that's exactly what I did. It's
unfortunate that she said it. OK Maybe I shouldn't have asked the question the way it was asked, but
I wasn't trying to get that. I know you're going to be upset if I did that. I didn't want that.
Judge: I don't want a mistrial. I really don't. Because it's a waste of resources.
Mr. Panish: It's a waste of everything, and everyone agrees no one wants -- I don't want to get a
mistrial. I've never had a mistrial. Believe me. And I understand that the witness shouldn't say it.
And she was told that, and she told me outside she felt very bad, and I don't know -- I said, "why did
you say it?" "I don't know. " and, believe me, I told her --
Ms. Stebbins Bina: Your honor, I think the instruction is appropriate given the egregiousness of
what happened yesterday, and I would also just -- I understand that Mr. Panish felt he needed to go into
that. The question he actually asked was, "did you give an opinion in your deposition about whether
or not Dr. Murray had been hired by AEG Live?" I think even that is inappropriate, to suggest that the
expert used to have an opinion and that was prohibited by court order. I think we should stay away
from that because the obvious implication there is that she had the opinion. And the point is, your
honor --
Judge: Stay away from it entirely.
Mr. Panish: Why is she going into it, then?
Judge: Mr. Panish, it's one of those things, just stay away. There's bright lines, and you don't even
get close to them. And you don't get close to them because you're going to end up crossing them
inadvertently.
Mr. Panish: I didn't get involved in my direct exam.
Judge: That's why you don't even get close to them.
Mr. Panish: I was very careful in my direct examination to do it exactly the way you said it. It was
then counsel brought up this assumption. Nobody should be asking that question. All I was trying to
clarify -- It was trying to make it look that she didn't have an opinion, not what her opinion was.
Obviously, it's going to be favorable for us, just like their opinion for the expert is the other way, as you
said. I was not -- I was just saying, "did you have an opinion --" the way I asked the question is, "do
you have an opinion, yes or no?" and that's what I've been doing with all the experts, as you recall.
She said it. I wish she hadn't said it, believe me. I don't want a mistrial. But --
Ms. Stebbins Bina: Just for the record, your honor, I do feel I need to address this. Mr. Panish
asked on direct, "I want you to assume this," and then asked her about two hours of questioning without
mentioning the assumption again. And that was fine because he had laid it as a basis, but I didn't
object to that. But when she got up on cross, here's what I asked her from the transcript, page 9244
(reading):
I just want to make sure of one thing. All of the opinions you gave today, those are based on

the assumption that AEG Live hired Dr. Murray, right?

A. Yes.
And if Dr. Murray was, in fact, hired by Michael Jackson, then the opinions would be different,
correct?
A. I didn't evaluate what would have occurred had Michael Jackson hired him.
Q. You didn't evaluate the situation if Mr. Jackson had brought Dr. Murray out, brought him
into his home and paid him regularly during the entire period?
A. I did not evaluate that.
Q. You're just assuming that AEG live hired Dr. Murray and then your opinions go from there,
right?
A. Yes.
Then Mr. Panish raised the instruction that nobody was allowed to have an opinion on that. You then
gave it to the jury again, and said, you know, jury, it's up to you to decide who hired Dr. Murray, that's
going to be your decision. A lot of experts are giving opinions based on assumptions that someone
was hired, the experts have been directed to make assumptions. Mr. Panish said thank you, and I said
I'm just asking so we were all on the same page when we get started. It was not anything egregious --
Mr. Panish: Then you continued on. What's the next question?
Ms. Stebbins Bina: No. The next I went into, she's not a private investigator and, "you don't run
credit checks?" that was all.
Mr. Panish: There's no need to even get into that. I shouldn't have asked the question, but she
shouldn't have gotten into it, because --
Judge: I don't know why you're pointing the finger that way. I really don't. What I need you to do
is abide by the Motion In Limine orders, speak to your witnesses ahead of time, make sure that they
completely understand. I know you understand. Make sure they understand so we don't have this
problem again, because I don't want to run into a mistrial situation.
Mr. Panish: I agree.
Ms. Stebbins Bina: Your honor, I would ask that we not ask witnesses whether they used to have an
opinion that they're now being prevented from offering.
Mr. Panish: Well, I won't ask that on any hiring witness, that's for sure. Depends on what happens.
For example, if they bring up, "oh, you don't have an opinion on this and this," and the court granted a
Motion In Limine to exclude a specific opinion --
Judge: Then you know what? Let's do this. If you have a doubt as to whether you can ask a
question because of that situation, you ask to come to sidebar and we'll talk about it at sidebar.

Mr. Panish: Fair enough.

Judge: Don't just launch into a question. Say, "judge, I think we need a sidebar. "
Mr. Panish: That's fine. I'll do that.
Judge: All right. I'm going to read this instruction.
Mr. Koskoff: May I say one thing, your honor? I don't have a dog in this fight exactly, but Ms.
Cahan has told me that she thinks she can probably finish today if we move on, and I know we're using
-- I know this is really important, but it would enable the Doctor to go home for 4th of July weekend
and -- And not come back if we could finish today. Is it possible to do this argument on -- On
Monday?
Judge: I think we're finished.
Ms. Stebbins Bina: I need to read some exhibits into the record, but I can do that at the close of
testimony, or on Monday.
Judge: OK Let's bring the jury in.
(the following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jurors:)
Judge: Before we get started, I'm going to read a quick jury instruction.
Ladies and gentlemen, yesterday, plaintiffs' expert jean Seawright testified that she believed that they,
AEG , hired Dr. Murray. This testimony violated a court order prohibiting this testimony. Therefore,
the statement is stricken, and you cannot consider it for any purpose. Treat it as though you never
heard it. Thank you. You may continue.
Ms. Cahan: Thank you, your honor.
Q. Toward the end of Mr. Koskoff's examination of you, he was asking you about pseudonyms in
medical records.
A. Yes.
Q. And you said that that's common for celebrities. Is that something that could make it hard to
locate medical records?
A. It might.
Q. And you've reviewed quite a number of medical records in connection with this case, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And Mr. Koskoff asked you a number of questions about what evidence -- Whether there was
evidence of drug use in certain time periods?

A. Yes.
Q. And spent a lot of time on the 2003 to 2008 time period?
A. Yes.
Q. And you said that you did not see any evidence of any drug abuse by Mr. Jackson from 2003 to
2008?
A. Correct.
Q. Did you see any medical records at all for Mr. Jackson from 2003 to 2008?
A. I -- I don't specifically recall. I don't think so.
Q. OK So there's just no evidence one way or the other from that time period that was available to
you?
A. Correct.
Q. And are you aware of whether Mr. Jackson was living in Los Angeles during that time period?
A. I have no idea where he was living.
Q. So you don't know whether he was living abroad for some of that time, or in Las Vegas?
A. I know there was a period of time he was living in the Middle East, but I don't know exactly when
that was.
Q. Have you ever heard the phrase, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"?
A. Yes.
Q. What does that mean to you?
A. Well, the lack of evidence doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Q. Fair to say that to the extent that there were time periods where there were no medical records
available to you, you can't say whether there was drug use or not because there were no records
available?
A. I can only talk about the records that are available, and that's very important because, you know, if
there's not a record, you can't say it did or didn't happen.
Q. So let's talk a little bit more about what records were available and what the records might have
shown. We saw that Dr. Klein was giving Mr. Jackson Demerol in late 2008 and the first half of 2009?
A. Yes.

