The jury in the federal trial of Hollywood P.I. Anthony Pellicano and 4 co-defendants still hasn't reached a decision after its first full week of deliberating. In the meantime, I thought you'd want to see this letter about Bert Fields (left, arriving at Roybal building read to testify; photo by Jim Stevenson for DHD) sent by his longtime pal and Greenberg Glusker law partner Bonnie Eskenazi to Arianna Huffington complaining about HuffPo's trial coverage and commentary by Allison Hope Weiner. Eskenazi used to be Fields' right-hand woman on most of his big cases. And Eskenazi also worked with Weiner (who's a lawyer) eons ago at the old Wyman Bautzer firm. I doubt there'll be a reunion party anytime soon. That said, I'm well aware that many of you will strenuously disagree with this letter, and many of you will vigorously defend it. Remember, I'm just the messenger:

May 9, 2008
Ms. Arianna Huffington
The Huffington Post
Re:Allison Hope Weiner’s May 1, 2008 Article

Dear Ms. Huffington:

I have read Allison Hope Weiner’s May 1, 2008 rant on the Huffington Post (“Pellicano Trial: The Jury Has The Case”) about how the “rich and powerful” people escaped the Pellicano case “without a scratch,” while the poor folks were prosecuted.

With no supporting facts at all, Ms. Weiner suggests in her agitated blog that the rich and powerful were guilty and should have been indicted, but escaped prosecution because of their wealth and power.

Apparently, Ms. Weiner didn’t notice that, these days, the federal government is regularly prosecuting rich and powerful people (including lawyers), convicting them and sending them to jail just to “set an example.” In the Pellicano case, itself, they’ve prosecuted a major film director, a music executive and a very prominent lawyer, all of whom would seem to fit in the “rich and powerful” category. Ms. Weiner’s frenzied assertion that people were not prosecuted in the Pellicano case because they were rich and powerful is demonstrable nonsense.

Her bizarre tirade suggests that my partner, Bert Fields, is one of those people who escaped prosecution “without a scratch,” because of his supposed wealth and power. She makes these wild and vitriolic assertions without the support of a single fact, except that Bert, like many others including the government itself, used Anthony Pellicano as an investigator.

This is not the first time Ms. Weiner has engaged in this kind of malevolent attack. She’s been at it for months, with no factual support, just repeating her venomous accusations.

Anthony Pellicano, himself, has repeatedly stated that he deliberately kept Bert in the dark about his methodologies. Mr. Pellicano even referred to Bert as “Mr. Clean Jeans,” whom he said would never approve of any questionable activity. He was right.

What Mr. Pellicano reported to Bert were findings about the cases on which he worked, not overheard conversations. Nothing Mr. Pellicano communicated to Bert in any way raised the specter of wiretapping. Notwithstanding Ms. Weiner’s spiteful and overheated prose, the suggestion that Bert “must have been” aware of illegal activity by Mr. Pellicano is simply preposterous.

The government investigated this matter for more than five years. Bert cooperated fully with that investigation. He spoke voluntarily to the FBI without counsel. Our firm turned over to the government hundreds of thousands of documents, including Bert’s own files. Bert even agreed to extend the statute of limitations, so that the government could complete its investigation. In connection with the recent trial, he announced that he was prepared to testify fully if called by either side. He spent two days in the courthouse waiting to be called. Apparently, to Ms. Weiner’s great disappointment, Bert wasn’t called by either side.

I’ve worked closely with Bert for many years, having first met Bert when I was opposing counsel in a very heated battle between two entertainment titans. So I can say from both sides of counsel table that Bert is the most honorable and upstanding lawyer I have ever known.

After more than five years of rigorous investigation, the government came up with no evidence that could support a charge that Bert Fields engaged in or knew of any criminal conduct. That is why he was not prosecuted. That is the only reason. It was not, as Ms. Weiner claims, because of wealth and power. Ms. Weiner’s continued hysterical diatribe against Bert is not journalism. It’s the bitter product of irrational malice.

Sincerely,
Bonnie E. Eskenazi

Here is DHD/LA Weekly trial correspondent Steven Mikulan's wrap-up: "Prosecutor Daniel Saunders got the last word in during the government rebuttal argument. Saunders, who’d been lumbered during his  closing argument by the need to enumerate most of the 78 counts involved in the RICO case, got to unload on the five defendants and their attorneys. He upbraided the defense for diverting attention away from the accused to the case’s many unindicted or plea-bargained witnesses, noting that to try to fix the crimes’ responsibility on such lesser actors was “like going after the johns and not the prostitutes, the junkies and not the dealers.” After 90 minutes, Saunders concluded by declaring, “This case is not about Hollywood. It’s not about Sylvester Stallone or Keith Carradine. It’s not even about Brad Grey or Michael Ovitz . . . This is a case about people who believed the justice system could be bought with a $25,000 nonrefundable retainer.”

So the trial that would not end is finally ending with closing arguments. Not much of a Hollywood angle to report, except for the lawyer for LAPD Sgt Mark Arneson, who is accused of doing all those illegal law enforcement database investigations.  I've been reading the coverage - anxiously awaiting the verdict on this end! "It makes no sense that Mr. Ovitz a pillar of the hollywood community would hire Mr. Pellicano to put a fish on a car of a reporter. If he had a problem with The New York Times, he would just call the editor."

Meanwhile, jailed Hollywood P.I. Anthony Pellicano, who is defending himself, spoke for a mere 16 minutes -- and mostly rambled.

About Pellicano's closing argument, DHD/LA Weekly trial correspondent Steven Mikulan wrote: "Pellicano had told Judge Dale Fischer that he needed somewhere between an hour to an hour and a half to complete his speech to the jury, but he gave himself the hook after only 16 minutes. Appearing relaxed, affable and confident, Pellicano nevertheless gave a rambling dissertation on the roles of the jury and prosecutor. Jurors stared at him alertly but with opaque expressions.

"Pellicano has made much of how he detests snitches and 'rats', and certainly the government’s dance card was packed with witnesses who were either cooperating with prosecutors for lesser sentences in cases related to Pellicano’s, or who had completely dodged indictments in exchange for their testimony about Pellicano’s alleged wiretapping activities.

"' 'I could stand up here and take up more of your time and try to sway you," Pellicano instead told jurors. 'But Mr. Pellicano has instructed me not to do so.' "

The jury is expected to get the case tomorrow.

In the government's closing argument in the RICO trial of Pellicano and four co-defendants (including Arneson) who are facing nearly 80 counts involving wire fraud, conspiracy, identity theft and bribery, Mikulan praises prosecutor Daniel Saunders for getting to the point:

"The problem facing Saunders was that he had to remind the jurors of each and every count – not only matching the alleged crimes to the names of victims, but also to whom, exactly, among the defendants, the counts pertained. Saunders also had to give a brief summary of the charges, which ran his argument to almost an hour past the trial’s normal 2 p.m. closing time.  Still, the jurors remained attentive throughout the long day and Saunders landed some jabs, describing Pellicano’s investigation business as "a thoroughly corrupt organization . . . operated by a very well-connected and highly paid thug.”

