darabont transcript
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/11/2019 Darabont Transcript
1/40
1
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK:
RIAL TERM PART 3
FRANK DARABONT, FERENC, INC., DARKWOODS
PRODUCTIONS, INC. And CREATIVE ARTISTS
AGENCY, LLC,
PLAINTIFFS,
- against -
AMC NETWORK ENTERTAINMENT LLC, AMC FILM
HOLDINGS LLC, AMC NETWORKS INC., STU SEGALL
PRODUCTIONS, INC., and DOES 1 THROUGH 10,
DEFENDANTS.
X
INDEX NO: 654328/13
0 Centre Street
New York, New York
August 12, 2014
BEFORE:
ONORABLE EILEEN BRANSTEN, Justice
APPEARANCES:
BLANK ROME, LLP
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
405 Lexington Avenue
New York, New York 10174
BY: JERRY D. BERNSTEIN, ESQ.
KINSELLA WEITZMAN ISER KUMP & ALDISERT, LLP
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
808 Wilshire Boulevard
Santa Monica, California 90401
BY: DALE F. KINSELLA, ESQ.
KASOWITZ, BENSON, TORRES & FRIEDMAN, LLP
Attorneys for Defendants
1833 Broadway
New York, New York 10019
BY: MARC E. KASOWITZ, ESQ.
JOHN BERLINSKI, ESQ.
AARON H. MARKS, ESQ.
NINA J. KOSS, C.S.R., C.M.
Official Court Reporter
X
mb
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/26/2014 04:49 PM INDEX NO. 654328/
YSCEF DOC. NO. 95 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/26/
-
8/11/2019 Darabont Transcript
2/40
2
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
0
11
12
13
14
5
16
17
18
19
0
21
22
23
24
)2:51
5
26
PROCEEDINGS
THE COURT: For the Plaintiffs, Frank Darabont,
Ferenc, Inc., Darkwoods Productions, Inc. and Creative
Artists Agency, I have from Blank Rome LLP, I have Jerry
Bernstein.
How are you?
MR. BERNSTEIN: Good morning.
THE COURT: Good morning. I also have from
Kinsella Weitzman Iser Kump & Aldisert, Dale Kinsella.
THE COURT: For the Defendants, AMC Network
Entertainment, LLC, AMC Film Holdings, LLC, and AMC
Networks, Incorporated, Stu Segall Productions, Incorporated
and John and Jane Does, 1 through 10, I have from the
Kasowitz Benson Torres & Friedman, LLP firm, I have Marc
Kasowitz.
How are you?
MR. KASOWITZ: Good morning, your Honor.
THE COURT: And, Aaron Marks and John Berlinski.
We are here because of profuse letter writing and
to try to get a handle on
ou can sit down. I don't
think you need to stand for this.
I read them -- you will be glad to know.
MR. KASOWITZ: Your Honor, if I might before your
Honor turns to her decision and gets too far in, there has
been one change on the ground with respect to our motion
since this letter writing began, and if I could just inform,
NK
-
8/11/2019 Darabont Transcript
3/40
3
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
0
11
12
13
14
5
16
17
18
19
0
21
22
23
24
)4:19
5
26
PROCEEDINGS
I think the Court should be aware of it.
The change on the ground is that the main argument
advanced by the Plaintiffs in opposition, and their July 1st
letter, was one of burden, that Plaintiffs claim that the
requests that we were making would put them to a burden of
having to review agreements one by one, documents one by one
and the like, in order to respond to our requests.
THE COURT: Also relevance.
MR. KASOWITZ: They have told us, we learned since
then, we approached the issue with them and we have learned
since then, in fact, they have a database, and the field on
that database --
THE COURT: Mr. Kasowitz, please, I am going to
make my decision.
MR. KASOWITZ: I just wanted the burden issue --
THE COURT: I understand. Let's say the burden
issue is nonexistent, still doesn't necessarily means it's
relevant.
So, that's what we are going to be dealing with.
In terms of, look, both sides of the equation, the
difference between what we have here in the Walking Dead and
the two related events, which is Breaking Bad and Mad Men,
the difference between what happened in Walking Dead is that
AMC Productions actually produced it, in addition to
distributing it. o, that made it a different entity than
NK
-
8/11/2019 Darabont Transcript
4/40
4
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
0
11
12
13
14
5
16
17
18
19
0
21
22
23
24
16:18
5
26
PROCEEDINGS
Breaking Bad -- I think was produced by Sony or, but outside
production, and Mad Men also.
nd then, those production
companies then went to AMC for distribution, and so you had
a different kind of a situation.
So, as a result of that, I am, I think that as it
concerns what the Plaintiff has to do in terms of producing
documents, I believe they should also produce documents for
both the Walking Dead and Mad Men. All right.
So, I think that that balances, a little bit, of
what AMC had to do, but AMC, but basically, because the
three, the three productions or the three TV shows, maybe
that's it.
Three TV shows, sort of related in nature, and
coming out of the same type of story, I believe that indeed,
the Plaintiff should have to produce documents along those
lines.
Now, in the July 1st letter, which actually, we
started with the June 16th letter, then CAA's reply on
July 1st, telling me that the request made by AMC in their
June 16th letter is, in the first place, shouldn't have to
do it because of relevance, and also because of the burden.
Even if you are right, Mr. Kasowitz, and they have
conceded that the burden was minimal, the question is of
relevance and whether or not, I don't need argument, sir,
whether or not there should be, at this time, an inquiry
NK
-
8/11/2019 Darabont Transcript
5/40
5
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
0
11
12
13
14
5
16
17
18
19
0
21
22
23
24
)9:00
5
26
PROCEEDINGS
into other TV shows to show whether or not the amount paid
or the agreements made by CAA for other stars of, similar to
what was agreed to in this instance, and et cetera.
I honestly think that that is outside the realm of
the particular case, outside of the complaint, and I think
not relevant, not relevant -- forget the burden -- not
relevant to this particular matter.
Specifically, if you go into the sections of the
complaint that are really the full, four full things we have
to deal with, at no point does the Plaintiff say that they
are basing their request on custom-wide, industry custom and
practice.
MR. KASOWITZ: Your Honor --
THE COURT: One second, Mr. Kasowitz, please, I am
not going to have argument on this. I will tell you what I
am thinking. You can please sit down.
THE COURT: The industry custom and practice is not
between the individual actors in the industry, but rather,
between the distributor and the TV stations you distribute
to.
hat's where the industry custom and practice is,
should be requested, and that's where indeed, there was
relevance, because if indeed, the industry custom and
practice is, has been, is different in the case of AMC, and
its distribution policies versus something else, that's
where you are going to find a correlation between what we
NK
-
8/11/2019 Darabont Transcript
6/40
6
PROCEEDINGS
are talking about in this instance.
Further, and that is what, in a sense, is in the
complaint.
t no point in the complaint is there an
allegation that the stars are being paid different rates and
different amounts and indeed, we have to look into whether
or not the stars in Walking Dead, that's represented by CAA,
Breaking Bad and Mad Men, are being paid differently.
t
is the distribution aspect of it that is what leads to the
profit, and because of that, two things.
One, I am denying Defendants' request for industry
custom and practice documents from CAA clients, except for
the two other events, which is Breaking Bad and Mad Men.
That, I will allow you to have, and for CAA clients that
work on other cable TV series, I consider that to be
irrelevant.
I am also, in fact, the Court is going to find that
the allegations cited in the complaint, paragraph 53, 56(g),
and 60 don't reference industry custom and practice of
imputed contingency fees.
MC's alleged duty to negotiate
in good faith requires proof of AMC's subjective belief.
The actual industry custom and practice is not relevant
only what AMC thought was standard. That comes to a
depositions.
That inquiry comes through inquiry of people who
were in positions A, AMC to think, to be able to state what
00:09:23
0
11
12
13
14
5
16
17
18
19
0
21
22
23
24
'0:58 5
26
NK
-
8/11/2019 Darabont Transcript
7/40
7
2
4
6
7
8
9
0
11
12
13
14
5
16
17
18
19
0
21
22
23
24
.2 : 5 9
5
26
PROCEEDINGS
they feel was standard in the industry. What other artists
received from non AMC networks, studios, is totally
irrelevant.
There is no allegation in the complaint that,
allegation that AMC failed to provide Darabont with a
standard contract. here is no place in the complaint does
it say that which, if it did, would allow you maybe to make
that inquiry -- but it does not.
The allegations are that AMC didn't calculate the
profits correctly as called for in the contract because it
gave itself too low a fee and didn't account for tax credit
and two, that AMC fired Darabont without cause. That's the
allegations in the complaint.
Now, the other thing that is really of bother to
the Court, and that is that there is no doubt that when we
last met, I sort of gave a thought, a direction that and, in
fact, we had argument on this, my direction was get going on
discovery. nd then the argument against it was oh, so
complicated. It's so much involved. We can't do it all at
once.
So, I said, okay, do it as a rolling event. But,
according to Plaintiff, the roll has not happened for one
sheet of paper, not one document; am I correct on that?
MR. KINSELLA: Your Honor, last night, last night
we got 208 documents.
NK
-
8/11/2019 Darabont Transcript
8/40
8
1
2
3
6
7
8
9
0
11
12
13
14
5
16
17
18
19
0
21
22
23
24
4:20 5
26
PROCEEDINGS
THE COURT: Okay. Congratulations. That makes
that statement wrong.
MR. KASOWITZ: There had already been a production
of a couple of, thousands of pages of documents before that.
We haven't received a single document from the Plaintiffs,
not one.
MR. BERNSTEIN: So we are clear on the dates, the
initial production of 1,385 pages was made on June 4th.
THE COURT: That was the day before you came to see
me.
MR. BERNSTEIN: Sorry, gentlemen, on June 4th,
which was the day before we were here with your Honor, I
believe -- right, we were here on June 5th.
So, we have had two productions, both the day
before we come to see you. The day before it was 1385,
June 4th, and then we come in here -- since your Honor
ruled -- we got nothing, nothing until last night when we
got 220 pages. I mean, really.
THE COURT: What time last night? Do you know what
time?
MR. BERNSTEIN: It was 4 o'clock, eastern time your
Honor.
THE COURT: That's early evening.
MR. BERNSTEIN: I can't understand why they simply
can't produce, you know, the license agreement for one or
NK
-
8/11/2019 Darabont Transcript
9/40
9
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
0
11
12
13
14
5
16
17
18
19
0
21
22
23
24
5:36
5
26
PROCEEDINGS
both of these shows. That seems very easy. Go Xerox it and
send it to us.