Q. And was that injections of Demerol?

A. Yes.
Q. Is there also an oral or pill form, liquid or pill form, of Demerol?
A. Yes.
Q. And is that something that you can get at a pharmacy and take home with you as a prescription?
A. Yes.
Q. What about Benzodiazepines? Are they typically pills?
A. It depends on the benzodiazepine.
Q. OK Are there some that are pills?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you give me some examples?
A. Diazepam, which is Valium, Lorazepam, which is Ativan.
Q. And you saw that Mr. Jackson had prescriptions for some Benzodiazepines in 2009, and at other
times?
A. Yes.
Q. And those were for the pills that he would have taken home?
A. I think there were prescriptions for --
Q. Filled at pharmacies?
A. Yes.
Q. Sometimes in his name and sometimes in other people's names?
A. Yes.
Q. And you wouldn't expect there to be medical records that showed when somebody was taking --
You get
A. Bottle of 60 pills, or whatever -- You wouldn't expect there to be a medical record that says "I took
two pills at 4:00 o'clock, and then the next day, took two pills at 8:00 am," right?
A. Correct.

Q. So you know that in some instances, a prescription was written and was filled?
A. Yes.
Q. Sometimes in Mr. Jackson's name, sometimes in somebody else's name but for Mr. Jackson?
A. Yes.
Q. But you don't know anything about how Mr. Jackson took those pills, he could have taken a whole
bottle at once or he could have never taken them at all and flushed them down the toilet?
A. Yes.
Q. And we talked about Demerol and the forms of Demerol a minute ago. Demerol is an opiate?
A. Yes.
Q. There are other types of Opiates?
A. Yes.
Q. And many of those are in pill form?
A. Yes.
Q. You saw that Mr. Jackson had prescriptions for Opiates at times in his medical records?
A. Yes.
Q. And, again, you wouldn't expect the medical records to show how he was taking pills that he got
from a prescription?
A. How he was taking or how they were prescribed?
Q. How he was taking them.
A. No.
Q. Just that he got a prescription, that's all we know?
A. Yes.
Q. So, again, you're assuming that there wasn't abuse of drugs in pill form because there were
prescription, but you're assuming he was taking things as directed by his Doctor?
A. I -- I could assume that. I was looking at other things that would provide that kind -- The kind of
information I was looking for.

Q. What were those other things?

A. Well, particularly in some of those time periods when he was not on the specific drugs, was he
showing signs of withdrawal, was he seeking medical help to get that. We talked about the fact that
when he started to see Dr. Klein again, he was able to get an analgesic dose of Demerol that was not
very high, indicating that there was no tolerance that had developed. Had he been taking pills over
that period of time, we would have expected him to have developed some tolerance. That tolerance
would have resulted in his need to take higher doses of medications in order to get the desired effect.
We don't see that. So I don't see any evidence to support your contention that he was taking pills
inappropriately during that time period.
Q. And to be clear, I'm not contending anything, I'm just asking about, you know, what's --
Conclusions that are possible to draw from the evidence.
A. Well, I -- I work on probability, not possibilities.
Q. OK Well, let's use Dr. Klein's Demerol records from 2008, 2009, as an example. So you know
that when he was seeing Dr. Klein, there were time periods when he was also seeing Dr. Murray?
A. I suspect, yes, that he was during that time, yes.
Q. And a nurse name Cherilyn Lee?
A. Yes.
Q. And Dr. Metzger, who had been his Doctor for decades?
A. Yes.
Q. And maybe other people?
A. I only know what I've seen in the records.
Q. Right. So we might not have all the -- We might not have all the medical records of Doctors he
was seeing in that time period?
Mr. Panish: Speculation.
Judge: Overruled.
Mr. Schnoll: We might not, and we might, it goes either way.
Ms. Cahan: Right.
Q. And Dr. Klein hasn't testified in this case, correct?
A. You mean testified here in court?

Q. You haven't seen any testimony from a deposition or in court from him?
A. No.
Q. And you're assuming for the purposes of your opinion that his medical records were complete and
accurate?
A. I can only go on the medical records that I have.
Judge: Are you talking about the Doctor's medical records or Dr. Klein's medical records?
Ms. Cahan: Dr. Klein's medical records for treating Mr. Jackson.
Q. And do you know whether Dr. Klein has been investigated by the government about --
Mr. Panish: Your honor, excuse me. I'm going to object. This is improper questioning by counsel,
and -- I want a sidebar on this. It has nothing to do with the drugs --
Judge: OK
(the following proceedings were held at sidebar:)
Judge: let's first get the full question out.
Ms. Cahan: I was going to ask whether he was aware of whether Dr. Klein has been investigated by
the California medical board for writing prescriptions for patients in other people's names, and, in fact,
whether that's an illegal practice. It's something they opened the door on with pseudonyms on
prescriptions on direct. And I then want to tie it up with is it possible that he was getting injections of
Demerol in the office, and then also had Opiates in pill form available to him at home.
Mr. Panish: First of all, it's --
Judge: Wait. Let me ask, do you have a good-faith basis for the investigation? Is there some record
or something that you are aware of --
Ms. Cahan: Yes. And it's been produced in this case, the records.
Judge: That there was an investigation?
Ms. Cahan: Submitted to the medical board, yes.
Mr. Panish: There's been no finding he did anything. That's 1101, improper use of character
evidence for cross-examination. We didn't offer -- Say an investigation. Does that mean every time
someone has been sued or there's an investigation? There's been no finding against Dr. Klein in any