"As an orator Saunders maintained an even keel – appearing neither ingratiating nor demanding toward the jurors. He would not be rushed, yet he seemed mindful, in the afternoon, of just how long he was running. More important, Saunders displayed a formidable command of his material, speaking for long stretches of time without referring to notes. Yet the sheer Alexandrian inventory of charges precluded him from engaging in the kind of narrative-tweaking storytelling that might have brought the eight-week proceedings to more vivid life."

U.S. District Court Judge Dale Fischer nixed Pellicano co-defendant LAPD Sgt Mark Arneson's motion for a mistrial. If only this trial would end... and it will soon. The case goes to the jury this week.

Breaking Pellicano Bombshell: A Mistrial? Feds' Witness Screws Up Trial Big-Time

Today the retired FBI agent who led the Pellicano investigation testified that he believed Ovitz's hiring of the Hollywood private-eye led to that June 2002 fish-rose-&-note warning left on Anita Busch's Audi. But Stan Ornellas stopped short of saying Ovitz specifically ordered the June 2002 threat against the freelance journalist who had co-written with staff writer Bernie Weinraub a series of stories exposing trouble within Ovitz's management and production company AMG that spring. And, on cross-examination, the attorney for LAPD Sgt Mark Arneson asked: "Is it possible Mr. Ovitz hired Mr. Pellicano ... but had nothing to do with the threats?'' To which Ornellas replied, "Yes."

Ornellas also testified that he interviewed Ovitz after Pellicano's arrest in November 2002, and that Ovitz mentioned Busch's name. The G-man also testified that the FBI retrieved a recorded telephone call of Pellicano speaking with Meyer after the FBI raided the P.I.'s West Hollywood office on Nov. 21, 2002. According to Ornellas, Pellicano said on the recording that Ovitz was at the heart of his legal problems. Ornellas also testified that Pellicano demanded $20,000 per month from Ovitz. Ovitz has not been charged with any wrongdoing in the Pellicano trial. (See my previous: Ovitz Testifies Busch/Weinraub NYT Articles "Wildly Embarrassing")

The entertainment uber-litigator just confirmed to me that he was formally notified today. The lawyer for Pellicano trial co-defendant LAPD Sgt Mark Arneson had intended to put Fields on the witness stand. So Bert spent two days down at the Roybal federal building cooling his heels. Federal prosecutor Daniel Saunders had vowed to grill Fields for a minimum four hours during cross-examination if he testified. It sure looks as if Arneson's attorney backed down. Fields vs Saunders: now that would have been a real-life court drama. 

So Hollywood's uber-litigator Bert Fields keeps getting bumped, and bumped again, so the earliest he could take the witness stand in the Pellicano federal trial is Friday, according to my colleague Steven Mikulan who's reporting on it for DHD and LA Weekly. Tomorrow, lawyers on both sides will discuss jury instructions with the judge as the trial winds down. (Photo of Fields outside the Roybal federal building taken by Jim Stevenson exclusively for DHD)

Let me knock down yet another rumor. Intellectual property pit bull Marc Toberoff tells me he doesn't represent the Don Adams estate and isn't suing Warner Bros over Get Smart. Toberoff did take on Warner Brothers when the studio attempted to deny Buck Henry (and Mel Brooks, repped by Alan U. Schwartz) financial participation as creators of the series, but that was settled. On the other hand, it is true that Toberoff is the bane of Warner Bros' existence fresh off a victory on behalf of Superman creator Jerry Seigel and other lawsuits involving the studio's product like The Dukes of Hazzard, The Wild Wild West, and Smallville. (See my previous: Ruling Against Warner On Superman: How Legally Greedy Can Big Media Get?) As for Get Smart, the biggest obstacle facing it isn't legal but comedic.

The Pellicano trial's court session today was cancelled even though Hollywood superlawyer Bert Fields showed up to take the witness stand after being called by the defense attorney for LAPD Sgt Mark Arneson. (See photo below by Jim Stevenson exclusively for DHD.) So while Bert cools his heels, the defense will get a hearing tomorrow at 10 AM before U.S. District Judge Dale Fischer over allegations that prosecutors illegally used confidential testimony in their cross examination of Arneson last Friday. After this issue was raised, jurors were dismissed today and Fields instructed to return to court tomorrow where he'll testify after FBI agent Stan Ornalles. (Photo by Jim Stevenson exclusively for DHD)

UPDATED: I'm told that reclusive author of the 7-volume Harry Potter series of books, J.K. Rowling, is flying from Scotland to NYC in order to testify Monday when the trial starts in the lawsuit she and Warner Bros jointly filed last October against Michigan-based RDR Books. The company, which normally publishes books about travel and Judaica, will defend The Harry Potter Lexicon which began online and is about to become what it says is a "reference guide" which Rowling can't lay claim to. But issues of copyright infringement and fair use are in dispute over online material that's been subsequently published. The case will be heard in federal court for the Southern District of New York. Rowling will be the first witness for the plaintiffs. "It's very important to her," an insider told me Friday night. "She doesn't feel that somebody else should be effectively ripping off her work and infringing on her intellectual property."

Although it has agreed to remove Rowling’s name from the back cover, RDR Books has refused to stop publication, leading to the present legal brouhaha. Joining Rowling in this lawsuit is Warner Bros Entertainment Inc, which holds trademark rights in the names, places and characters in the books and copyrights in the films based on all the Harry Potter's. The sued publisher's statement is below. But, first, here's the joint statement by Rowling and Warner Bros provided to me tonight:

"Ms. Rowling is very supportive of individuals and groups who enjoy her characters, especially the fan sites. She has given exclusive interviews to various webmasters, and presented fan sites with awards. Her willingness to make available the intellectual property in Harry Potter for charitable purposes is well known, and she has supported creative book authors who have written analysis, criticism and comment on her works. To date, approximately 100 books relating to Harry Potter have been published in the US alone, including religious, mythological and scientific analyses. Notwithstanding her support for these fans and authors, J.K. Rowling owns the copyright in all the books of the Harry Potter series and also in the fictional characters, events, places and things that make up the world of Harry Potter. In addition, she owns the copyright in two companion guides that she authored.

"Steven Vander Ark runs a fan website called ‘Harry Potter Lexicon’ which has been online since 2000.  Ms. Rowling has been supportive of the website, which is free of charge for people to use.  She even gave it a fan site award in 2004.  However, Mr. Vander Ark has now entered into an agreement for a printed version of the Lexicon, which RDR Books intends to profit from by publishing at a price of $24.95.  The book is very different than the website and far inferior to it.  It fails to include any of the commentary and discussion that enrich the website and instead is nothing more than a re-arrangement of J.K. Rowling’s own written material.

"J. K Rowling believes that this is wrong.  Mr. Vander Ark himself also appears to believe that it’s wrong.  On his website, he writes, 'I don’t give permission for people to just copy my work for their own use.  Not only is that illegal, since everything in the Lexicon is copyrighted, it’s also just plain wrong.' In addition, to fans who were proposing a 'Fan-Made Harry Potter Encyclopedia,' he e-mailed: 'Basically, it is illegal to sell a book like that.  Jo has reserved all publishing rights to her intellectual property, which means that she’s the only one who may publish any book that is a guide or encyclopedia to her world.'

