Sie sind auf Seite 1von 38

1

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - WESTERN DIVISION

3 HONORABLE GEORGE WU

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE PRESIDING

5 - - -

6
Optimum Productions, )
7 PLAINTIFF, )
)
8 VS. ) NO. CV 19-1862 GW
)
9 Home Box Office, )
DEFENDANT, )
10 ___________________________________)

11

12

13 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

14 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA

15 MONDAY, JULY 15, 2019

16

17

18 _____________________________________

19 KATIE E. THIBODEAUX, CSR 9858


U.S. Official Court Reporter
20 Suite 4311
350 West 1st Street
21 Los Angeles, CA 90012

22

23

24

25

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


2

1 APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL:

3 FOR PLAINTIFF:

4 FREEDMAN AND TAITELMAN LLP


BY: BRIAN J. FREEDMAN
5 1901 Avenue of the Stars
Suite 500
6 Los Angeles, CA 90067

7 -and-

8 KINSELLA WEITZMAN ISER KUMP AND ALDISERT LLP


BY: HOWARD WEITZMAN
9 -and- JONATHAN P. STEINSAPIR
-and- ZACHARY ELSEA
10 808 Wilshire Boulevard
Third Floor
11 Santa Monica, CA 90401

12

13 FOR DEFENDANT:

14 O'MELVENY AND MYERS LLP


BY: DANIEL M. PETROCELLI
15 1999 Avenue of the stars
Eighth Floor
16 Los Angeles, CA 90067

17 -and-

18 GIBSON DUNN AND CRUTCHER LLP


BY: THEODORE BOUTROS
19 333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071
20

21

22

23

24

25

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


3

1 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; MONDAY, JULY 15, 2019

2 9:36 A.M.

3 - - - - -

7 THE COURT: Let me call the matter of Optimum

8 Productions versus Home Box Office. Let me have

9 appearances.

10 MR. STEINSAPIR: Good morning, your Honor.

11 Jonathan Steinsapir for the plaintiffs' petitioners.

12 MR. WEITZMAN: Howard Weitzman on behalf of

13 plaintiffs, your Honor.

14 MR. FREEDMAN: Bryan Freedman on behalf of

15 plaintiffs, your Honor.

16 MR. ELSEA: Zachary Elsea on behalf of plaintiffs,

17 your Honor.

18 THE COURT: All right. And for the defense.

19 MR. PETROCELLI: Good morning, your Honor. Daniel

20 Petrocelli for HBO.

21 MR. BOUTROUS: Good morning, your Honor. Theodore

22 Boutrous for HBO.

23 MR. BACH: Good morning, your Honor. Nathaniel

24 Bach for HBO.

25 MR. MCNALLY: Good morning, your Honor. Patrick

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


4

1 McNally for HBO.

2 MS. ABRUTYN: Good morning, your Honor. Stephanie

3 Abrutyn, in-house counsel for HBO.

4 THE COURT: A lot of HBO people. We are here on a

5 continuation of the motion to compel. I asked for

6 supplemental briefing, which I got. I have issued

7 another written what I call a further consideration of

8 the motion to compel arbitration. I presume both sides

9 have seen it.

10 MR. STEINSAPIR: Yes, your Honor.

11 THE COURT: Both sides have seen the further

12 written --

13 MR. PETROCELLI: We did.

14 THE COURT: I will allow you guys to argue.

15 As I have indicated, I haven't reached a final

16 decision. It depends on how you argue this matter to me

17 today. Yes.

18 MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, I am going to address

19 the first two issues, and Mr. Boutrous will address the

20 First Amendment issue on which you specifically invited

21 argument.

22 THE COURT: All right.

23 MR. PETROCELLI: I am going to use whatever

24 capital I may have left with the Court on the second of

25 the two issues, although we respectfully disagree with

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


5

1 your tentative on the first issue that the --

2 THE COURT: Is that your way of saying you are

3 going to address the second issue, not the first?

4 MR. PETROCELLI: Yes. That is a way of saying it,

5 your Honor. I want to focus your Honor on this question

6 of whether this agreement and its arbitration clause

7 picks up this dispute.

8 The plaintiff cited the Ninth Circuit decision

9 in the Simula v AutoLiv case. And we agree with the

10 principles articulated there. The Court there laid down

11 the test for determining whether a dispute is covered by

12 a broad arbitration provision such as we have here.

13 The Court said, "We likewise conclude that the

14 language arising in connection with reaches every dispute

15 between the parties having a significant relationship to

16 the contract, and all disputes having their origin or

17 genesis in the contract.

18 "To require arbitration Simula's factual

19 allegations need only touch matters covered by the

20 contract containing the arbitration clause, and all

21 doubts are to be resolved in favor of arbitrability."

22 THE COURT: That is really broad, isn't it?

23 MR. PETROCELLI: It is broad, your Honor. But it

24 is not infinite. And it is not limitless. And the

25 plaintiff's position which with which the Court has

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


6

1 apparently tentatively agreed is literally that HBO is

2 forever barred from saying anything bad about Michael

3 Jackson. And, your Honor, arbitration is a matter, as

4 the courts have said, of consent, not coercion.

5 THE COURT: The real question is -- you know, that

6 is an interesting question, but that is not the real

7 question. The real question is shouldn't the arbitrator

8 decide whether or not that is what the parties decided?

9 MR. PETROCELLI: So I understand the tension

10 between the decision the Court is being asked to make on

11 this motion and the ultimate merits of the case. And I

12 will acknowledge, your Honor, that it may well be the

13 case that were your Honor to agree with our position that

14 this dispute is not covered by this agreement, there may

15 be no viable claim to be brought.

16 But that is not a reason not to look at the

17 underlying allegations.

18 THE COURT: No. I looked at the underlying

19 allegations.

20 MR. PETROCELLI: That is what I would like to

21 address, your Honor, because what the plaintiffs have

22 simply done is pointed to the non-disparagement provision

23 and say we think that you breached it and you dispute

24 that. Therefore we have an arbitrable matter.

25 But that is -- the gatekeeping function on

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


7

1 arbitrability doesn't put blinders on the Court to look

2 at simply how they denominated a claim or pointed to a

3 particular obligation that the claim is breached.

4 They gave you a ridiculous example. If HBO

5 assaulted somebody, they couldn't bring a claim under

6 arbitration here.

7 So what they have said is that, well, you

8 disparaged Michael Jackson and there is a

9 non-disparagement clause here.

10 THE COURT: Let's assume that somebody from HBO

11 assaulted Michael Jackson and said, you pedophile, in

12 public.

13 MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, this agreement is not

14 boundless.

15 THE COURT: I agree it is not boundless, but a

16 disparagement is a disparagement. Are you saying that

17 this documentary did not disparage?

18 MR. PETROCELLI: For purposes of this motion, we

19 are not quarreling with the truth or falsity of the

20 allegations. What we are claiming is that the

21 allegations are insufficient to show the significant

22 relationship or that this dispute touches the agreement.

23 And what I am suggesting to your Honor, it has

24 to touch the agreement beyond pointing to a provision in

25 the agreement.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


8

1 THE COURT: Well, you have to give me the language

2 of the particular provision. What does the particular

3 language say?

4 MR. PETROCELLI: Yes. The provision says thou

5 shalt not disparage the performer. Okay. But, your

6 Honor, the arbitration provision requires arbitration of

7 dispute arising under, in connection with, or relating

8 to, quote, this agreement.

9 So there must be a tether to the agreement.

10 And when we look at the agreement, your Honor,

11 you have to look at the totality of the agreement. You

12 have to ask yourself were the parties really consenting

13 that forever HBO, whether it be Bill Maher or John

14 Oliver, 30 years later, completely unrelated to the

15 subject matter of the agreement, which was the exhibition

16 of a single concert of 70 on a tour --

17 THE COURT: Let me put it this way. Putting aside

18 the First Amendment concerns, why not? Why isn't that

19 something that arbitrators normally decide, to the extent

20 that something is done for purposes of meeting the

21 disparagement provisions, which the arbitrators are

22 supposed to decide?

23 This is the normal course for an arbitrator to

24 decide how extensive is this thing going to be.

25 MR. PETROCELLI: To be clear, under their view all

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


9

1 they would need to do to meet the test is to say that HBO

2 disparaged Michael Jackson. Full stop. And that is

3 subject to arbitration.

4 THE COURT: Put it this way. They would have to

5 go a little bit further saying how he was disparaged.

6 They couldn't use the term to say he was disparaged

7 without a basis for articulating what the disparagement

8 was. Which they have done here. They have gone beyond.

9 MR. PETROCELLI: Well, all they have said is that

10 HBO exhibited some content -- namely this documentary --

11 that disparages Michael Jackson.

12 THE COURT: If you look at the complaint, it says

13 a little bit more than that.

14 MR. PETROCELLI: No. Your Honor, I looked at the

15 complaint, and paragraph 40 contains the salient

16 allegation. It says, "The film expressly alleges that

17 Jackson was abusing children," and this is what they

18 emphasized in bold and in italics, "in connection with

19 and on the Dangerous World Tour." Nothing about the

20 Bucharest concert. Nothing about this particular

21 agreement. Zero.

22 And why would they even need to mention the

23 Dangerous World Tour? Those were 70 concerts over the

24 course of a year-and-a-half. That is almost gratuitous

25 to their analysis.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


10

1 This agreement --

2 THE COURT: Maybe they just like to throw in a

3 bunch of stuff.