way whatsoever. He's not aware of that. And then to go this quantum leap here that they did an
investigation, therefore, he prescribed improper drugs based on a complaint that was made? Who
made the complaint?
Ms. Cahan: Several people have made complaints.
Mr. Panish: And what year was the complaint made in?
Ms. Cahan: There was an investigation following Mr. Jackson's death, and other people have made
complaints.
Mr. Panish: And there was no finding against him whatsoever. So just because somebody filed a
complaint with the California board of medical quality assurance doesn't mean anything. And, in fact,
it's not even admissible in California that a complaint was filed, period. If there was a finding on this
specific thing, that may be a different story. But there's been no adjudicated fact, no finding, and the
code doesn't allow investigations. In fact, they're inadmissible, period.
Judge: Has the investigation concluded?
Ms. Cahan: It's ongoing, your honor, to my understanding. But maybe I can ask the question this
way: are you aware of whether Dr. Klein wrote prescriptions for Mr. Jackson at times in other people's
names?
Mr. Koskoff: There's no good-faith basis for that, is there?
Ms. Cahan: There is.
Mr. Panish: What? Propecia?
Ms. Cahan: well, Propecia and Latisse, yes, but in addition, the Mickey Fine Pharmacy records show
multiple prescriptions for Mr. Jackson in other people's names that were prescribed by Dr. Klein. And
I do want to ask, as well -- Dr. Metzger was sanctioned by the medical board for writing prescriptions
for Janet Jackson in, I think, her cook or security guard's name. I'm not going to go there, but -- I will
go there with him, I will not go there with this witness. But it's just going to be a couple of questions.
I won't discuss an investigation by the medical board, I'll just ask whether he's aware of Dr. Klein
writing prescriptions for Mr. Jackson in the names of other people.
Mr. Panish: now, shouldn't counsel come to the sidebar before they ask a question like that, your
honor, was there an investigation? Because it's not a proper question, and isn't that something that
should be brought to the sidebar before getting it out in front of the jury.
Judge: well --
Mr. Panish: shouldn't it?
Judge: maybe. Let's go out.
Mr. Panish: could you tell the jury to disregard that as an improper question? May I request that?

(the following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jurors:)
Q. Dr. Schnoll, are you aware of any evidence in the record that Dr. Klein sometimes wrote
prescriptions for Mr. Jackson in other people's names?
A. Yes.
Q. So you said you deal in what is probable and not what's possible, but in the world of what's
possible, is it possible that Mr. Jackson had Opiates in pill form from Dr. Klein or from another Doctor
available to him in 2009 when he was also getting Demerol injections at Dr. Klein's office?
A. I -- You know, as I said, I don't look to work in possibilities because anything under the sun is
possible, and I'm not sure that's reasonable, and I -- I prefer to work in probability.
Q. Have you seen the crime scene photos from June 25th, 2009, of Mr. Jackson's home?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you see that there were a number of pill bottles with prescriptions in different names?
A. Yes.
Q. So you would agree that Mr. Jackson, at times, had Opiates in pill form available to him?
A. Yes.
Q. And Benzodiazepines in pill form?
A. Yes.
Q. And other types of drugs?
A. Yes.
Q. So those red boxes of periods of abstinence from Demerol injections from Dr. Klein
Mr. Koskoff: I'm going to object. That's not -- That was not a period of -- I'm sorry. Period of
abstinence from --
Ms. Cahan: Abstinence.
Mr. Koskoff: Withdraw the objection.

Q. Doesn't mean he wasn't using any drugs during those days that there were red blocks, right? He
just wasn't getting Demerol from Dr. Klein on those days, according to Dr. Klein's own records?
A. It could mean that. I think what surprised me, and was part of my opinion, that there were pills in
those bottles and some of those prescriptions, as I think I was -- In looking -- Looking at some records,
had been written a while before. And the fact that there were still pills in those bottles would indicate
that these were not being taken either on a regular basis or on any basis. So, you know, if you look at
everything -- And that's what I'm saying. I look at what's probable rather than what's -- What's
possible. You have to -- You know, as a -- As a person that works in addictions -- You yourself said
people aren't always truthful. So what you try to do is look at all -- The whole picture.
Q. Right.
A. And so that's what I tried to do in making my opinion, is to look at the whole picture of what was
going on and not look at possibilities, but what is most probably happening.
Q. And here you don't have the whole picture, right? There are years for which there were no
medical records available?
A. There are -- There are times when there are no medical records available, but the question is were
there medical situations going on.
Q. You didn't meet Mr. Jackson while he was alive?
A. No.
Q. You haven't consulted face to face with any of his treating physicians?
A. No.
Q. And you said generally one of the ways -- A number of things that you look at when diagnosing
someone with addiction includes behavioral pieces and medical history, evidence as reported by the
person?
A. Yes.
Q. Are there questions that if Mr. Jackson were alive and had come to you that you would have
wanted to ask him about his behaviors or his use of drugs that would help you in rendering a diagnosis
that were not answered by the records that were available to you?
A. Yes.
Q. And did read Mitzi Shulman's deposition, Maritza Shulman?
A. That name is not familiar.
Q. OK I'll represent to you that she was a nurse that worked in Dr. Klein's office and participated in
treatment of Mr. Jackson from 1998 through 2005.

A. If you say so. I -- I have no --

Q. Did you see any medical records produced in this case reflecting any medical care Dr. Klein
provided to Mr. Jackson between 1998 and 2005?
A. 1998 and 2005, I'd have to look I'm not sure I can recall everything that I saw in that period.
Q. But as you sit here today, you don't remember any Dr. Klein records covering the period 1998 to
2005?
A. I don't recall specifically.
Q. OK So if I'm correct in representing to you that Ms. Shulman testified that Mr. Jackson did
receive medical care from Dr. Klein from '98 to 2005, that would mean there's some missing records
there, right?
A. If -- If she said there was, there could be missing records, yes.
Q. And you haven't seen any medical records reflecting Dr. Murray's care of Michael Jackson in 2009
in this case, have you?
A. I don't know if I can --
Q. Medical records, I'm asking just about medical records.
A. No, I have not seen.
Mr. Panish: Your honor, I -- Never mind.
Q. And getting back to this idea of pseudonyms in medical records, you said that that was common
for celebrities to protect their privacy?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you see evidence in the record that Mr. Jackson was particularly concerned with maintaining
his privacy?
A. Yes.
Q. And is it legal to write prescriptions for somebody in somebody else's name?
A. No.
Q. It's illegal?

A. It depends -- It is illegal, yes.

Q. Have you ever done it?
A. No.
Q. OK One of the last things Mr. Koskoff asked you about was whether Mr. Jackson was dependent
on Demerol in 2009.
A. Yes.
Q. And you said that you weren't sure whether that was the case, but that would be the worst-case
scenario?
A. I'm not sure those were the exact words I used, but I said I wasn't sure.
Q. That may have been Mr. Koskoff's question and not your answer. Did you have an opinion when
we took your deposition about whether Mr. Jackson was dependent on Demerol at any point?
A. I think I said -- I think I said he was.
Q. And when do you believe he was dependent on Demerol?
A. I -- I think around the -- He was dependent on Opioids, whether it was specifically Demerol,
would be the time around the "dangerous" tour, and I think this period of time when Klein was giving
him -- When Klein was giving him medication.
Q. In 2009?
A. In 2009.
Q. But you're not sure today whether Mr. Jackson was dependent on Demerol in 2009?
A. That's correct. As I continued to review the records and tried to understand more of what was
going on, I began to look deeper into the situation and tried to find evidence to support that.
Q. So that's a change in your opinions -- Your opinions evolved since your deposition in that respect?
A. In that respect.
Q. So at your deposition, you thought Mr. Jackson was dependent on Demerol in 2009, and now,
having looked at more records and thought about it more, you're not sure?
A. That's correct.
Q. So even you, with decades of experience and having seen tens of thousands of patients, were
finding it a little bit difficult or had some -- Took some time to reach your ultimate opinions about Mr.
Jackson's drug use and what it meant?