"Ms. Rowling also believes that if this book is published, it may detract from sales of her own planned encyclopedia, the proceeds from which will go to charity, just as the proceeds from her other companion books have already been donated to charity. There is a long history of authors using their intellectual property rights to benefit charities.  The income from works by George Bernard Shaw continues to support the British Museum, British Library, National Gallery of Ireland and Royal Academy of Dramatic Art, the copyrights in Rudyard Kipling’s works help support the National Trust, while the copyright in J. M. Barrie’s Peter Pan continues to support the Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children.  Sadly, the Stanford Center for Law and the Internet, which is acting against J. K. Rowling in this case, has previously attacked Great Ormond Street Hospital and attempted to deprive it of the income intended by J. M. Barrie’s bequest.

"Repeated, cordial efforts have been made to persuade RDR Books not to go ahead with publishing the Lexicon.  Although it has agreed to remove J. K. Rowling’s name from the back cover, RDR Books has refused to stop publication, leading to the present legal action being taken.  Joining the author in this lawsuit is Warner Bros Entertainment, Inc., which holds trademark rights in the names, places and characters in the books and the copyrights in the films based on the Harry Potter books.  Together, they are suing RDR Books (but not Mr. Vander Ark personally) to prevent publication and to seek appropriate damages."

---
Here is RDR Books' statement about the lawsuit given to me Saturday night:

New York Federal District Court Judge Robert Patterson has scheduled a trial for April 14 in the matter of Warner Bros. Entertainment and J.K. Rowling v. RDR Books. The judge consolidated a previously scheduled injunction hearing with the trial. The plaintiffs want to block publication of librarian Steve Vander Ark's Harry Potter Lexicon.

In this action, a distinguished and tremendously successful novelist demands the suppression of a reference guide to her works. J.K. Rowling, author of the Harry Potter books, asserts that this reference guide infringes both her copyright in the seven Potter novels and her right to publish, at some unidentified point in the future, a reference guide of her own. In support of her position she appears to claim a monopoly on the right to publish literary reference guides, and other non-academic research, relating to her own fiction.

This is a right no court has ever recognized. It has little to recommend it. If accepted, it would dramatically extend the reach of copyright protection, and eliminate an entire genre of literary supplements: third party reference guides to fiction, which for centuries have helped readers better access, understand and enjoy literary works. By extension, it would threaten not just reference guides, but encyclopedias, glossaries, indexes, and other tools that provide useful information about copyrighted works. Ms. Rowling's intellectual property rights simply do not extend so far and, even if they did, she has not shown that the publication of this reference guide poses a sufficient threat of irreparable harm to justify an injunction. Her injunction motion should be denied.

Bert Fields was not called to the witness stand today.

Here's the list of famous clients whom Pellicano co-defendant LAPD Sgt Mark Arneson testified today he "helped" as part of private security work paid by the Hollywood private-eye: Kelsey Grammer, Farrah Fawcett, Rick Springfield, Mary J Blige, Enya, Vidal Sasson, Jesse Jackson, members of the Disney family, Whoopi Goldberg, Goldie Hawn, Nicolas Cage, Michael J Fox. Arneson also claimed he did bodyguarding duty at the Oscars, Emmys, Grammys and Soul Train awards. "I thought I was helping the greater good of the Los Angeles Police Department," he testified. But prosecutors pointed out he victimized other famous people with illegal law enforcement database searches. "I knew what I was doing was against LAPD policy. I knew what I was doing is wrong." 

Chad Hummel, defense attorney for LAPD Sgt Mark Arneson in the Pellicano trial, just told the court that he reserves the right to call entertainment superlawyer Bert Fields as a witness as soon as tomorrow. Interestingly, the federal prosecutors never called Fields after that Fifth Amendment snafu. So Asst. U.S. Attorney Daniel Saunders asked in court why Fields was being called as a witness for Arneson: "We could cross-examine Mr. Fields for four hours, but what is his relevance to defendant Arneson?" Hummel replied that Fields' testimony would go to the matter of whether Arneson was part of a criminal enterprise, as all the defendants are charged with that in the indictment. 

Fields, of course, regularly put Hollywood private eye Anthony Pellicano on legal cases. Meanwhile, Pellicano only intends to call one witness on Friday when he presents his defense. (he's representing himself.) The P.I. had discussed with the federal judge the possibility that he might testify. But it now appears he's decided against that. Stay tuned...

1. Feds Explain Their Bert Fields Snafu...
2. EXCLUSIVE! BERT FIELDS WILL TESTIFY (...And Won't Take The Fifth) 

Accusations are flying from NBC Universal that The Weinstein Co lied to Jeff Zucker and engaged in "deception" and "sham negotiations" over Project Runway. This is turning into a major showbiz feud -- especially after Harvey Weinstein personally assured Jeff Zucker, "I will not embarrass you". See UPDATE below:

Given his recent investment in reviving the Halston label, newly married Harvey Weinstein shares with his wife an interest in fashion. But even before he shelled out those big bucks, Harv's and his brother Bob's Miramax started the hottest fashion show on TV, Project Runway, before it was taken over by their successor, The Weinstein Co. Today came the surprise announcement that the No. 1 reality series on cable is moving to Lifetime beginning in November with the premiere of Season 6. Both Heidi Klum and Tim Gunn are coming along for the 5-year deal. But there's a big wrinkle: NBC Universal is suing!

NBC Universal, which owns Bravo where the show airs, filed a lawsuit at 9 AM this morning in the New York Supreme Court against The Weinstein Company to block the move. The Weinsteins said in a statement today that NBC "declined to compete for the right to have Project Runway" and is now trying "to disrupt the series moving to Lifetime".

But NBC Universal released this official statement to me: "NBC Universal has continuing legal rights related to Project Runway, including a right of first refusal to future cycles of the series, which The Weinstein Company unfortunately has refused to honor. NBC Universal regrettably had no alternative but to bring legal action to enforce its rights to this program, including the right to decide whether it is in the best interest of the company to continue to air the show under the proposed financial terms."

An NBC Uni source explained: "We were in discussions with Harvey regarding Project Runway. And we found out that he had signed a deal in February with Lifetime. So it was kind of pseudo-negotiations in spite of the fact we had the right to first refusal and first negotiation on a spin-off or another cycle of Project Runway. So then we filed for our legal right this morning."

Reacted David Boies, counsel to The Weinstein Company: “We believe that this lawsuit is without merit. While good for the market for lawyers, it is always unfortunate when parties try to win in court what they have lost in the marketplace.”

UPDATE: To sum up, the lawsuit accuses The Weinstein Co of "deception" among other choice words and claims NBC since teaming up with the producers in 2003 had the right to 5 cycles of the show as well as a right of first refusal to acquire additional cycles, plus rights of first negotiation and first refusal with respect to spin-offs of the program. NBC claims TWC didn't honor those rights and "never intended to negotiate in good faith". The complaint seeks to stop Project Runway's move to Lifetime in violation of its rights and is demanding a preliminary and permanent injuction, as well as compensatory damages for breach of agreement.