4 MR. PETROCELLI: Well, then, that is precisely my

5 point, your Honor.

6 THE COURT: It doesn't get around what they have

7 to have asserted, which was the disparagement -- what the

8 specific disparagement was. But, I mean, the thing of it

9 is -- I understand what you are trying to argue. You are

10 trying to argue that this is beyond what was contemplated

11 by the parties when they entered into this particular

12 agreement.

13 MR. PETROCELLI: That is precisely what I am

14 arguing.

15 THE COURT: But that is something that normally

16 arbitrators decide. As long as it is within the

17 possibility of that, and I think it clearly falls within

18 the realm of possibility.

19 MR. PETROCELLI: Well, I believe that the Ninth

20 Circuit jurisprudence requires more than that, your

21 Honor. I do think you need underlying facts not merely

22 pointing to a provision in a contract, because otherwise

23 what we are dealing with is a situation where not even

24 during the performer's lifetime, but forever, forever,

25 HBO cannot say anything bad about one of the most iconic,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


11

1 controversial celebrities of all time. That would mean

2 in news coverage --

3 THE COURT: Again, you are getting into his

4 territory now.

5 MR. PETROCELLI: I am.

6 THE COURT: You have to leave something for him to

7 say.

8 MR. PETROCELLI: Okay. I am now going to take

9 your cue and turn it over to Mr. Boutrous. But, your

10 Honor, I do think these are related concepts.

11 THE COURT: I understand your argument. Do you

12 want to respond?

13 MR. STEINSAPIR: I would like to respond just

14 briefly.

15 THE COURT: Let me ask, how are you guys going to

16 divide your arguments?

17 MR. STEINSAPIR: These are just the pretty faces.

18 I'm the one.

19 THE COURT: I'm sad for you.

20 MR. STEINSAPIR: First of all --

21 THE COURT: I hope they are not being paid a lot

22 for that.

23 MR. STEINSAPIR: Well, we won't let our client

24 read the transcript. That is a joke, by the way, for the

25 record.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


12

1 First of all, we didn't only sue under the

2 non-disparagement clause, and this relates to the first

3 amendment issue that is going to be discussed, and that

4 is why I wanted to bring it up.

5 Page 39 of document 18, which includes the

6 non-disparagement provision, also makes very clear that

7 if HBO comes into possession of information that is not

8 public, it has to come to us and get our permission to

9 use it.

10 Okay. And our biggest complaint about this

11 documentary, and I use documentary in quotes, is that

12 HBO -- and let me also make one other thing clear. My

13 friend said that HBO just exhibited this. HBO produced

14 this. HBO's documentary heads were producers on this.

15 Our biggest complaint about this documentary

16 is not that you make a documentary about this subject.

17 It is how you make it. And the fact that they sandbagged

18 us -- the first time we learned about this documentary --

19 THE COURT: If that is your argument, I would

20 agree with him.

21 MR. STEINSAPIR: But let me just go. So the point

22 is that there is a confidentiality provision. The US

23 Supreme Court in Cohen versus Cowles Media held

24 specifically that state law confidentiality provisions

25 are enforceable under the First Amendment.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


13

1 And First Amendment issues are arbitrated all

2 the time in this country. And I will give you an

3 example. Public employees arbitrate First Amendment

4 claims under collective bargaining agreements all the

5 time.

6 So HBO's position apparently is the First

7 Amendment precludes HBO from arbitrating a First

8 Amendment defense, but school teachers can arbitrate

9 their claims that they were fired in violation of the

10 First Amendment. Janitors can be forced to arbitrate

11 that they were fired in violation of the First Amendment.

12 So the fact is that the First Amendment just does not

13 apply here.

14 And I guess I am getting into the second

15 issue.

16 THE COURT: You are.

17 MR. STEINSAPIR: And can I get into it?

18 THE COURT: Well, we have to see what he says

19 first.

20 MR. STEINSAPIR: Okay. Well, the tentative wasn't

21 in my favor.

22 THE COURT: Who knows?

23 MR. BOUTROUS: Thank you, your Honor. Ted

24 Boutrous for HBO. I think one thing is clear, and the

25 Court noted in its tentative that there is no question

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


14

1 this is a documentary film.

2 There is also no question that it is of great

3 public concern, that it involves one of the most famous

4 public figures of all time.

5 THE COURT: Well, let's not -- let's not put up

6 too high a pedestal here.

7 MR. BOUTROUS: I agree. Because the allegations

8 of the film are serious allegations of child sexual

9 abuse. So it is the kind of thing --

10 THE COURT: Let me put it this way. It is not new

11 news. It is maybe a more in-depth analysis of what

12 transpired, but it is not earth-shattering. He is dead.

13 MR. BOUTROUS: He is, your Honor, and that is why

14 we see this --

15 THE COURT: This is my question. Is the

16 applicable law that should govern this California law or

17 Delaware law? What law is covering this.

18 MR. BOUTROUS: We believe that California law on

19 these issues would apply, including the strong policy

20 that the Court cited in its tentative.

21 THE COURT: You guys didn't file an anti-SLAPP?

22 MR. BOUTROUS: We have not filed an anti-SLAPP,

23 your Honor.

24 THE COURT: It seemed to me that your argument is

25 basically premised on a kind of anti-SLAPP. And if you

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


15

1 had filed an anti-SLAPP there wouldn't be any question as

2 to going forward in an examination of the First Amendment

3 aspects of this case, because again, they filed a case to

4 compel arbitration.

5 As I see it at this point in time, there is a

6 First Amendment issue, even though there is no state

7 action, per se, but the California legislature has placed

8 a spin in regards to First Amendment issues and the

9 bringing of lawsuits that concern First Amendment rights,

10 be it freedom of speech or freedom of petitioning the

11 government, however all the First Amendment rights are

12 concerned.

13 So, the question is, in essence, what you are

14 arguing is that when they filed this action they are

15 seeking to affect HBO's putting together a documentary on

16 an issue that is obviously newsworthy. And it also goes

17 toward his arguments in regards to the confidentiality

18 provision.

19 The question is whether or not a

20 confidentiality provision in the context of a contract

21 that was signed for a concert being shown on HBO will

22 have -- what effect is that supposed to have on a

23 documentary prepared decades later on something that

24 doesn't concern the concert.

25 And the question is to what extent can the

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


16

1 plaintiffs seek to utilize any litigation in response to

2 the exercise of this First Amendment right.

3 MR. BOUTROUS: That's correct, your Honor.

4 THE COURT: That was beautifully expressed by you,

5 by the way. I like that.

6 MR. BOUTROUS: Well, it really is that they are

7 asking this Court to take judicial action to create, as

8 we put it, a perpetual platform to police HBO's speech.

9 And that is the kind of thing that New York Times versus

10 Sullivan and the California anti-SLAPP statute is meant

11 to preclude.

12 THE COURT: And yet you didn't file an anti-SLAPP

13 motion.

14 MR. BOUTROUS: Your Honor, let me address that

15 because we --

16 THE COURT: Have you waived even the time period

17 for filing an anti-SLAPP motion?

18 MR. BOUTROUS: That does not apply in federal

19 court. And if the Court thinks that is the proper

20 procedural mechanism --

21 THE COURT: I am not thinking one way or the

22 other. I am just asking these questions.

23 MR. BOUTROUS: We were thinking that we would take

24 it in two steps based on the allegations here, based on

25 the scope of the contract and the question that

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


17

1 Mr. Petrocelli was discussing with the Court, whether

2 this dispute is encompassed, that that should take care

3 of the issue.

4 If the Court disagrees with us, I do think

5 that the First Amendment concern should inform that

6 question.

7 THE COURT: The First Amendment concerns were

8 basically a couple of pages in your briefs, whereas all

9 the other stuff was pages and pages and pages that I had

10 to read.

11 MR. BOUTROUS: I thought it was so

12 straightforward, your Honor, that we could just cut to

13 the chase, because there is no question --

14 THE COURT: When you argue in front of the supreme

15 court, do you use that sort of thing too or you just

16 don't do it simply for the fact that you don't know what

17 the results of that type of statement will be?

18 MR. BOUTROUS: Well, you never know, your Honor.

19 But in our opposition to the plaintiff's motion, we did

20 lay out the First Amendment concerns that the California

21 courts -- and it is clear that this is fully protected

22 speech of public concern about a public figure subject to

23 the highest First Amendment concerns. And we look at

24 what the parties really -- would HBO with those First

25 amendment interests at stake in 1992 have agreed to

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


18

1 muzzle itself forever regarding Michael Jackson.

2 THE COURT: Well, if you are going to go there,

3 then we have to look and see did Michael Jackson

4 authorize any broadcasts of his concerts. He was

5 extremely famous at that point in time. And it may have

6 been a situation where HBO would have agreed to get this

7 particular concert on our platform at that point in time

8 when HBO was what it was at that point in time, then

9 would they have agreed that we weren't going to do any of

10 those things. So is it a purely contractual matter. I

11 don't think you want to go there.

12 MR. BOUTROUS: But I would say, your Honor, that

13 even plaintiffs did not think in February of 2019 -- when

14 they filed their letter seeking to block the broadcast,

15 they didn't cite this contract.

16 And it is clear -- this goes back to the

17 Court's question about the anti-SLAPP motion and about

18 the procedure.