MR. KASOWITZ: We have produced that.
MR. BERNSTEIN: Only one of them.
MR. KASOWITZ: We haven't received a single
document from the Plaintiffs, not one, not a single one.
THE COURT: What did you make a demand for?
MR. KASOWITZ: We have made document requests. We
have even had representations from the Plaintiffs that they
will, that there are certain requests that they will respond
to.
e haven't gotten anything -- nothing, nothing, your
Honor.
THE COURT: Let me hear the other side.
MR. BERNSTEIN: We have produced 4,009 pages of
documents in five straight document Productions, June 20th,
June 11th, June 22nd, and another on June 11th. So, 4,009
pages produced by the Plaintiffs, 1500 pages roughly
produced from the Defendants, both on the eve of when we
appear in front of your Honor.
With due respect, this is a side issue. We have
produced documents. We also indicated that we will make a
substantial production
THE COURT: Mr. Kasowitz just got through telling
me he got nothing.
Did you get the 4,000 pages; yes or no?
NK
-
8/11/2019 Darabont Transcript
10/40
10
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
0
12
13
14
5
16
17
18
19
0
21
22
23
24
1
.6:51
5
26
PROCEEDINGS
MR. BERLINSKI:
he documents, they have made a
document, production of documents and there is not a single
document -- what Mr. Kasowitz is referring to -- from Frank
Darabont himself, the main Plaintiff in this case.
If, your Honor, I may for a brief moment, for a
brief moment on, I think on the central issue why we are
here for this hearing in terms of the relevance, I think
what the Plaintiffs have attempted to do is, they have
conflated two very separate and distinct claims in this
case.
There is the claim that relates to the setting of
the license fee, setting of the license fee between the
related AMC entities. That involves Mad Men and Breaking
Bad. That's one claim.
Separate, distinct, independent claims in this
lawsuit are that the claims that were linked to the
negotiations that occurred between AMC and the Plaintiffs in
this case, the CAA and Frank Darabont, the allegations in
this complaint, paragraph 53, are that with respect to the
negotiations that occurred between AMC and Frank Darabont
and CAA, that those negotiations were done in bad faith.
What they are saying is that, they are suggesting
in 53, that it was in further blatant disregard for industry
custom and practice that AMC calculated CAA's definition
THE COURT: Why don't we read paragraph 53? I will
NK
-
8/11/2019 Darabont Transcript
11/40
11
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
0
11
12
13
14
5
16
17
18
19
0
21
22
23
24
18:37 5
26
PROCEEDINGS
read it into the record.
In further blatant disregard for the agreement and
industry custom and practice, AMC has, among other things,
refused to factor in tax credit it obtains for filming the
series in Georgia, in calculating Plaintiffs'
profits/deficits.
MC films the Walking Dead, films the
Walking Dead in the state of Georgia, in part, because
Georgia offers up to 30 percent credits against the costs of
producing the series there.
MC takes the financial
benefit of this credit, but Plaintiffs' reported production
costs don't reflect the true costs to AMC and its
affiliates.
As of September 2012, Plaintiffs' participation
statement showed over $100 million of production costs.
Because AMC is receiving 30 percent of these expenditures
back as a tax credit, AMC has already improperly deflated
its gross receipts for calculating profits by more than
$30 million. his number has undoubtedly increased
significantly since September 2012, and will continue to
grow every year the series is produced.
MR. BERLINSKI: hat they are saying, there is,
that the way that AMC interprets these agreements and
reports to the Plaintiffs in this case, is inconsistent with
industry custom and practice.
Similarly, what they say in paragraph 60, they say
NK
-
8/11/2019 Darabont Transcript
12/40
12
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
0
11
12
13
14
5
16
17
18
19
0
21
22
23
24
0:01
5
26
PROCEEDINGS
this has nothing to do with third-party Mad Men, Breaking
Bad, nothing at all.
hey say that AMC has breached the
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by refusing
to provide Plaintiffs with a profits definition in a timely
fashion, refusing to negotiate that definition in good
faith, and refusing to negotiate for imputed fees.
Now, the negotiation with the good faith
definition, what they are saying is that AMC, after it
provided them the Plaintiffs' agreement, not Mad Men, not
Lionsgate, AMC provided their clients with an agreement and
it had a duty to negotiate that agreement in good faith.
Here is what the agreement says. It says, the
good faith negotiation must be within customary, basic cable
television industry parameters.
So I, so what they are saying is, the manner in
which AMC negotiated their clients' agreement was
inconsistent with how those agreements get negotiated in the
industry.
All we have asked for, CAA is the largest agency in
the entire entertainment industry. They define what
industry custom and practice is. All we have said, if you
are going to put into dispute, in this case file a lawsuit,
allege tens of millions of dollars of damages and claim that
the manner in which we negotiated our agreement with you was
different from how that is typically done in the industry,
NK
-
8/11/2019 Darabont Transcript
13/40
13
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
0
11
12
13
14
5
16
17
18
19
0
21
22
23
24
1:20
5
26
PROCEEDINGS
well, you do that every day, you negotiate these
agreements -- show us those agreements.
THE COURT: Wait a second. What is wrong with that
analysis, and where the problem becomes, all right, is that
your analysis or their allegations rather, is not between
what happens between individual stars and the Plaintiff
shows they come up with. hat's not the industry standards
we are talking about.
As you read in paragraph 60, it has to do with the
good faith and fair dealing implied in the agreements
alleged herein by engaging in bad faith conduct, intended to
frustrate Plaintiffs' rights to receive the benefits of
these agreements.
That is the, that is the relationship, not between
the stars, but rather AMC and how they make their profit
with selling the industry Walking Dead.
MR. BERLINSKI: It's not between stars. What is
happening here --
THE COURT: No, it's not between stars.
MR. BERLINSKI: They are saying, once the parties
to, parties to this lawsuit were negotiating their
agreement, they had a duty to do that negotiation in good
faith. That's between the studio --
THE COURT: First place, you can't take one
paragraph and not link it to the paragraph 53, which talks
NK
-
8/11/2019 Darabont Transcript
14/40
14
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
0
11
12
13
14
5
16
17
18
19
0
21
22
23
24
2:99 5
26
PROCEEDINGS
about the --
MR. BERLINSKI:
hey are two separate claims.
THE COURT: No, sir, this paragraph 60 has to do
not with how much, has to do with how you determine profit.
Plaintiffs are informed and believed and base
their analogy that AMC engaged in bad faith conduct such as,
among other things, refusing to provide Plaintiffs with a
profit definition in a timely manner.
Now, the profit definition comes when AMC sells
Walking Dead to whatever --
MR. BERLINSKI: That's not true.
THE COURT: AMC case, that profit margin comes in
the production and the amounts of money that they made in
terms of getting a $30 million kickback or rebate, is a
better word --
MR. BERLINSKI: With due respect, that's not what
we are talking about.
What is being offered as, I will tell you this, if
this case proceeds, you will hear this very argument from
this side of the table later, I promise you down the road.
What they are asserting here is that the agreement
that our client AMC provided to their clients, CAA and Frank
Darabont, after it provided them with that first draft, the
manner in which those two parties negotiated that agreement
was different from and fell short of the standards in the
NK
-
8/11/2019 Darabont Transcript
15/40
15
1
2
3
4
6
7
B
0
11
12
13
14
5
16
17
18
19
0
21
22
23
24
4 : 3 0
5
26
PROCEEDINGS
industry.
What we know to be true is that the manner in which
we negotiated that agreement with these Plaintiffs, far
exceeded industry custom and practice, and all we want to
show, we know that if we get our hands on these documents
that show how CAA handles its business with respect to
itself and other clients, it will be inconsistent with these
claims.
THE COURT: Let me put it this way. How CAA -- let
me do it another way.
When a person signs up with an agency, all right,
forget this kind of a thing, let's do an old fashioned book.
Let's say, that an author signs up with an agency and that
agent then gets the author a book deal and distribution with
this kind of a promotion and a movie deal with that kind of
a promotion and another thing, that the author gets, and the
next author comes in and that author gets twice as good as
the first author.
It's not what the agent did for the individual.
It is rather, that if the agent put it, put themselves in a
position that they really were undermining everything that
could have been done, they weren't using their best faith
for that original first author, then you have an argument.
But, it's got nothing to do with the second author and the
fourth author and the 15th author.
NK
-
8/11/2019 Darabont Transcript
16/40
16
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
0
11
12
13
14
5
16
17
18
19
0
21
22
23
24
?5:45
5
26
PROCEEDINGS
MR. BERLINSKI: Your Honor, I hear exactly what you
are saying. Let me tell you why this is a different
situation in this case.
Unlike the typical arrangement that you are talking
about, the parties agreed that their contract, it was not
simply a signed document that they submitted and said we are
done.
Here is what they said. They said, part of the
contract was that AMC, my client, had to give a profit
definition. It's a standard, typical definition. Handed it
over to their client, and what the agreement says here, it's
in 3(b), it says that, following the handing over of that
initial definition, that definition needed to be negotiated
within customary, basic cable television industry
parameters.
What these Plaintiffs are saying in this case, is
that how that definition was negotiated, after we handed
them that agreement, was inconsistent with how it is
typically done in the industry. It is not about
distribution.
They are saying that the completed agreement
between the parties was a negotiation that occurred in bad
faith, and they, as the head, as the leaders of the
industry, know exactly how those negotiations occur.
THE COURT: Okay, one second. Mr. Bernstein, is
NK
-
8/11/2019 Darabont Transcript
17/40
17
1
2
4
0:25:56
6
7
8
9
0
11
12
13
14
5
16
17
18
19
0
21
22
23
24
?7:06 5
26
PROCEEDINGS
that true?
MR. BERNSTEIN: That's just not -- you had it right
the first time.
First of all, let's talk about paragraph 53.
Paragraph 53 is, as your Honor pointed out, about tax
credits, and in out letter at page 6, in the first full
paragraph, we inform the Court that that issue, that part of
the complaint is off the table where we wrote as follows:
Quote, well after the initiation of this lawsuit,
Defendants submitted new participation statements to
Darabont and CAA that appear to correct AMC's egregious
practice of excluding tax credits.
So, the only place in the complaint, as your Honor
points out, where the words custom and practice were used,
were exclusively about tax credits, and thankfully, the
Defendants have, since the filing of the lawsuit, corrected
that issue. It's off the table.
