COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
SHARON RUFO, Plaintiff
vs.
ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON, et al., Defendants
DEPOSITION OF LAWRENCE J. SCHILLER
Los Angeles, California
June 7, 1996
DAVID S. COLEMAN
CSR #4613
JOB NO. 96-1653
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
SHARON RUFO, Plaintiff
vs.
ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON, et al., Defendants
FREDRIC GOLDMAN, etc., et al., Plaintiff
vs.
ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON, et al., Defendants.
LOUIS H. BROWN, etc., Plaintiffs,
vs.
ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON, Defendant.
Deposition of LAWRENCE J. SCHILLER, taken on behalf of the Plaintiffs, At 11377 West Olympic Boulevard, 10th Floor, Los Angeles, California, commencing at 9:27 a m., on Friday, June 7, 1996 before David S. Coleman, CSR #4613, pursuant to Notice and Subpoena
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE PLAINTIFFS FREDRIC GOLDMAN, ET AL.:
MITCHELL, SILBERBERG & KNUPP
BY: PETER B. GELBLUM, ESQ.
ARTHUR GROMAN, ESQ.
11377 West Olympic Boulevard
Sixth Floor
Los Angeles, California 90064-1883
FOR THE PLAINTIFF ESTATE OF BROWN:
JOHN QUINLAN KELLY, ESQ.
330 Madison Avenue
New York, Now York 10017-5090
(212) 682-1700
(Of record but not present)
-and-
NATASHA ROIT, ESQ.
116 North Robertson Boulevard
Suite 705
Los Angeles, California 90048
(Of record but not present)
FOR THE PLAINTIFF SHARON RUFO:
HORNBERGER & CRISWELL
444 South Flower Stroet
Thirty-Fird Floor
Los Angeles, California 90071
(Of record but not present)
FOR THE DEFENDANT ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON:
BAKER, SILBERBERG & KEENER
2850 Ocean Park Boulevard
Suite 300
Santa Monica California 90405-2938
(Of record but not present)
-and-
BAILEY, FISHMAN & LEONARD
BY: DANIEL LEONARD, ESQ.
66 Long Wharf
Boston, Massachusetts 02110
(617) 723-1980
-and-
ROBERT D. BLASIER, ESQ.
6355 Riverside Boulevard
Suite 2-F
Sacramento, California 95831
(916) 427-1600
(Of record but not present)
FOR THE WITNESS:
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE
BY: KELLI L. SAGER, ESQ.
1000 Wilshire Boulevard
Suite 600
Los Angeles, California 90017
WITNESS:
LAWRENCE J. SCHILLER
Examination by Mr. Gelblum
EXHIBITS:
234 Notice of Depositions of Lawrence Schiller
Custodian of Records of Polaris Communications, Inc.
dated February 27, 1996,
10 pages
235 Objections of Non-parties
Polaris Communications, Inc.
and Lawrence Schiller to
Subpoenas Duces Tecum dated
June 4, 1996, 22 pages
236 Document entitled "Forward," 8 pages
LAWRENCE J. SCHILLER, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as
follows:
EXAMINATION BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: State your full name for the record, please.
A: Lawrence Schiller.
Q: I heard you say earlier you do have a middle initial?
A: Yes, but I don't use it. It's J.
Q: But it's on your birth certificate?
A: No, it's not.
MR. LEONARD: Don't even go down that road.
MR. GELBLUM: I have decided not to.
MS. SAGER: Thank you.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: Have you had your deposition taken before, Mr. Schiller?
A: I have.
Q: And have you had an opportunity to discuss with your counsel the procedures that we
will be going through?
A: I have.
Q: Do you have any questions before we begin?
A: No.
Q: Have you taken any medication this morning or in the last 24 hours that would
affect your ability to listen, understand and answer my questions?
A: I have not taken any medication.
Q: Have you taken anything that would(ingested anything in the last 24 hours that
would affect your ability to listen to, understand and answer my questions?
A: I have not digested anything.
Q: Have you inhaled anything?
A: I have not inhaled anything.
Q: All right. Do you anticipate any problem with understanding or answering my
questions?
A: Yes.
Q: You do.
A: Yes.
Q: What problem is that?
A: I have dyslexia, and many times I accidentally say different time periods or dates
or names. I might be thinking of one name, and accidentally it comes out another. And
I have difficulty reading sometimes. I look at a word and the(I guess my brain takes
the letters, and I think for a second it's a different word. But I was ( I
havedyslexia.
Q: I always thought dyslexia only had to do with the written word. It's also the
spoken word?
A: Yes, there is a form of it. If I'm very slow and careful, I'm okay, but if I go a
little too fast, my mind thinks slightly different, so I will try to keep myself slow.
Q: I prefer, obviously, that you go more slowly and be more accurate.
A: Yeah.
Q: When this happens, when you mix up dates or people's names(
A: Mostly people's names.
Q: (when do you realize that you've done that?
A: Sometimes I don't. People have to point it out to me.
MR. LEONARD: Peter, you might want to(I am sure he knows, but you might want to remind
him of the opportunity to look at the deposition afterwards.
MR. GELBLUM: Oh, sure, but he has trouble reading sometimes, so(
THE WITNESS: Right, but(
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: Your counsel, I am sure, will read it to you and point out any errors she thinks
exist.
A: Right. I just wanted to make you aware of it.
Q: I appreciate it. That's why I asked the question.
A: Sure.
Q: But from now on I will ask about conditions and not just things people have
ingested, which I have never
done before.
MR. LEONARD: There you go.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: Are you represented by counsel today?
A: I am.
Q: Is it Miss Sager?
A: It is.
Q: Did you do anything to prepare for today's deposition?
A: I just had a conversation with my attorney before I came here.
Q: That's it?
A: (Nods head.)
THE REPORTER: You're nodding your head.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: You need to answer audibly. That's my fault. David needs you to answer with words
that he can take down
rather than gestures or(
A: Right.
Q:( non-verbal responses. All right?
MR. LEONARD: You don't have to worry, because he will definitely tell you.
MS. SAGER: The other thing that I noticed just if I can inject for a minute, you have
to make sure that Mr. Gelblum is done asking a question before you start to answer
because it's really hard for the court reporter
to take down two people, because even one word, like saying "right" when someone else
is talking, he is going
to have trouble with.
MR. LEONARD: Plus one more thing: that also gives me an opportunity to object if I
need to, and if I object, unless your attorney instructs you not to answer, you must
and should answer the question.
THE WITNESS: Thank you.
MR. GELBLUM: Thank you.
MR. LEONARD: Well, I'm here for you.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: Did you review any documents in preparation for the deposition?
A: No.
Q: Have you spoken with Mr. Leonard before this moment?
A: Yes.
Q: How many times?
A: About five months ago I met him, and then I spoke to him now.
Q: Just before the deposition started?
A: 10 minutes ago.
Q: All right. Did you discuss anything about what was going to be discussed in the
deposition?
A: No.
Q: Did you discuss anything about this case?
A: About the case?
Q: Yes.
A: No.
Q: When you met five months ago, where was that?
A: North Carolina.
MR. LEONARD: Burlington.
THE WlTNESS: Burlington.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: What were the circumstances?
A: I was meeting with Mr. Bailey.
Q: About this case?
A: No.
Q: Did you discuss this case at all with Mr. Bailey or Mr. Leonard at that time?
A: No.
MR. LEONARD: We were trying a murder case.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: So the only times you spoke with Mr. Leonard were that one occasion in Burlington
and this morning?
A: I just said hello to him. We walked in and out of the room and we said hi, and this
morning.
Q: Those were the only two times?
A: To the best of my memory.
Q: Have you ever discussed the Simpson case with Mr. Bailey?
MS. SAGER: I am going to object at this point to any questions directed to
conversations that Mr. Schiller may or may not have had with any particular individual
that were done in the course of him gathering information for preparation of any
material for dissemination to the public, including books, magazines, videotapes
films, on the basis that it interferes with his rights under the First Amentiment, the
California Reporter's Shield, under Article I, Section 2(b) of the California
Constitution Evidence Code Section 1070 and the common law, and any answers Mr.
Schiller gives to any questions involving discussions he may or may not have had with
any particular individual will be limited to any conversations he had that were
outside the context of any information he was gathering for preparation of any of the
materials I've described.
MR. GELBLUM: Could you read that back, please.