A. That's correct.
Q. Let's talk a little bit about -- You're sure he was physically dependent back in 1993 on the
"Dangerous" tour?
A. I'm not absolutely sure about that, either.
Q. But that's your opinion? It's your opinion?
A. That's my opinion, yes.
Q. That he was probably dependent on Opiates?
A. I think he was probably dependent at that time, yes.
Q. And just to be clear, when somebody is dependent or addicted, they're dependent or addicted to
A. Category of drugs, right? So in this case, it would be Opiates, Opioids?
A. They could be -- They could be dependent and addicted to multiple categories.
Q. Just to make the example simple, say someone has an addiction. They would be addicted to the
category of drugs Opioids, right?
A. Correct.
Q. But they might have a drug of choice which might be Demerol?
A. That's correct.
Q. Or some other opioid?
A. Correct.
Q. So you're -- Because when you were explaining the brain chemistry, you're addicted to the class of
drugs because they bind with a certain part of your brain and they have a certain physical effect on
you?
A. Yes, they -- They bind to the same receptor.
Q. But you might have a preference for one or another --
A. Yes.
Q. -- Within the category? OK So back in 1993, you testified that Mr. Jackson had scalp surgery.
A. Yes.
Q. And he developed a neuroma which was very painful. And then he was treated with pain

medication during that tour, right?

A. Yes.
Q. From your review of the records -- And you said Dr. Finkelstein testified primarily about this?
A. Yes.
Q. Are you able to determine whether Mr. Jackson's pain was being appropriately treated -- Strike
that. Were you able to determine from your review of the record whether the pain medication that Mr.
Jackson received on the "dangerous" tour was appropriate treatment for the neuroma and other pain he
suffered or abuse of pain medication?
A. It's very hard for me to determine that because there was very little detailed prescription about the
nature and the type of pain, the periodicity of the pain, all of those things. So I couldn't say whether or
not the treatment was appropriate or not.
Q. It could have been?
A. It could have been, and it could not have been.
Q. OK And you're aware that Dr. Finkelstein -- That he testified that he treated Mr. Jackson twice,
once in Bangkok at the very beginning of the leg of the tour?
A. I don't specifically recall. I remember specifically when he was treating him and was concerned
that he might have a problem with substances.
Q. And I'll represent to you that -- That that was -- Dr. Finkelstein treated Mr. Jackson over a 24-hour
period in Bangkok at the beginning of that leg of the tour. And do you have an understanding that that
was shortly after his scalp surgery?
A. I think that was around the time. I don't recall the exact time that occurred.
Q. And did you see Dr. Finkelstein's testimony that he believed Mr. Jackson was in legitimate pain,
and he was rendering the assistance necessary to alleviate that legitimate pain?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you have any reason to doubt the accuracy of that testimony?
A. No.
Q. OK And you can't tell one way or the other from the other materials and information available to
you whether any of the other medications that were administered to Mr. Jackson during the course of
the tour were appropriate treatments for pain he was suffering or not?
A. Correct.
Q. But you do know that at the end of that tour, Mr. Jackson said, "I think I have a problem, and I'm

going to rehab"?
A. Yes.
Q. So jumping ahead now to 2009 and the records that we were talking about with respect to Dr.
Klein, based on your review of those and other records, you believe that Mr. Jackson was not
dependent on any drugs in early 2009, correct? Like January 2009?
A. When he started to take Demerol again, because of the amount, the 100-milligram dose, I couldn't
see any evidence that he had any tolerance or anything that would indicate that he was dependent on an
opioid.
Q. So you don't think he was dependent in January 2009?
A. Not when he was starting, correct.
Q. OK And are you aware of whether January 2009 is when Mr. Jackson signed the contract with
AEG Live to do the "this is it" tour?
A. I don't know the dates of the contracts.
Q. But based on your review of the records and your opinion, Mr. Jackson seemed to be clean and
fine in January 2009?
A. He was not dependent, is what I said.
Q. OK And, Pam, I'm not sure if it's 984 or -- I think 985. Can you put up -- I want to focus on the
chart with the -- The blue like peak and -- Yeah. Particularly April. This one, yes. So this is the chart
that we were looking at earlier, right?
Judge: 985.
Ms. Cahan: I apologize. This was a scan of a paper copy, so it doesn't have the left bar of the
dosages. But I think you testified that the peak there in like around April 23rd, 22nd, was a 350-
milligram -- A. 375.
Ms. Cahan: 375. OK
Q. So that was the most -- The highest levels that Mr. Jackson -- Highest levels of Demerol that Mr.
Jackson was getting from Dr. Klein in the 2008/2009 period, at least as reflected by the records?
A. Yes.
Q. Are you -- Have you reviewed the testimony of either trial testimony or deposition testimony of
people who were working with Mr. Jackson and interacting with him frequently in April and may
2009?

A. Yes.
Q. Are you aware of any testimony that people were concerned about Mr. Jackson's health or ability
to function in late April 2009 when he was getting 375 milligrams of Demerol from Dr. Klein?
A. I -- I don't recall any specific concerns at that time. Most of the concerns developed later on.
Q. So he was getting -- I mean, that's a very high dosage of Demerol, right?
A. It's -- It's a -- It's a good dose of Demerol, yes.
Q. I mean, what would happen to me if you gave me that much Demerol?
A. If I gave you that dose? You'd sleep for a while.
Q. How long?
A. Probably several hours.
Q. And assuming I've never used Demerol before, if I needed a shot of Demerol for pain relief, how
much would you give me?
A. If you had never used Demerol before?
Q. Never.
A. I'd probably start off around 50 milligrams.
Q. OK So, again, we've established that lawyers are bad at math, but 375 is more than seven times
above that initial starting dose?
A. Yes.
Q. So you haven't seen any evidence indicating that defendants were aware of the frequency or
amount of Mr. Jackson's Demerol use in the spring/summer of 2009 at the time it was occurring, right?
A. I don't -- I don't know.
Q. You haven't seen any evidence?
A. No, I've not seen any evidence.
Q. And, in general, we've been assuming if you haven't seen evidence, then it probably didn't happen?
A. That's correct.
Q. And we also talked about the symptoms of opiate dependence and withdrawal being hard for a
layperson to recognize, right?

A. Yes.
Q. Do you have any reason to believe that defendants could have recognized if Mr. Jackson was
experiencing -- Was either under the influence of Opiates or experiencing withdrawal from Opiates?
Mr. Panish: It's vague as to time.
Ms. Cahan: At any time.
Mr. Schnoll: If they -- If he was obtunded by the drug, they, you know, would have recognized that.
Ms. Cahan: You're going to have to tell us what "obtunded" means.
Mr. Schnoll: That he was sedated by the drug, not functioning very well, or if he was going through
withdrawal, as you described it, it's like the flu, and so somebody might have said, "I wonder why he
has the flu. "
Ms. Cahan: So there's been some testimony that Mr. Jackson, on June 19th, 2009, was exhibiting
some flu-like symptoms, was cold at a rehearsal, and was sent home.