According to the complaint, negotiations to resolve some disputes and to plan for a new Project Runway deal began in January 2007 at a meeting at the Four Seasons Hotel in Beverly Hills between Weinstein, NBC Uni chief Jeff Zucker and entertainment lieutenant Marc Graboff. Out of that conversation, an agreement was reached that NBC had right of first refusal to license future cycles of Project Runway for airing on any non-Bravo NBCU platform.

NBC says Weinstein "threatened to take future cycles of the program to a competing TV network unless plaintiffs agreed to pay many millions of additional dollars to TWC to acquire a 'package' that included television rights to second-tier TWC films". A source told me, "These were not blockbuster titles. Instead they were ones no one has ever heard of, such as I Could Never Be Your Woman or The Gathering.

It was during this meeting that, according to the lawsuit, Harvey Weinstein gave Jeff Zucker his word that TWC would honor NBCU's right of first refusal in exchange for concessions, "going to far as to assure Mr. Zucker with words to the effect of: "You can only have in your life five true friends and I consider you one of my five friends. And I'm telling you I will not embarrass you."

This and other points were committed to writing on January 15th, 2007, and emailed to the Weinsteins' agent, Jim Wiatt of the William Morris Agency. "Harvey gave Jeff his word that, should he or TWC sell or license Runway to another network (other than a network which Harvey or TWC owns or controls) NBC Universal will have a first refusal right to acquire the series for NBC, USA or another non-Bravo platform."

In response, TWC confirmed by email sent by the agent on February 22nd, 2007, "Harvey intends to live by the terms of the letter you sent to Jim Wiatt on 1/19/07."

According to the complaint, negotiations resumed in earnest starting September 2007 through April 2008. But NBC didn't find out until last Friday that Weinstein had signed a "secret package deal" with Lifetime for Project Runway back on February 7th, 2008, which also included not only the TV rights to the TWC movies but also spin-off rights to Project Runway. Yet Weinstein continued "sham negotiations" with senior management throughout February and March of this year for Project Runway.

I understand that Bravo is devastated by this huge loss to its programming schedule. (I hope to find a way to blame unwatchable Andy Cohen for this mess...) Needless to say, Lifetime is giddy about this programming prize (which NBC Uni execs estimate is costing Lifetime is in the neighborhood of $150 million). Said Lifetime Networks’ President and CEO Andrea Wong: "Having watercooler movies, dramas, and reality shows like Project Runway is what Lifetime Television is all about." Lifetime is a 50/50 joint venture of Hearst Corp and The Walt Disney Co.

Said Harvey and Bob: "We would like to sincerely thank NBC Universal and Bravo for all their contribution and support... and having Lifetime’s unique cable reach will ensure that the show will continue to grow and expand in the years to come."

Mine is an Industry website which ignores celebrity news unless it's business oriented. So the reason I'm writing about Rob Lowe right now is because he's helping showbiz stars try to protect their personal lives against threats of blackmail. His effort should profoundly impact the commercial trafficking in Hollywood celebrity.

The co-star of ABC's Brothers & Sisters and political supporter of California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger blogged on The Huffington Post today to expose what he termed a "household betrayal". But also reps for the actor and his wife Sheryl wanted me to know that the couple also filed individual lawsuits today against three former household employees who'd all signed confidentiality agreements. The legal action came, I'm told, after Lowe had his people spend several days investigating the claims of a nanny who'd worked for his family on and off for 7 years. The actor said on his blog she allegedly demanded payment of $1.5 million by the end of the week or she would accuse the couple of a "vicious laundry list of false terribles". But a Lowe spokesman told me that "the thorough probe of all former nannies and estate managers, as well as employees of Rob's production company, could find no one who had ever seen Rob or Sheryl doing anything inappropriate."

According to the Lowe rep, "Instead of paying off as most celebrities do, he decided that you have to make a stand on this. That's very very rare and unusual. Most people try to sweep these things under the rug because the allegations are so damaging if they get out. But Rob was not going to be blackmailed. So he's fighting it." 

The lawsuits consist of two filed in Santa Barbara County and one filed in Los Angeles County. The complaint in Santa Barbara Superior Court accuses the Lowe family's former "long-term" nanny Jessica Gibson of breach of the written contract, defamation, breach of the duty of loyalty, breach of fiduciary duty, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent affliction of emotional distress, intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, trespassing, and abuse of process.

The other Santa Barbara complaint accuses ex-Lowe family chef Peter Clements of breach of the written contract, breach of written release agreement, defamation, breach of the duty of loyalty, breach of fiduciary duty, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent affliction of emotional distress, intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, and trespassing.

And the suit in L.A. Superior Court accuses one-time Lowe family "short-term" nanny Laura Boyce of breach of the written contract, defamation, breach of the duty of loyalty, breach of fiduciary duty, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent affliction of emotional distress, intentional misrepresentation and negligent misrepresentation.

Blogged Lowe: "Everyone knows we live in a time where public figures are targets. But I also know of many people in everyday life who are paying the price of a climate where anyone can accuse anybody of anything, anytime, and hope for a big cash pay-off at the end. 'Hush money' to just go away. Well I won't go away. No one intimidates my family. My wife and I have many former and long term employees, all of whom know this woman, who can and will refute any claims of anything inappropriate in our home, or anywhere else. We will defend ourselves with vigor and without fear."

I won't repeat all the very personal details -- because I'm sure sites like TMZ will.

Everyone is very tight-lipped. But I've confirmed that Dick Wolf just lost an arbitration proceeding to NBC Universal over back-end agreements on two of his Law & Order series. This occurred the same week that all three of his shows were picked up.

UPDATE: Sources tell me that Wolf was challenging the back-end cable deal terms for  Law & Order: SVU and Law & Order: Criminal Intent that were both licensed to USA. "They were totally arm’s length, but since Dick has always browbeaten NBC into giving him everything he could possibly wish for, he tried again," an insider explained. "It also reflects his total failure in recent years to launch anything successful, despite unlimited resources and access to NBC’s air. NBC is the worst, but in this case they didn’t deserve to lose, so finally justice prevailed." 

My understanding is that this is unrelated to the ongoing contract dispute over Wolf's executive producer fees for the three dramas that resulted in NBC Uni filing a lawsuit against the L&O producer back in January. Geez, for such a successful TV partnership, these two camps seem to disagree a lot on financial matters. Then again, Hollywood gets cranky when there's a shitload of $$$ at stake.

Chris Rock testifies Friday at 8 AM. I hear Michael Ovitz, and former journalists Bernie Weinraub and Anita Busch, will probably testify next week.

Very little of this week's trial so far has focused on mainstream Hollywood business although some testimony has been titillating but also tawdry. I'll skip the latter involving divorces, etc. But New York hedge fund manager Adam Sender testified under immunity that P.I. Anthony Pellicano once offered to have quasi-movie producer Aaron Russo rubbed out. (Sender had invested $1.1 million in a movie production company with Russo and not a single pic ever got made. Welcome to Hollywood, Mr. Sender.) Later, one of the defense attorneys moved to strike Sender's murder-for-hire testimony about Pellicano, who's not charged with offing anyone. U.S. District Court Dale Fischer will decide.