MS. SAGER: And for purposes of brevity, if you would prefer in the future I will
simply say, "We are objecting on the grounds of the reporter's privilege," and ask you
to rephrase the question, rather than giving the whole litany.
MR. GELBLUM: That would be preferable, but I do want to hear the exact parameters.
MS. SAGER: Sure.
MS. SAGER: And I guess I would add I am not intending to limit by specifying those
materials if it was gathered for some other type of material for disseminadon to the
public: Newspapers, television shows, et cetera.
MR. GELBLUM: As you know, Miss Sager, we discussed this issue before the deposition,
and we have disagreements about the extent of the application of the reporter's
privilege to Mr. Schiller's conversations and his work, which we almost certainly will
take up with the court after this, but I wanted to proceed with this to see what we
can get and what we can't get, and so we have some specific issues to present to the
court.
MS. SAGER: That's fine. And just so that you know, I will(my interposed objections, if
there is a suggestion I can make on how you could rephrase the question to elicit an
answer as opposed to simply an objection, if I think the question can be rephrased, I
will suggest that, but it's obviously up to you.
MR. GELBLUM: I will take all the help I can get. If you want to do that, too, Dan(
MR. LEONARD: I don't know how to do that.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: Okay. Do you understand everything what your attorney just said?
A: Conceptually, yeah.
Q: And, for example, I just asked you a question that prompted that,which was any
conversations you had with
Mr. Bailey concerning the Simpson case. When I talk about the Simpson case, Iam going
to use some shorthand myself. I mean the circumstances surrounding the murders of
Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman. It in-cludes both the criminal case and
thecivil case.
MR. LEONARD: Well, I am going to object to that as vague.
MR. GELBLUM: Okay. Well, I just defined it. You can(fine.
MR. LEONARD: You may think you defined it, but that's vague.
MS. SAGER: There is no question pending.
THE WITNESS: No, I know.
MR. LEONARD: And so therefore I would like a standing objection every time you use
that shorthand term.
MR. GELBLUM: Fine.
Q: Have you had any conversations with Mr. Bailey regarding the Simpson case other
than those that you understand would be covered by the reporter's privilege as your
attorney has just described?
A: No.
Q: So every conversation you've ever had with Mr. Bailey, if any, regarding the
Simpson case was done in the course of gathering information for dissemination to the
public?
MS. SAGER: I would object to the question only to the extent that if it assumes an
answer that there have been such conversations.
MR. GELBLUM: I said, "if any."
Q: ls that correct?
A: Could you repeat the question?
Q: Yes. Has every conversation you've ever had with Mr. Bailey regarding the Simpson
case, if any, been in the course of gathering information for dissemination to the
public?
A: No
Q: Okay. How many conversations have you had with Mr. Bailey concerning the Simpson
case that were
not in the course of gathering information for dissemination to the public?
A: One conversation.
Q: When was that?
A: On St. Patrick's Day.
Q: What year?
A: 1995.
Q: Where was that?
A: I think it was in somebody's home.
Q: You don't recall whose?
A: Actually, it was an art dealer or something.
Q: Where?
A: Beverly Hills.
Q: Who else was there?
A: I don't remember.
Q: Were there other people there?
A: Yeah.
Q: Were there other attorneys for Mr. Simpson there?
A: I don't remember.
Q: So this was during the course of the criminal trial. Correct?
A: Yes.
Q: And what did Mr. Bailey say and what did you say during that conversation?
A: He came up to me and just kind of said to me that he wanted to make sure that I
just kept my journalistic
integrity in what I was gonna do and that he had read the EXECUTIONER'S SONG, which
was written after 1976, and he was very proud of the work, and he was being very
complimentary to me. But he did use(he says, "I hope you'll keep your integrity in
writing about or covering the case," and that was all he said.
Q: What did you understand him to mean by that?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Calls for speculation.
THE WITNESS: I just accepted the words he said, and that was it. I didn't analyze it.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: Let's go back a little bit(or a lot, rather. I am going to go over briefly your
employment history, occupation
history(
MR. LEONARD: You said St.Patrick's Day. Right?
THE WITNESS: I think it was St. Patrick's Day.
MR. LEONARD: Okay. I just want to(for the record, that's March 17th.
MR. GELBLUM: Yes, it is.
MR. LEONARD: Okay. I just wanted...
THE WITNESS: I think it was St. Patrick's Day.
MR. GELBLUM: I wrote down March 17, 1995.
THE WITNESS: But I think it was that weekend. Maybe not on that day, but
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: Okay.
A:(it was a party.
MR. LEONARD: Just for the non-Irish(
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: Did the party have to do with the Simpson case?
A: No.
Q: Did you graduate from college?
A: College says I did. I never went through graduation.
Q: All right. What college?
A: Pepperdine.
Q: What year did they say you graduated?
A: I think 1956.
Q: What degree?
A: They say I have a bachelor of science.
Q: In what subject?
A: In business administration.
Q: Business administration?
A: They say I do.
Q: What was your first full-time occupation after that?
A: After I graduated college?
Q: Yes.
A: I was a journalist.
Q: Were you freelance?
A: I had a contract with Sport Magazine, but it was a(I was not an employee. I was a
contract photographer.
Q: Was it an exclusive contract with them?
A: No.
Q: Did you work for other people?
A: Yes.
Q: Were you mostly a photographer as opposed to a writer?
A: No. I did(well, I did both.
Q: How long did you do that, whatever it was you were doing?
A: My journalisti career started in 1953, actually and went through 197(as a working
journalist through
1977(excuse me. Actually went through 1979.
Q: '79?
A: Right.
Q: Were there periods during that time when you were employed exclusively by some
organization or other?
A: Yes.
Q: Okay. Tell me which periods those were and which organizations.
A: I had an exclusive contract with the Curtis Publishing Company, The Saturday
Evening Post.
Q: When was that?
A: I believe 1963 or '4 to 1966.
Q: What did you do for them?
A: I was a photographer and an interviewer.
Q: Okay. And were there any other times during this 1953 to 1979 period when you
worked exclusively for some organization?
A: I had an exclusive contract with Time Life for domestic publications, I couldn't
work for anybody else in the
United States.
Q: When was that?
A: When I left The Saturday Evening Post for a period of about four years, three, four
years.
Q: So until around 1970?
A: '69,'70.
Q: All right. And what did you do from 1970 to 1979?
A: I wrote books(actually I started writing books in 1966, my first book.
Q: How many books have you written?
A: I've collaborated on or written at least seven.
Q: Seven?
A: (Nods head.)
Q: Can you name them, please.
A: First book was called LSD WITH DICK ALPERT, Sydney Cohen and myself, published by
New American Library, I think, in 1966. The second book(I may have the second and the
third one mixed up. Okay?
Q: Okay.
A: So the second book was either the Manson book with Susan Atkins. That was also done
for New American Library.
Q: What was the title?
A: I do not remember.
Q: Susan Atkins was one of the Manson(
A: Correct.
Q: (family?
A: Correct. Then I did a book which carried another author's name, but I prepared the
manuscript. Then it was novelized. What I'm saying is I wrote the book in reality,
real,and then the publisher felt it should be written as a novel. And my expertise is
investigative journalism, so Norma Klein was hired to novelize a book called SUNSHINE,
which John Denver wrote a song about.
Q: So that was never published with your name on it?
A: No. My name is in the book and my corporation is on the title page, but not as the
author. As the originator or something.
Q: Okay.
A: I don't have it in front of me. Then I did(I co-authored with Albert Goldman a book
called LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, LENNY BRUCE.
MR. LEONARD: I got to talk to you afterwards.
THE WITNESS: About what?
MR. LEONARD: Well, I'm just a big fan, and there is a particular(
MR. GELBLUM: Dan, let's try to get through this.
MR. LEONARD: Sorry.
THE WITNESS: Then I did that book with Albert Goldman, which was for Random House.
Then I did a book
called MARILYN in which Mr. Mailer wrote the text for.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: And what did you do?
A: I conceived it, directed it, helped design it, so forth, but he wrote the text of
that. We carried a joint credit.
The book has a very interesting concept. It has two themes in it: One is the word
theme, and one is the visual,
photographic theme. They both tell parallel stories.
Q: And you were in charge of the photographs?
A: I was in charge of the whole thing. I actually had the right to edit Mr. Mailer's
material because I owned the book.
Q: Who did the photographic part of it?