19 The fact of the filing of this lawsuit,

20 seeking a public arbitration, which isn't even in the

21 agreement, was really meant to chill speech. And that is

22 what the anti-SLAPP statute recognizes, that the mere

23 filing of a lawsuit seeking tens of millions of dollars

24 of damages --

25 THE COURT: Again, you didn't --

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


19

1 MR. BOUTROUS: We would like permission, your

2 Honor, to do so. It sounds like the Court believes that

3 is the -- you are not expressing an opinion.

4 THE COURT: I am not expressing an opinion.

5 MR. BOUTROUS: But we would like an opportunity to

6 do that, your Honor, if the Court is inclined to on the

7 other issues.

8 THE COURT: All right. Do you have anything else

9 to add?

10 MR. BOUTROUS: I think that is it, your Honor.

11 Thank you.

12 THE COURT: Let me hear from the plaintiff.

13 MR. STEINSAPIR: Taking the last issue first on

14 whether to file an anti-SLAPP, I do think the deadline on

15 timing does file in federal court -- that is the time to

16 file. And under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

17 you file a responsive pleading, one responsive pleading.

18 Their responsive pleading was a 12(b) -- or not 12(b).

19 It was an opposition to the motion.

20 THE COURT: You say that in federal court you

21 cannot file a successive 12(b)(6) followed by a SLAPP?

22 MR. STEINSAPIR: No. You file them at the same

23 time.

24 THE COURT: That is what I just said. I say you

25 can't do it separately.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


20

1 MR. STEINSAPIR: Oh, no, no. You can do it

2 separately, but you have to do it within the deadline to

3 respond. And they have not filed any anti-SLAPP.

4 THE COURT: Put it this way. If that is your

5 position, I will allow him to file it and you can bring

6 out -- you cite to me the cases.

7 MR. STEINSAPIR: First of all, your Honor raised

8 the anti-SLAPP issue at the last hearing and they still

9 didn't bring anything else about it.

10 THE COURT: I was too subtle the last time. And

11 they just didn't appreciate the gem that was in their

12 mine. They had the stone and they just threw it back and

13 went on forward and kept digging.

14 MR. STEINSAPIR: You mentioned the anti-SLAPP

15 statute specifically at the last hearing.

16 THE COURT: Sometimes it just takes a little

17 while.

18 MR. STEINSAPIR: Okay. The anti-SLAPP statute

19 does not apply to motions to compel arbitration. And I

20 can explain why.

21 AT&T versus Concepcion --

22 THE COURT: Let me stop you. That argument I will

23 entertain on the basis of briefing. In other words, you

24 are going to cite to me these things and I am not going

25 to say you are right or wrong, because again, this is an

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


21

1 interesting issue.

2 I mean, to what extent does -- because you

3 have a strong federal policy favoring arbitration and yet

4 you have, I guess one would argue, an equally strong, if

5 not stronger, concern in regards to First Amendment

6 issues. And so there is obviously this interesting

7 interplay of these two issues.

8 MR. STEINSAPIR: Sure. And the interplay has been

9 decided by AT&T versus Concepcion.

10 THE COURT: I understand that is your position.

11 But again, nobody has briefed it to me. And I am not

12 going to entertain an oral motion one way or the other.

13 What I will probably wind up doing is allowing

14 the defendant to make their motion, SLAPP motion, and see

15 if it flies. If it flies, then it will fly. If it

16 doesn't fly, it will land like a turd. That's a legal

17 term.

18 MR. STEINSAPIR: Well, your Honor, if I could just

19 talk a little bit more about why this isn't a First

20 Amendment issue.

21 THE COURT: Okay.

22 MR. STEINSAPIR: Look, as your Honor says, they

23 are complaining that this contract supposedly allows a

24 perpetual forum to enforce a defamation after death

25 claim, which this isn't.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


22

1 But sticking on that perpetual forum, that is

2 not an attack on the arbitration clause at all because

3 this Court would be the perpetual forum.

4 THE COURT: Let me ask this question. Was Optimum

5 Productions even in existence at the time?

6 MR. STEINSAPIR: Absolutely. Absolutely.

7 Absolutely it was. And that is in evidence. It was

8 founded in 1983. TTC Touring, the contracting party, was

9 merged into Optimum Productions, and it succeeds to its

10 rights.

11 And that is why this isn't a defamation after

12 death. It is a brief of confidentiality and a breach and

13 a non-disparagement clause. Those do not raise First

14 Amendment issues. And the First Amendment issue that

15 they have raised, that attacks the arbitration clause,

16 not just the non-disparagement clause.

17 Their attacking against the arbitration clause

18 is they are saying arbitration would create a perpetual

19 forum to enforce the contract's rights. You quoted that

20 in your tentative.

21 But if there wasn't an arbitration clause, the

22 court would be the perpetual forum and the Court would

23 decide whether this claim has validity, just like the

24 arbitrator would.

25 THE COURT: I understand all that, and again, that

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


23

1 is why my focus at this point in time is not on that

2 aspect of the case. It is really on this aspect of the

3 First Amendment issues. And the reference to SLAPP was

4 because it crystallizes it, because it raises both the

5 litigation rights -- because everybody has a right to

6 file suit. And it would have been a shock to say, oh,

7 you know, how can you prevent me from filing, going

8 forward and continuing with the suit. It is provided for

9 by contract. It is provided for in case law. It is

10 provided for in common law, et cetera, et cetera.

11 And yet you have a statute that was enacted in

12 in California that affects the ability of people to

13 litigate when that litigation has an adverse effect -- an

14 adverse and improper effect on First Amendment rights.

15 One might very well argue that in the end it

16 may have an effect on First Amendment rights, but it is

17 not a proper effect on First Amendment rights, and

18 therefore they should lose their SLAPP motion, which is a

19 lot of stuff I think you are going to be arguing now.

20 But again, I am not going to entertain it on

21 the basis of an oral representation.

22 MR. STEINSAPIR: If I can try to convince you that

23 you shouldn't let an anti-SLAPP --

24 THE COURT: How would you possibly do that?

25 MR. STEINSAPIR: I am that charming. But I do

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


24

1 think that --

2 THE COURT: That takes you maybe 5 percent of the

3 way.

4 MR. STEINSAPIR: That is for the arbitrator, your

5 Honor.

6 THE COURT: Save it for an arbitrator.

7 MR. STEINSAPIR: No, your Honor. We have two of

8 the best law firms in town representing HBO. The best

9 lawyers in the world.

10 THE COURT: You should be great. Two of the best

11 law firms. Two of the best.

12 MR. STEINSAPIR: The two best. Look. I think

13 that giving them a way out at this point is just not

14 fair. We want to get to arbitration and we want this

15 issue to be resolved.

16 Now, when you came back on confirmation

17 proceedings, if the arbitrator issues an injunction,

18 which we are not asking for, you can address those.

19 THE COURT: But the problem is this. Again, there

20 is a concern, and it is the SLAPP concern, that you are

21 not supposed to be allowed to continue with litigation

22 that has an adverse affect on First Amendment rights,

23 according to the California legislature, which is

24 apparently what this case is proceeding under.

25 MR. STEINSAPIR: I will take my one last shot,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


25

1 which is according to the California legislature, and

2 just like the California legislature said that class

3 action waivers are not enforceable as a matter of

4 California public policy, my friends on the other side,

5 AT&T, who own HBO, went to the supreme court and said

6 that, no, the FAA pre-empts the California legislature

7 and the California supreme court saying that class action

8 waivers are unenforceable. You have to enforce

9 arbitration. Same exact thing here.

10 THE COURT: Well, again, I recognize there are all

11 these things, because again, as I indicated earlier there

12 is a tension between the Federal Arbitration Act, which

13 obviously favors arbitration, and First Amendment

14 concerns.

15 It might very well be that an argument, I

16 guess, you can make is that the FAA supersedes SLAPP

17 motions.

18 MR. STEINSAPIR: Exactly.

19 THE COURT: But there is no case that has held

20 that. I looked for it. I didn't see anything.

21 Therefore this case may be the one in which case it will

22 be emblazoned with your name as a successful litigant, of

23 course unless you get to the supreme court and then he

24 argues something and it is like home town --

25 MR. STEINSAPIR: I think I would be replaced in

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


26

1 the supreme court.

2 THE COURT: You shouldn't be.

3 MR. STEINSAPIR: But I agree with your Honor.

4 THE COURT: Don't let your client try to do that.

5 MR. STEINSAPIR: Well, your Honor, I am going

6 to -- other than respectfully submitting that they have

7 waived the right to bring an anti-SLAPP --

8 THE COURT: They may have.

9 MR. STEINSAPIR: Oh, I don't mean -- as a matter

10 of a federal district judge having control over his own

11 docket.

12 THE COURT: But conversely, certain aspects of it

13 might be controlled by state law, and there might be a

14 waiver. Who knows. I haven't looked at the issue,

15 because again, it wasn't raised.

16 So again, at this point in time my tentative

17 is to postpone a final determination and let the defense

18 go forward with a proposed anti-SLAPP motion, and then

19 you can respond.

20 MR. STEINSAPIR: Can I make just a request for

21 clarification?

22 THE COURT: Or one other thing.

23 MR. STEINSAPIR: This is a request for

24 clarification, honestly. All other issues other than the

25 anti-SLAPP, such as the issues Mr. Petrocelli was raising

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


27

1 about whether there is arbitrable notwithstanding

2 anti-SLAPP, those have been decided. We are not going to

3 reargue those.

4 THE COURT: No. Because I think it comes into

5 play in part. In other words, it is a fine-tuning that

6 has to be done. I have indicated in my tentative. If in

7 the discussion of the anti-SLAPP nothing changes in

8 regards to those aspects, then I have already given what

9 my position is, and unless something happens I probably

10 will stick with those positions, to the extent I can

11 remember them by the time this thing is resolved.