Sender also said this about his meeting with attorney Bert Fields: "He suggested that I work with Mr. Pellicano. That he was very good at what he did. That he used unorthodox methods but he gets the job done." And Sender quoted Pellicano saying this about allegedly finding out that someone Sender trusted turned out to be in cahoots with Russo: "I am 100% loyal. That's why Bert uses me on every case."

Andrew Stevens, the one-time himbo actor turned producer, testified with immunity about listening to alleged wiretaps played for him by Pellicano. They stemmed from privileged attorney-client communications between entertainment attorney John LaViolette and his clients from the German company Intertainment. Stevens testified that, in March 2001 after Intertainment came after him, he hired Bert Fields who introduced him to Pellicano in order to take the P.I. "off the market" so the other firm couldn't use him if a lawsuit ensued.

Stevens testified he talked frequently to the private eye so had his own relationship with Pellicano outside of Fields' law firm. One day, the actor-producer told the court, he went onto the roof of his building to call Pellicano and listen to an allegedly wiretapped recording.

(My thanks to LA Weekly's Steven Mikulan who's covering the trial for DHD.)

I don't understand why the Warner Bros lot wasn't draped in black starting the middle of this week. Because the studio should be mourning the imminent loss of a shitload of Superman dollars. I've finally got my hands on the entire 72-page ruling Wednesday of U.S. District Court Judge Stephen G. Larson who concluded: "After 70 years, Jerome Siegel’s heirs regain what he granted so long ago — the copyright in the Superman material that was published in Action Comics, Vol. 1. What remains is an apportionment of profits, guided in some measure by the rulings contained in this Order, and a trial on whether to include the profits generated by DC Comics’ corporate sibling’s exploitation of the Superman."

Think about it: Siegel sold the rights to the action hero he created with Joseph Shuster to Detective Comics for $130, and his heirs got back ownership of the character in 1999 and can possibly lay claim to $50+ million of Warner Bros' and/or its DC Comics' cash. The Shusters look to clean up before too long, too. If you want all the Superman lawsuit's juicy background, Portfolio's Amy Wallace did a detailed article here.

For instance, Joanne Siegel (who'd been the sketch model for Lois Lane) wrote a 3-page letter back in 2002 to then Time Warner CEO Dick Parsons calling the company  “greedy” and “heartless” and acting “just like the Gestapo ... your company wants to strip us naked of our legal rights… Is that the reputation you want?” The answer is a resounding yes. Because for years Warner tied with Disney for its aggressive unwillingness to settle these kinds of legal disputes and its absurd eagerness to risk going to court. Its corporate counsel would hire litigation piranhas hungry for billable hours who pledge to make each case go away by exhausting the patience and resources of the creators or rightsholders. It's a thoroughly effective but completely disgusting way of doing business. 

Yet it's interesting that, especially lately, Warner has lost or settled some very pricey lawsuits, especially those pursued by that Malibu Robin Hood of a litigator, Marc Toberoff, who has taken on Big Media on behalf of creators and their heirs for Superman and Superboy, The Dukes of Hazzard (read about it here), The Wild Wild West, It's Alive, and so on. The majors both fear him and hate him, with good reason: he's a relentless opportunist, which is exactly what's needed. 

Finally, lest any rabid Superman fans blame the Siegels or Shusters for fucking up a Superman Returns sequel, or a Justice League of America movie featuring Superman (or not), know this: Warner execs fucked up both all by themselves. There's been enough backstory surrounding these pics to fill a book. I say there wouldn't have been if only Superman Returns had been any good...

CAA has shown me the Pellicano trial transcript from Wednesday's testimony by partner Kevin Huvane which serves to clarify why he used the old CAA building as the residential address for his driver's license. (See my previous, Pellicano Trial: CAA Partners Say Nothing.) So, in the interest of fairness and accuracy, I'm printing this info where Huvane elaborates. Here, Huvane was shown Exhibit 161, the printout of a law enforcement database search made about him with info about his DMV license:

Q. Underneath that it says, "Residence address as of 1-31-1996". Is that your residential address?

Huvane:  That's the address that we used for all mailing purposes.

Q. And what address is that?

Huvane: That's the old CAA building address.

Q. Okay. Why did you use the old CAA building as your DMV address?

Huvane: because you never want to give your home address. You know, we have clients who have problems with security, with people looking up who their agents are, things coming inappropriate;ly to your house, so we wanted everything to be straight to the office.

Q. So for security purposes, even on your license, you used your business address?

Huvane: Yes.

Poor Bryan Lourd and Kevin Huvane had to cool their heels all morning inside the Roybal federal building. A place near the coffee shop substituted as a Green Room for the Pellicano Trial. Even the government realized this was costing CAA a fortune. Around 12:30 PM, the feds told U.S. District Judge Dale Fischer that the two agency partners needed to go back to work. So an ex-FBI guy already on the witness stand was bumped for them. (How nice to know that federal trials are run like Craft.)

At 12:35 PM, Huvane appeared on the stand first. Asked about the events surrounding August 10th, 2001, since that's when he was investigated in law enforcement databases, the CAA managing director pointed the finger at Michael Ovitz. "He founded a rival company. We had a dispute with him and decided not to do business with him." Actually, Lourd and Huvane were mentioned in Footnote #11 of the government's trial memo on the Pellicano case because "recovered from Pellicano's computers were scanned computer printouts of DMV and criminal history information for Bryan Lourd and Kevin Huvane bearing [LAPD Sgt Mark Arneson's name and a date of August 10th, 2001, which comports with the date when Arneson conducted database inquiries on these individuals". No context was provided. But CAA had issued an "it's Ovitz or us" ultimatum to Hollywood in 1999 after Michael Ovitz broke his promise not to raid the talent agency after he founded his own management company AMG -- then signed away Robin Williams and seven other actors and directors. Ovitz is mentioned in the feds' trial memo as having hired Pellicano to investigate frenemies.

Huvane put on his glasses to read Exhibit 161 which consisted of a printout of the database probe and asked to verify facts like his date of birth, drivers license number and middle name. Huvane admitted that the address listed on his drivers license was not his actual residence but the address of the old CAA building in Beverly Hills. [CAA has since moved to new digs in Century City]. Asked why this was done, Kevin replied, "We have security problems with clients looking up where their agents live." [CAA is now saying that Huvane misspoke in court. What he intended to convey was that clients' fans sometimes look up where the stars' agents live.] UPDATE: CAA Clarifies What Kevin Huvane Said...

During cross-examination, defendant Anthony Pellicano, the imprisoned Hollywood P.I., asked Huvane who founded CAA. So Kevin listed all the original partners. "Did you ever work for Ovitz?" Pellicano asked.

"Yes, Huvane answered.

"Did you ever hire a private investigator when you worked at CAA?" Pellicano pressed. But the prosecution objected and the judge sustained the objection, so Huvane didn't have to answer.

