September 2012

AEG says they only provided emails to Lloyds starting from Jan 2009. they provided emails going back to 2008 to KJ and her lawyers

guess what emails were given to LA Times? yep they are dating back to 2008. That's why AEG says it can only be Jacksons and not Lloyds.

LA Times was also given documents from "AEG Live" which is not even a party to Lloyds lawsuit and didn't provide anything to them


We won't see the emails though. They filed the copy of the emails given to La Times under seal 




Link to document : http://www.scribd.com/doc/105053387/AEG-KJ-Motion-for-Sanctions

----------------

I rushed to post the document but I didn't do a summary. Here's the summary of the motion 

AEG had filed for a motion against Katherine Jackson and her lawyers due to the leak of the emails. AEG is asking for 
- evidentiary sanctions to NOT allow Katherine to use the leaked emails and documents
- monetary sanctions of at least of $50,000 paid to AEG and $1,500 paid to the court
- an investigation into scope and manner of the breach.

AEG's counsel gets a phone call from LA Times journalist on August 27. The journalist provides them with the emails she has and AEG realizes that this leak could only come from Jacksons - despite the article says the source is Lloyds.

The documents LA Times had was 
- 159 pages of discovery from AEG & AEG Live (148 pages confidential)
- 12 pages by Ortega (confidential)
- 1 page from Jacksons
- 36 pages from Murray
- 34 pages from court documents
- 4 pages of news articles

212 pages had Bates numbers and confidentiality notices on them but they were redacted or obstructed in the copies given to LA Times. 

AEG says the only AEG counsel and Katherine and her lawyers had access to these documents and therefore the source is Katherine and/or her lawyers. 

AEG explains that Ortega and Murray documents were produced in other lawsuits. AEG also says that they provided some but not all of the documents at Lloyds lawsuit. 

AEG explains that

- Lloyds discovery documents started from January 2009, Jackson discovery started from September 2008. As LA Times had emails dating back to 2008 AEG argues that the source can only be Jacksons and not Lloyds.

AEG explains that even AEG employees (such as Phillips and Gongaware etc) did not have access to the documents in the format that they were provided to LA Times. 

- AEG explains some of the documents are from "AEG" and not "AEG Live". AEG is only a party to the Jacksons case and they did not produce any documents in Lloyds lawsuit again demonstrating that the source is Jacksons and not Lloyds. 

AEG thinks the reason for the leak was to tarnish AEG and the documents was selected carefully from a lot bigger number of actual documents. AEG thinks this leak of confidential documents made AEG unable to respond publicly (as they would be required to break confidentiality as well). AEG also argues that some of the emails were hearsay and they could not been able to be used at trial so leaking them was only way to get them out. AEG also says removal of "confidential" notice and the bates numbers show that whoever leaked these were aware that they were breaking a court order.

AEG is also asking for discovery into the breach and leak and want to depose Katherine Jackson and her lawyers, they are even asking the court to assign a special master to investigate this further. 

---------------------

I rushed to post the document but I didn't do a summary. Here's the summary of the motion 

AEG had filed for a motion against Katherine Jackson and her lawyers due to the leak of the emails. AEG is asking for 
- evidentiary sanctions to NOT allow Katherine to use the leaked emails and documents
- monetary sanctions of at least of $50,000 paid to AEG and $1,500 paid to the court
- an investigation into scope and manner of the breach.

AEG's counsel gets a phone call from LA Times journalist on August 27. The journalist provides them with the emails she has and AEG realizes that this leak could only come from Jacksons - despite the article says the source is Lloyds.

The documents LA Times had was 
- 159 pages of discovery from AEG & AEG Live (148 pages confidential)
- 12 pages by Ortega (confidential)
- 1 page from Jacksons
- 36 pages from Murray
- 34 pages from court documents
- 4 pages of news articles

212 pages had Bates numbers and confidentiality notices on them but they were redacted or obstructed in the copies given to LA Times. 

AEG says the only AEG counsel and Katherine and her lawyers had access to these documents and therefore the source is Katherine and/or her lawyers. 

AEG explains that Ortega and Murray documents were produced in other lawsuits. AEG also says that they provided some but not all of the documents at Lloyds lawsuit. 

AEG explains that

- Lloyds discovery documents started from January 2009, Jackson discovery started from September 2008. As LA Times had emails dating back to 2008 AEG argues that the source can only be Jacksons and not Lloyds.

AEG explains that even AEG employees (such as Phillips and Gongaware etc) did not have access to the documents in the format that they were provided to LA Times. 

- AEG explains some of the documents are from "AEG" and not "AEG Live". AEG is only a party to the Jacksons case and they did not produce any documents in Lloyds lawsuit again demonstrating that the source is Jacksons and not Lloyds. 

AEG thinks the reason for the leak was to tarnish AEG and the documents was selected carefully from a lot bigger number of actual documents. AEG thinks this leak of confidential documents made AEG unable to respond publicly (as they would be required to break confidentiality as well). AEG also argues that some of the emails were hearsay and they could not been able to be used at trial so leaking them was only way to get them out. AEG also says removal of "confidential" notice and the bates numbers show that whoever leaked these were aware that they were breaking a court order.

AEG is also asking for discovery into the breach and leak and want to depose Katherine Jackson and her lawyers, they are even asking the court to assign a special master to investigate this further.