The only question is about whether this contract
was characterized by good faith and fair dealing. That's
standard language in every single contract. That's what we
plead.
Just because we plead that they didn't act in the
spirit of good faith and fair dealing, doesn't give them the
right, as your Honor points out, to go look at every single
other deal that had nothing to do with this. articularly,
NK
-
8/11/2019 Darabont Transcript
18/40
18
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
0
11
12
13
14
5
16
17
18
19
0
21
22
23
24
?8:41
5
26
PROCEEDINGS
as your Honor pointed out, where CAA's relationship is
between the agent and/or the talent, so to speak, and the
studio, not with the network.
That imputed license fee or actual license fee
where it's not vertically integrated, that license fee is
negotiated between the studio and the network, which is not
something, in any event, that CAA is involved with.
So, this is a complete red herring and shouldn't
give the Defendants a right, as your Honor has, we believe
correctly found, to go rummaging around through thousands
and thousands of confidential CAA files or even hundreds or
even 50 or even one, for something that is totally
irrelevant.
MR. BERNSTEIN: Counsel does not deny that the good
faith his clients allege, his clients breached, concerning a
negotiation between the studio and his clients.
Your Honor, the language is clear. It says, he
says it is within customary, basic cable television
parameters. They don't deny that.
It's 3(b).
THE COURT: I got it. I have it here. I will read
it. I will read it into the record.
This is the contract.
MR. BERLINSKI: It's Exhibit D to the amended --
THE COURT: 1(b)iii. Romanette iii says, the
NK
-
8/11/2019 Darabont Transcript
19/40
19
1
2
3
4
6
8
9
0
11
12
13
14
5
16
17
18
19
0
21
22
23
24
30:06
5
26
PROCEEDINGS
portion of the guarantee not applicable against the
company --
MR. BERLINSKI: It's a different paragraph. It's
3(b). If you take a look at page 5 of that definition --
THE COURT: Complaint, paragraph 46?
MR. BERLINSKI: No, it's 3(b) of page 5. The
agreement is, Exhibit B to the agreement.
THE COURT: Let me see it.
MR. BERLINSKI: Sure.
(Handed).
THE COURT: Three is contingent participation. You
have to read it from the beginning because, you know, it's
always nice to know what we are talking about.
Provided that artist renders executive producer,
show runs services on all episodes produced for season
two -- let's just put that into context.
Does that mean we are talking about Frank Darabont?
MR. BERLINSKI: Plaintiffs' position this applies
to both of the Plaintiffs in this case.
MR. KASOWITZ: Both Darabont and CAA.
MR. BERLINSKI: Their position --
THE COURT: Is that your position?
MR. BERNSTEIN: It's Darabont's contract, but CAA
has a participation in whatever Darabont gets.
THE COURT: Yes, he gets -- CAA gets a percentage
NK
-
8/11/2019 Darabont Transcript
20/40
20
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
0
11
12
13
14
5
16
17
18
19
0
21
22
23
24
1 1 : 3 3
5
26
PROCEEDINGS
of Darabont's profits.
MR. BERNSTEIN: Yes.
MR. BERLINSKI: Separate and independent leap, CAA
has its own interests. That's what they pleaded. They are
saying this paragraph relates to this interest as well.
THE COURT: Is that true?
MR. KINSELLA: That is not accurate. The contract
that you are reading is Mr. Darabont's contract. Creative
Artists has what is referred to as a package deal .
That relationship between CAA and AMC is governed
by a document that is not even in front of your Honor. So,
for purposes of context, you are correct, that is Frank
Darabont and Frank Darabont only, that provision you are
reading there.
THE COURT: That makes entire sense, okay, because,
because going back to the book relationship, when you go to
an agent, you enter into a contract with an agent to do the
best work you can to get you the movie deal and everything
else, but the agent takes its money on the amount of money
that the author, the writer, is going to, author, the writer
is going to make in the deal.
Take a Broadway production. The artist could make
one 12th of the weekly profits.
ll right, and then, then
the agent gets ten percent of that or 20 percent or
30 percent, whatever they negotiate. Back in the old days,
NK
-
8/11/2019 Darabont Transcript
21/40
21
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
0
11
12
13
14
5
16
17
18
19
0
21
22
23
24
12:49
5
26
PROCEEDINGS
it used to be ten. Nowadays, it's closer to 30.
MR. BERLINSKI: This is little unique. This is how
it's unique.
CAA gets a percentage of what Frank Darabont earns,
exactly as you said.
xactly what happens in the
television industry, as Mr. Kinsella referred to, they are
called packages .
What happens is, the agency often goes to a studio
and says, I am not just going to offer you my client, I will
offer you a producer, a director, a concept. I will pitch a
package to you that's ready to make, ready to be produced.
Oftentimes, and this is what they allege in the
complaint, oftentimes the agency
take that piece of my client's earnings, but I also want a
piece exclusively for myself and in this case, the
Plaintiffs are saying they have their own separate piece, in
addition to getting a percentage of Darabont, that is worth
seven and a half percent of the profits. That is what they
have pleaded in the complaint.
So again, if they want to take the position that
none of these documents relate to CAA, that can only help us
in the case. I don't think that's what they pled though.
MR. KINSELLA: Your Honor, may I briefly and
hopefully, clarify something?
Mr. Berlinski has spent an enormous amount of time
says, I
am still going to
NK
-
8/11/2019 Darabont Transcript
22/40
22
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
0
11
12
13
14
5
16
17
18
19
0
21
22
23
24
4:21
5
26
PROCEEDINGS
here in the last 15 minutes telling you what he says we are
saying in the complaint, and since I drafted the complaint,
I can tell you what we are saying on behalf of CAA.
This dispute is only about CAA. It's very simple.
As your Honor correctly noted, what has happened here is
that AMC, on the right hand, deals with AMC on the left
hand, and they set a license fee for their show that is so
artificially low, that any profit definition they give to
Mr. Darabont and or CAA, will never, ever see profits.
They have created a fiction that the show is always in
deficit.
Now, Mr. Darabont has his own claims against AMC,
as your Honor noted. That, he was discharged without cause,
and yes, there is a claim in there about the breach of
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, but to make
it very clear, so Mr. Berlinski no longer states what CAA's
position is, CAA's position is very clear.
That, they have breached a provision in the
contract which requires that when AMC decides to produce a
show and air a show, according to the contract language,
they must do so as if they were dealing with an independent
third-party affiliate, unaffiliated company, for a
comparable program. It's no more complicated than that.
It's that simple.
When AMC sits down and the right hand negotiated,
NK
-
8/11/2019 Darabont Transcript
23/40
23
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
0
11
12
13
14
5
16
17
18
19
0
21
22
23
24
15:94
5
26
PROCEEDINGS
has negotiation with the left hand, what they must do,
pursuant to the very specific provision in that Darabont
contract unrelated to that, is that they have to do it as if
they were dealing with an unaffiliated company, and they
have to do it as if it was a comparable show on an
unaffiliated network.
If I may just finish?
So, rather than Mr. Berlinski telling you what our
complaint says, your Honor has absolutely correctly analyzed
it.
We are not seeking damages based upon some
custom-wide practice in the industry. It is strictly
limited to some very, very simple language in the contract.
The simple language appears in the complaint, your Honor --
I believe paragraph 30.
It says as follows: Quote, AMC agrees that AMC
transactions with affiliated companies will be on monetary
terms comparable to the terms on which the affiliated
company enters into similar transactions with unrelated
third-party distributors for comparable programs.
It's a license fee case. Mr. Berlinski can tell
you what my complaint says. He can tell you that it's about
custom and practice, but your Honor correctly analyzed it.
It is not -- nor are we claiming -- that they shorted AMC or
Mr. Darabont, based upon some wild custom and practice
NK
-
8/11/2019 Darabont Transcript
24/40
24
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
0
11
12
13
14
5
16
17
18
19
0
21
22
23
24
17:09
5
26
PROCEEDINGS
within the industry. We are just saying you violated the
contract. That's all.
So, while I appreciate him interpreting the
complaint, I would respectfully submit that he is doing it
wrong, and your Honor, from the very beginning, analyzed it
correctly.
It is a very clear case, unrelated to some custom-
wide practice in the industry, and as Mr. Bernstein said,
the only time he even used that phrase was in connection
with the tax credit issue, which they have, since we filed
the complaint, corrected. So, let's not, let's not start
confusing what our complaint is about.
MR. KASOWITZ: Your Honor --
THE COURT: Mr. Kasowitz.
MR. KASOWITZ: Your Honor, we are not confusing the
complaint, your Honor. Section 3(b) of the contract that
Darabont and CAA says has been breached, is very, very
clear.
The definition of MAGR shall be set forth as in
AMC. The MAGR definition, with such changes as have been
agreed in the agreement, and subject to further changes as
may be agreed following good faith negotiation, negotiation
within customary basic cable television industry parameters
consistent with AMC's business practices and
artist's stature within basic cable television industry, as
NK
-
8/11/2019 Darabont Transcript
25/40
25
1
2
3
4
0:37:22
6
7
8
9
0:37:47
11
12
13
14
5
16
17
18
19
0
21
22
23
24
38:37
5
26
PROCEEDINGS
of the date of the season to be amendments. Then, when you
look at their allegations --
THE COURT: Who is -- Mr. Kasowitz, you proved my
point. You just proved what I was saying. That, indeed,
AMC has to act in such a manner, all right, that, with good
faith and negotiation with customary basic cable industry
parameters, that means that in the case that we are dealing
with, because what the confusion was, or what happened was,
that AMC was both the producer of it and also the
distributor, and what it says here is that the, in a sense,
you had to wear two hats and you didn't wear two hats.
MR. KASOWITZ: The way they determine what basic,
what basic cable industry parameter is, is by looking at
others, by looking at other situations, your Honor, and they
are, they are the ones that are the source for what those
basic cable television industry parameters are. That's the
point here, your Honor.
It's not limited just to --
THE COURT: It has nothing to do with CAA. That's
where you are getting confused.
MR. BERLINSKI: They are two distinct issues.
THE COURT: Certainly nothing to do with CAA's
handling of other members and staff and other events.