12 Yes. I understand that, but I am not at this

13 time going to make any sort of preliminary finding in

14 that regard other than to tentatively indicate where I am

15 leaning.

16 MR. STEINSAPIR: I will give Mr. Boutrous the last

17 word, but I think my pretty-faced colleague wants to say

18 something.

19 MR. FREEDMAN: And we are not asking for judicial

20 notice of that, your Honor.

21 So, you know, one question back to the Court

22 is why is the First Amendment issue not an issue for the

23 arbitrator to decide?

24 THE COURT: Because -- well, I don't know. Maybe

25 that is something you should argue.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


28

1 MR. FREEDMAN: Well, I mean, I think in some sense

2 we actually have argued that. And just because there is

3 a procedural SLAPP motion that may or may not apply, what

4 we have said all along is that if this is a defense, if

5 if the First Amendment is a defense, an arbitrator is

6 eminently qualified to make a ruling as to a First

7 Amendment defense in this case.

8 THE COURT: Again, this is stuff that you guys, I

9 am sure you are going to litigate, and you have your

10 little minions to start researching this stuff and you

11 will present it to me whenever you can present it to me.

12 MR. FREEDMAN: But my point --

13 THE COURT: I am not saying your point is wrong.

14 Obviously we can sit down here and think of all these

15 wonderful issues that are going to be raised in this

16 particular aspect of the case, but there is no way we can

17 resolve it at this point in time, because again, they are

18 are going to have to have some research. They are going

19 to have to look at this, look at that and give me a

20 brief.

21 And then I will look at the briefs and I will

22 either agree with one side or the other or, like I am

23 doing now, indicate that I can't agree because I still

24 want more stuff.

25 MR. FREEDMAN: Sure. But just to clarify, your

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


29

1 Honor has found that other than this issue of First

2 Amendment --

3 THE COURT: In other words, I am going to keep

4 myself to my position that in my tentative I indicated

5 no. I indicated that unless -- generally I would say

6 yes, I have said what I said, and if nothing else is

7 presented to me that would cause me to change my

8 viewpoint, then what I have said is probably what I will

9 say in the end.

10 But because of the fact that I do agree with

11 Mr. Petrocelli -- you know, I have gone through so many

12 years. Have I pronounced that correctly this time?

13 MR. PETROCELLI: You did, your Honor.

14 THE COURT: Because he was with me in another case

15 that I managed to mangle his name almost every single

16 time.

17 MR. PETROCELLI: That was a long time ago.

18 THE COURT: But he was very forgiving. And so,

19 unless something happens, that is probably going to be my

20 position. But I am not going to commit myself, because

21 again, as he indicated there is an interplay between

22 First Amendment and all these other issues as well.

23 MR. STEINSAPIR: Sure. And just for purposes of

24 clarity on the record, it is our position that to the

25 extent there is a First Amendment defense, which there

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


30

1 may or may not be, that is -- the arbitrator is qualified

2 to rule on that.

3 THE COURT: I understand that is your position.

4 And again, I will take a look at it. That will be one of

5 the issues that the parties are going to be raising, and

6 we will see what happens.

7 MR. BOUTROUS: Your Honor, I will save my response

8 to that for an anti-SLAPP motion, which I propose, if it

9 works for the Court, we file by, say, August 15th.

10 THE COURT: Let me ask the --

11 MR. BOUTROUS: It is a Thursday.

12 THE COURT: The plaintiff counsel, any problem

13 with an August 15th filing?

14 MR. STEINSAPIR: We would prefer it to be earlier.

15 THE COURT: Well, let me ask you this. How long

16 is it going to take for you to respond, then?

17 MR. STEINSAPIR: Two weeks.

18 THE COURT: Two weeks.

19 MR. BOUTROUS: And then we do a reply in a week.

20 THE COURT: So the 15th, response on the 29th, and

21 then a reply on the 5th. I will put it back on calendar

22 for the 16th.

23 MR. BOUTROUS: I think I am in New York on the

24 16th, but let me just check.

25 What I remember, your Honor, is I have a Ninth

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


31

1 Circuit argument that may be the week of the 16th, but if

2 it is not that day, then I am good. And I will let the

3 Court know.

4 MR. STEINSAPIR: We can submit a briefing

5 schedule. But I think the 16th is good. If for some

6 reason the Ninth Circuit schedules it on the 16th, maybe

7 do the 19th, which is the Thursday. Or we could --

8 MR. BOUTROUS: That is when I will be in New York.

9 MR. STEINSAPIR: But he can also tell the Ninth

10 Circuit that. They listen. They listen.

11 MR. BOUTROUS: I am happy to do that.

12 THE COURT: They listen to him. They don't listen

13 to me, for sure.

14 MR. STEINSAPIR: Well, that is a common complaint.

15 MR. BOUTROUS: Thank you very much, your Honor.

16 THE COURT: My name is mud up there.

17 MR. BOUTROUS: Thank you.

18 THE COURT: In fact, you probably want me to rule

19 against you. Either side wants me to rule against them

20 because eventually the Ninth Circuit will go the other

21 way.

22 MR. STEINSAPIR: I will take my odds.

23 THE COURT: All right. Thank you very much,

24 gentlemen and lady. Have a very nice day.