A: 27 photographers.
Q: Okay.
A: So that was a book called MARI LYN. Okay?
Q: That's five.
A: Yeah. Then I collaborated(your question was books that I specifically wrote.
Q: Or collaborated on.
A: Okay. Collaborated?
Q: Sure.
A: Then you'll have more books, then, than what I said.
Q: Okay.
A: I collaborated on a book called MASTERS OF CONTEMPORARY PHOTOGRAPHY, a series of
six books for the Book of the Month Club.
Q: What was your input to that?
A: I was the conceiver, the director of the editorial approach, and I wrote part of
the text for the various books.
Q: Okay.
A: I interviewed the photographers, so forth, and put together the text and so forth,
hired people to polish the text, but basically I investigated how they worked, what
was in their minds. Then I did a book called MUHAMMAD ALI, which was a collaboration.
I didn't do any writing in that book.
Q: Collaboration with whom?
A: Wilfred Sheed of Sports Illustrated.
Q: What did you do on that book?
A: I conceived it and directed its editorial content based on an idea, and so forth.
Then MINNIMATA, with Eugene Smith, in which I conceived the book, did the interviews
with all the principals, drafted the original draft of the book, and then it was
polished by another writer. Called MINNIMATA.
Q: That's Eugene Smith, the photographer?
A: Yes. It's on the mercury pollution in Japan, first book about industrial pollution.
After MINNIMATA( MINNIMATA and MASTERS OF CONTEMPORARY PHOTOGRAPHY was at the same
time.
MR. LEONARD: Can you speak up a little bit?
THE WITNESS: MlNNIMATA and MASTERS OF CONTEMPORARY PHOTOGRAPHY, since it was a series
of books kind of interwoven, all six were published the same day(actually, there were
eight, four and four. Four were published before MINNIMATA; four were published
after. Okay? Then I did a book called THE FAITH, f-a-i-t-h, OF GRAFFITTI with Mr.
Mailer,which was about graffiti in the NewYork subways, in which I interviewed all
the kids in the wee hours of the night, put all that together, prepared all the
material, and then Mr. Mailer wrote the book based on mY investigative journalism,
combined it with photographs by another photographer. Then I did the EXECUTIONER'S
SONG, which I interviewed, and the book(the afterward of the book speaks for itself,
maybe close to a hundred people over a year-and-a-half period,and prepared all that
material.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: The name of the subject?
A: The-
Q: Of that?
A: The execution of Gary Gilmore, his life. And prepared all that material, and as
Mr. Mailer I believe says in the afterward of thE book, the book is based primarily
on my material. He never interviewed any of the people or was at any of the events.
Q: Okay.
A: Oh, by the way, there was one other thing I did: I did a series of interviews,
investigative interviews, for the New York Herald Tribune on LSD which became the
basis of several chapters in Tom Wolf's book ELECTRIC KOOLAID ACID TEST, and Mr.Wolf
gives me credit in that book.
Q: Who did you interview for that?
A: The Merry Pranksters, Ken Keysey, Mr. Leary. I was at his trial in Laredo. A whole
series. Hitchcock Mellon, Billy Hitchcock, the Mellon family, Dick Alpert, and Mr.
Keysey refers to me in that book, as parts of the book are based on my interviews.
Q: Mr. Wolf, you mean?
A: Tom Wolf, right. I am sorry. The EXECUTIONER'S SONG brought back that little
memory, and I'd forgotten about it completely.
Q: Sort of a flashback?
MR. LEONARD: Move to strike.
THE WITNESS: Are you referring to something?
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: No. Okay.
A: So EXECUTIONER'S SONG-
MR. LEONARD: I've never heard that word before.
THE WlTNESS: So EXECUTIONER'S SONG was done. Then from EXECUTIONER'S SONG I then did
a whole series of interviews of a book to be published and written by me which is not
published yet.
MS. SAGER: Let's only talk about published works.
THE WITNESS: Yes, I understand(
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: But what's the subject of that book?
MS. SAGER: Objection. Shield law. Instruct the witness not to answer.
MR. GELBLUM: I am not asking for the sources or any information, just the subject
matter.
MS. SAGER: I understand.
MR. GELBLUM: I am certainly entitled to test whether the privilege is applicable, and
that's sort of a foun-dational question I need to know to be able to test it. How can
I test it otherwise?
MS. SAGER: I don't think you need to know the subject matter of a book that's not been
written or published in order to test whether or not the privilege applies, so(but I
instructed him not to answer.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: I take it you are going to follow your attorney's instructions not to answer
questions?
A: Yes.
MR. GELBLUM: Can we have a stipulation on that, that when you instruct him, he will
follow that?
MS. SAGER: Absolutely.
THE WITNESS: This reminded me of another book that I did which I forgot to mention,
which was in the late '60s, which was called the CRITICS AND SCAVENGERS OF THE WARREN
REPORT, which I co-authored with a writer, Richard Warren Lewis. That was actually
done before the Lenny Bruce story.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: It's called the CRITICS AND SCAVENGERS?
A: OF THE WARREN REPORT. I interviewed and actually wrote a large portion of that
book. Now we will go forward again. Then I did investigative journalism into the KGB
and interviewed a large number of people and drafted, wrote material, which Mr. Mailer
and I collaborated on a book called OSWALD'S TALE, and he credits me as his
colleague(collaborator in the book.
Q: When was that?
A: The book was done in 1991-92, but was not published until 1995. And then I
interviewed and wrote a book called I WANT TO TELL YOU in 1994. Now, there may be a
couple other books that I don't remember.
MS. SAGER: Okay.
THE WITNESS: That's what I wanted to say.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: That's the complete list thatcomes to mind now of published books?
A: Right. But there are some others. I just don't remember.
Q: The one you mentioned that has not yet been published, but you did a series of
interviews for it, has that been written?
A: No.
Q: Do you intend to write it?
(Discussion held between the witness and counsel outside the hearing of the reporter.)
THE WITNESS: No.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: That "No" was not directed to my question?
MS. SAGER: No. I am sorry. I asked Mr. Schiller a question, which he responded to me.
Without waiving anything, Mr. Gelblum, I think I can tell you that particular work of
Mr. Schiller has absolutely nothing to do with this lawsuit, so for that reason I
don't think it's appropriate to go into that particular work.
MR. GELBLUM: That's one reason I want to find out, because I won't waste my time
asking the court to make him answer questions that I don't care about.
Q: That has nothing to do with the Simpson case?
A: None whatsoever.
MS. SAGER: And the only reason that I may not let him answer certain questions on
things which he has not done is because even the subject matter may give other people
ideas for things that are original to Mr. Schiller. That's why I wouldn't let him
answer that question. But that's not relevant to this particular lawsuit.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: Does that book have anything to do with OJ. Simpson in any way?
A: It has nothing to do with anybody in the United States.
Q: Including OJ. Simpson?
A: Including Mr. Simpson.
Q: Have you conducted any interviews for any unpublished materials relating to Mr.
Simpson?
A: I think that's privileged.
MS. SAGER: I think we can say on the record that Mr. Schiller is working on a book.
Now, what he has done to prepare for that book, who he has done it with and so forth,
I don't think you are entitled to inquire into.
MR. GELBLUM: Okay. Well, let's just see how far we can go with it.
Q: You are working on a book relating to Mr. Simpson?
A: Yes.
Q: Does it relate to the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman?
MS. SAGER: Without waiving the privilege, I will let him answer just limited questions
in order to establish the privilege as it relates to this matter.
THE WITNESS: It has to do with the aftermath of those murders.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: Do you have a publisher lined up for that?
MS. SAGER: I am going to instruct Mr. Schiller not to answer any questions concerning
the arrangements, if any, he may have with a publisher for that particular book. It's
not only subject to the privilege, but I also think it inquires into private,
confidential and proprietary information that is irrelevant for purposes of this
litigation, and it's proprietary to Mr. Schiller.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: Are you working on that book pursuant to a written agreement with Mr. Simpson?
A: No.
Q: You do have a written agreement with Mr. Simpson to work on another book(
A: Yes.
Q: (right? Have you done anything, taken any steps to perform that agreement?
A: No.
Q: Not done any work on any book that would(another book(Strike that. Have you done
any work(Can you read back the last question and answer, please.
(Record read as follows:
"Q. You do have a written agreement with Mr. Simpson to work on another book(
"A. Yes.