MR. KASOWITZ: We are not talking about other
events, not talking about ether actors. Talking about other
NK
-
8/11/2019 Darabont Transcript
26/40
2
1
2
3
4
00:38:51
6
7
8
9
00:39:10 0
11
12
13
14
00:39:29
5
16
17
18
19
00:39:43 0
21
22
23
24
1 9 : 5 5
5
26
PROCEEDINGS
originators, talking about other show runners that AMC
represents.
THE COURT: You are confusing apples and oranges.
MR. BERLINSKI: One slight additional -- the whole
argument that you heard Mr. Kinsella say about their breach
claim, it is entirely encapsulated in paragraph A of the
complaint. You will note that there is A, B, C, D, E, F and
G. That's just the breach of contract claim in this case.
So, what Mr. Kinsella is doing, he is claiming for
purposes solely of this discovery motion, that this case is
only about paragraph 56(a).
In fact, if you look at 56(g), it states, that
another separate independent claim of breach by CAA is that
AMC failed to account to Darabont, pursuant to a profits
definition negotiated in good faith.
The profits definition being referred to is not
between the distributor and the studio. The profits
definition as defined in this very agreement is the
definition negotiated between Plaintiffs and Defendants.
They are saying --
THE COURT: Right.
MR. BERLINSKI: They are saying our negotiations,
not Mad Men, Breaking Bad, that the way we negotiated our
agreement is inconsistent with the customs of the industry.
THE COURT: Finding out how CAA negotiated for
NK
-
8/11/2019 Darabont Transcript
27/40
2
1
2
3
4
00:40:06
6
7
8
00:40:24 0
11
12
13
14
00:40:92
5
16
17
18
19
00:40:59
0
21
22
23
24
11:17
5
26
PROCEEDINGS
other people has nothing to do with it.
MR. KASOWITZ: That's the standard in the industry,
your Honor.
THE COURT: No, sir. No, sir. You can't get
around it.
By the way, what we are going to do, I just feel
that you can't expand this searching expedition, which is
always what discovery is all about, to include what CAA does
with other events, other negotiations, other -- because it
has nothing to do with the, I think, the standard in the
industry. It was in the tax area.
THE COURT: There is one other thing I want to say.
MR. KASOWITZ: We respectfully disagree. We would
like an Order, if we could, we think that does comprise with
industry standards and practice.
THE COURT: We are just, I only give orders on
motions. We are only dealing with letters.
MR. KASOWITZ: Can we make a formal motion, your
Honor, respectfully?
THE COURT: Let me just say this. I will preclude
the Plaintiffs from asserting a breach of industry practice
and custom as to good faith negotiations. In other words,
you can't come back to me and try to do it for yourself.
You can't do it.
MR. KINSELLA: Very good.
NK
-
8/11/2019 Darabont Transcript
28/40
28
1
2
3
4
6
7
9
0
11
12
13
14
5
16
17
18
19
0
21
22
23
24
12:16
5
26
PROCEEDINGS
THE COURT: I preclude them. You are precluded
too.
MR. KASOWITZ: And duty to negotiate in good
faith -- that's part of it.
THE COURT: That's different.
MR. KASOWITZ: The good faith negotiation goes
directly to this question of market value.
THE COURT: The custom and good faith negotiations
between the talents and the studio, they can't use that.
In the meantime, I did give that. Indeed, Mad Men
and Breaking Bad documents, you get those documents and you
will have those as a comparison.
MR. BERLINSKI: There haven't --
THE COURT: That has to do with different
production agencies, but the same kinds of show and the same
kind of distribution.
MR. KASOWITZ: There aren't any of those. Our only
point, there are other comparable shows that they have
evidence about.
THE COURT: You certainly didn't bring it to my
attention.
MR. KASOWITZ: Pardon?
THE COURT: You didn't bring that to my attention.
MR. KASOWITZ: That's the --
MR. BERNSTEIN: Can we have some dates when the
NK
-
8/11/2019 Darabont Transcript
29/40
29
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
0
11
12
13
14
5
16
17
18
19
0
21
22
23
24
3:50 5
26
PROCEEDINGS
Defendants comply with the Order?
MR. KASOWITZ: Before we turn, if we could just
finish this issue, your Honor. May we make a motion on
this, your Honor?
THE COURT: Well, I can't -- listen, I don't have
bars in front of my courthouse, except I think you know
where I will be going and you know, so just, I think, I
don't think that you have developed in all of the many, many
pages in your letter writing event, all right, anything that
I am going to change my mind on,
So, if you now translate all those, translate all
those letters in a motion, it will take whatever amount of
time -- whatever you want to do.
MR. KASOWITZ: Thank you, your Honor.
THE COURT: So now, in terms of discovery, I want,
I want the production of materials that indeed, were ordered
to be done on a rolling basis by your side, AMC, in 30 days.
MR. BERLINSKI: Can we make a substantial
production in 30 days -- my understanding is that we will,
it will be impossible. hat we have been ordered to
produce are a significant amount of documents that relate to
for one, third-party agreements where we need to get the
third party's permission before we are allowed to produce
it, or at least give notice.
There are other documents within AMC databases that
NK
-
8/11/2019 Darabont Transcript
30/40
30
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
0
11
12
13
14
5
16
17
18
19
0
21
22
23
24
14:58
5
26
PROCEEDINGS
are very difficult to pull out. We can make a substantial,
significant production in 30 days. I just, I am not sure
that is possible to complete that production in that amount
of time.
MR. BERNSTEIN: They will have had 90 days, 90 days
from your Honor's, your Order on June 5th, to make this
document production. It's not like they are learning about
it for the first time.
THE COURT: When I say substantial , I don't
want
will give you 60 days for the completion of
everything. Substantial means most of the documents.
MR. BERLINSKI: Understood.
THE COURT: Let's give you an example. If the
documents add up to 30,000 pieces of paper, truly a million
pieces of paper, if you had 10,000 left out of that million
that you do give out, I will allow you that extra time, but
I want the million done.
MR. BERLINSKI: Understood.
THE COURT: I want it done.
MR. BERNSTEIN: So we are clear, the 30 days for
the substantial, i.e., most of the documents, and 60 days
for the balance, meaning everything?
THE COURT: Right. Yes.
Now, will you look at, whatever I gave you, make
sure -- I don't have my calendar there -- so, we are talking
NK
-
8/11/2019 Darabont Transcript
31/40
31
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
0
11
12
13
14
5
16
17
18
19
0
21
22
23
24
16:27
5
26
PROCEEDINGS
September 12th, which is a good date, and then October 12th,
which is a bad day because that's a Sunday, 13th happens to
be Columbus Day, so you got all the way to October 14th for
final completion of discovery, of document discovery.
Got it?
MR. MARKS: If I may, Mr. Berlinski and I were here
after the June 5th hearing for our preliminary conference
and both sides agreed that because of the nature of the
documents in this case, that this case should be on complex
tracking and the Court --
THE COURT: I am not saying it's not on complex.
It is complex.
MR. MARKS: But, we agreed to a December 31st
deadline for document production. This is squeezing us
quite a bit over the next 30 days, so we would ask that
we --
THE COURT: I still want -- I ordered, okay, I
don't want you -- what you came up with in a compliance
conference with a P.C. Order, I ordered something and it
wasn't done and that does annoy me.
MR. MARKS: We understand.
THE COURT: As a result, I really want it done and
that changes the parameters. If you had to said to me we
researched and we have this problem, that problem, I got
50,000 pages for them, not on the eve of coming to see me,
NK
-
8/11/2019 Darabont Transcript
32/40
32
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
0
11
12
13
14
5
16
17
18
19
0
21
22
23
24
25
26
PROCEEDINGS
at 4 o'clock in the afternoon the day before you come and
see me, that doesn't work. That doesn't work, because you
are basically ignoring my Order. I don't like that. I
really just don't like it. I think I am being dis'd and
don't like being dis'd.
MR. KASOWITZ: Certainly no intention to ignore
your Honor's Order, not at all, your Honor, and no intention
whatsoever.
nd, we will work hard to try to complete the
production of these documents, subject to this, subject to
your Order.
So, there was no intention whatsoever, your Honor.
THE COURT: Good. I am glad to hear that. I am
sure it wasn't. I feel better.
MR. KASOWITZ: Thank you, your Honor. I do too
now, your Honor.
THE COURT: Have a good day. Good argument, by the
way. I want to say you did a very nice job.
MR. BERLINSKI: Not good enough.
THE COURT: The point is, you are really articulate
and you were very good.
MR. BERLINSKI: Thank you, your Honor.
xxx
NK
-
8/11/2019 Darabont Transcript
33/40
f
33
PROCEEDINGS
DARABONT V. AMC NETWORK ET AL
THE FOREGOING IS CERTIFIED TO BE A
TRUE AND ACCURATE TRANSCRIPTION OF
THE ORIGINAL STENOGRAPHIC NOTES.
NINA J. KOSS, C.S. C.M.