25 (Proceedings concluded.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


1 CERTIFICATE

4 I hereby certify that pursuant to Section 753, Title 28,

5 United States Code, the foregoing is a true and correct

6 transcript of the stenographically reported proceedings held

7 in the above-entitled matter and that the transcript page

8 format is in conformance with the regulations of the

9 Judicial Conference of the United States.

10 Date: July 17, 2019

11

12 /s/ Katie Thibodeaux, CSR No. 9858, RPR, CRR

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


21/19 27/1 arbitrated [1] 13/1
above [1] 32/7 arbitrating [1] 13/7
MR. BACH: [1] 3/22 above-entitled [1] 32/7 arbitration [23]
MR. BOUTROUS: [25] Abrutyn [1] 4/3 arbitrator [9] 6/7 8/23
MR. ELSEA: [1] 3/15 Absolutely [3] 22/6 22/6 22/24 24/4 24/6 24/17 27/23
MR. FREEDMAN: [5] 3/13 22/7 28/5 30/1
27/18 27/25 28/11 28/24 abuse [1] 14/9 arbitrators [3] 8/19 8/21
MR. MCNALLY: [1] 3/24 abusing [1] 9/17 10/16
MR. PETROCELLI: [21] according [2] 24/23 25/1 are [44]
MR. STEINSAPIR: [40] acknowledge [1] 6/12 argue [8] 4/14 4/16 10/9
MR. WEITZMAN: [1] 3/11 Act [1] 25/12 10/10 17/14 21/4 23/15 27/25
MS. ABRUTYN: [1] 4/1 action [5] 15/7 15/14 16/7 argued [1] 28/2
THE COURT: [84] 25/3 25/7 argues [1] 25/24
- actually [1] 28/2 arguing [3] 10/14 15/14
add [1] 19/9 23/19
-and [4] 2/7 2/9 2/9 2/17 address [6] 4/18 4/19 5/3 argument [7] 4/21 11/11
/ 6/21 16/14 24/18 12/19 14/24 20/22 25/15 31/1
adverse [3] 23/13 23/14 arguments [2] 11/16 15/17
/s [1] 32/12 24/22 arising [2] 5/14 8/7
1 affect [2] 15/15 24/22 around [1] 10/6
affects [1] 23/12 articulated [1] 5/10
12 [3] 19/18 19/18 19/21 after [2] 21/24 22/11 articulating [1] 9/7
15 [2] 1/15 3/1 again [16] 11/3 15/3 18/25 as [17]
15th [3] 30/9 30/13 30/20 20/25 21/11 22/25 23/20 aside [1] 8/17
16th [5] 30/22 30/24 31/1 24/19 25/10 25/11 26/15 ask [5] 8/12 11/15 22/4
31/5 31/6 26/16 28/8 28/17 29/21 30/4 30/10 30/15
17 [1] 32/10 against [3] 22/17 31/19 asked [2] 4/5 6/10
18 [1] 12/5 31/19 asking [4] 16/7 16/22 24/18
1862 [1] 1/8 ago [1] 29/17 27/19
19-1862 [1] 1/8 agree [9] 5/9 6/13 7/15 aspect [3] 23/2 23/2 28/16
1901 [1] 2/5 12/20 14/7 26/3 28/22 28/23 aspects [3] 15/3 26/12 27/8
1983 [1] 22/8 29/10 assaulted [2] 7/5 7/11
1992 [1] 17/25 agreed [4] 6/1 17/25 18/6 asserted [1] 10/7
1999 [1] 2/15 18/9 assume [1] 7/10
19th [1] 31/7 agreement [15] 5/6 6/14 7/13 attack [1] 22/2
1st [1] 1/20 7/22 7/24 7/25 8/8 8/9 8/10 attacking [1] 22/17
2 8/11 8/15 9/21 10/1 10/12 attacks [1] 22/15
18/21 August [2] 30/9 30/13
2019 [4] 1/15 3/1 18/13 agreements [1] 13/4 August 15th [2] 30/9 30/13
32/10 ALDISERT [1] 2/8 authorize [1] 18/4
28 [1] 32/4 all [24] AutoLiv [1] 5/9
29th [1] 30/20 allegation [1] 9/16 Avenue [3] 2/5 2/15 2/19
3 allegations [8] 5/19 6/17
6/19 7/20 7/21 14/7 14/8 B
30 [1] 8/14 16/24 Bach [1] 3/24
333 [1] 2/19 alleges [1] 9/16 back [5] 18/16 20/12 24/16
350 [1] 1/20 allow [2] 4/14 20/5 27/21 30/21
39 [1] 12/5 allowed [1] 24/21 bad [2] 6/2 10/25
4 allowing [1] 21/13 bargaining [1] 13/4
allows [1] 21/23 barred [1] 6/2
40 [1] 9/15 almost [2] 9/24 29/15 based [2] 16/24 16/24
4311 [1] 1/20 along [1] 28/4 basically [2] 14/25 17/8
already [1] 27/8 basis [3] 9/7 20/23 23/21
5 also [5] 12/6 12/12 14/2 be [35]
5 percent [1] 24/2 15/16 31/9 beautifully [1] 16/4
500 [1] 2/5 although [1] 4/25 because [23]
5th [1] 30/21 am [25] been [4] 18/6 21/8 23/6 27/2
amendment [38] behalf [3] 3/12 3/14 3/16
7 analysis [2] 9/25 14/11 being [3] 6/10 11/21 15/21
70 [2] 8/16 9/23 ANGELES [6] 1/14 1/21 2/6 believe [2] 10/19 14/18
753 [1] 32/4 2/16 2/19 3/1 believes [1] 19/2
another [2] 4/7 29/14 best [5] 24/8 24/8 24/10
8 anti [21] 24/11 24/12
808 [1] 2/10 anti-SLAPP [21] between [4] 5/15 6/10 25/12
any [7] 15/1 16/1 18/4 18/9 29/21
9 20/3 27/13 30/12 beyond [3] 7/24 9/8 10/10
90012 [1] 1/21 anything [5] 6/2 10/25 19/8 biggest [2] 12/10 12/15
90067 [2] 2/6 2/16 20/9 25/20 Bill [1] 8/13
90071 [1] 2/19 apparently [3] 6/1 13/6 bit [3] 9/5 9/13 21/19
90401 [1] 2/11 24/24 blinders [1] 7/1
9858 [2] 1/19 32/12 appearances [2] 2/1 3/9 block [1] 18/14
9:36 [1] 3/2 applicable [1] 14/16 bold [1] 9/18
apply [5] 13/13 14/19 16/18 both [3] 4/8 4/11 23/4
A 20/19 28/3 Boulevard [1] 2/10
A.M [1] 3/2 appreciate [1] 20/11 boundless [2] 7/14 7/15
ability [1] 23/12 arbitrability [2] 5/21 7/1 BOUTROS [1] 2/18
about [14] 6/2 9/19 9/20 arbitrable [2] 6/24 27/1 Boutrous [5] 3/22 4/19 11/9
10/25 12/10 12/15 12/16 arbitrate [3] 13/3 13/8 13/24 27/16
12/18 17/22 18/17 18/17 20/9 13/10 Box [2] 1/9 3/8
B colleague [1] 27/17 DANIEL [2] 2/14 3/19
collective [1] 13/4 Date [1] 32/10
breach [1] 22/12 come [1] 12/8 day [2] 31/2 31/24
breached [2] 6/23 7/3 comes [2] 12/7 27/4 dead [1] 14/12
BRIAN [1] 2/4 commit [1] 29/20 deadline [2] 19/14 20/2
brief [2] 22/12 28/20 common [2] 23/10 31/14 dealing [1] 10/23
briefed [1] 21/11 compel [4] 4/5 4/8 15/4 death [2] 21/24 22/12
briefing [3] 4/6 20/23 31/4 20/19 decades [1] 15/23
briefly [1] 11/14 complaining [1] 21/23 decide [7] 6/8 8/19 8/22
briefs [2] 17/8 28/21 complaint [5] 9/12 9/15 8/24 10/16 22/23 27/23
bring [5] 7/5 12/4 20/5 20/9 12/10 12/15 31/14 decided [3] 6/8 21/9 27/2
26/7 completely [1] 8/14 decision [3] 4/16 5/8 6/10
bringing [1] 15/9 Concepcion [2] 20/21 21/9 defamation [2] 21/24 22/11
broad [3] 5/12 5/22 5/23 concepts [1] 11/10 defendant [3] 1/9 2/13 21/14
broadcast [1] 18/14 concern [8] 14/3 15/9 15/24 defense [7] 3/18 13/8 26/17
broadcasts [1] 18/4 17/5 17/22 21/5 24/20 24/20 28/4 28/5 28/7 29/25
brought [1] 6/15 concerned [1] 15/12 Delaware [1] 14/17
Bryan [1] 3/14 concerns [5] 8/18 17/7 17/20 denominated [1] 7/2
Bucharest [1] 9/20 17/23 25/14 depends [1] 4/16
bunch [1] 10/3 concert [5] 8/16 9/20 15/21 depth [1] 14/11
C 15/24 18/7 determination [1] 26/17
concerts [2] 9/23 18/4 determining [1] 5/11
CA [5] 1/21 2/6 2/11 2/16 conclude [1] 5/13 did [6] 4/13 7/17 17/19 18/3
2/19 concluded [1] 31/25 18/13 29/13
calendar [1] 30/21 Conference [1] 32/9 didn't [8] 12/1 14/21 16/12
CALIFORNIA [15] 1/2 1/14 3/1 confidentiality [5] 12/22 18/15 18/25 20/9 20/11 25/20
14/16 14/18 15/7 16/10 17/20 12/24 15/17 15/20 22/12 digging [1] 20/13
23/12 24/23 25/1 25/2 25/4 confirmation [1] 24/16 disagree [1] 4/25
25/6 25/7 conformance [1] 32/8 disagrees [1] 17/4
call [2] 3/7 4/7 connection [3] 5/14 8/7 9/18 discussed [1] 12/3
came [1] 24/16 consent [1] 6/4 discussing [1] 17/1
can [19] consenting [1] 8/12 discussion [1] 27/7
can't [2] 19/25 28/23 consideration [1] 4/7 disparage [2] 7/17 8/5
cannot [2] 10/25 19/21 containing [1] 5/20 disparaged [4] 7/8 9/2 9/5