"Q. (right? "Have you done anything, taken any steps to perform that agreement?
"A. No.")
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: Would you characterize the book that you are working on regarding the aftermath of
the Simpson case as a piece of investigative journalism?
A: Definitely.
Q: Definitely?
A: Definitely.
Q: Have you interviewed people in connection with that, without telling me who they
are?
A: Yes.
Q: Are you working on a book with Robert Kardashian?
MS. SAGER: I am going to object to the question with respect to any book(any of Mr.
Schiller's collaborators or non-collaborators. I don't think you are entitled to know
who he may or may not have been working on the book with, any more than you are
entitled to know who the sources of the book may or may not be.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: Have you ever spoken with Robert Kardashian with respect to the Simpson case?
MS. SAGER: I'm going to make the same objection as I raised before with respect to Mr.
Bailey: To the extent that any conversations Mr. Schiller may or may not have had
with Mr. Kardashian were in the context of gathering information for a book, then I
will object and instruct him not to answer. If you want to rephrase the question to
encompass only conversations, if any, outside the context of any that might have
occurred for news-gathering purposes, I will let him answer that question.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: Have you had any conversations with Mr. Kardashian about the Simpson case that were
not for news-gathering purposes?
A: No.
Q: Never?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Argumentative.
THE WITNESS: Have I ever(could you repeat the question?
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: Have you ever had a conversation with Robert Kardashian about the Simpson case, as
we've defined it, that was not for news-gathering purposes?
MR. LEONARD: Vague and argumentative.
MS. SAGER: Are you talking about at any point in his life?
MR. GELBLUM: Yes.
THE WITNESS: Concerning the Simpson case.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: Concerning the murders of Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson.
A: They have all(
MS. SAGER: Excluding any conversations he may have had with Mr. Kardashian on other
subjects, if any.
MR. GELBLUM: Yes. Yes.
MS. SAGER: Okay.
THE WITNESS: Everything was for news-gathering purposes.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: Well, Mr. Schiller, didn't you have a conversation with Mr. Kardashian about
visiting Mr. Simpson in jail before you had any idea about writing a book about the
matter?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Argumentative, leading, lack of foundation.
MS. SAGER: And I am going to join in those objections and add argumentative, and to
the extent that Mr. Schiller had any conversations with Mr. Kardashian that related
to news gathering or in his impression were for the context of him preparing material
for publication, then I will encompass those within my objection.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: You can answer if(you can answer the question.
MS. SAGER: If there is information that's already been disclosed to the public about
any such conversations, we are not intending to object to published information. Only
anything, if it exists, to unpublished information.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: I am asking you a simple question: Didn't you have a conversation with Robert
Kardashian about visiting Mr. Simpson in jail before you were retained to write a book
with Mr. Simpson?
MS. SAGER: I am going to raise the same objections, and I think you are
misunderstanding when the privilege may or may not apply, but if you will give me a
second.
(Discussion held between the witness and counsel outside the hearing of the reporter.)
THE WITNESS: Could you repeat your question again?
MR. GELBLUM: Could you read it back, please.
(Pending question read.)
"Q. I am asking you a simple question: Didn't you have a conversation with Robert
Kardashian about visiting Mr. Simpson in jail before you were retained to write a book
with Mr. Simpson?")
THE WlTNESS: To that question, yes.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: That was the question.
A: To that question, yes.
Q: Okay. And what did Mr. Kardashian say in that conversation?
MS. SAGER: To the extent that any of that information has been publicly disclosed, I
will let Mr. Schiller answer. To the extent it has not and he was gathering
information that he intended to use later in publication, I will instruct him not to
answer. But anything that's public, I will let him answer the question.
MR. GELBLUM: Wait a second. You can't draw that line when it's not for news-gathering
purposes. It's irrelevant whether it's been published or not if it's not for
news-gathering purposes.
MS. SAGER: You are assuming, Mr. Gelblum, that Mr. Schiller was not acting as a
journalist at any point before he met with Mr. Simpson in jail,and I think that
assumption is inaccurate.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: Mr. Schiller, you went to visit Mr. Simpson in jail because Mr. Kardashian told you
you might be a material witness. Right?
A: No.
Q: No? Okay. Did you bring any documents with you today?
A: I had no documents to bring.
MR. GELBLUM: Let's mark as the next exhibit in order, whatever it might be(
MR. LEONARD: You know, I know it's late, but maybe I will have a charitable judge at
some point. I am going to object to that last question as it's vague as to time. We
all know that he visited him many times in jail.
MR. GELBLUM: (the notice of deposition(the original notice of deposition of Mr.
Schiller together with the subpoena and document requests.
(Plaintiffs' exhibit 234 was marked for identification by the reporter and is attached
hereto.)
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: Have you ever seen Exhibit 234 before, Mr. Schiller?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you review it to determine whether you had any documents responsive to the
items listed on Attachment A?
A: I reviewed it and forwarded it to my attorney.
Q: Did you review it to determine whether you had any documents responsive to any of
the requests listed on Attachment A?
A: Yes.
Q: Okay. And did you have any?
MS. SAGER: I think the responses that we have served on counsel indicate whether Mr.
Schiller had any documents responsive. To the extent he has objected to some of the
requests, I am not going to let him answer additional questions about those requests
that we have objected to.
MR. GELBLUM: Let's mark as 235 the objections that Miss Sager served.
(Plaintiffs' exhibit 235 was marked for identification by the reporter and is attached
hereto.)
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: Have you ever seen Exhibit 235 before, Mr. Schiller?
A: Which one is 235?
Q: The objections. The ones on the stationery of Davis Wright Tremaine.
A: I have.
Q: The response to request No. l, it says that to the extent that you have responsive
material that has been publicly disseminated, it will be produced. Have you brought
with you today anything in response to request No. 1?
A: Could you repeat the question, please.
Q: Yeah. Request No. l on page(you can see it on page 3 of the objections. Miss Sager
was kind enough to put the requests in as well as the responses. I had asked for
various materials relating to what's referred to here as the "Simpson Video," the
video that encompassed the Ross Becker interview, and the response to that makes some
objections and says at the bottom of page 3 that to the extent you have responsive
material in your possession that has been publicly disseminated, that you will produce
it. Do you have anything with you?
A: No.
Q: Is that because you don't have anything in your possession that's responsive to
this request?
A: That's correct.
Q: What was your role in connection with that video?
A: Which video?
MR. LEONARD: I am going to object as vague.
MS. SAGER: Let's start with that.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: Which video?
A: Correct.
Q: The one I just described, the one that encompassed the Ross Becker interview.
MR. LEONARD: Same objection: Vague with regard to "role." Lack of foundation.
THE WITNESS: Is there a title to the video you're referring to, please?
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: I don't know. Is there a title to it, Dan?
MR. LEONARD: There is, but I'm trying to remember.
MS. SAGER: So I am clear on the record, you are referring to the video that was
marketed and sold by(
MR. GELBLUM: Yes.
MS. SAGER: (Mr. Simpson that involved an interview or included an interview by Ross
Becker?
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: Are you aware of more than one videotape marketed to the public that includes an
interview of Mr. Simpson by Ross Becker?
(Discussion held between the Witness and counsel outside the hearing of the
reporter.)
THE WITNESS: Yes.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: How many?
A: Two.
Q: What are their names?
A: One was one that was marketed by Mr. Simpson in association to(with a video
company(
Q: Mr. Hoffman's company?
A: Yes.
Q: And what's the other?
A: The other was a documentary that I did that was sold to "Hard Copy," which Mr.
Becker did appear in that documentary.
Q: And what was your role in connection with the "Hard Copy" video?
A: There was no interview.
Q: Did I say interview?
A: Yes.
Q: What was your role in connection with the "Hard Copy" video?
A: Video?
Q: Yes.
A: I filmed and directed a documentary concerning the events surrounding Mr. Simpson's
video that was marketed.
Q: Did you consider that investigative journalism?
A: Definitely.
Q: And what role, if any, did you have in connection with the(what shall we call it?
MR. LEONARD: I think it's(
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: OJ TELLS?
MR. LEONARD: I think that's what it's called.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: Does that sound right to you?
A: (Shakes head.)
Q: We will call it the Simpson video as opposed to the "Hard Copy" video. The Simpson
video is the one that includes the entire Ross Becker interview and was marketed by
Mr. Simpson and Mr. Hoffman. Did you have any connection with the production of that
video?