Q. Are you -- Have you seen any of that testimony?
A. Yes.
Q. Based on your review of Dr. Klein's records, do you think that Mr. Jackson was in opiate
withdrawal on June 19th?
A. If we could throw that -- That back up?
Q. Yes. Sorry.
A. You know, I -- I looked at all of this, and you don't have June 19th
Ms. Cahan: The next page has, I think, the end of June.
Mr. Koskoff: There is no next page.
Ms. Cahan: There it is.
Mr. Schnoll: Yeah, they --
Ms. Cahan: I think it's cut off. I think you said the last dose was June 22nd.
Mr. Schnoll: Yes.
Ms. Cahan: May I approach, your honor?

Judge: Yes.
Ms. Cahan: It looks to me like June 15th or 16th is the last dose before June 22nd.
Mr. Schnoll: Right. And, you know, I was very concerned about that. This was an issue that really
concerned me because I -- I wanted to look was he really dependent, wasn't he. And that's why I asked
them to make this chart, to give me a picture of how much Demerol he was getting during the month of
June, and how frequently he was getting it. And so if, in fact, at the very end, there was this
withdrawal, we would have seen evidence of it because the appearance of withdrawal from Demerol
usually shows up within 24 to 36 hours after the last dose. So the fact that there are these long periods
of time, six, seven days, with no Demerol, without any description -- In fact, one of the things I looked
at, because I was concerned there were these descriptions, days when he was having the chills, where
he had the blanket on, and such, and I was saying, hmm, that may be opioid withdrawal. But it didn't
coincide with when I would have expected that withdrawal to occur, and we would have been able to
see this, and I wasn't seeing it. And so it was very hard for me to say that he was dependent at that
time. That was -- That was the issue.
Q. So you don't think the symptoms that people have testified Mr. Jackson was exhibiting on June
19th are consistent with opiate withdrawal?
A. That's correct.
Q. So we talked a bit about your opinion that whether or not Mr. Jackson was dependent or addicted,
you think he could have been gotten off drugs and then he would have been able to live a long, healthy
life?
A. Yes. Well, wait a minute. Let me -- I said if he was treated appropriately for his problem, not
that he could have gotten totally off drugs. So I don't want a misconception there, because he might
have needed medication for some of his underlying medical problems. So I just want to --
Q. OK So it's not clear to you whether Mr. Jackson, with appropriate medical treatment -- Because
there's just not enough information about the underlying issues -- Could have discontinued use of all
medications and been OK?
A. That's correct.
Q. So you said that somebody can be on -- Properly controlled and supervised can be on Opioids or
Opiates for their entire life and it wouldn't affect their life expectancy if they're taking them as
expected?
A. Correct.
Q. What about Benzodiazepines? Is the same true?
A. The same.
Q. What about Propofol ?

A. There are no data on that.

Q. And the people that you saw -- The few people that you saw, out of the tens of thousands of
patients you treated, who were abusing Propofol , how long had they been abusing Propofol before
they either voluntarily came to treatment or were put into treatment by someone?
A. I think that most people were discovered fairly quickly, probably a couple of months.
Q. Is there anybody who used it for years and -- Before they came to treatment?
A. Not that I saw.
Q. And did you see the people tended to use the Propofol more and more frequently in higher and
higher dosages?
A. They would get what they could, so it was -- It was very hard to determine exactly what they were
doing because it wasn't always available to them, they would have to steal it. So they would take
whatever they could get a hold of, and so it was hard to calculate the changes in dosages and such.
Q. But there's no data to say what happens if someone takes Propofol -- Uses Propofol over a long
period of time, that you're aware of?
A. That's correct.
Q. So there are a couple of different ways that somebody can get into treatment for drug abuse, right?
Voluntarily or involuntary?
A. Yes.
Q. So voluntarily means someone recognizes that they have a problem and they seek help --
A. Yes.
Q. -- From a Doctor? And people can also be put into drug treatment involuntarily as a result of
involvement with the criminal justice system, for example?
A. Yes.
Q. Or if they're a child and their parent forces them into some kind of treatment?
A. Yes.
Q. Are those the most common circumstances where someone ends up in drug treatment against their
will?
A. Those are common. There are other reasons that someone might get into drug treatment.
Q. Like what?

A. Somebody may be told that their job is at stake, they have a spouse that threatens to leave them.
There are lots of things. There's usually some kind of external force that gets them to recognize the
issue.
Q. And those people might grudgingly seek treatment, but they would be seeking treatment of their
own accord, right? They wouldn't be pressured into treatment, but they would be choosing to go into
treatment?
A. Almost everyone is somehow pressured into treatment.
Q. Right.
A. Very few people actually wake up one morning and say, with no coercion, "gee, I have to get into
treatment for my addiction. "
Q. Right. But those people would fall into the voluntary but maybe reluctant category?
A. They're there because there was some external force getting them into treatment.
Q. Right. But those people, if they did not want to walk into a rehab center, could turn around and
head the other direction, right? As opposed to people who are court ordered or --
A. Court ordered is probably the only way you can force somebody to stay in the treatment, and that's
-- I don't think you can actually do that anymore. I think those acts have been removed from the
books.
Q. At least for adults?
A. Well, I think even for kids. I don't think you can court order. I think what -- In like a drug court,
somebody is told, "either you go into treatment or you go to jail. " so, again, there's some coercion
hanging over -- Over their head. But you can't say, "I'm ordering you to go into treatment and you
have to stay there."
Q. Right.
A. I don't know of anybody that can do that.
Q. So your opinion that Mr. Jackson could have either gotten appropriate medical care and managed
his drug use appropriately or been withdrawn from drugs is dependent on the idea that he would be an
active participant in that process and be willing to engage in it, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And if he didn't want help and didn't want to change the drugs that he was using, or the way that
he was using them, does that affect your opinion at all?
A. If he didn't want help? If somebody doesn't want help, then my job as a treating physician is to
motivate them to get help. And that's a very important part of treatment, motivating a patient to want
treatment. Most patients with any chronic disease don't want to accept the fact that they have it, and,

in fact, it's been in the press one of the big problems is patient adherence to like high blood pressure
treatment and other things. And so, again, the physician's responsibility is to motivate the patient to
want the treatment.
Q. Right. I'm asking something a little bit different. So you said you've been reading Keith
Richards' autobiography?
A. Yes.
Q. And are you aware of whether Mr. Richards or other people sometimes happily use drugs for
decades, think that they can control their drug use and are not interested in getting off drugs?
A. I haven't gotten there yet.
Q. Take him out of the equation. Are you aware of anyone who says, you know, "I've got this under
control, I don't want help, I can do what I need to do, I can do my job, and I don't want to stop using"?
A. Yes.
Q. And if you can't change someone like that's mind, you're not going to get them to change the way
they're using drugs, right?
A. That's why your job is to motivate them and do the motivational interviews of that person to help
them see the problems associated with their behavior.
Q. Did you have 100 percent success rate in your practice?
A. No.
Q. Does anyone?
A. No.
Q. So your opinion regarding Mr. Jackson's life expectancy is based on the assumption that any abuse
of drugs that he may have been engaging in could have been changed?
A. I think if he got the appropriate treatment, if he was appropriately diagnosed for the problems he
had, and he was given appropriate treatment to resolve the issues, that yes, he could have been either
off the drugs or taking drugs appropriately to deal with those conditions.
Q. And you looked at Mr. Jackson's medical records that were available going back quite some time,
right?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you see either medical records or testimony talking about attempted interventions performed
by Mr. Jackson's family?
A. Yes.