"Did you know an individual named Richard Di Sabatino?" Again, the prosecution objected, and the judge sustained the objection, so Huvane didn't have to answer.  

[Richard Di Sabatino founded International Security Group, Ltd. a consulting firm for select high profile clients that was a rival to Pellicano's private eye firm. He has been linked to such celebrities as Robert DeNiro and Nicole Kidman, whose divorce lawyer reportedly consulted Di Sabatino during her split from Tom Cruise. Di Sabatino supposedly supplied Kidman with encrypted phones, so she couldn't be wiretapped. Cruise's divorce lawyer Dennis Wasser was known to hire Pellicano on cases. Di Sabatino also has been a technical consultant on several Hollywood films.]

Huvane then was cross-examined by LAPD Sgt Mark Arneson's counsel, who dwelled on the fact that Kevin's drivers license didn't state his real residential address.

By 12:50 PM, the CAA partner came off the witness stand and his pal Bryan Lourd came on. Federal prosecutor Daniel Saunders went through the same drill with Bryan about the database printout. But when it came to his date of birth, Lourd said the DMV got it wrong; he wasn't born in 1950 but in 1960.

During cross-examination, Arneson's lawyer again focused on Lourd's drivers license, which also didn't bear his residential address. During re-direct, Saunders asked Lourd to explain why. "For security," Bryan answered. To which Saunders replied, "In case someone gets unauthorized access to DMV records. No further questions."

One interesting monment took place when Arneson's lawyer asked Lourd to explain if by referring to "the old CAA building" he was talking about "a famous building designed by I.M. Pei." To which Lourd replied, "I guess 'famous' is a word you'd have to define..."

With that, Lourd got off the witness stand at 12:59 PM.

(My thanks to LA Weekly's Steven Mikulan who's covering the trial for DHD.)

UPDATE: Meanwhile, freelance writer Alison Hope Weiner has posted audio of director John McTiernan (Die Hard, Rollerball) talking to Anthony Pellicano about Hollywood. It was played for jurors this week. It's gossipy and useless and hurts Chuck Roven who's an innocent victim. Listen if you must on The Huffington Post here. 

UPDATE: Assistant U.S. Attorney Daniel Saunders gave a statement to the media this AM trying to extricate himself from a sticky snafu: why he told federal court yesterday that Bert Fields was taking the Fifth Amendment if called to testify, and why Fields himself told me yesterday he wasn't taking the Fifth and is willing to testify (see my previous, EXCLUSIVE! BERT FIELDS WILL TESTIFY (...And Won't Take The Fifth):

"I was advised by Mr. Fields' personal counsel Mr.  John Keker that he [Fields] would be invoking the Fifth Amendment. We since have been informed by Mr. Fields's firm's general counsel that he will not invoke the Fifth and that Mr. Keker is no longer representing Mr. Fields. We have not decided if we will or will not call Mr. Fields. It will depend on the testimony of a couple of witnesses next week."

Forget it, Jake. It’s Chinatown.

2ND UPDATE: I just got off the phone with top Hollywood litigator Bert Fields who tells me, "I intend to testify. I have nothing to hide. I have not been subpoenaed but if I am, I will show up and testify." Asked why the feds said in pre-trial proceedings at the Pellicano trial today that Fields planned to take the Fifth Amendment rather than testify about his relationship with Hollywood private investigator Anthony Pellicano, Bert told me, "It's complicated" and declined to reveal more than that.

What a stunner of a day. First, the feds announced in federal court this morning that Fields, long considered Hollywood's leading litigator who frequently hired The Pelican on cases, would be taking the Fifth Amendment when he's called to testify in the Pellicano trial. The news immediately threw the pre-trial proceedings into a tizzy as prosecutors and defense attorneys tried to figure out its ramifications. So U.S. District Court Judge Dale Fischer scheduled a conference on the situation for next Monday March 31st. It was Assistant U.S. Attorney Daniel Saunders who first told the court during pre-trial proceedings today that his understanding was that "one of our witnesses" plans to take the Fifth Amendment. One of the defense lawyers asked the name of the witness, and Saunders answered, "Bert Fields".  The judge asked the attorneys how they wished to handle this, and next Monday's conference was scheduled.

But, as I reported above, this is wrong. Fields will testify. True, Bert's name has already come up many times during the course of the Pellicano trial. But, as I wrote back in October 2007, Fields is virtually free and clear of almost every aspect of the Pellicano case, including the wiretapping and conspiracy accusations which federal prosecutors have been pursuing against Hollywood P.I. Anthony Pellicano. Fields, to show his cooperation and his belief in his own innocence, has agreed repeatedly to requests by the U.S. Attorney's Office in Los Angeles to temporarily waive the statutes of limitations for any conduct being examined by the Pellicano probe. And when these specified periods of time expired, he waived them again. But at that time the statutes of limitations have not yet lapsed on all potential charges against Fields. No charges have ever been forthcoming despite a myriad rumors, nor has the government charged him in this case with any wrongdoing. (See my previous, EXCLUSIVE: Bert Fields Can Put Pellicano Scandal Behind Him)

There was lots of juicy stuff to report from today's testimony involving prominent Hollywood figures: studio head Ron Meyer, director John McTiernan and producer Chuck Roven, former agent and studio exec Mike Ovitz, and ex-studio exec Michael Nathanson (about whom Pellicano was heard on tape saying, "I saved Michael Nathanson's ass. He was into prostitutes and coke"). Today's court proceedings certainly painted Hollywood in as bad a light as possible.

First up was Peter Knecht, the lawyer for Bilal Baroody, a former Malibu neighbor of Universal president/COO Ron Meyer. Back in 1997, Meyer loaned Baroody $300,000 even though the neighbor was already extremely wealthy; when Baroody never paid him back and left the country, Meyer hired Pellicano in 1999 to find the money. The feds played a surreptitiously recorded tape of a conversation between Knecht and Pellicano who spent most of the conversation trying to wheedle Baroody's whereabouts. "His life is about to change expotentially [sic]," Pellicano warned Knecht.

"How's his life going to change?" Knecht pressed.

"It's just going to change," Pellicano said ominously.

During the conversation, Knecht detailed some of Baroody's prime real estate holdings, such as the Malibu house and a high-rise on Wilshire Blvd. "...And this is what's driving Ronnie crazy," Pellicano told the lawyer. "He [Baroody] swore on the Koran that he'd pay. He's fucking with the wrong guy."

"Ron Meyer?" asked Knecht.

"Me," said Pellicano.

---

Bigtime Hollywood producer Chuck Roven was as low-key on the witness stand as his dress (he didn't even bother to wear a tie to court). Most of the time, he gave only perfunctory answers to questions centered on the movie Rollerball he made with director John McTiernan who has already pleaded guilty to perjury in the Pellicano scandal. The prosecutor tried to draw out Roven's account of filming that movie with McTiernan in Montreal in 2000. "As sometimes happens, I had a different creative concept ... And we would have discussions about that." The government produced in court lists upon lists of often misspelled names of MGM and Warner studio executives as well as agents and associates with whom Roven was having phone conversations around that time. They were contained in summaries of incoming and outgoing phone calls which Pellicano allegedly had logged showing when they were made and who Roven was talking to. In Exhibit 54, McTiernan is heard talking to Pellicano, "Well, I think you got an education in the film industry."