OFFICIAL COURT REPbRTER
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
NK
-
8/11/2019 Darabont Transcript
34/40
100
[1) - 11:15
175.00 [2) -
34:21,
35:21
$30 [2] - 11:19, 14:15
350.0012]
- 34:20,
35:20
1
1 2) - 1:8, 2:13
1(b)iii [11- 18:26
1,385 1] -
8:9
10 [21- 1:8, 2:13
10,000 [1) -
30:16
10007
2) -
34:4, 35:4
10019
[1) - 1:23
10174 [1) -
1:16
11th
)2) - 9:17
12 [3) - 1:11 , 34:17,
35:17
12th
13] -
20:24, 31:2
1385 1)- 8:16
13th
[1] - 31:3
14th [1) - 31:4
15 [1] -
22 :2
1500 [11 - 9:18
15thr 15:26
163311] - 35:9
16th 2] -
4:19, 4:21
17
[2]
34:6, 35:6
1833 [1) - 1:22
1st
3] -
3:4, 4:18, 4:20
2
20 )1) -
20:25
201212) -
11:14, 11:20
2014 )5) -
1:11, 34:6,
34:17, 35:6, 35:17
208 [1) -
7:26
20th [1] - 9:16
212
2] -
34:11, 35:11
22011) -
8:19
22nd ri) - 9 :17
3
3
[1) - 1:2
3(b [3] -
16:13, 19:7,
24:17
3(b) 2] -
18:21, 19:5
30 [1o] -
11:9, 11:16,
20:26, 21:2, 23:16,
29:18, 29:2 0, 30:3,
30:21, 31:16
30,000 [11-
30:15
31st[i] - 31:14
32 [2] - 34:19, 35:19
33-1173716[2]
-
34:5,
35:5
386-3090
[2) - 34:7,
35:7
4
4 [2) - 8:22, 32:2
4,000 [1] - 9:26
4,009 [2] -
9:15, 9:17
405 (21-
1:15, 34:9
420
[2) - 34:4, 35:4
46 [1) -
19:6
4th
3] - 8:9, 8 :12, 8 :17
5
5 )2] -
19:5, 19:7
50 [1] - 18:13
50,000
[11- 31:26
506-1700 [11- 35:11
53171-
6:18, 10:20,
10:24, 10:26, 13:26,
17:5, 17:6
56(a) [11-
26:12
56(912]
- 6:18, 26:13
5th
3) -
8:14, 30:7,
31:8
6
6 [1] -
17 :7
6019) - 1:10, 6:19,
11:26, 13:10, 1 4:4,
30:11, 30:22, 34:4,
35:4
646 [2] - 34:7, 35:7
654328/13 3] - 1:10,
34:16, 35:16
8
808
[1) - 1:19
885-5511 [11- 34:11
9
90121-
30:6
90401 [1] -
1:19
A
Aaron (1) - 2:18
AARON
[1) - 1:24
able [1) -
6:26
absolutely [1] - 23:10
according (2] - 7:23,
22:21
account [2) - 7:12,
26:15
accurate [1] - 20:8
ACCURATE [1] -
33:16
act 2] -
17:23, 25:6
ACTION [2] -
34:14,
35:14
actors
2] -
5:19,
25:26
actual
2) -
6:22, 18:5
add [1) -
30:15
addition
2] - 3:25,
21:18
additional [1) -
26:5
advanced [1) - 3:4
affiliate ri I - 22:23
affiliated 2) -
23:18,
23:19
affiliates )1] -
11:13
afternoon [1]- 32:2
agencies [1) - 28:16
agency [5] -
12:20,
15:12, 15:14, 21:9,
21:14
Agency [1] -
2:4
AGENCY (11-
1:4
agent
e1- 15:15,
15:20, 15:21 , 18:3,
20:18, 20:20, 20:25
agreed [6) -
5:4, 16:6,
24:22, 2 4:23, 31:9,
31:14
agreement pa) - 8:26,
11:3, 12:10, 12:11,
12:12, 12:13, 12:17,
12:25, 13:23, 14:22,
14:25, 15:4, 16:12,
16:19, 16:22, 19:8.
24:22, 26:19, 26:25
agreements (s)- 3:7,
5:3, 11:23, 12:18,
13:3, 13:11, 13:14,
29:23
agrees r -
23:17
air [11- 22:2 1
AL 31- 33:2, 34:14,
35:14
ALDISERT [1] -
t18
Aldisert [1) - 2:9
allegation
3] - 6:5,
7:5, 7 :6
allegations 16] - 6:18,
7:10, 7:14, 10:19,
13:6, 25:3
allege 3] - 12:24,
18:16, 21:13
alleged [2] - 6:20,
13:12
allow [3] - 6:14, 7:8,
30:17
allowed [1) -
29:24
AMC
[58] -
1:7, 1:8,
2:10, 2:11, 3:25, 4:4,
4:11, 4:20, 5:24,
6:23, 6:26, 7:3, 7:6,
7:10, 7:13, 10:14,
10:18, 10:21, 10:25,
11:4, 11:7, 11:10,
11:12, 11:16, 11:17,
11:23, 12:3, 12:9,
12:11, 12:17, 13:16,
14:7, 14:10, 14:13,
14:23, 16:10, 20:11,
22:7, 22:13, 22:20,
22:26, 23:17, 23:25,
24:21, 25:6, 25:10,
26:2, 26:15, 29:18,
29:26, 33:2, 34:14,
35:14
AMC's
[41-
6:20, 6:21,
17:12, 24:25
amended 11] -
18:25
amendments [1)-
25:2
AMOUNT )2) - 34:21,
35:21
amount [s] - 5:2,
20:20, 21:26, 2 9:13,
29:22, 30:4
amounts (2]
- 6:6,
14:14
analogy [11-
14:7
analysis
[2) - 13:5,
13:6
analyzed13] - 23:10,
23:24, 24:6
AND [1] -
33:16
annoy [1) -
31:21
appear [2) -
9:20
17:12
APPEARANCES [11-
1:13
apples (1) - 26:4
applicable [1) - 19:2
applies [1] -
19:19
appreciate [11- 24:4
approach ed [1) - 3:11
area [1] -
27 :12
argument
9] - 3:3,
4:25, 5:16, 7:18,
7:19, 14:20, 15:24,
26:6, 32:17
arrangement [1]
-
16:5
articulate [1) - 32:20
artificially [1) -
22:9
artist (2] -
19:15,
20:23
artist s 24:26
artists [1] - 7 :2
ARTISTS 01- 1:4
Artists 2) - 2:4, 20:10
aspect [1] -
6:9
asserting 2] - 14:22,
27 :22
1
attempted [1) - 10:9
attention [2] - 28:22,
28:24
attorneys [2] - 1:18,
1:22
Attorneys [1] - 1:15
August [5) -1:11,
34:6, 34:17, 35:6,
35:17
author [12] -
15:14,
15:15, 15:17, 15:18,
15:19, 15:24, 15:25,
15:26, 20:21
Avenue (2] - 1:15,
34:9
aware 1) - 3:2
B
bad 5) - 10:22, 13:12,
14:7, 16:23, 31:3
Bad [6] - 3:23, 4:2,
6:8,6:13,10:15,
12:3, 26:24, 28:12
balance 1] - 30:23
balances [1] - 4:10
bars ri) - 29:7
base [1] - 14:6
based 2] -
23:12,
23:26
basic
[91- 12:14,
16:15, 18:19, 24:24,
24:26, 25:7, 25:13,
25:14, 25:17
basing ill - 5 :12
basis 0) - 29:18
BE [1] -
33:15
becomes [1] -
13:5
BEFORE
[3) -
1:12,
34:13, 35:13
began
]
-
2:26
beginning (2] - 19:13,
24:6
behalf [1] - 22:4
belief [1) - 6:21
benefit [1]- 11:11
benefits [1] - 13:13
BENSON (2] -
1:21,
35:9
Benson [1) -
2:14
BERLINSKI
2 6 ]
-
1:24, 10:2, 11:22,
13:18, 13:21, 1 4:3,
14:12, 14:17, 16:2,
18:25, 19:4, 19:7 ,
19:10, 19:19, 19:22,
20:4, 21:3, 25:22,
26:5, 26:23, 28:14,
29:19, 30:13, 30:19,
32:19, 32:22
MYRON CALDERON - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
-
8/11/2019 Darabont Transcript
35/40
Berlinski - 2:18,
21:26, 22:17, 23:9,
23:22, 31:7
BERNSTEIN pal -
1:16, 2:7, 8:8, 8:12,
8:22, 8:25, 9:5, 9:15,
17:3, 18:15, 19:24,
20:3. 28:2 6, 30:6,
30:21. 34:10
Bernstein
3] -
2:5,
16:26, 24:9
best [2] - 15:23, 20:19
better 2] -
14:16,
32:14
between pi - 3:22,
3:24, 5:19, 5:20,
5:26, 10:13, 10:18,
10:21, 13:6, 13:7,
13:15, 13:18, 13:20,
13:24, 16:23, 1 8:3,
18:7, 18:17, 20:11,
26:18, 26:20, 28:10
bit
4:10, 31:16
BLANK [2] - 1:14, 34:9
Blank [1]- 2:4
blatant
2] -
10:24,
11:3
book
13] -
15:13,
15:15, 20:17
bother pi - 7:15
Boulevard oi -1:19
BRANSTEN 3] - 1:12,
34:13, 35:13
breach [5] - 22:15,
26:6, 26:9, 26:14,
27:22
breached
[4] -
12:3,
18:16, 22:19, 24:18
Breaking
81 -
3:23,
4:2, 6:8, 6:13, 10:14,
12:2, 26:24, 28:12
brief pi -10:6, 10:7
briefly pi- 21:24
bring - 28:21,
28:24
Broadway 3] - 1:22,
20:23, 35:9
burden [7) - 3:5, 3:6,
3:16, 3:17, 4:22,
4:24, 5:7
business pi -15:7,
24:25
BY Is) - 1:16, 1:20,
1:23, 34:10, 35:10
C
C.M - 1:25, 33:21
C.S.R [4] -1:25,
33:21, 34:3, 35:3
CAA
[281 -
5:3, 6:7,
6:12, 6:14, 10:19,
10:22, 12:20, 14:23,
15:7, 15:10, 17:12,
18:8, 18:12, 19:21,
19:24, 19:26, 20:4,
20:11, 21:5, 21:22,
22:4, 22:5, 22:10,
24:18, 25:20, 26:14,
26:26, 27:9
CAA's [6] - 4:19,
10:25, 18:2, 22:17,
22:18, 25:23
cable pi - 6:15, 12:14,
16:15, 18:19, 24:24,
24:26, 25:7, 25:14,
25:17
calculate [1] - 7:10
calculated [1) - 10:2 5
calculating 2] -11:6,
11:18
calendar pi - 30:26
California pi - 1:19
case [21] -
5:6, 5:24,
10:5, 10:11, 10:19,
11:24, 12:23, 14:13,
14:20, 16:4, 16:17,
19:20, 21:16, 21:23,
23:22, 24:8, 25:8,
26:9, 26:11, 31:10