Q. And did Mr. Jackson ever agree to go into rehab as a result of those interventions?
A. No.
Q. He didn't?
A. Not --
Q. He said he was fine?
A. There was the one intervention, I think, at Neverland I read about. But, in fact, you could call the
-- When he did go into treatment, there was sort of an intervention by Elizabeth Taylor, who met with
him.
Q. In 1993?
A. Yes.
Q. I'm talking about his family's attempts to get him into treatment. Those were unsuccessful, right?
A. Yeah. What was not clear to me, though, was whether those were properly developed
interventions. And there is also some evidence now that interventions may not be the most appropriate
approach to dealing with the problem, so -- It was once a very popular approach.
Q. Did you see Dr. Saunders' testimony that in the early 2000's, he talked to Mr. Jackson
buprenorphine, which is one of the ingredients in Suboxone, as a way to help Mr. Jackson get off drugs
and stay off drugs?
A. Yes, and, also, Dr. Farshchian talked about it.
Q. Right. We'll get there next. Did Mr. Jackson go on a course of buprenorphine as a result of his
conversation with Dr. Saunders?
A. Actually, at that time, early 2000 -- I'm trying to remember the dates. I don't think the sublingual
form of buprenorphine had been approved yet. It did not get approved until late 2002, and really did
not become available until 2003. So I'd have to be reminded of those dates to see if, in fact, the
treatment was approved and available at that time. The only available buprenorphine I think at that
time was an injectable form called Buprenex , was which only approved for the treatment of pain.
Q. And Mr. Jackson didn't use Buprenex at that time?
A. No.
Q. And you just mentioned Dr. Farshchian and the Narcan implants?
A. Yes.
Q. Those are like little sticks that Mr. Jackson surgically inserted under the skin of his abdomen?

A. I have no idea what they were because it's an unapproved medical use, so I have no idea what they
look like, what they were, how they were made, who made them. I don't know.
Q. But you understand that they were surgically implanted under Mr. Jackson's skin periodically?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you see -- Did you read Dr. Gordon's testimony?
A. I'm trying to recall. I think I did, but I --
Q. Do you recall Dr. Gordon's testimony that Mr. Jackson went to him because he thought he had part
of an implant left in, or some scar tissue relating to it, and at the end of that procedure to excise the
tissue where the Narcan implant had been, asked for a shot of Demerol for the road?
A. I think I do remember that from having a surgical procedure take place.
Q. Do you remember Dr. Van Valin's testimony about Michael Jackson have a box of Propofol at his
house at Neverland that he asked Dr. Van Valin to administer to him?
A. Yes.
Judge: Dr. Who?
Ms. Cahan: Van Valin, V-a-n, V-a-l-I-n.
Mr. Schnoll: yes.
Q. And do you recall Dr. Quinn's testimony about Mr. Jackson asking her to give him Propofol for
sleep?
A. Yes.
Q. And same for Cherilyn Lee?
A. Yes.
Q. And Dr. Van Valin?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you review the Santa Inez cottage valley hospital records?
A. Yes.
Q. I may have gotten that slightly wrong. And did you see the evidence in there of concern among

the physicians about Mr. Jackson's Demerol use, the amounts and the frequency?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you see anything in the records about a history of overdoses that Mr. Jackson had?
A. You know, I -- I don't know if it was an overdose. There was a time that he was unconscious or
fainted or collapsed, and there was a concern one time coming to the Santa Inez cottage hospital where
they were concerned about him having too much Demerol.
Q. But none of that affects your opinion about whether Mr. Jackson was either addicted or could have
been properly treated and not had adverse health consequences of drug use --
A. No. I looked --
Q. -- Going forward?
A. -- Looked at all that, and, of course, had concerns about those issues, looked at them as to what
they meant, what happened around them, and -- And looked at those long periods of time where there
was no evidence of drug use. So it's -- It's looking at the totality of the picture, and you can take
isolated instances and try to make something out of those, but I looked at those and tried to fit those
into the whole picture to try to come up with what was happening. It's like a puzzle, and you're trying
to put it together, trying to understand what's going on.
Q. Do you understand that plaintiffs have another -- Retained another addiction expert to testify in
this -- In connection with this case, Dr. Shimelman?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you review his deposition testimony?
A. I -- No, I don't think I reviewed his deposition testimony.
Q. So you're not aware that plaintiffs
Mr. Panish: excuse me, your honor. I'm going to object to counsel trying to get out what Dr.
Shimelman -- It was not reviewed or considered by this witness.
Judge: Sustained.
Q. By
Ms. Cahan: So you don't know what he testified about in this case in terms of -- At all? You haven't
reviewed the testimony?
A. Is that --

Mr. Panish: You can answer if -- The question --

Ms. Cahan: I'll try to make my question clear.
Mr. Schnoll: I don't know what's going on in the lawyer --
Mr. Panish: Asked and answered already.
Judge: In the lawyer world?
Mr. Schnoll: Yes.
Mr. Panish: She already asked him if he reviewed it, he said no.
Ms. Cahan: I want to make sure it was clear, your honor.
Q. Did you review Dr. Shimelman's testimony in this case?
A. No.
Q. Did plaintiffs' counsel tell you Dr. Shimelman's opinions about Mr. Jackson and life expectancy or
addiction in this case?
A. They told me about addiction.
Q. And what did they tell you Dr. Shimelman said?
A. He thought there might be addiction.
Q. He thought there might be?
A. I didn't read it. That's what they said.
Q. Addiction to what, did they say?
A. No.
Q. But it appears, at least from the limited amount of information you were given, that you and Dr.
Shimelman reached different conclusions about whether Mr. Jackson may have had addiction or
dependency issues?
A. Yes.
Q. And they didn't tell you anything about his opinions on life expectancy?
A. No.

Judge: We were hoping to get this witness out today.