Replied Pellicano, "I had no fucking idea..."

Then the two men proceeded to chat about hard it is to make movies in the crazy entertainment biz. Pellicano expressed dismay at the sheer volume of phone conversations Roven had as his assistants rolled the calls.

"What do you want me to focus on?" Pellicano asked McTiernan.

The director replied, "Basically, I'd like to know if he says one thing to the studio..."

With that, Pellicano interrupted to remind McTiernan how much money this kind of surveillance was costing him.

"Let me get you a list of specific names he's either talking to or about," McTiernan suggested.

Again Pellicano expressed concern about the enormous cost. "I would just feel guilty taking your money and spending it," he told McTiernan. "This guy [Roven] takes up to 10 minutes deciding if he's miffed or not. I'm about to scream listening to this."

The two men then talked about what a "rich fucker" Roven is because of his family money.

---

Also on the tape, Pellicano brought up the subject of one-time Hollywood mogul Michael Nathanson, then president/COO of MGM Pictures and before that executive vice president of production for Columbia Pictures. "I saved Michael Nathanson's ass. He was into prostitutes and coke," Pellicano boasted to McTiernan. [Nathanson's name came up during the 1993 arrest of Hollywood madam Heidi Fleiss, who at the time bragged to several reporters including me what a close personal and professional relationship she had with Nathanson. Fearing he would be exposed by one of the journalists working the story, Nathanson issued a statement through his lawyer Howard Weitzman denying rumors that he did business with Fleiss and claiming the exec "has not done anything that should cause concern on behalf of Columbia." Weitzman is another lawyer who worked closely with Pellicano for years and in fact brought The Pelican to Los Angeles in the first place.]

---

There was one reference to Michael Ovitz, the CAA co-founder, fired Disney president and one-time most powerful person in Hollywood whose name repeatedly has come up during the Pellicano trial. The government asked witness Robert Pfeifer, who was first a Pellicano client and then a pal of the private eye's, whether he was aware of any other clients of the P.I. "Yes," Pfeifer replied, "I remember he [Pellicano] had to cancel something because he had to meet with Michael Ovitz." Ovitz has repeatedly told reporters that it was his lawyers, not him, who hired Pellicano.

(Keep refreshing for latest news and updates... My thanks to LA Weekly's Steven Mikulan who's covering the trial for DHD.))

At a time when major media organizations are cutting back on the most vital news coverage, how discomforting to know that some are increasing their celebrity reporting instead. I've learned that the venerable Associated Press is finally making good on its promise to pour major dollars into beefing up its already huge entertainment coverage by hiring 21 new employees in 2008 spread across Los Angeles, New York and London. (See internal memo below.) It's also cold comfort that AP insists its new separate entertainment vehicle is "not about gossip, unnamed sources and innuendo or about 'peephole' journalism with AP photographers becoming paparazzi." Instead, the wire service claims it's just giving its members what they want "in an area of growing interest" because it "makes good business sense".

Certainly, the AP is under intense financial pressure during these doomed economic times for newspapers: Dow Jones newswires just announced it'll stop using AP stories after failing to agree on a price after more than a year of negotiations. Clearly, the AP now thinks that Hollywood coverage can become its new cash cow. It's already led to AP signing a deal to provide celebrity video for People.com.

Specifically, newly appointed Director of Entertainment Content Daniel Becker, based in Los Angeles, will oversee AP's expanding showbiz coverage across video, photo, audio and text formats as well as help develop new multimedia products. I'm told that deputy entertainment editor Josh Dickey has been brought from New York to Los Angeles, and Ryan Nakashima, who covers corporate entertainment business, is coming from Las Vegas, where he was covering the casinos, to Los Angeles as well. Reporter Derrik Lang, too, has relocated to Los Angeles and begun working a newly created celebrity beat. Additionally, ex-Variety reporter Dan Cox will work as a stringer at the courts covering celebrity and showbiz cases. And Entertainment Editor Jesse Washington has restructured his primary editors to provide coverage from 4 AM to 7 PM Pacific Time in order to be "more agile and aggressive" to compete with other real-time entities like TMZ.com. I hear the AP also is desperate for exclusives.

Back in January, AP’s Los Angeles bureau told staffers that "now and for the foreseeable future, virtually everything involving Britney is a big deal.” Lou Ferrara, the AP's managing editor for sports, entertainment and multimedia, explained to The New York Times that the news service’s more than 1,500 daily papers and thousands of other media outlets were hungering for more photos and videos of celebrities. He briefly referred to the AP's entertainment expansion plans without elaborating.

I've obtained this AP internal Q&A with the AP's new showbiz coverage boss Becker:

What is the purpose of your newly created post, and how does the position fit into our current organization?
AP created the Director of Entertainment Content position to oversee all components of the new entertainment group. My role is to unify our entertainment efforts across all platforms and deliver increased market-driven content to meet the growing demands of our members and clients. I report jointly to our business owner, APTN Executive Director Nigel Baker, and Managing Editor for Sports, Entertainment and Multimedia Lou Ferrara. I work closely with both to develop the content and business side of the entertainment vertical. The vertical's print, video and photo entertainment content heads report to me.

What is the most exciting and/or most challenging part of your position?
Everything is possible! We have the right resources supporting us, which allows our team to build in every direction. We are exploring new models for effective multi-format work environments and efficiencies, and are putting great emphasis on teamwork and working towards common goals. Most exciting to me is witnessing the Associated Press' brand becoming more visible among the entertainment community. 

Why an entertainment vertical?
There is overwhelming demand from customers and members for coverage of celebrity, movies and music. According to PQ Media, the market for outsourced entertainment news content is set to rise by 77% by 2011 to $960 million. So, increasing our entertainment coverage provides an opportunity to give them more of the content they want and to increase revenue at the same time. AP is uniquely positioned to become the definitive provider of entertainment news for all media formats largely because of our reputation for accurate, unbiased coverage. No other competitor can offer our reach or our unique global mix of daily video, photos and text coverage, as well as rich archives. In a world of single source providers, that’s an important advantage.

Why can't we just increase coverage? Why is a separate entertainment group necessary?
The entertainment vertical will be produced by a separate AP entertainment group, with its own unified staff, management structure and P&L. The new division will be responsible for AP’s entertainment coverage in all formats and for developing new content products to satisfy the needs of print, digital and broadcast customers. Having a separate, dedicated group of entertainment staff allows AP to fine tune its content offerings to meet the large demands from customers and members. It also offers a way to build awareness of AP and differentiate our services. Ultimately, creating a separate entertainment division will make AP stronger journalistically and financially.