A: No official role.
Q: Did you have an unofficial role?
A: Yes.
Q: What was that?
A: As an acquaintance of Mr. Simpson, I advised him on certain visual aspects so that
the video looked professional.
Q: Do you recall any particular advice that you gave him?
A: Hire good cameramen, use a certain type of lighting, use three cameras, overlap the
tapes a certain way, where to place the cameras.
Q: Did you give(
A: That's generally what I discussed with him. How to move the cameras.
Q: Did you give that advice to Mr. Simpson or Mr. Hoffman?
A: Mr. Simpson.
Q: Did you advise Mr. Hoffman at all in connection with the Simpson video?
A: No.
Q: Do you know whether your advice was taken?
A: It was.
MR. LEONARD: Objection ( too late.
MS. SAGER: Give him a second in case he has an objection.
MR. GELBLUM: That's all right. They never have any merit, anyway.
MR. LEONARD: I did get cut off. My objection was calls for speculation.
MR. GELBLUM: That's what I mean: Doesn't have any merit.
MR. LEONARD: I resemble that.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: Did you deliver to "Hard Copy"every inch of footage that was shot for the
documentary?
MS. SAGER: I am going to object to the question as calling for information that's
unpublished and protected by the reporter's shield law.
MR. GELBLUM: No. I am trying to find out whether there is any such information.
Q: Did you deliver everything?
MR. LEONARD: Well, that's a different question.
MS. SAGER: That's a different question than whether everything was broadcast.
MR. LEONARD: Nice try.
MS. SAGER: If you want to ask him if everything that he shot was broadcast by "Hard
Copy," I will let him answer that question.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: Was everything you shot broadcast by "Hard Copy?"
A: No
Q: And you refuse to answer my previous question whether you delivered everything?
MS. SAGER: Yes.
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Argumentative.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: How much film did you shoot in connection the "Hard Copy" documentary?
MS. SAGER: Same objection.
THE WITNESS: Privileged.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: What percentage of all the film that was shot was broadcast by "Hard Copy?"
MS. SAGER: Same objection.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: Did you film anything for the documentary outside of the Rockingham estate?
MS. SAGER: Same objection.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: Do you know Robert Blasier?
MS. SAGER: To the extent that Mr. Schiller has any contact with Mr. Blasier or knows
him for any reason other than any information or context he had in the course of news
gathering, I will let him answer that question.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: Did Mr. Blasier have any role in the production of the "Hard Copy" documentary?
MS. SAGER: Same objection.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: You can answer.
MS. SAGER: No, he can't answer. I am instructing him not to answer.
MR. GELBLUM: We are entitled to know witnesses, to find out, because then I can go
take Mr. Blasier's deposition(
MR. LEONARD: Yeah, sure you can. Don't be silly.
MR. GELBLUM: I am talking about the identity of witnesses.
MS. SAGER: No, you are not.
MR. GELBLUM: Well(
MS. SAGER: I don't want to argue with you, Peter(
MR. GELBLUM: That's really outrageous.
MS. SAGER: The question you asked is not the question you want an answer to, but in
any event, I am instructing him not to answer the question that was asked.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: Who worked on the "Hard Copy" documentary besides you?
MS. SAGER: Same objection.
THE WITNESS: Privileged.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: You understand I am not asking who you interviewed or who your sources were. Who
was on the production crew, is my question?
A: Privileged.
Q: Let your attorney make the objections. Okay?
MS. SAGER: Same objection.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: Did you observe Mr. Blasier during the filming of the Simpson video?
MS. SAGER: To the extent that any observations Mr. Schiller had were in the context
of his presence for the production of his own documentary, I will instruct him not to
answer. If he had any observations that occurred other than during times he may have
been present for the filming of his own documentary, I will let him answer that
question.
THE WITNESS: No.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: You did not observe him?
MS. SAGER: Subject to the limitation that I've imposed on Mr. Schiller, are there any
other additional observations?
THE WITNESS: No, none whatsoever.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: Did you observe the filming of the Simpson video?
MS. SAGER: Same objection.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: Did you observe the filming of the Simpson video for any period of time whatsoever
that was not in connec-tion with your production of the "Hard Copy" footage?
A: No.
MR. LEONARD: You can actually see the wheels going round in your head.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: Have you ever spoken with Robert Blasier other than in connection with the
production of the "Hard Copy" material?
MS. SAGER: I am going to object to the question to the extent there have been any
conversations, if any, with Mr. Blasier concerning any gathering of information by Mr.
Schiller for dissemination to the public. If there are conversations you may have had
with Mr. Blasier outside the context of anything covered by the reporter's shield law,
you can answer.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: How many?
A: One.
Q: When?
A: One afternoon by my car.
Q: Where?
A: On the parking lot on Broadway and Temple.
Q: What date?
A: I do not remember.
Q:What year?
A: 1995.
Q: What month?
A: Do not remember.
Q:First half of the year? Second half of the year?
A: First half.
Q: During the criminal trial?
A: Yes.
Q: And how long did the conversation last?
A: About three minutes.
Q: And what was said?
A: He wanted me to get an autograph for his daughter of Tommy Lee Jones, who I had
directed in a film. He knew that, and his daughter was a big fan of Tommy Lee Jones,
and I expressed desire that I would use my extreme best efforts to do that.
Q: Did you discuss the Simpson case at all?
A: No.
MS. SAGER: Same objection.
MR. GELBLUM: He already said that it was not a privileged conversation.
MS. SAGER: Okay.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: Did you attend the Simpson criminal trial at any point in time?
A: Yes.
Q: Were you a regular(
MR. LEONARD: Vague.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q:(attendee?
MR. LEONARD: Vague.
THE WlTNESS: What do you mean by "regular?"
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: How many days did you attend the trial?
A: More than half.
Q:And what was your purpose(or what were your purposes in attending the trial?
A: To write a book or books.
Q: Have you written a book or books(
MS. SAGER: Has it been pubEshed?
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q:(based on that information?
MS. SAGER: Are you asking if a book has been published?
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: Has a book been published based on your attendance at the trial?
MR. LEONARD: Objection.Vague.
THE WITNESS: Could you repeat the question?
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: I will ask a different question. You said that the purpose for your attending was
to write a book or books.
A: Correct.
Q: Has any such book or books been published?
A: No.
Q: Has any such book or books been written?
MS. SAGER: Well, I think we have already indicated Mr. Schiller is in the process of
writing a book, and to the extent that(
MR. GELBLUM: But you said it wasn't about this case.
MR. LEONARD: What?
MS. SAGER: No, that's a different book. He has mentioned two books that he is in the
process of writing, Mr. Gelblum, one of which had nothing to do with this case, and he
has also indicated that he is working on a book that does have something to do with
this case.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: And is the book that you are working on that does have something to do with this
case based in part on your observations and attendance at the trial?
A: Yes.
Q: Was that your sole purpose in attending the trial: To gather material for the
writing of these books?
MS. SAGER: As opposed to other material(I am sorry. I am going to object to the
question to the extent it assumes that only a book would be written as opposed to
other information disseminated to the public. I don't think that's what you intended.
MR. GELBLUM: You're correct.
Q: Was your sole purpose in attending the trial to gather information to disseminate
to the public?
A: Yes.
Q: And have you disseminated any information to the public based on your attendance
and observation of the trial?
A: Not as of this date.
Q: Let's turn back to Exhibit 235. That's your objections to the subpoena. If you look
at request No.2, it asks you for various written material used in connection with the
Simpson video. I just want to clarify what the response means. After the objections it
says: "Without waiving these objections, and assuming that this request is not
intended to encompass videotapes and other materials already described in Request No.
1, Schiller and Polaris respond they do not have any responsive documents." Do you
see that? It's on page 4.
A: You are asking for notes, scripts, transcripts prepared or used by anybody in
connection with the Simpson video or the "Hard Copy." Right?
Q: Correct.
A: I see my response, yes.
Q: Okay. And what Iam asking you is: Does the response mean that you have no
responsive documents or that you have no responsive documents that are not protected
by the various privileges?
A: I have no responsive documents.
MR. GELBLUM: Let me ask you, Kelli, if you don't mind(
MS. SAGER: Let me just clarify one thing: You said before you don't want the video
itself. I think that's one of these, and that's why I am assuming you're not asking
again in 2 for the same things you asked for in 1.