central pi -10:7
Centre pi -1:10
CENTRE (2] - 34:4,
35:4
certain pi - 9:11
certainly
3] -
25:23,
28:21, 32:7
CERTIFIED
[1] - 33:15
cetera pi - 5:4
change
3] -
2:25, 3:3,
29:11
changes p] - 24:21,
24:22, 31:24
characterized pi -
17:20
cited pi - 6:18
claim pi - 3:5, 10:12,
10:15, 12:24, 22:15,
26:7, 26:9, 26:14
claiming121- 2 3:25,
26:10
claims 6] - 10:10,
10:16, 10:17, 14:3,
15:9, 22:13
clarify 0] - 21:2 5
clear
7] -
8:8, 18:18,
22:17, 22:18, 24:8,
24:19, 30:21
client [4] - 14:23,
16:10, 16:12, 21:10
client's pi - 21:1 5
clients pi - 6:12, 6:14,
12:11 , 14:23, 15:8,
18:16, 18:17
clients' pi - 12:1 7
closer pi - 21:2
Columbus pi - 31:4
coming [2] - 4:15,
31:26
companies 2] - 4:4,
23:18
company [4] - 19:3,
22:23, 23:5, 23:20
comparable pi -
22:24, 23:6, 23:19,
23:21, 28:19
comparison (1] -
28:13
complaint
24] -
5:6,
5:10, 6:4, 6:18, 7:5,
7:7, 7:14, 10:20,
17:9, 17 :14, 19:6,
21:14, 21:20, 22:3,
23:10, 23:15, 23:23,
24:5, 24:12, 2 4:13,
24:17, 26:8
complete 3] - 18:9,
30:4, 32:9
completed pi - 16:22
completion 2 )
30:11, 31:5
complex
3] - 31:10,
31:12, 31:13
compliancepj -
31:19
complicated
2] -
7: 20, 22:24
comply (1] - 29:2
comprise p) - 27:15
conceded pi - 4:24
concept pi- 21:11
concerning pi -18:16
concerns pi - 4:7
conduct [2] - 13:12,
14:7
conference [2] - 31:8,
31:20
confidential pi -
18:12
conflated pi - 1 0:10
confused pi - 25:21
confusing pi - 24:13,
24:16, 26:4
confusion pi - 25:9
congratulations -
8:2
connection pi - 24:10
consider [11- 6:15
consistent [1] - 24:25
context
2] -
19:17,
20:13
contingency 1] -
6:20
contingent - 19:12
continue (1] - 11:2 0
contract [la] - 7:7,
7:11, 16:6, 16:10,
17:19, 17:21, 18:24,
19:24, 20:8, 20:9,
20:18, 22:20, 22:21,
23:4, 23:14, 24:3,
24:17, 26:9
copies 2] - 34:18,
35:18
copypl- 34:23, 35:23
correct 3] - 7:24,
17:12, 20:13
corrected
2] - 17:17,
24:12
correctly [6] - 7:11,
18:11, 22 :6, 23:10,
23:24, 24:7
correlation [1] - 5:26
costs [4]- 11:9, 11:12,
11:15
counsel pi -18:15
COUNTY p) -1:2
couple pi - 8:5
COUR T [6s] -1:2, 2:2,
2:8, 2:10, 2:18, 3:9,
3:14, 3:17, 5:15,
5:18, 8:2, 8:10, 8:20,
8:24, 9:8, 9:14, 9:24,
10:26, 13:4, 13:20,
13:25, 14:4, 14:13,
15:10, 16:26, 18:22,
18:26, 19:6, 19:9,
19:12, 19:23, 19:26,
20:7, 20:16, 24:15,
25:4, 25:20, 25:23,
26:4, 26:22, 26:26,
27:5, 27:13, 27:17,
27:21, 28:2, 28 :6,
28:9, 28:15, 28:21,
28:24, 29:6, 29:16,
30:10, 30:14, 30:20,
30:24, 31:12, 31:18,
31:23, 32:13, 32:17,
32:20, 33:22 , 34:3,
35:3
Courtm -1:26, 3:2,
6:17, 7:16, 17:8,
31:11, 34:23, 35:23
courthouse [1] - 29:7
covenant
2] -
12:4,
22:16
created pi - 22:11
Creative [1] - 2:3
CREATIVE 01- 1:4
creative pi - 20:9
credits] - 7:12, 11:5,
2
11:11, 11:17, 24:11
credits 01- 11:9,
17:7, 17:13, 17:16
custom
20] -
5:12,
5:18, 5:21, 5:23,
6:12, 6:19, 6:22,
10:25, 11:4, 11:25,
12:22, 15:5, 17:15,
23:13, 23:24, 23:26,
24:8, 27:23, 28:9
custom-wide 2]
-
5:12, 23:13
customary 5] -
12:14,
16:15, 18:19, 24:24,
25:7
customs [1] - 26:25
D
DALE pi -1 :20
Dalep] - 2:9
damages12) - 12 :24,
23:12
Darabont [21]- 2:2,
7:6, 7:13, 10:5,
10:19, 10:21, 14:24,
17:12, 19:18, 19:21,
19:25, 20:14, 21:5,
21:18, 22:10, 22:13,
23:3, 23:26, 24:18,
26:15
DARABONT [4] -
1:3,
33:2, 34:14, 35:14
Darabont s
3]
-
19:24, 20:2, 20:9
DARKWOODS (1] -
1:3
Darkwoods - 2:3
database - 3:12,
3:13
databases [1) - 2 9:26
DATE [z] - 34:17,
35:17
date pi - 25:2, 31:2
dates
(2] -
8:8, 28:26
days poi - 20:26,
29:18, 29:20, 30:3,
30:6, 30:11, 30:21,
30:22, 31:16
Dead [al - 3:22, 3:24,
4:9, 6:7, 11:7, 11:8,
13:17, 14:11
deadline [1] - 31:15
deal pi - 5:11, 15:15,
15:16, 17:26, 20:19,
20:22
deal [1] - 20:10
dealing poi - 3:20,
12:4, 13:11, 17:20,
17:24, 22:16, 22:22,
MYRON CALDERON - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
-
8/11/2019 Darabont Transcript
36/40
23:5, 25:8, 27:18
deals [1i- 22:7
December m - 31:14
decides in - 22:20
decision 2] - 2:24,
3:15
D EF EN D AN T S m -
1:9
Defendants [s] - 1:22,
2:10, 9:19, 17:11,
17:17, 18:10, 2 6:20,
29:2
Defendants in - 6:11
deficit - 22:12
define (1] - 12:2 1
defined [11- 26:19
definitioni133- 10:25,
12:5, 12:6, 12:9,
14:9, 14:10, 16:11,
16:14, 16:18, 19:5,
22:9, 24:20, 24:21,
26:16, 26:17, 26:19,
26:20
deflated in - 11:17
Delivery
2] -
34:18,
35:18
demand in - 9:8
deny
z ]
- 18:15, 18:20
denying [1] - 6:11
depositions in - 6:24
determine12] - 14:5,
25:13
developed Di - 29:9
difference [2l - 3:22,
3:24
different :26,
4:5, 5:24, 6:5, 6:6,
12:26, 14:26, 16:3,
19:4, 28:6, 28:15
differently m - 6:8
difficult - 30:2
direction
2] - 7:17,
7:18
directly pi 28:8
director ill - 21:11
dls d 2] -32:5, 32:6
disagree [11- 27:14
discharged [11- 22:14
discovery [s] - 7:19,
26:11, 27:9, 2 9:16,
31:5
dispute [2] - 12:23,
22 :5
disregard12) -
10:24,
11:3
distinct
3] - 10:10,
10:16, 25:22
distribute [1] - 5:20
distributing [1] - 3:26
distribution 5] - 4:4,
5:25, 6:9, 15:15,
16:21, 28:17
distributor 3] - 5:20,
25:11, 26:18
distributors -
23:21
document
121- 7:24,
8:6, 9:7, 9:9, 9:16,
10:3, 10:4, 16:7,
20:12, 30:8, 31:5,
31:15
documents
[
2
21
-
3:7,
4:8, 4:16, 6:12, 7:26,
8:5, 9:16, 9:22, 10:2,
10:3, 15:6, 21:22,
28:12, 29:22, 29:26,
30:12, 30:15, 30:22,
31:10, 32:10
DOES in - 1 :8
dollars In - 12:24
done [10] - 10:22,
12:26, 15:23, 16:8,
16:20, 29:18, 30:18,
30:20, 31:21, 31:23
doubt [1i - 7:16
down 14] - 2:20, 5:17,
14:21, 22:26
draft m - 14:24
drafted [1) - 22 :3
DUE 2] - 34:21, 35:21
due [2] - 9:21, 14:17
duty [4] - 6:20, 12:12 ,
13:23, 28:4
E
early iii - 8:24
earnings [1i - 21:15
earns m - 21:5
eastern [11- 8:22
easy [11- 9:2
egregious [1] -17:12
EILEEN [31- 112,
34:13, 35:13
encapsulated in -
26:7
engaged - 14:7
engaging - 13:12
enormous [11- 21:26
enter - 20:18
enters [1] - 23:20
Entertainment Di -
2 :11
ENTERTAINMENT in
- 1:7
entertainment [1i -
12:21
entire
12] -
12:21,
20:16
entirely 01- 26:7
entitles -10:14
entity En - 3:26
episodes in - 19:16
equation - 3:21
ESC)
nl
- 1:16, 1:20,
1:23, 1:24, 1:24,
34:10, 35:10
ET [al - 33:2, 34:14,
35:14
et m - 5:4
eve 2] - 9:19, 31:26
evening in - 8:24
event [31- 7:22, 18:8,
29:10
events 5] - 3:23, 6:13,
25:24, 25:26, 27:10
evidence in - 28:20
exactly mi - 16:2,
16:25, 21:6
example pi - 30:14
exceeded in - 15:5
except [21- 6:12, 2 9:7
excluding [11- 17:13
exclusively 2] -
17:16, 21:16
executive in -19:15
Exhibit 2] - 18:25,
19:8
expand - 27:8
Expedited [21- 34:18,
35:18
expedition [1] - 27:8
expenditures iii -
11:16
extra m - 30:17
F
fact 14] - 3:12, 6:17,
7:18, 26:13
factor in -11:5
failed
2] -
7:6, 26:15
fair [s] - 12:4, 13:1 1,
17:20, 17:24, 22:16
falth1241- 6:21, 10:22,