capital [1] 4/24 contains [1] 9/15 9/6
care [1] 17/2 contemplated [1] 10/10 disparagement [12] 6/22 7/9
case [14] 5/9 6/11 6/13 15/3 content [1] 9/10 7/16 7/16 8/21 9/7 10/7 10/8
15/3 23/2 23/9 24/24 25/19 context [1] 15/20 12/2 12/6 22/13 22/16
25/21 25/21 28/7 28/16 29/14 continuation [1] 4/5 disparages [1] 9/11
cases [1] 20/6 continue [1] 24/21 dispute [8] 5/7 5/11 5/14
cause [1] 29/7 continuing [1] 23/8 6/14 6/23 7/22 8/7 17/2
celebrities [1] 11/1 contract [9] 5/16 5/17 5/20 disputes [1] 5/16
CENTRAL [1] 1/2 10/22 15/20 16/25 18/15 district [4] 1/1 1/2 1/4
certain [1] 26/12 21/23 23/9 26/10
CERTIFICATE [1] 32/1 contract's [1] 22/19 divide [1] 11/16
certify [1] 32/4 contracting [1] 22/8 DIVISION [1] 1/2
cetera [2] 23/10 23/10 contractual [1] 18/10 do [23]
change [1] 29/7 control [1] 26/10 docket [1] 26/11
changes [1] 27/7 controlled [1] 26/13 document [1] 12/5
charming [1] 23/25 controversial [1] 11/1 documentary [11] 7/17 9/10
chase [1] 17/13 conversely [1] 26/12 12/11 12/11 12/14 12/15
check [1] 30/24 convince [1] 23/22 12/16 12/18 14/1 15/15 15/23
child [1] 14/8 correct [2] 16/3 32/5 does [6] 8/2 13/12 16/18
children [1] 9/17 correctly [1] 29/12 19/15 20/19 21/2
chill [1] 18/21 could [3] 17/12 21/18 31/7 doesn't [4] 7/1 10/6 15/24
Circuit [6] 5/8 10/20 31/1 couldn't [2] 7/5 9/6 21/16
31/6 31/10 31/20 counsel [3] 2/1 4/3 30/12 doing [2] 21/13 28/23
cite [3] 18/15 20/6 20/24 country [1] 13/2 dollars [1] 18/23
cited [2] 5/8 14/20 couple [1] 17/8 don't [7] 17/16 17/16 18/11
Civil [1] 19/16 course [3] 8/23 9/24 25/23 26/4 26/9 27/24 31/12
claim [6] 6/15 7/2 7/3 7/5 court [31] done [4] 6/22 8/20 9/8 27/6
21/25 22/23 Court's [1] 18/17 doubts [1] 5/21
claiming [1] 7/20 courts [2] 6/4 17/21 down [2] 5/10 28/14
claims [2] 13/4 13/9 coverage [1] 11/2 DUNN [1] 2/18
clarification [2] 26/21 covered [3] 5/11 5/19 6/14 during [1] 10/24
26/24 covering [1] 14/17
clarify [1] 28/25 Cowles [1] 12/23 E
clarity [1] 29/24 create [2] 16/7 22/18 earlier [2] 25/11 30/14
class [2] 25/2 25/7 CRR [1] 32/12 earth [1] 14/12
clause [10] 5/6 5/20 7/9 CRUTCHER [1] 2/18 earth-shattering [1] 14/12
12/2 22/2 22/13 22/15 22/16 crystallizes [1] 23/4 effect [5] 15/22 23/13 23/14
22/17 22/21 CSR [2] 1/19 32/12 23/16 23/17
clear [6] 8/25 12/6 12/12 cue [1] 11/9 Eighth [1] 2/15
13/24 17/21 18/16 cut [1] 17/12 either [2] 28/22 31/19
clearly [1] 10/17 CV [1] 1/8 else [3] 19/8 20/9 29/6
client [2] 11/23 26/4 ELSEA [2] 2/9 3/16
Code [1] 32/5 D emblazoned [1] 25/22
coercion [1] 6/4 damages [1] 18/24 eminently [1] 28/6
Cohen [1] 12/23 Dangerous [2] 9/19 9/23 emphasized [1] 9/18
E forced [1] 13/10 9/8 13/13 14/6 16/24 25/9
foregoing [1] 32/5 28/14
employees [1] 13/3 forever [5] 6/2 8/13 10/24 hereby [1] 32/4
empts [1] 25/6 10/24 18/1 high [1] 14/6
enacted [1] 23/11 forgiving [1] 29/18 highest [1] 17/23
encompassed [1] 17/2 format [1] 32/8 him [4] 11/6 12/20 20/5
end [2] 23/15 29/9 forum [5] 21/24 22/1 22/3 31/12
enforce [3] 21/24 22/19 25/8 22/19 22/22 his [5] 11/3 15/17 18/4
enforceable [2] 12/25 25/3 forward [4] 15/2 20/13 23/8 26/10 29/15
entered [1] 10/11 26/18 home [3] 1/9 3/8 25/24
entertain [3] 20/23 21/12 found [1] 29/1 honestly [1] 26/24
23/20 founded [1] 22/8 Honor [50]
entitled [1] 32/7 FREEDMAN [3] 2/4 2/4 3/14 HONORABLE [1] 1/3
equally [1] 21/4 freedom [2] 15/10 15/10 hope [1] 11/21
essence [1] 15/13 friend [1] 12/13 house [1] 4/3
et [2] 23/10 23/10 friends [1] 25/4 how [9] 4/16 7/2 8/24 9/5
even [7] 9/22 10/23 15/6 front [1] 17/14 11/15 12/17 23/7 23/24 30/15
16/16 18/13 18/20 22/5 Full [1] 9/2 HOWARD [2] 2/8 3/12
eventually [1] 31/20 fully [1] 17/21 however [1] 15/11
every [2] 5/14 29/15 function [1] 6/25
everybody [1] 23/5 further [3] 4/7 4/11 9/5 I
evidence [1] 22/7
exact [1] 25/9 I'm [2] 11/18 11/19
G iconic [1] 10/25
Exactly [1] 25/18
examination [1] 15/2 gatekeeping [1] 6/25 improper [1] 23/14
example [2] 7/4 13/3 gave [1] 7/4 in-depth [1] 14/11
exercise [1] 16/2 gem [1] 20/11 in-house [1] 4/3
exhibited [2] 9/10 12/13 generally [1] 29/5 inclined [1] 19/6
exhibition [1] 8/15 genesis [1] 5/17 includes [1] 12/5
existence [1] 22/5 gentlemen [1] 31/24 including [1] 14/19
explain [1] 20/20 GEORGE [1] 1/3 indicate [2] 27/14 28/23
expressed [1] 16/4 get [6] 10/6 12/8 13/17 18/6 indicated [6] 4/15 25/11
expressing [2] 19/3 19/4 24/14 25/23 27/6 29/4 29/5 29/21
expressly [1] 9/16 getting [2] 11/3 13/14 infinite [1] 5/24
extensive [1] 8/24 GIBSON [1] 2/18 inform [1] 17/5
extent [5] 8/19 15/25 21/2 give [4] 8/1 13/2 27/16 information [1] 12/7
27/10 29/25 28/19 injunction [1] 24/17
extremely [1] 18/5 given [1] 27/8 insufficient [1] 7/21
giving [1] 24/13 interesting [3] 6/6 21/1
F go [6] 9/5 12/21 18/2 18/11 21/6
26/18 31/20 interests [1] 17/25
FAA [2] 25/6 25/16 goes [2] 15/16 18/16 interplay [3] 21/7 21/8
faced [1] 27/17 going [28] 29/21
faces [1] 11/17 gone [2] 9/8 29/11 invited [1] 4/20
fact [6] 12/17 13/12 17/16 good [8] 3/10 3/19 3/21 3/23 involves [1] 14/3
18/19 29/10 31/18 3/25 4/2 31/2 31/5 is [162]
facts [1] 10/21 got [1] 4/6 ISER [1] 2/8
factual [1] 5/18 govern [1] 14/16 isn't [6] 5/22 8/18 18/20
fair [1] 24/14 government [1] 15/11 21/19 21/25 22/11
falls [1] 10/17 Grand [1] 2/19 issue [18]
falsity [1] 7/19 gratuitous [1] 9/24 issued [1] 4/6
famous [2] 14/3 18/5 great [2] 14/2 24/10 issues [16] 4/19 4/25 13/1
favor [2] 5/21 13/21 guess [3] 13/14 21/4 25/16 14/19 15/8 19/7 21/6 21/7
favoring [1] 21/3 guys [4] 4/14 11/15 14/21 22/14 23/3 24/17 26/24 26/25
favors [1] 25/13 28/8 28/15 29/22 30/5
February [1] 18/13 GW [1] 1/8 it [102]
federal [7] 16/18 19/15 italics [1] 9/18
19/16 19/20 21/3 25/12 26/10 H its [4] 5/6 13/25 14/20 22/9
figure [1] 17/22 itself [1] 18/1
figures [1] 14/4 had [3] 15/1 17/9 20/12
file [11] 14/21 16/12 19/14 half [1] 9/24 J
19/15 19/16 19/17 19/21 happens [3] 27/9 29/19 30/6
19/22 20/5 23/6 30/9 happy [1] 31/11 Jackson [8] 6/3 7/8 7/11 9/2
filed [6] 14/22 15/1 15/3 has [13] 5/25 7/23 12/8 15/7 9/11 9/17 18/1 18/3
15/14 18/14 20/3 21/8 21/11 22/23 23/5 23/13 Janitors [1] 13/10
filing [5] 16/17 18/19 18/23 24/22 25/19 27/6 29/1 John [1] 8/13
23/7 30/13 have [59] joke [1] 11/24
film [3] 9/16 14/1 14/8 haven't [2] 4/15 26/14 JONATHAN [2] 2/9 3/11
final [2] 4/15 26/17 having [3] 5/15 5/16 26/10 judge [2] 1/4 26/10
finding [1] 27/13 HBO [25] judicial [3] 16/7 27/19 32/9
fine [1] 27/5 HBO's [4] 12/14 13/6 15/15 JULY [3] 1/15 3/1 32/10
fine-tuning [1] 27/5 16/8 jurisprudence [1] 10/20
fired [2] 13/9 13/11 he [11] 9/5 9/6 13/18 14/12 just [23]
firms [2] 24/8 24/11 14/13 18/4 25/23 29/14 29/18