MR. GELBLUM: Correct.
THE WITNESS: I understood 2 to mean written material.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: That's right.
A: Correct?
Q: As distinguished from No. 1.
A: I have no written material.
Q: Did you ever have any written material responsive to this request?
A: No.
Q: There were never any(even a single written note that you had in your possession
regarding the "Hard Copy" material?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Argumentative.
MS. SAGER: Join.
THE WITNESS: No. Excuse me a minute. May I consult with my attorney?
MR. GELBLUM: Sure.
(Discussion held between the witness and counsel outside the hearing of the reporter.)
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: Do you want to change your answer?
A: No.
MR. GELBLUM: Let me ask you, Kelli, if I might, just to compare that response in
request No. 2 and then on another exemplar is the response to request No. 7 on page 8
where you say they do not have any non-privileged responsive documents. I just want to
make sure that's an intentional difference. When you just say you don't have any
responsive documents, that's a flat-out we don't have any of any color, flavor,
whatever. Is that correct?
MS. SAGER: Unless some error was made, that's the way it was intended.
MR. GELBLUM: Okay.
MS. SAGER: No responsive documents meant there aren't any, so you don't need to fight
about it, even though we have asserted the privilege.
MR. GELBLUM: Okay. I just wanted to make sure that's what you were saying.
THE WITNESS: On No. 2?
MS. SAGER: Yeah. He is drawing the distinction between when we say we don't have any
unprivileged responsive documents.
THE WITNESS: Exactly. That's the way I understood it.
MS. SAGER: We tried to do that.
THE WITNESS: To be very careful.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: Would you please look in Exhibit 235, at request No. 9 and the response to request
No. 9. That's asking for all audiotapes, notes, memoranda, et cetera, et cetera,
drafts, regarding the book that turned out to be I WANT TO TELL YOU, and your
response, in addition to the objections, was that you don't have any responsive
documents.
MS. SAGER: "That refer to, reflect, or constitute performance by Orenthal Productions
Inc. or Polaris of the written Agreement."
MR. GELBLUM: Correct.
Q: Do you have in your possession, Mr. Schiller, any audiotapes of interviews with
Mr. Simpson that were made in connection with the production of I WANT TO TELL YOU?
A: No.
Q: Do you have any transcripts of those tapes?
A: No.
Q: You had at one point those documents. Correct?
A: Yes.
Q: What did you do with them?
A: Gave them to Mr. Simpson's attorney, Mr.Taft.
Q: So you have nothing anymorewhatsoever that relates to I WANT TO TELL YOU?
MS. SAGER: Nothing that's responsive to the(
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: You have none of the tapes or transcripts or notes that went into making the book.
Is that right?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Lack of foundation.
MS. SAGER: And I think the question is responsive to the request. If you are asking
him(
MR. GELBLUM: No. I am asking him a fresh question. Okay?
Q: You can take your eyes off the paper if you want.
A: You are not(referring no longer to item No.9 in Exhibit 235.
Q: Correct.
A: So I can put this down.
Q: Sure.
A: Thank you.
Q: We may pick it up again(
A: Right, I understand.
Q:(but for now you can put it down.
MS. SAGER: So what's the question?
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: Do you have any copies of any audiotapes that you made with Mr. Simpson in jail
when he was in jail?
A: No.
Q: Do you have any transcripts of any of those audiotapes?
A: No.
MS. SAGER: I think both of those questions were already asked, but I give you a free
shot at a repeat.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: Do you have any notes that you took of any interviews that you conducted with Mr.
Simpson when he was in jail?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Lack of foundation.
(Discussion held between the witness and counsel outside the hearing of the reporter.)
THE WITNESS: Your question was notes. Right?
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: Yes.
A: No.
Q: Did you take any notes in speaking to Mr. Simpson when he was in jail?
MS. SAGER: I am going to object(well, I am going to object to the question as seeking
information protected by the privilege, but I may let him answer.
(Discussion held between the witness and counsel outside the hearing of the
reporter.)
THE WITNESS: The question was(could you read it back? I want to be accurate.
(Pending question read.)
THE WITNESS: Yes.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: Do you have any of those notes?
A: No.
Q: Did you give them all to Mr. Taft?
A: Not those notes.
Q: What did you do with those notes?
A: Destroyed them.
Q: When?
A: After I wrote the paragraph in the book.
Q: As you wrote each paragraph?
A: No. You are referring to specific notes I took on a specific occasion.
Q: Did you only(I wasn't. I was asking about any notes.
A: Yeah, well, I only did it once.
Q: You only took notes once during all the times you interviewed him7
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Otherwise everything was recorded on audiotapes?
A: By Mr. Simpson's attorneys.
Q: Were you present?
A: Yeah.
Q: You were interviewing him?
MS. SAGER: I am sorry. Can you reread the question?
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: You were interviewing him?
MS. SAGER: In connection with(you are talking about the jail interviews?
MR. GELBLUM: Yes.
MS. SAGER: For I WANT TO TELL YOU?
MR. GELBLUM: Yes.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
MS. SAGER: It was a partial question. That's why.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: And you had nine of those interviews. Is that right? Or ten?
A: I don't remember specifically. The book speaks for itself.
MS. SAGER: I think there have been published accounts that have that information,
Peter. If you want him to read those and refresh his recollection, I am happy to have
him try to answer that.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: Was there always at least one other person present with you while you were
interviewing Mr. Simpson in jail?
A: Yes.
MS. SAGER: I am going to object to the question as calling for information that's
unpublished to the extent it's
not reflected in the book.
MR. GELBLUM: Did you get the answer?
THE REPORTER: Yes.
MS. SAGER: Give me a second before you answer questions.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: Who was present?
MS. SAGER: Same objection.
MR. GELBLUM: Are you instructing him not to answer?
MS. SAGER: Yes.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: Do you know whether anybody other than you took notes of any of your interviews
with Mr. Simpson?
MS. SAGER: Calls for speculation. Same objection on reporter's privilege as well.
MR. GELBLUM: Is that an instruction?
MS. SAGER: Yes. You can assume any time I object on reporter's privilege that I am
instructing him not to answer.
MR. GELBLUM: Sometimes you say "to the extent that the reporter's privilege applies."
MS. SAGER: Okay. If that's the case, then I will state it. Otherwise you can assume(if
you want, you can always ask, but you can assume I am instructing him not to answer
if I object on privilege grounds.
MR. GELBLUM: It seems to me, Kelli, as you in fact have told me, that, for example,
if Mr. Simpson had notes, those would not be covered by the reporter's privilege
because he is not a reporter. He is not the reporter. If there was somebody else there
taking notes, those would not covered by the reporter's privilege, and I am entitled(
MS. SAGER: Those people can assert their own privilege(
MR. GELBLUM: But I can't find out who they are unless you tell me, so I can't test it.
MS. SAGER: Well, no. You can find out from Mr. Simpson who they are, if he's not
asserting the privilege, and ask him who else was present during any interviews he had
with Mr. Schiller. I wasn't at his deposition so I don't know whether if he was asked
that question or not, but he certainly is a logical person to have asked that question
of and if anybody else took notes. But under Delaney vs. Superior Court and New York
Times vs. Superior Court, Mr. Schiller's personal observations, if occurring during a
time when he was acting in the news-gathering capacity are protected under the shield
law in California, and other states have adopted that under the First Amendment as
well. So I am not going to have him testify except to the extent that something is
published; I can have him confirm published information. Otherwise, I have to instruct
him not to answer. And Mr. Simpson can assert, if he has one, any privilege or he can
answer questions to garner the same information.
MR. LEONARD: I am sure they must have asked him that during the 10 days.
MS. SAGER: I assume, but I have no way of knowing. I haven't seen his deposition.
MR. LEONARD: I was there, but I don't remember. Can we take a five-minute break?
MR. GELBLUM: Sure.
(Recess.)
(Arthur Groman enters the deposition.)
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: Mr. Schiller, have you been asked whether you'd be willing to testify in this case
on behalf of Mr. Simpson?
A: No.
Q: And when I say this case, I mean the civil case.
A: No.
MR. LEONARD: Wait. That went by me. I think there was a lack of foundation there, but
go ahead.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: When did you first meet Mr. Simpson?
MS. SAGER: I am going to allow him to answer that question only because I know that
information is published, but otherwise, to the extent(
THE WITNESS: Somewheres between(
MS. SAGER: I take that back. I'm sorry. I take that back. I forgot about that. Go
ahead.