There is a fear that this will take AP closer to tabloid journalism. How will AP ensure it maintains its journalistic standards?
The entertainment vertical is not about gossip, unnamed sources and innuendo or about “peephole” journalism with AP photographers becoming paparazzi. It’s about recognizing an opportunity to use our journalistic talent and unmatched network of resources to produce high quality, multimedia coverage in an area of growing interest. AP’s high editorial standards and news values will continue to be observed, honored and practiced. That makes good business sense, too: In a realm in which gossip and innuendo abound, particularly on the Web, our standards establish us as the trusted, authoritative voice on entertainment for all our members and customers.

What new products are currently being developed?
The entertainment vertical will focus on coverage that is most often requested by our members and customers – coverage of celebrities, movies and music – with an emphasis on photo and video products to meet the growing demands of the market. Future products will be developed and targeted for the online and broadcast markets, which are seen as the largest areas of growth. The first new content offering from the entertainment division will focus on celebrities and be heavily image driven. To that end, we will start ramping up celebrity coverage soon. The new initiative has already led to a new signing for AP, a deal to provide celebrity video for People.com.

What differences will staffers currently covering Entertainment notice in their day-to-day work?
There is no plan to shift reporters; beat reporters will stay focused on their assigned areas of coverage. Our goal is to free up the entertainment staff to develop sources and impact stories, break news and push for greater in-depth coverage across all platforms. To this end, Director of State News Training John Dowling is organizing two competitive reporting workshops for the text, photo, video and radio staff in Los Angeles, and we are encouraging the group to proactively seek involvement in areas outside their major disciplines.

Are there any staffing changes on the horizon?
We are planning for an additional 21 new employees in 2008 spread across Los Angeles, New York and London. In filling these positions, we will be looking at both internal and external candidates. Entertainment Editor Jesse Washington has restructured his primary editors to provide coverage from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. Eastern. The new schedule allows them to be more agile and aggressive, and to cover more of the crucial Los Angeles copy. Reporter Derrik Lang relocated to Los Angeles and began working a newly created celebrity beat. Additionally, Los Angeles expects to hire an entertainment writer in April who will work in the courthouse covering celebrity cases.

 So the Paramount chief just finished testifying at the Pellicano trial. And the verdict is boring. Seriously, boring. "It was as boring as boring could be," a spectator told me. Hollywood P.I. Anthony Pellicano didn't even bother to cross-examine him. But another co-defendant's lawyer did ask Grey some questions that let the former manager respond to a few of Garry Shandling's charges. For instance, Grey denied Shandling's accusation that the comedian was prevented from seeing his contracts. The Paramount boss also denied any knowledge of any wiretapping, background checks using law enforcement databases, or other illegalities in connection with his defense of two lawsuits. Interestingly, no one asked Grey if he had any kind of personal relationship with Pellicano -- so the fact that the manager's offices were on the same floor as Pellicano's for years, or that Brad tried to sell a TV show about Pellicano, never came out at trial. (Brad Grey leaving Roybal federal building today after testifying, photo exclusive to DHD courtesy of Jim Stevenson)

Grey arrived in a tailored blue suit with lawyers and a publicist trailing after him. In all, he was on the witness stand for at most an hour. Assistant U.S. Attorney Kevin Lally's direct examination of Grey was matter of fact and devoid of color. (Except for this: the prosecutor asked Grey if he saw Pellicano in the courtroom and the P.I., wearing his now signature green winbreaker, began waving to Brad.) Lally started off with basic questions -- Who are you? What do you do? What was your job before this? -- before zeroing in on Brad's business relationship with Garry Shandling. Grey explained that Pellicano was hired because his attorney in the Shandling lawsuit Bert Grey "had used him in the past and highly recommended him and held him in high regard". Grey said he learned from Fields that hiring a private eye was "the normal course of action in litigation" and Pellicano was also helping them on the cross-complaint they were filing against Shandling. Lally produced a series of checks showing that Grey had used a Brillstein-Grey holding company to pay Greenberg Glusker's charges, which included fees for Pellicano. Lally specifically asked Grey whether he'd been involved in any discussions with Pellicano about his investigation. And Brad replied, "No, I left that to the law firm."

Lally next turned to the Bo Zenga lawsuit filed against Grey in 2000 and spent a while trying to establish exactly when Pellicano was retained by Fields on behalf of Grey. Brad's recollection was that it took place a few months into the lawsuit around the time of a February 2001 status meeting about the case. Grey spoke that Pellicano was brought on about the time that possible extortion was suspected as well as possible fraud surrounding a screenwriting competition that Zenga had been involved with years earlier. Grey testified that the directions to Pellicano and the hiring of Pellicano "all came through Bert Fields" and that "in every instance" Grey had never been given updates on the investigations by Pellicano.

Pellicano, who is conducting his own defense, declined to cross-examine the Paramount boss. But the attorney for a co-defendant, LAPD Sgt. Mark Arneson, did ask Grey whether he'd ever seen any wiretapping reports or law enforcement background checks or any other illegal activities by his legal team. Brad said no.

One mildly interesting factlet that came out was how Garry Shandling had hired a publicist in conjunction with his lawsuit. Grey said he was aware of it. After Brad's personal notes ended up in a "periodical" [The New Yorker] article about the case, he said Bert Fields felt strongly that they should investigate how that happened. Arneson's attorney also asked about concerns about the rising costs on The Larry Sanders Show and whether that relevant to the hiring of Pellicano. Brad said it was. And the lawyer asked whether Grey denied Shandling access to contracts. Brad said that was "completely false". The attorney showed that Grey pretty much already knew everything about Shandling that was contained in the background check. And in response to a question, Grey said he had "absolutely no" awareness of any cash payments to Pellicano. Then, on the subject of Bo Zenga, the attorney asked if Grey had ever seen any reports from Pellicano about wiretapping. Brad said he hadn't.

Finally, on re-direct, Lally tried to pin down to a tighter time frame the hiring of Pellicano in the Zenga case, causing Brad to say it may have been the first week in February. And Lally asked the Paramount mogul about any wiretapping or illegal background checks, "You were neither aware that they were happening or not happening?" Brad claimed he wasn't aware.

I can report that the federal prosecutors in the Pellicano wiretapping trial have told the Paramount chief it's a very real possibility he'll take the witness stand tomorrow to talk all about Hollywood private eye Anthony Pellicano. Because of that, the studio boss is heading to Roybal federal building in downtown Los Angeles in his best blue suit. This is the first time in the course of the wiretapping and conspiracy trial that a big-name Hollywood figure is testifying, not to mention a Hollywood mogul. There's little doubt that Grey, who is not accused of any wrongdoing, will be asked to testify about his years as one of the entertainment industry's most prominent managers and producers: specifically, comedian Garry Shandling's civil suit accusing Grey of conflict of interest, and screenwriter Bo Zenga's legal fight with Grey over Scary Movie dollars. In both cases, the mogul was represented by top entertainment litigator Bert Fields. Both Grey and Fields are said by the feds to have hired Anthony Pellicano. Fields also isn't accused of any crimes by the government.    

• Pellicano Trial: Michael Fuchs, Brad Grey And Bert Fields Mentioned
• Pellicano Trial: Brad Grey Crops Up Again; Shandling Lawyer Answers Bert Fields