29/21 31/9 K
first [47]
flies [2] 21/15 21/15 heads [1] 12/14 KATIE [2] 1/19 32/12
Floor [2] 2/10 2/15 hear [1] 19/12 keep [1] 29/3
fly [2] 21/15 21/16 hearing [2] 20/8 20/15 kept [1] 20/13
focus [2] 5/5 23/1 held [3] 12/23 25/19 32/6 kind [3] 14/9 14/25 16/9
followed [1] 19/21 here [10] 4/4 5/12 7/6 7/9 KINSELLA [1] 2/8
K 28/1 obviously [4] 15/16 21/6
meant [2] 16/10 18/21 25/13 28/14
know [8] 6/5 17/16 17/18 mechanism [1] 16/20 odds [1] 31/22
23/7 27/21 27/24 29/11 31/3 Media [1] 12/23 Office [2] 1/9 3/8
knows [2] 13/22 26/14 meet [1] 9/1 Official [1] 1/19
KUMP [1] 2/8 meeting [1] 8/20 oh [3] 20/1 23/6 26/9
L mention [1] 9/22 Okay [6] 8/5 11/8 12/10
mentioned [1] 20/14 13/20 20/18 21/21
lady [1] 31/24 mere [1] 18/22 Oliver [1] 8/14
laid [1] 5/10 merely [1] 10/21 one [16] 10/25 11/18 12/12
land [1] 21/16 merged [1] 22/9 13/24 14/3 16/21 19/17 21/4
language [3] 5/14 8/1 8/3 merits [1] 6/11 21/12 23/15 24/25 25/21
last [6] 19/13 20/8 20/10 Michael [7] 6/2 7/8 7/11 9/2 26/22 27/21 28/22 30/4
20/15 24/25 27/16 9/11 18/1 18/3 only [2] 5/19 12/1
later [2] 8/14 15/23 might [4] 23/15 25/15 26/13 opinion [2] 19/3 19/4
law [11] 12/24 14/16 14/16 26/13 opportunity [1] 19/5
14/17 14/17 14/18 23/9 23/10 millions [1] 18/23 opposition [2] 17/19 19/19
24/8 24/11 26/13 mine [1] 20/12 Optimum [4] 1/6 3/7 22/4
lawsuit [2] 18/19 18/23 minions [1] 28/10 22/9
lawsuits [1] 15/9 MONDAY [2] 1/15 3/1 oral [2] 21/12 23/21
lawyers [1] 24/9 Monica [1] 2/11 origin [1] 5/16
lay [1] 17/20 more [5] 9/13 10/20 14/11 other [18]
leaning [1] 27/15 21/19 28/24 otherwise [1] 10/22
learned [1] 12/18 morning [6] 3/10 3/19 3/21 our [8] 6/13 11/23 12/8
leave [1] 11/6 3/23 3/25 4/2 12/10 12/15 17/19 18/7 29/24
left [1] 4/24 most [2] 10/25 14/3 out [3] 17/20 20/6 24/13
legal [1] 21/16 motion [16] 4/5 4/8 6/11 over [3] 9/23 11/9 26/10
legislature [5] 15/7 24/23 7/18 16/13 16/17 17/19 18/17 own [2] 25/5 26/10
25/1 25/2 25/6 19/19 21/12 21/14 21/14
let [19] 23/18 26/18 28/3 30/8 P
let's [3] 7/10 14/5 14/5 motions [2] 20/19 25/17 page [2] 12/5 32/7
letter [1] 18/14 Mr [2] 11/9 27/16 pages [4] 17/8 17/9 17/9
lifetime [1] 10/24 Mr. [4] 4/19 17/1 26/25 17/9
like [12] 6/20 10/2 11/13 29/11 paid [1] 11/21
16/5 19/1 19/2 19/5 21/16 Mr. Boutrous [1] 4/19 paragraph [1] 9/15
22/23 25/2 25/24 28/22 Mr. Petrocelli [3] 17/1 paragraph 40 [1] 9/15
likewise [1] 5/13 26/25 29/11 part [1] 27/5
limitless [1] 5/24 much [2] 31/15 31/23 particular [7] 7/3 8/2 8/2
listen [4] 31/10 31/10 31/12 mud [1] 31/16 9/20 10/11 18/7 28/16
31/12 must [1] 8/9 parties [6] 5/15 6/8 8/12
literally [1] 6/1 muzzle [1] 18/1 10/11 17/24 30/5
litigant [1] 25/22 my [19] party [1] 22/8
litigate [2] 23/13 28/9 MYERS [1] 2/14 Patrick [1] 3/25
litigation [4] 16/1 23/5 myself [2] 29/4 29/20 pedestal [1] 14/6
23/13 24/21 pedophile [1] 7/11
little [5] 9/5 9/13 20/16 N people [2] 4/4 23/12
21/19 28/10 name [3] 25/22 29/15 31/16 per [1] 15/7
LLP [4] 2/4 2/8 2/14 2/18 namely [1] 9/10 percent [1] 24/2
long [3] 10/16 29/17 30/15 Nathaniel [1] 3/23 performer [1] 8/5
look [13] 6/16 7/1 8/10 8/11 need [4] 5/19 9/1 9/22 10/21 performer's [1] 10/24
9/12 17/23 18/3 21/22 24/12 never [1] 17/18 period [1] 16/16
28/19 28/19 28/21 30/4 new [4] 14/10 16/9 30/23 permission [2] 12/8 19/1
looked [4] 6/18 9/14 25/20 31/8 perpetual [6] 16/8 21/24
26/14 news [2] 11/2 14/11 22/1 22/3 22/18 22/22
LOS [6] 1/14 1/21 2/6 2/16 newsworthy [1] 15/16 petitioners [1] 3/11
2/19 3/1 nice [1] 31/24 petitioning [1] 15/10
lose [1] 23/18 Ninth [6] 5/8 10/19 30/25 PETROCELLI [5] 2/14 3/20
lot [3] 4/4 11/21 23/19 31/6 31/9 31/20 17/1 26/25 29/11
M no [18] picks [1] 5/7
nobody [1] 21/11 placed [1] 15/7
Maher [1] 8/13 non [6] 6/22 7/9 12/2 12/6 plaintiff [5] 1/7 2/3 5/8
make [9] 6/10 12/12 12/16 22/13 22/16 19/12 30/12
12/17 21/14 25/16 26/20 non-disparagement [6] 6/22 plaintiff's [2] 5/25 17/19
27/13 28/6 7/9 12/2 12/6 22/13 22/16 plaintiffs [6] 3/13 3/15
makes [1] 12/6 normal [1] 8/23 3/16 6/21 16/1 18/13
managed [1] 29/15 normally [2] 8/19 10/15 plaintiffs' [1] 3/11
mangle [1] 29/15 not [57] platform [2] 16/8 18/7
many [1] 29/11 noted [1] 13/25 play [1] 27/5
matter [9] 3/7 4/16 6/3 6/24 nothing [4] 9/19 9/20 27/7 pleading [3] 19/17 19/17
8/15 18/10 25/3 26/9 32/7 29/6 19/18
matters [1] 5/19 notice [1] 27/20 point [12] 10/5 12/21 15/5
may [12] 4/24 6/12 6/14 18/5 notwithstanding [1] 27/1 18/5 18/7 18/8 23/1 24/13
23/16 25/21 26/8 28/3 28/3 now [5] 11/4 11/8 23/19 26/16 28/12 28/13 28/17
30/1 30/1 31/1 24/16 28/23 pointed [2] 6/22 7/2
maybe [5] 10/2 14/11 24/2 pointing [2] 7/24 10/22
27/24 31/6 O police [1] 16/8
McNally [1] 4/1 O'MELVENY [1] 2/14 policy [3] 14/19 21/3 25/4
me [30] obligation [1] 7/3 position [10] 5/25 6/13 13/6
mean [5] 10/8 11/1 21/2 26/9 20/5 21/10 27/9 29/4 29/20
P reargue [1] 27/3 seemed [1] 14/24
reason [2] 6/16 31/6 seen [2] 4/9 4/11
position... [2] 29/24 30/3 recognize [1] 25/10 sense [1] 28/1
positions [1] 27/10 recognizes [1] 18/22 separately [2] 19/25 20/2
possession [1] 12/7 record [2] 11/25 29/24 serious [1] 14/8
possibility [2] 10/17 10/18 reference [1] 23/3 sexual [1] 14/8
possibly [1] 23/24 regard [1] 27/14 shalt [1] 8/5
postpone [1] 26/17 regarding [1] 18/1 shattering [1] 14/12
pre [1] 25/6 regards [4] 15/8 15/17 21/5 shock [1] 23/6
pre-empts [1] 25/6 27/8 shot [1] 24/25
precisely [2] 10/4 10/13 regulations [1] 32/8 should [6] 14/16 17/2 17/5
preclude [1] 16/11 related [1] 11/10 23/18 24/10 27/25
precludes [1] 13/7 relates [1] 12/2 shouldn't [3] 6/7 23/23 26/2
prefer [1] 30/14 relating [1] 8/7 show [1] 7/21
preliminary [1] 27/13 relationship [2] 5/15 7/22 shown [1] 15/21
premised [1] 14/25 remember [2] 27/11 30/25 side [3] 25/4 28/22 31/19
prepared [1] 15/23 replaced [1] 25/25 sides [2] 4/8 4/11
present [2] 28/11 28/11 reply [2] 30/19 30/21 signed [1] 15/21
presented [1] 29/7 reported [1] 32/6 significant [2] 5/15 7/21
PRESIDING [1] 1/4 Reporter [1] 1/19 simply [3] 6/22 7/2 17/16
presume [1] 4/8 REPORTER'S [1] 1/13 Simula [1] 5/9
pretty [2] 11/17 27/17 representation [1] 23/21 Simula's [1] 5/18
pretty-faced [1] 27/17 representing [1] 24/8 single [2] 8/16 29/15
prevent [1] 23/7 request [2] 26/20 26/23 sit [1] 28/14
principles [1] 5/10 require [1] 5/18 situation [2] 10/23 18/6
probably [5] 21/13 27/9 29/8 requires [2] 8/6 10/20 SLAPP [28]
29/19 31/18 research [1] 28/18 so [17]
problem [2] 24/19 30/12 researching [1] 28/10 some [4] 9/10 28/1 28/18
procedural [2] 16/20 28/3 resolve [1] 28/17 31/5
procedure [2] 18/18 19/16 resolved [3] 5/21 24/15 somebody [2] 7/5 7/10
proceeding [1] 24/24 27/11 something [10] 8/19 8/20