Ms. Cahan: I'm flipping to -- I think I just have a few more things.
Judge: Then are we getting the redirect? How much redirect do you have?
Mr. Panish: Not much, since we're at 4:20.
Ms. Cahan: Three minutes, your honor.
Judge: OK

Q. You worked for Purdue pharmacy for a number of years, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And Purdue pharmacy manufactures Oxycontin?
A. Yes.
Q. Oxycontin is an opiate painkiller?
A. It's an opiate pain reliever, yes.
Q. And it's available in pill form?
A. Yes.
Q. Has the formulation of Oxycontin changed recently?
A. Yes.
Q. Why?
A. Because people were taking it and crushing it and snorting it or injecting it. And when you
crushed it, you were able to get all the drug out at once that was supposed to be delivered over 12
hours.
Q. And so they changed the formulation so it can't be crushed up and used to get high anymore?
A. That's correct.
Q. And was that change made during the time that you were working for Purdue pharmacy?
A. They were working on that formulation when I was there, but it was only recently -- I think in
2010 it was approved.
Q. And you -- Your title at Purdue pharmacy was executive medical director?

A. Yes.
Q. And I think you testified that -- Yesterday that your job was to help manage -- Do risk
management?
A. Yes.
Q. So you were helping Purdue pharmacy deal with the abuse of Oxycontin?
A. Yes.
Q. Oxycontin is a very successful drug for Purdue, fair to say?
A. Yes.
Q. Any idea of the sales of Oxycontin, either in terms of millions of dollars a year or percentage of
Purdue's business?

Mr. Panish: it's not relevant. Objection, relevance.
Judge: Sustained. And your time is up. So let's go to redirect. We need to get the witness on the
road.
Ms. Cahan: OK
Mr. Schnoll: Thank you.
Redirect examination by Mr. Koskoff:
Q. Counsel asked you about the symptoms that Michael Jackson was having in June of 2009 that you
were worrying -- You were wondering whether or not they were withdrawal or not?
A. Yes.
Q. And have you since seen -- Have you since come to a conclusion as to what those actually were
symptoms of?
A. Yes.
Q. What were they symptoms of?
A. Well, they were not symptoms that I could see from Demerol, but probably from his continued use
of Propofol every night.

Ms. Cahan: Objection, move to strike, it's outside the scope of this expert's --
Judge: Motion denied.
Q. Now, counsel also asked you if the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, but the
absence of evidence isn't evidence of evidence, either, is it?
A. Correct.
Judge: Now we're talking lawyer language, definitely.
Q. If we go one more, is the absence -- No. And during the times that you saw that Michael was --
That there was no evidence of drug use, and following those times, did you see that he came into Dr.
Klein's office and had low drug -- Low Demerol injections?
A. Yes.
Q. OK Now, counsel also asked you about a couple of people that had treated him, Dr. Van Valin,
who -- Who counsel asked you about this incident with Dr. Van Valin where he was going to give him
some kind of treatment, the buprenorphine, which was before it even came on the market that he was
talking about, and Michael turned it down, is that right?
Ms. Cahan: Objection, misstates evidence. We were discussing Dr. Saunders.
Judge: Are you confusing the two?
Mr. Koskoff: The year you were talking about, counsel --
Judge: Propofol was Van Valin, wasn't it?
Ms. Cahan: Dr. Saunders was the Buprenorphine.
Judge: I think you are confusing --
Mr. Koskoff: Dr. Saunders was asking him.
Q. And that was in the year -- In the early 2000's?
A. Yes.
Q. OK But he -- But Michael did undergo treatment for drug dependency in the early 2000's with
the naltrexone implants, didn't he?

A. That's correct.
Q. And after that, there was no evidence that he was drug dependent for a period of time, isn't that
right?
A. That's correct.
Q. And, in fact, when you talked about his motivation to go into dependence, he came out publicly
and told the public in 1993 that he wanted to get better, didn't he?
A. Yes, that's correct.
Q. Does that mean anything in terms of a person's ability to beat a drug habit?
A. That's very -- It's -- It's really remarkable when somebody makes that kind of statement because it
puts a lot of pressure on them.
Q. And did he -- And he went and he did it and then there was -- There was no evidence of drug use
after that until he needed more medical treatment, isn't that right?
A. Correct.
Q. And then, by the way, he had that fall -- I think it was 1999 or 2000, that bad fall, and after that is
when he began with Demerol use again, is that correct?
A. Yes, yes.
Q. And it was after that that he had the naltrexone implant and -- And didn't show any Demerol use
for a long period of time, isn't that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And counsel also talked about the fact that he was asking people to give him Demerol -- To give
him Propofol . What was he asking them to give him Propofol for? Was it for the Propofol or was it
for a condition?
A. He asked them to give him the Propofol to help him sleep because he was having trouble
sleeping.
Q. And, in fact, with Cherilyn Lee, isn't that what he told her?
A. Yes.
Q. And when she said she didn't think he could have it, what did he say?
A. He said that he had been told that he could get it under medical -- If somebody was there to
medically supervise.
Q. But -- And she said, well, she didn't think so, is that right?

A. That's correct.
Q. And she was a nurse?
A. Correct. I think she's a naturopath.
Q. A naturopath. And, by the way, the other Doctors, the responsible Doctors like Dr. Quinn and Dr.
Metzger, when he asked them to give the Propofol , didn't give it to him, is that right?
Ms. Cahan: Objection, argumentative.
Judge: OK Sustained. The "responsible" Doctors.
Mr. Koskoff: The other Doctors who he asked for Propofol didn't give it to him.
Q. Quinn never gave it to him, did she?
Ms. Cahan: Objection, misstates evidence. He put up a chart showing she gave him Propofol .

Q. But she didn't give it do him for sleep outside of the dental procedures, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And Cherilyn Lee didn't give it to him, either, outside the dental procedures?
A. Correct.
Q. And he didn't ask her to, did he?
A. No, he asked her to find a physician.
Q. To find an anesthesiologist to do it, isn't that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And Dr. Van Valin also did not do it?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that correct?
A. Yes
Q. Now, you also mentioned that when you were working, you worked at -- Counsel just started off
the whole thing with you worked at a rock concert.

A. Yes.
Q. Working for rock concerts?
A. Right.
Q. But you didn't -- Did you ever have a contract with a promoter to treat an individual patient?
A. No.
Q. An individual performer?
A. No.
Q. Were you there to give general medical care to the -- To everybody who might be around?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you ever have a contract where you would be paid on a monthly basis, and the contract
could be for $150,000 a month, all of which could be cancelled at any moment if the concert was
postponed or delayed?
A. No.
Q. And did you ever have -- Did you ever ask for $5 million to work for -- At a rock concert?
A. I probably should have, but I never did.
Q. Probably you wouldn't be here today if you had.
A. I'd be in Bahamas or something.
Q. So is -- And did you ever leave your practice on ten days' notice? Did you ever agree to leave
your practice, rather, on ten days' notice?
A. No.
Q. And abandon your patients? Did you ever agree to abandon your patients for $150,000?

Ms. Cahan: Objection.
Judge: Argumentative as to "abandoned. "
Q. How about leave your patients to their devices?
A. No.

Ms. Cahan: Objection, assumes facts not in evidence. There's been no testimony about what
happened with patient care.
Judge: OK
Mr. Panish: Next question.
Mr. Koskoff: I'll withdraw the question.
Mr. Panish: Ne want to go home.
Mr. Koskoff: Mr. Panish wants to go home, so do I. I have no further questions.
Judge: Thank you. Is that it?
Ms. Cahan: One question, your honor.