12:4, 12:7, 12:8,
12:12, 12 :14, 13:11,
13:12, 13:24, 14:7 ,
15:23, 16:24, 17:20,
17:24, 18:16, 22 :16,
24:23, 25:7, 2 6:16,
27:23, 28:5, 28:7,
28:9
far i2] - 2:24, 15:4
fashion pi - 12:6
fashioned in - 15:13
fee
al
- 7:12, 10:13,
18:5, 18:6, 22:8,
23:22
FEE [21- 34:20, 35:20
fees 2] - 6:20, 12:7
fell]11- 14:26
Ferenc ill - 2:3
FEREN C in - 1 :3
fiction [11- 22:11
f ield [1) - 3:12
fi le [11- 12 :23
fi led [3] - 24:1 1, 34:23,
35:23
f i les [11- 18:12
fi ling [11 - 17 :17
FILM in- 1:7
Film [1] - 2:11
filming In -11:5
films 2] - 11:7
final
31:5
financial m -11:10
finish pi - 23:8, 29:4
fired 01- 7:13
firm m - 2:14
f irst [e] - 4:21, 13:2 5,
14:24, 15:19, 15:24,
17:4. 17:5, 17:7,
30:9
f ive [1] - 9:16
following [21- 16:13,
24:23
follows 2] -
17:9,
23:17
FOREGOING [1[ -
33:15
forget 121- 5 :7, 15:13
formal [1] - 2 7 :19
forth ill - 24:20
four - 5:10
fourth in - 15:26
Frank
9] 2:2, 10:4,
10:19, 10:21, 14:23,
19:18, 20:13, 20:14,
21:5
FRANK - 1:3
Friedman [1] - 2:14
FRIEDMAN m - 1 :21
frontPI -
9:20, 20:12,
29 :7
frustrate [1] -13:13
full [31-5:10, 17:7
G
gentlemen 11) - 8:12
Georgia 3] - 11:6,
11:8, 11:9
glad A- 2:22, 32:13
governed Di - 20:11
gross
11- 11:18
ground i21- 2:25, 3:3
grow in - 11:21
guarantee m - 19:2
H
half - 21:19
hand [4] - 22:7, 22:8,
22:26, 23:2
handed [2) - 16:11,
16:18
handed) in - 19:11
handing pi - 16:13
handle in - 2:20
handles - 15:7
handling
1 ]
- 25:24
hands m - 15:6
hard [1] - 32:9
hats 12] - 25:12
head
1 1 -
16:24
hear [4] - 9:14, 14:20 ,
16:2, 32:13
heard [1 - 26:6
hearing
2]-10:8,
31:8
help m - 21:22
herein m - 13:12
herring in - 18:9
himself [1] - 10:5
HOLDINGS [1] - 1:8
Holdings [11- 2:11
HON [21- 34:13, 35:13
honestly [1) - 5:5
Honor [an - 2 :17,
2:23, 2:24, 5:14,
7:25, 8:13, 8:17,
8:23, 9:13, 9:20,
10:6, 16:2, 17:6,
17:14, 17:25, 18:2,
18:10, 18:18, 20:12,
21:24, 22:6, 22:14,
23:10, 23:15, 23:24,
24:6, 24:14, 2 4:16,
24:17, 25:15, 25:18,
27:4, 27 :20, 29:4,
29:5, 29:15, 32:8,
32:12, 32:15, 32:16,
32 :22
Honor's [2] - 30:7,
32:8
HONORABLE m
1 12
hopefu lly - 21:25
hundreds ii] - 18:12
Le
30:22
ID pi - 34:5, 35:5
ignore [1] - 32:7
ignoring [1) - 32:4
[i] - 18:26
implied
p] - 12:4,
13:11, 22:16
MYRON CALDERON OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
-
8/11/2019 Darabont Transcript
37/40
impossible
1 1
- 29:21
improperly [1] - 11:17
imputed [3] - 6:20,
12:7, 18:5
INC [4] - 1:3, 1:4, 1:8,
1:8
Inc [21- 2:3
include [1] - 27:9
inconsistent 5] -
11:24, 12:18, 15:8,
16:19, 26:25
Incorporated [2] -
2 :12
increased
+1-
11:19
indeed
7] -
4:15,
5:22, 5 :23, 6:6, 25:5,
28:11, 29:17
independent[4] -
10:16, 20:4, 22:22,
26:14
INDEX 3] - 1:10,
34:16, 35:16
indicated [1] - 9:22
individual [3] - 5:19,
13:7, 15:20
industry 38] - 5:12,
5:18, 5:19, 5:21,
5:23, 6:11, 6:19,
6:22, 7:2, 10:24,
11:4, 11:25, 12:15,
12:19, 12:21, 12:22,
12:26, 13:8, 13:17,
15:2, 15:5, 16:15,
16:20, 16:25, 21:7 ,
23:13, 24:2, 24:9,
24:24, 24:26, 25:7,
25:14, 25:17, 26:25,
27:3, 27:12, 27 :16,
27 :22
inform 2]-
2:26, 17;8
informed [1] - 14:6
init ial [2] - 8:9, 16:1 4
initiation [1] - 17:10
inquiry 4] - 4:26,
6:25, 7:9
instance [2] - 5:4, 6:2
integrated [0] - 1 8:6
intended [11- 13:12
intention 3] - 32:7,
32:8, 32:12
interest [1] - 2 0:6
interests [i] - 20:5
interpreting [1] - 24:4
interprets [1] - 11:23
INVOICE 21- 34:2,
35:2
involved [2] - 7:20,
18:8
involves [1] -10:14
irrelevant
3]-
6:16,
7:4, 18:14
IS [1] - 33:15
ISER [1] - 1:18
Iser [1] - 2:9
issue
91-
3:11, 3:16,
3:18, 9:21, 10:7,
17:8, 17:18, 24:11,
29:4
issues [1] - 25:22
itself [7] - 7:12, 1 5:8
J
Jane[11- 2:13
Jerry [1] - 2:4
JERRY [2] - 1:16,
34:10
job
1]
- 32:18
John 2 ]
- 2 :13, 2 :18
JOHN [11- 1:24
July
3] -
3:4, 4:18,
4:20
June [14 - 4:19, 4:21,
8:9, 8:12, 8:14, 8:17,
9:16, 9:17, 30:7,
31:8
Justice [3] - 1:12,
34:13, 35:13
K
Kasowitz [9] - 2:14,
2:15, 3:14, 4:23,
5:15, 9:24, 10:4,
24:15, 25:4
KASOW ITZ[3o] - 1:21,
1:23, 2:17, 2:23,
3:10, 3:16, 5:14, 8:4,
9:4, 9:6, 9:9, 19:21,
24:14, 24:16, 25:13,
25:25, 27 :3, 27:14,
27:19, 28:4, 28:7 ,
28:18, 28:23, 28:25,
29:3, 29:15, 32:7 ,
32:15, 35:9, 35:10
kickback 01- 14:15
kind [s] - 4:5, 15:13,
15:16, 28:17
kinds - 28:16
KINSELLA [s] - 1:18,
1:20, 7:25, 20:8,
21:24, 27:26
kinsella - 26:10
Kinsella
4] - 2:9,
21:7, 26:6
KOSS 4] - 1:25,
33:21, 34:3, 35:3
KUMP [1] - 1:18
Kump [1] -2:9
L
language 5] - 17:21,
18:18, 22:21, 23:14,
23:15
largest [1] - 12:20
last
6] -
7:17, 7:25,
8:18, 8 :20, 22:2
lawsuit [5] - 10:17,
12:23, 13:22, 17:10,
17 :17
leaders 03 - 16:24
leads [1] - 6:9
leap [1] - 20:4
learned [7] - 3:10,
3:11
learning [1] - 30:8
least [1] - 29:2 5
left 3) - 22:7, 23:2,
30:16
letter [e] - 2:19, 2 :26,
3:5, 4:18, 4:19, 4:21,
17:7, 29:10
letters
2] - 27:18,
29:13
Lexington
2] - 1 15,
34:9
license [s] - 8:26,
10:13, 18:5, 18:6,
22:8, 23:22
l imited [2] - 23:14,
25:19
lines p] - 4:17
l ink [1] - 13:26
linked [i] - 10:17
Lionsgate [1] - 12:11
l isten [1] - 29 :6
LLC isl- 1:4, 1:7, 1:8,
2:11
LLP [8] - 1:14, 1:18,
1:21, 2:4, 2:14, 34:9
look - 3:21, 6:6,
17:25, 19:5, 25:3,
26:13, 30:25
looking
2] - 25:14,
25:15
low [2] - 7 :12, 22:9
M
Mad [io] - 3:23, 4:3,
4:9, 6:8, 6:13, 10:14,
12:2, 12:10, 2 6:24,
28:11
M AO R
[2 - 24:20,
24:21
main [2] - 3:3, 10:5
manner [6] - 12:16,
12:25, 1 4:9, 14:25,
15:3, 25:6
M AR C
[2] -
1:23,
35:10
Marc [1] - 2:14
margin
p1-
14:13
market [1] - 28:8
MARKS
4] -
1:24,
31:7, 31:14, 31:22
Marks pi - 2:18
materials [1] - 29:17
matter pi - 5:8
mean
2] -
8:19, 19:18
meaning [1] - 30:23
means 3] -
3:18, 25:8,
30:12
meantime [11- 2 8:11
members 0] - 25:24
Men [to] - 3:23, 4:3,
4:9, 6:8, 6:13, 10:14,
12:2, 12 :10, 26:24,
28:11
met [1] - 7:17
might pi -2:23
million
6] -
11:15,
11:19, 14:15, 30:15,
30:16, 30:18
millions pi - 12:24
mind [1] - 29:11
minimal [1] 4:24
minutes [1] - 22:2
moment 2] - 10:6,
10:7
monetarym - 23:18
money [3] - 14:14,
20:20
Monica [11- 1:19
morning 31- 2: 72:8,
2 :17
most[2]-3012,
30:22
motion [5] - 2:25,
26:11, 27:19, 2 9:4,
29:13
motions [1] - 27:18
movie [2] - 15:16,
20:19
MR 72] -
2:7, 2:17,
2:23, 3:10, 31 6,
5:14, 7:25, 8,4, 8:8,
8:12, 8:22, 8:25, 9:4,
9:5, 9:6, 9:9, 9:15,
10:2, 11:22, 13:18,
13:21, 14:3, 14:12,
14:17, 16:2, 17:3,
18:15, 18:25, 19 :4,
19:7, 19:10, 19:19,
19:21, 19:22, 19:24,
20:3, 20:4, 20:8,
21:3, 21:24, 24:14,
24:16, 25:13, 25:22,
25:25 , 26:5, 26:23,
27:3, 27:14, 27:19,
27:26, 28:4, 28:7 ,
28:14, 28:18, 28:23,
28:25, 28:26, 29:3,
29:15, 29 :19, 30:6,
30:13, 30:19, 30:21,
31:7, 31:14, 31:22,
32:7 , 32:15, 32:19,
32 :22
must [3] - 12:14,
22:22, 23:2
N
N.Y [2] - 34:4, 35:4