MR. GELBLUM: You have to control your reflexes.
MS. SAGER: Yeah.
THE WITNESS: Somewheres between 1963 and 1966.
MS. SAGER: I know you're tricky, so
BY MR. GELELUM:
Q: And what were the circumstances?
A: He was jogging backwards as my daughter and two sons were jogging forwards in front
of my house.
Q: They run into each other?
MR. LEONARD: No.
THE WITNESS: No.
BY MR. GELEILUM:
Q: This is when he was married to Marquerite?
A: Yes.
Q: Yes?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you develop a social relationship with him.?
A: No.
Q: Prior to(well,as of today do you have a social relationship with Mr. Simpson?
A: No.
Q: Have you ever had one?
A: No.
Q: Have you ever been to his house for dinner?
A: Which home?
Q: Any home.
A: No.
Q: Has he ever been to your home for dinner?
A: No.
Q: Or for any meal?
A: Excuse me.
(Discussion held between the witness and counsel outside the hearing of the reporter.)
THE WITNESS: The answer is still no. No. You were referring to a social occasion.
Correct?
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: Yes.
A: No.
Q: So I don't limit it to meals, have you ever been to his house for a social
occasion?
A: No.
Q: Has he ever been to your house for a social occasion?
A: Not when I was present.
Q: That you're aware of?
A: I believe once.
Q: How long ago?
A: 1963 to '66.
Q: Have you been out(have you been with him on social occasions other than at either
of your houses?
A: No.
MR. GELBLUM: Let's mark as 236, I guess it is, a copy of the forward to I WANT TO TELL
YOU.
(plaintiffs' exhibit 236 was marked for identification by the reporter and is attached
hereto.)
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: Do you have Exhibit 236 in front of you?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Did you write that?
A: May I consult my attorney?
Q: Sure.Any time you want.
(Discussion held between the witness and counsel outside the hearing of the reporter.)
THE WITNESS: What was the question?
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: Did you write that Exhibit 236?
A: Parts of it.
Q: Which parts did you write?
MR. LEONARD: You want him to identify every part?
MR. GELBLUM: Yes.
MR. LEONARD: Okay.
THE WITNESS: I don't remember specifically.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: Do you remember generally?
MS. SAGER: I am going to object to the question to the extent that the document
doesn't reflect portions that were written by Mr. Schiller and portions that may have
been written by someone else. I think that's unpublished information protected by the
privilege.
MR. GELBLUM: You are instructing him not to answer which portions of it he wrote?
MS. SAGER: Well, I don't think he can, anyway, but I do think(
MR. GELBLUM: Well, that's not the test, though. Are you instructing him not to answer?
MS. SAGER: Yeah, I am.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: Who wrote the parts you didn't write?
MS. SAGER: Same instruction.
MR. LEONARD: Can we put this away now?
MR. GELBLUM: No.
(Discussion held between the witness and counsel outside the hearing of the reporter.)
THE WITNESS: Okay.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: Let me go back to something else before we go deeper into this. You said that you
turned over certain materials from the production of I WANT TO TELL YOU to Mr. Taft.
Is that right?
A: (Nods head.)
Q: Yes? You have to answer audibly.
A: Yes.
Q: What materials did you turn over to him?
A: The tapes that he loaned me, the first draft of the book and the second draft of
the book.
Q: Anything else?
A: Not that I remember.
Q: When you say "the tapes that he loaned" you, what tapes were those?
A: The tapes that he made of my conversations with Mr. Simpson.
Q: When you say "he made" them, what do you mean?
A: Mr. Taft was Mr. Simpson's attorney.
Q: Yes?
A: And(
Q: Did he own the tape recorder that was used?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Lack of foundation.
MS. SAGER: Calls for speculation.
MR. LEONARD: Calls for speculation.
THE WITNESS:I presume he did.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: And was he the person who set it up each time that you went in and talked?
MS. SAGER: I am going to object to the question again as calling for unpublished
information. I also think it's irrelevant. If what you are seeking is who has the
tapes, then I think you've gotten that information. I don't know why we are spending
time on this.
MR. GELBLUM: Because it's clear that Mr. Taft and Mr. Simpson were setting up some
kind of charade so they could argue that it's attorney(client privileged or something,
and I need to explore the basis for that.
MR. LEONARD: Mr. Gelblum, do we have to do that? Do you have to say things like that
on the record?
MR. GELBLUM: In response to Miss Sager's comment, yes. Let's go on. Let's just ask
questions. Come on.
MR. LEONARD: No. Let me put something on the record now.
MR. GELBLUM: Sure, go ahead.
MR. LEONARD: Okay?
MR. GELBLUM: Sure.
MR. LEONARD: Please don't do that. Please don't say things like that that have no
foundation."Charade?" I am asking you not to do that. It's not necessary. You know
these transcripts end up on Jerry's show. Okay?
MR.GELBLUM: On whose show?
MR. LEONARD: Jerry.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: Mr. Schiller(
A: Give me a second. I'm just reviewing this, because I haven't read it in a long
time.
Q: I am not asking about that right now. I will get back to that in a minute, and we
will spend quite a bit of time on it. Right now I am asking about the tapes. Did Mr.
Taft operate the tape recorder every time you visited with Mr. Simpson?
MS. SAGER: Same objection.
MR. GELBLUM: Kelli, he said that they're Mr. Taft's tapes. I have to find out what he
means by that. He said the tapes Mr.Taft "loaned" him.
MS. SAGER: And he explained his answer to that, Peter, and the fact that I let him
answer that question so that you know who has custody of the tapes doesn't mean you
get to get into what Mr. Schiller observed and what occurred when he was preparing
information for this book. You need to know who has the tapes. You have that
information, and beyond that I don't think you are entitled to ask this witness any
more questions about it. If you want to talk to Mr. Simpson and Mr. Taft, then you are
free to do that.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: What's the basis, Mr. Schiller, for your statement on the record here today that
they were Mr.Taft's tapes?
A: I didn't make that statement.
Q: Whose tapes are they?
A: I have no idea.
Q: You said the tapes Mr. Taft "loaned" you. Right?
A: Right. That doesn't mean they're his. He loaned them to me.
Q: What's the basis for that statement that he "loaned" them to you? What do you
mean, he "loaned" them to you?
A: I needed the tapes to write the book because I had to accurately portray what Mr.
Simpson had said in response to my investigative questions.
Q: Wasn't the purpose for making the tapes to write the book?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Calls for speculation, lack of foundation, argumentative.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: You can answer.
MS. SAGER: To the extent you know what the purpose of the tapes were, then you can
answer the question.
THE WITNESS: One of the purposes.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: What was another purpose?
A: I have no idea.
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Calls for speculation.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: You don't know if there were other purposes?
A: No.
Q: Did you understand, Mr. Schiller, when you were interviewing Mr. Simpson in jail
and the conversations were being recorded, that one of the purposes for those
recordings was to enable you to put together the book
that became I WANT TO TELL YOU?
A: Correct, yes.
Q: And you were to be the one to write that book, not Mr. Taft. Correct?
A: Correct.
Q: When you left the jail each day, did Mr. Taft take the tape with him?
MS. SAGER: I will let you answer that question just for custody purposes. Did you take
the tape?
THE WITNESS: When we left the jail?
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: Yes.
A: Not always.
Q: Who took the tapes when you left the jail?
A: Sometimes Mr. Taft did. Sometimes other parties did.
Q: Did you ever take the tapes when you left the jail?
A: When I left the jail, no.
Q: On any of the occasions that you interviewed Mr. Simpson in jail, did you ever
leave the jail building with one of the tapes of the interviews in your possession?
(Discussion held between the witness and counsel outside the hearing of the reporter.)
THE WITNESS: I have a recollection on one occasion I took it out of the building.
Otherwise I, did not.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: On the other occasions how did you come into possession of the tapes?
A: They were given to me shortly thereafter.
Q: By whom?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Compound.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: Did you get them from more than one person on different occasions?
MR. LEONARD: That's the right question.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: Okay. From whom did you receive tapes on these different occasions?
MS. SAGER: I am going to object to that question to the extent it calls for
unpublished information.
MR. GELBLUM: But you are allowing me to follow the custody of the tapes. That's what
this is meant to do.