proceedings [4] 1/13 24/17 respectfully [2] 4/25 26/6 10/15 11/6 15/23 25/24 27/9
31/25 32/6 respond [5] 11/12 11/13 20/3 27/18 27/25 29/19
produced [1] 12/13 26/19 30/16 Sometimes [1] 20/16
producers [1] 12/14 response [3] 16/1 30/7 30/20 sort [2] 17/15 27/13
Productions [4] 1/6 3/8 22/5 responsive [3] 19/17 19/17 sounds [1] 19/2
22/9 19/18 South [1] 2/19
pronounced [1] 29/12 results [1] 17/17 specific [1] 10/8
proper [2] 16/19 23/17 ridiculous [1] 7/4 specifically [3] 4/20 12/24
propose [1] 30/8 right [8] 3/18 4/22 16/2 20/15
proposed [1] 26/18 19/8 20/25 23/5 26/7 31/23 speech [4] 15/10 16/8 17/22
protected [1] 17/21 rights [9] 15/9 15/11 22/10 18/21
provided [3] 23/8 23/9 23/10 22/19 23/5 23/14 23/16 23/17 spin [1] 15/8
provision [11] 5/12 6/22 24/22 stake [1] 17/25
7/24 8/2 8/4 8/6 10/22 12/6 RPR [1] 32/12 stars [2] 2/5 2/15
12/22 15/18 15/20 rule [3] 30/2 31/18 31/19 start [1] 28/10
provisions [2] 8/21 12/24 Rules [1] 19/16 state [3] 12/24 15/6 26/13
public [9] 7/12 12/8 13/3 ruling [1] 28/6 statement [1] 17/17
14/3 14/4 17/22 17/22 18/20 STATES [4] 1/1 1/4 32/5 32/9
25/4 S statute [5] 16/10 18/22
purely [1] 18/10 20/15 20/18 23/11
purposes [3] 7/18 8/20 29/23 sad [1] 11/19 STEINSAPIR [2] 2/9 3/11
pursuant [1] 32/4 said [13] 5/13 6/4 7/7 7/11
9/9 12/13 19/24 25/2 25/5 stenographically [1] 32/6
put [8] 7/1 8/17 9/4 14/5 Stephanie [1] 4/2
14/10 16/8 20/4 30/21 28/4 29/6 29/6 29/8
salient [1] 9/15 steps [1] 16/24
putting [2] 8/17 15/15 stick [1] 27/10
same [2] 19/22 25/9
Q sandbagged [1] 12/17 sticking [1] 22/1
Santa [1] 2/11 still [2] 20/8 28/23
qualified [2] 28/6 30/1 save [2] 24/6 30/7 stone [1] 20/12
quarreling [1] 7/19 say [15] 6/23 8/3 9/1 9/6 stop [2] 9/2 20/22
question [18] 10/25 11/7 18/12 19/20 19/24 straightforward [1] 17/12
questions [1] 16/22 20/25 23/6 27/17 29/5 29/9 Street [1] 1/20
quote [1] 8/8 30/9 strong [3] 14/19 21/3 21/4
quoted [1] 22/19 saying [8] 5/2 5/4 6/2 7/16 stronger [1] 21/5
quotes [1] 12/11 9/5 22/18 25/7 28/13 stuff [6] 10/3 17/9 23/19
R says [5] 8/4 9/12 9/16 13/18 28/8 28/10 28/24
21/22 subject [4] 8/15 9/3 12/16
raise [1] 22/13 schedule [1] 31/5 17/22
raised [4] 20/7 22/15 26/15 schedules [1] 31/6 submit [1] 31/4
28/15 school [1] 13/8 submitting [1] 26/6
raises [1] 23/4 scope [1] 16/25 subtle [1] 20/10
raising [2] 26/25 30/5 se [1] 15/7 succeeds [1] 22/9
reached [1] 4/15 second [3] 4/24 5/3 13/14 successful [1] 25/22
reaches [1] 5/14 Section [1] 32/4 successive [1] 19/21
read [2] 11/24 17/10 see [7] 13/18 14/14 15/5 such [2] 5/12 26/25
real [3] 6/5 6/6 6/7 18/3 21/14 25/20 30/6 sue [1] 12/1
really [6] 5/22 8/12 16/6 seek [1] 16/1 suggesting [1] 7/23
17/24 18/21 23/2 seeking [4] 15/15 18/14 suit [2] 23/6 23/8
realm [1] 10/18 18/20 18/23 Suite [2] 1/20 2/5
S today [1] 4/17 12/14 13/9 13/11 16/23 17/7
together [1] 15/15 weren't [1] 18/9
Sullivan [1] 16/10 too [3] 14/6 17/15 20/10 West [1] 1/20
supersedes [1] 25/16 totality [1] 8/11 WESTERN [1] 1/2
supplemental [1] 4/6 touch [2] 5/19 7/24 what [37]
supposed [3] 8/22 15/22 touches [1] 7/22 whatever [1] 4/23
24/21 tour [3] 8/16 9/19 9/23 when [9] 8/10 10/11 15/14
supposedly [1] 21/23 Touring [1] 22/8 17/14 18/8 18/13 23/13 24/16
supreme [6] 12/23 17/14 25/5 toward [1] 15/17 31/8
25/7 25/23 26/1 town [2] 24/8 25/24 whenever [1] 28/11
sure [5] 21/8 28/9 28/25 transcript [4] 1/13 11/24 where [3] 10/23 18/6 27/14
29/23 31/13 32/6 32/7 whereas [1] 17/8
T transpired [1] 14/12 whether [9] 5/6 5/11 6/8
true [1] 32/5 8/13 15/19 17/1 19/14 22/23
TAITELMAN [1] 2/4 truth [1] 7/19 27/1
take [8] 11/8 16/7 16/23 try [2] 23/22 26/4 which [20]
17/2 24/25 30/4 30/16 31/22 trying [2] 10/9 10/10 while [1] 20/17
takes [2] 20/16 24/2 TTC [1] 22/8 who [3] 13/22 25/5 26/14
Taking [1] 19/13 tuning [1] 27/5 why [10] 8/18 8/18 9/22 12/4
talk [1] 21/19 turd [1] 21/16 14/13 20/20 21/19 22/11 23/1
teachers [1] 13/8 turn [1] 11/9 27/22
Ted [1] 13/23 two [10] 4/19 4/25 16/24 will [28]
tell [1] 31/9 21/7 24/7 24/10 24/11 24/12 Wilshire [1] 2/10
tens [1] 18/23 30/17 30/18 wind [1] 21/13
tension [2] 6/9 25/12 type [1] 17/17 within [3] 10/16 10/17 20/2
tentative [8] 5/1 13/20 without [1] 9/7
13/25 14/20 22/20 26/16 27/6 U won't [1] 11/23
29/4 U.S [1] 1/19 wonderful [1] 28/15
tentatively [2] 6/1 27/14 ultimate [1] 6/11 word [1] 27/17
term [2] 9/6 21/17 under [8] 7/5 8/7 8/25 12/1 words [3] 20/23 27/5 29/3
territory [1] 11/4 12/25 13/4 19/16 24/24 works [1] 30/9
test [2] 5/11 9/1 underlying [3] 6/17 6/18 world [3] 9/19 9/23 24/9
tether [1] 8/9 10/21 would [27]
than [6] 9/13 10/20 26/6 understand [7] 6/9 10/9 wouldn't [1] 15/1
26/24 27/14 29/1 11/11 21/10 22/25 27/12 30/3 written [2] 4/7 4/12
Thank [5] 13/23 19/11 31/15 unenforceable [1] 25/8 wrong [2] 20/25 28/13
31/17 31/23 UNITED [4] 1/1 1/4 32/5 32/9 WU [1] 1/3
that [180] unless [4] 25/23 27/9 29/5
That's [2] 16/3 21/16 29/19 Y
their [10] 5/16 8/25 9/25 unrelated [1] 8/14 year [1] 9/24
13/9 18/14 19/18 20/11 21/14 up [5] 5/7 12/4 14/5 21/13 year-and-a-half [1] 9/24
22/17 23/18 31/16 years [2] 8/14 29/12
them [4] 19/22 24/13 27/11 us [4] 12/8 12/18 12/22 17/4 yes [6] 4/10 4/17 5/4 8/4
31/19 use [5] 4/23 9/6 12/9 12/11 27/12 29/6
then [13] 10/4 18/3 18/8 17/15 yet [3] 16/12 21/3 23/11
21/15 25/23 26/18 27/8 28/21 utilize [1] 16/1 York [3] 16/9 30/23 31/8
29/8 30/16 30/19 30/21 31/2 you [94]
THEODORE [2] 2/18 3/21 V your [66]
there [28] yourself [1] 8/12
therefore [3] 6/24 23/18 validity [1] 22/23
25/21 versus [5] 3/8 12/23 16/9
20/21 21/9 Z
these [9] 11/10 11/17 14/19
16/22 20/24 21/7 25/11 28/14 very [7] 12/6 23/15 25/15 ZACHARY [2] 2/9 3/16
29/22 29/18 31/15 31/23 31/24 Zero [1] 9/21
they [43] viable [1] 6/15
THIBODEAUX [2] 1/19 32/12 view [1] 8/25
thing [10] 8/24 10/8 12/12 viewpoint [1] 29/8
13/24 14/9 16/9 17/15 25/9 violation [2] 13/9 13/11
26/22 27/11 W
things [3] 18/10 20/24 25/11
think [20] waived [2] 16/16 26/7
thinking [2] 16/21 16/23 waiver [1] 26/14
thinks [1] 16/19 waivers [2] 25/3 25/8
Third [1] 2/10 want [7] 5/5 11/12 18/11
this [79] 24/14 24/14 28/24 31/18
those [9] 9/23 17/24 18/10 wanted [1] 12/4
22/13 24/18 27/2 27/3 27/8 wants [2] 27/17 31/19
27/10 was [31]
thou [1] 8/4 wasn't [3] 13/20 22/21 26/15
though [1] 15/6 way [14] 5/2 5/4 8/17 9/4
thought [1] 17/11 11/24 14/10 16/5 16/21 20/4
threw [1] 20/12 21/12 24/3 24/13 28/16 31/21
through [1] 29/11 we [46]
throw [1] 10/2 week [2] 30/19 31/1
Thursday [2] 30/11 31/7 weeks [2] 30/17 30/18
time [22] WEITZMAN [3] 2/8 2/8 3/12
Times [1] 16/9 well [23]
timing [1] 19/15 went [2] 20/13 25/5
Title [1] 32/4 were [8] 6/13 8/12 9/23