nature [21- 4:14, 31:9
necessarily [1] - 3:18
need [3] - 2:21, 4:25 ,
29:23
needed [1] - 16:14
negotiate [7] - 6:20,
12:6, 12:7, 12:12,
13:2, 20:26, 28:4
negotiated
13]
-
12:17, 12:18, 12:25,
14:25, 15 :4, 16:14,
16:18, 18:7 , 22:26,
26:16, 26:20, 26:24,
26:26
negotiating [1] - 13:22
negotiation
10] -
12:8, 12:14, 13:23,
16:23, 18:17, 23:2,
24:23, 25:7, 28:7
negotiations [5] -
10:18, 10:21, 10:22,
16:25, 26:23, 27:10,
27:23, 28:9
Network [1] - 2:10
network 3] - 18:4,
18:7, 23:7
N E T W O R K
[a] 1:7,
331, 34:14, 35:14
networks [1] - 7:3
Networks
1]
- 21 2
NETW ORKS [1] - 1 :8
never [1] - 22:10
new p] - 17:11
NEW [4] - 1:2, 1:2,
34:4, 35:4
New po] - 1:11, 1:16,
1:23, 34:10, 35:10
next [2] - 15:18, 31:16
nice [2] - 19:14, 32:18
night [4] - 7:25 , 8:18,
8:20
NINA [4] - 1:25, 33:21,
343, 35:3
NO 1
1 0, 34:16,
35:16
non [I] - 7:3
MYRON CALDERON OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
-
8/11/2019 Darabont Transcript
38/40
5
none [1] - 21:22
nonexistent [1] - 3:18
note [1] - 26:8
noted 2] - 22:6, 22:14
NOTES [1] - 33:17
nothing
1 3 ]
- 8:18,
9:12, 9:25, 12:2,
12:3, 15:25, 17:26,
25:20, 25:23, 27 :2,
27 :11
notice [1] - 29:2 5
nowadays - 21:2
number []] - 11:19
0
o'clock [2] - 8:22, 32:2
obtains [1] - 11:5
occur[]] - 16:25
occunaed [3] - 10:18,
10:21, 16:23
October 2] - 31:2,
31:4
OF [8] - 1:2, 1:2,
33:16, 34:14, 34:17,
35:14, 35:17
offer [2] - 21:10, 21:11
offered [1] - 14:19
offers [11- 11 :9
OFFICIAL [3] - 33:22,
34:3, 35:3
Off icial [1] - 1:2 6
often []] - 21:9
oftentimes [2] - 21:13,
21:14
old
2] - 15:13, 20:26
once [2] - 7:21, 13:21
one
23] -
2:25 3:5
3:7, 5:15, 6:11, 7 :23,
7 :24, 8 :7 , 8 :26, 9:5,
9:7 , 10:15, 13:25,
16:26, 18:13, 20:24,
26:5, 27 :13, 29:23
One [2] - 34:23, 35:23
ones ill - 25:16
opposition [1] - 3:4
oranges [1] - 26:4
order[]] - 3:8
Order
7] -
27:15,
29:2, 30:7, 31:20,
32:4, 32:8, 32:11
ordered [4] - 29:17 ,
29:21, 31:18, 31:20
orders [1] - 27:17
ORIGINAL [1] - 33:17
original [1] - 15:24
originators [1] - 26:2
outside [3] - 4:2, 5:5,
5:6
own
3] -
20:5, 21:17,
22:13
P
P.0 [1] - 31:20
package 2]- 20:10,
21:12
packages [1] - 21:8
page
31-
17:7, 19:5,
19:7
pages [1i] - 8:5, 8:9,
8:19, 9:15, 9:18,
9:26, 29:10, 31:26,
34:19, 35:19
paid [3] - 5:2, 6:5, 6:8
paper 3]-
7:24,
30:15, 30:16
paragraph 171- 6:18,
10:20, 10:26, 11:26,
13:10, 13:26, 14:4,
17:5, 17:6, 17:8,
19:4, 19:6, 20:6,
23:16, 26:7 , 26:12
parameter [1] - 25:14
parameters
7]
-
12:15, 16:16, 18:20,
24:24, 25:8, 25:17,
31:24
pardon 11] - 28:23
part
4] -
11:8, 16:9,
17:8, 28:5
PART [1] - 1:2
participation [4] -
11:14, 17:11, 19:12,
19:25
particular 2] -
5:6, 5:8
particularly [1] - 17:26
parties [s] - 13:21 ,
13:22, 14:25, 16:6,
16:23
party [4] - 12:2, 22:23,
23:21, 29:23
party s - 29:24
people 2]- 6:25, 27:2
percent s] - 11:9,
11:16, 20:25, 2 0:26,
21:19
percentage
3]
-
19:26, 21:5, 21:18
permission n] - 29:24
person
1)
- 15 :12
PHONE
2] - 34:6,
35:6
phrase
1]
- 24:10
piece [3] - 21:15,
21:16, 21:17
pieces [21 - 30:15,
30:16
pitch [1] - 21:11
place [4] - 4:21, 7:7,
13:25, 17:14
Plaintiff
6] - 4:7, 4:16,
5:11, 7 :23, 10:5,
13:7
PLAINTIFFS [1] - 1:5
Plaintif fs [21] - 1 :15,
1:18, 2:2 , 3:4, 3:5,
8:6, 9:7, 9:10, 9:18,
10:9, 10:18, 11:24,
12:5, 1 4:6, 14:8,
15:4, 16:17, 19:20,
21:17, 26:20, 27 :22
Plaintiffs' [6) - 11:6,
11:11, 11:14, 12:10,
13:13, 19:19
plead
2] -
17:22,
17:23
pleaded [2] - 20:5,
21:20
pled [1] - 21:23
point
6] -
5:11, 6:4,
25:5, 25:18, 28:19,
32:20
pointed
2] - 17:6,
18 :2
points [2]-
17:15,
17 :25
policies [1] - 5:25
portion [1] - 19:2
position 7] - 15:22,
19:19, 19:22, 19:23,
21:21, 22:18
positions [I] - 6:26
possible [1] - 30:4
practice
20] - 5:13,
5:18, 5:21, 5:24,
6:12, 6:19, 6:22,
10:25, 11:4, 11:25,
12:22 , 15:5, 17:13,
17:15, 23:13, 23:24,
23:26, 24:9, 27:16,
27 :22
practices [1] - 24:2 5
preclude
2] - 27:21,
28 :2
precluded [i] - 28:2
preliminary [1] - 31:8
problem [3] - 13:5,
31:25
PROCEEDING
[2]-
34:17, 35:17
proceeds [1] - 14:20
produce [61 - 4:8,
4:16, 8:26, 22:20,
29:22 , 29 :24
produced [1o] - 3:25,
4:2, 9:4, 9:15, 9:18,
9:19, 9:22, 11:21,
19:16, 21:12
producer
3] - 19:15,
21:11, 25:10
producing [2] - 4:7,
11:10
production [18] - 4:3,
8:4, 8:9, 9:23, 10:3,
11:11,11:15,14:14,
20:23, 28:16, 29:17,
29:2 0, 30:3, 30:4,
30:8, 31:15, 32:10
Productions [4] - 2:3,
2:12, 3:25, 9:16
productions [2] -
4:12, 8:15
PRODUCTIONS [2] -
1:4, 1:8
profit
8] - 6:10, 13:16,
14:5, 14:9, 14:10,
14:13, 16:10, 22:9
profits [t o] - 7:11,
11:18, 12:5, 20:2,
20:24, 21:19, 22:10,
26:15, 26:17, 26:18
profits/deficits [1] -
11:7
profuse n] - 2:19
program
1]
22 :24
programs 1] - 23:21
promise [1] - 14:21
promotion [2] - 15:16,
15:17
proof 01- 6:21
proved
2) -
25:4, 25:5
provide [3] - 7:6, 12:5,
14:8
provided
5] -
12:10,
12;11, 14:23, 14:24,
19:15
provision 3) -
20:14,
22:19, 23:3
pull
1) -
30:2
purposes [2] - 20:13,
26:11
pursuant
2] -
23:3,
26:15
put [6] - 3:6, 12:23,
15:10, 15:21, 19:17
Q
quite [1] - 31:16
quote 2] -
17:10,
23:17
R
rates (1] - 6:5
rather
5] - 5:19, 13:6,
13:16, 15:21, 23:9
read
[7]-
2:22, 10:26,
11:2, 13:10, 18:22,
18:23, 19:13
reading
2] - 20:9,
20:15
ready [2] - 21:12
really
71-
5:10, 7 :15,
8:19, 15:22, 31:23,
32:5, 32:20
realm RI - 5:5
rebate [1] - 14:15
receipts [1] - 11:18
receive
PI -
13:13
received 3] -
7:3, 8:6,
9:6
receiving [1] - 11:16
record [2] - 1 1 :2 ,
18:23
red []] - 18:9
reference [1] - 6:19
referred
131-
20:10,
21:7, 26:17
referring [1] - 10:4
reflect [1] - 11:12
refused [1] - 11:5
refusing 4] - 12:4,
12:6, 12:7 , 14:8
relate [2) - 2 1:22,
29:22
related
3] - 3:23,
4:14, 10:14
relates 2] - 10:12,
20:6
relationship [4] -
13:15, 18:2, 20:11,
20:17
relevance
5] -
3:9,
4:22, 4:25, 5:23,
10:8
relevant 5] - 3:19,
5:7, 5:8, 6:22
renders [1] - 19:15
reply
[11-
4:19
reported [1] - 11:11
Reporter pi -1:26
REPORTER
3] -
33:22, 34:3, 35:3
reports [11- 11 :24
representations [1] -
9:10
represented [1] - 6:7
represents [1] - 26:3
request 3) -
4:20,
5:12, 6:11
requested [1] - 5:22
requests 4] - 3:6, 3:8,
9:9, 9:11
requires 2] 6:21,
22 :20
researched [1] - 31:25
respect [5] - 2:25,
9:21, 10:20, 14:17,
15:7
MYRON CALDERON OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
-
8/11/2019 Darabont Transcript
39/40
6
respectfully 13] - 24:5,
27:14, 27:20
respond [2] - 3:8, 9:11
result [2] - 4:6, 31:23
review [1] - 3:7
rights in - 13:13
road in - 14:21
roll [1] - 7:23
rolling
2]-
7:22,
29:18
Romanette - 18:26
ROME 2] -
1:14, 34:9
Rome [1] - 2:4
Room 2] - 34:4, 35:4
roughly in - 9:18
ruled in - 8:18
rummaging 1) -
18:11
runners in - 26:2
r