Recross-examination by Ms. Cahan:
Q. When Mr. Jackson asked Ms. Lee to find him a doctor -- Said that other Doctors had given him
Propofol , and it was safe, do you remember what she responded?
A. She -- She responded that he was taking chances to do it, it was not appropriate.
Q. She said the bottom line is death?
A. Yes.
Q. And that anyone who cared about him wouldn't give him Propofol to sleep?
A. That's correct.
Ms. Cahan: nothing further, your honor.
Further redirect examination by Mr. Koskoff:
Q. And was it in response to that that he said that, "my Doctor told me that it's safe as long as I'm
under careful supervision"?
A. Yes.
Q. And that was in April, is that right?

A. Yes.
Q. Thank you. And then Conrad Murray gave it to him, too?
A. Yes.
Judge: OK Thank you. Holiday weekend.
(the following proceedings were held in open court, outside the presence of the jurors:)
Ms. Stebbins Bina: Briefly, your honor, I need to revisit something for the record from yesterday,
and also wanted to raise a scheduling issue.
Mr. Panish: You can do the exhibits on Monday. We don't object to that.
Ms. Stebbins Bina: It will only take a second. For the record, yesterday, I used three exhibits in the
cross-examination of Ms. Seawright. They were used only for identification and to cross-examine her.
They were not put into evidence, however, I didn't identify them by number at the time, only by
description. So we're going to give them some numbers now. The first was an expert report
previously issued by Ms. Seawright in another case, and we're going to mark that 13460. (marked for
identification, exhibit 13460, expert report.)
the second was a report by the society for human resources management published in 2010 on credit
checks. We're going to mark that as 13461. (marked for identification, exhibit 13461, report by the
society for human resources management.)
And the third was another report by the society of human resources management, this one on criminal
background checks, published at the same time. And that was 13462. (marked for identification,
exhibit 13462, report by the society for human resources management.)
Mr. Panish: Those are for identification only?
Ms. Stebbins Bina: Right. None of them came into evidence, they were just used to cross-examine.
Judge: And what was the number of the first -- That was the Seawright expert report and the --
Ms. Stebbins Bina: Yes.
Mr. Panish: It's actually the supplemental report.
Ms. Stebbins Bina: I think I used the may 11 report, which was the original report, not the
supplemental.
The clerk: 13460.

Judge: all right. And then a scheduling issue?

Ms. Stebbins Bina: Yes. Your honor, there's a number of moving pieces for the following -- For
this coming Monday. Your honor had ordered trial testimony for Dr. Brown, plaintiffs' expert, and
they proposed that that be done Monday morning via video conference. They've also stated that they
intend to call Grace Rwaramba. If you remember way back when, we could not locate Ms. Rwaramba.
Plaintiffs added her after trial started to their exhibit list, despite having -- Their witness list. Thank
you, Mr. Putnam. Despite some family members having contact information for her, they refused to
provide it for us. You ordered that if she testified, there would be depositions. They originally
noticed the deposition for Tuesday. Then they cancelled and suggested Friday. We weren't available
Friday, I suggested Monday. The issue being, your honor, now with two depositions going Monday,
we need to have some idea of who is going to be needed in court so we can plan, and we'd like them to
tell us their Monday witness. I assume it will be a continuation of Taj Jackson.
Mr. Panish: I already told them. We've told them already. Ms. Chang --
Ms. Stebbins Bina: No, you didn't.
Mr. Panish: Yes, we did. Ms. Cahan. First of all, Dr. Brown, three-hour deposition. I told Ms.
Cahan -- I can't tell you the exact date, either last week or the week before, about that. On Monday,
and it will be over at 9:30. Then as an accommodation, since Ms. Chang is the one dealing with Ms.
Rwaramba, we were going to play the deposition so that nobody would have -- These attorneys -- Of
Dr. Finkelstein -- Would not have to be here for that. Then we got a hold of Mr. Ortega, which we've
already told them, and Mr. Ortega's attorney can't come until 1:30, so we asked that we call Mr. Ortega
at 1:30. All of this, we've previously told counsel. So that's what's going on.
Ms. Stebbins Bina: Sounds good.
Judge: That sounds like enough for Monday.
Ms. Stebbins Bina: Your honor, I hadn't realized that conversation had happened. My mistake.
No worries.
Mr. Panish: We did tell them that.
Judge: Dr. Brown, Dr. Finkelstein, those are both depos --
Mr. Panish: Brown is not going to be played, he's going to have his deposition taken outside this
courtroom.
Judge: Is he going to be played or something like that?
Mr. Panish: Later.
Ms. Stebbins Bina: One thing, your honor. Plaintiffs' counsel had said they intended to finish their
case next week. It seems there's still a lot of moving pieces with Mr. Ortega. I know they have some
other damages experts. We now have Dr. Brown and Ms. Rwaramba, Taj Jackson needs to be
completed. That sounds like a lot to do in five days, but, obviously, this case has been dragging out for

some time. I'm not sure what the current estimate is on that, or whether we should start doing 4:30
every day.
Mr. Panish: Fine with me. But about a month ago, when I was asked, I said that was my estimate as
of that time. Obviously, as she points out, that's not accurate at this time because of all the things that
have happened. I don't need to get into why the reasons are. So it doesn't look like we will finish our
case during the week of the 8th, as I said. And the court told me when I was asked, and I didn't want
to give the estimate because then they were going to do this -- You said, "just tell us what your best
estimate is at that time," and I did.
Ms. Stebbins Bina: So what's the current estimate?
Mr. Panish: I have no idea. I mean --
Judge: If it's not the original estimate, is it an extra week, or --
Mr. Panish: Probably another week or so. But, I mean, I didn't know that -- As I stand here right
now, that's an estimate.
Judge: I never accused anyone of wasting time.
Mr. Panish: Thank you.
Judge: There isn't that issue. Just I think for planning purposes, people need to know.
Mr. Panish: I understand, fair enough.
Mr. Putnam: And, also, your honor, for the fact that the jurors have been told it will be a certain
length of time. We worry about when we try to put on our case, they don't turn to us and say, "why are
you going since we've already run the entire length of the trial?"
Mr. Panish: The jury was qualified pursuant to the defendants' statement that the trial would take 90
court days. If you look on the jury summons that was given to the court with the names, it has length
of trial, 90 court days.
Judge: It will be all right.
Mr. Panish: Per them saying it.
Ms. Stebbins Bina: We actually didn't say 90 court days, but it doesn't matter. We're trying to make
sure this doesn't spin out of control and we have an understanding of what's going on.
Judge: I don't think it has spun out of control, and I don't think it will. An extra week isn't going to
hurt. But I understand the need to prepare, get your witnesses together.
Mr. Putnam: That's all we're worried about, make sure people know when they have to come out
here.
Ms. Cahan: The scheduling is difficult.

Judge: I know.