MS. SAGER: But I don't think you need to know the specific identity of the person in
order to do that if you know that there is somebody that was present at the interview
and they gave him the tape afterward. I don't want to get into a whole thing about who
was there and what he saw-
MR. GELBLUM: I am just anticipating the arguments that are going to be laid when I go
to court on this, and I need to have the foundation for it.
Q: On every occasion when you received the tapes from somebody after you left the
jail, was it Mr.Taft?
A: No
Q: Was it ever Mr. Taft?
A: On one occasion.
Q: Okay. And who was it on the other occasions?
MS. SAGER: Same objection.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: On the other occasions was it ever another one of Mr. Simpson's attorneys?
MS. SAGER: Same objection.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: On the occasions when you did not leave the jail with the tapes, did more than 24
hours ever pass before you received the tape?
MS. SAGER: Same objection.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: And you are not aware of any purpose for making these tapes other than writing the
book, are you?
Q: I have no specific knowledge.
Q: Do you have any generalized knowledge of any other purpose?
A: Excuse me.
MS. SAGER: Sorry.
(Discussion held between the witness and counsel outside the hearing of the reporter.)
MS. SAGER: Good point. The question assumes hat there is only one book these would
ever be used for, and to that extent the question is objectionable. If you are asking
him if he is aware if there is any other purpose other than potential use in some-to
disseminate to the public in some news medium, then that's a different question. So I
don't think you were intending to exclude other possible news medium other than one
book.
THE WITNESS: You understand why, of course.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: Yes. Are you aware of any purpose for making these tapes other than for
dissemination of the information to the public?
A: No.
Q: Did you ever have transcripts made of the tapes?
MS. SAGER: Did he personally have transcripts made?
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: Let me ask it differently. Did you ever see any manuscripts of any of the tapes?
MS. SAGER: Without waiving the privilege, I will let him answer that only because I am
trying to let you know if there are documents that he had at one time that he no
longer has.
(Discussion held between the witness and counsel outside the hearing of the reporter.)
THE WITNESS: Yes, I did see transcripts.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: Do you know who prepared the transcripts?
A: Yes.
Q: Who?
A: Myself.
Q: You physically typed them?
A: In the majority of the instances, yes.
Q: And do you know where those transcripts are today?
A: Yes.
Q: Where?
A: They were destroyed after I wrote the first draft of the book.
Q: Is that your normal practice when you are writing a book, to destroy transcripts of
taped interviews after you write the first draft?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Vague.
MS. SAGER: And I am going to object to the question as calling for information
protected by reporter' shield law and irrelevant to this litigation.
MR. GELBLUM: Are you instructing him?
MS. SAGER: Yes.
MR. LEONARD: I also object. Lack of foundation.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: Did you prepare chose transcripts on a computer?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you erase the transcripts from the computer's memory?
A: What part of the computer are you referring to?
Q: Do any of the transcripts presently exist in any format that you're aware of that
can be retrieved from the computer or from a disk or other software?
A: Not to my knowledge.
Q: Were the transcripts at one point on the hard drive of the computer?
A: Never.
Q: Were they on disk?
A: Yes.
Q: And did you erase them from the disk?
A: I instructed people to erase them.
Q: Do you know whether those instructions were followed?
A: I believe they were, but I don't know for sure.
Q: Who did you instruct to erase them?
A: That's privileged.
MS. SAGER: He is talking about members of his staff or people who are working with
him. I don't think you are entitled to know the names of those individuals.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: I really prefer that your counsel make the objections.
A: I'm sorry.
MS. SAGER: Well, I instructed Mr. Schiller that he can make an objection on his own
behalf, so-
MR.GELBLUM: I don't think that's appropriate.
MR. LEONARD: Why not?
MS. SAGER: - I think he is entitled to make an objection if he thinks that there is
information that's protected. As a witness he is entitled to do that,and I would ask
you not to tell him that he is not entitled to make objections that I think he is
entitled to make.
MR. LEONARD: Why is that inappropriate?
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: You said you went to law school for a while to learn something about appellate
procedure. Is that right?
A: To understand something, yes.
Q: Did you go to -- were you auditing the class?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you go to law school at any other time-
A: No.
Q: -- for any other purpose?
A: No.
Q: Okay. Let's look at Exhibit 236.
A: Yes, sir.
Q: On page VIII, I am referring to the page numbers at the bottom of the pages-
A: Yes, sir.
Q: -the second page of the exhibit.
A: VIII.
Q: Yes. You refer to your "mutual friend," that's you and OJ.'s mutual friend, "Robert
Kardashian." Do you see that?
A: Yes.
Q: When did you first meet Mr. Kardashian?
A: Let's see. Somewheres around 1977 to maybe. Somewheres in there.
Q: Have you ever had a social relationship with Mr. Kardashian?
A: Have I ever?
Q: Yes.
A: Yes.
Q: Do you presently?
A: No.
Q: When did you have a social relationship with him?
A: When my ex-wife knew his ex-wife.
Q: Is that while you were married to your ex-wife?
A: That's correct.
Q: And when was-what time period was that?
A: Well, I got divorced in '91, okay, and we actually ceased socially seeing each
other somewheres around '89, somewheres like that.
Q: When did you start socially seeing each other?
A: Somewheres in the late '70s or early '80s.
Q: Farther down on page 8 you say: "In October of 1994, Robert Kardashian called me
and said that I might be called as a material witness in OJ's case because of my past
association with OJ and that I would need to meet with him." Do you see that?
A: (Nods head.)
Q: Yes?
A: Yes.
Q: Were you at home when he called you?
MS. SAGER:I will object to the question as calling for unpublished information. I will
let you answer the question if you want to.
THE WITNESS: I don't remember.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: What did he say to you-did he say anything to you about why you might be called as
a material witness?
(Discussion held between the Witness and counsel outside the hearing of the reporter.)
MS. SAGER:I will instruct Mr. Schiller not to answer that question to the extent it
calls for information that's unpublished.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: Well, Mr. Schiller-
MS. SAGER: If it wasn't published, then he can-
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: When Mr. Kardashian called you-well, let me ask you this: Is this statement true?
MS. SAGER: The statement that's published?
MR. GELBLUM: Yeah, the one I just read.
THE WlTNESS: The statement as written is true.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: Okay. At the time of that phone call-
MR. LEONARD: Objection.
MR. GELBLUM: Excuse me? Can I finish the question?
MR. LEONARD: Yeah, go ahead, but you've already misstated what he said.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: At the time Mr. Kardashian called you, were you involved in gathering information
for dissemination to the public?
A: Yes.
Q: Regarding the Simpson matter?
A: Yes.
Q: Okay. When did you start doing that?
A: In the last few days of June 1994.
Q: Was that under a contract with somebody?
MS. SAGER: Objection. The reporter's shield law. Instruct the I witness not to
answer.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: Were you-
MS. SAGER: And I will add to the objection that it calls for personal and proprietary
information.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: Well, when you say you started gathering you started being involved in the process
of gathering information for dissemination to the public at the end of June 1994, was
it just a decision by you that you thought, "Well, I think I am going to write
something about this case," or was it something more substantial than that?
(Discussion held between the witness and counsel outside the hearing of the reporter.)
THE WITNESS: I had an intent, and I was taking steps in that direction.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: What steps did you take?
MS. SAGER: If he can answer that in general terms without identifying anything in
particular, I will let him answer that question. I don't think you are entitled to
know the particulars for the same reason I stated.
THE WITNESS: I took the normal steps that I would take in any investgative journalist
project that I had done based on my previous years of experience.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: Had you made any arrangements at the end of June 1994 to get paid for this work?
MS. SAGER: Same objection.
MR.GELBLUM: I just want to be clear, Kelli. It's your position that the reporter's
privilege applies the second that anybody decides that they are going to try to write
something about anything, any matter, and disseminate it to the public-
MS. SAGER: That's true.
MR. GELBLUM: -and they form that intent, then everything they did from that point on
in the course of that is privileged, it's protected?
MS. SAGER: Anything that they do in the course of gathering information for that
purpose.
MR. GELBLUM: Right. From the moment they decide that they think they are going to try
to do something like that, try to write something for the public?
MS. SAGER: Yes.
MR. GELBLUM: I just want to be clear.
MS. SAGER: I do think that's true. I also do think that you are not entitled to know
any personal business arrangements that Mr. Schiller had because it's private and
proprietary, and you are not entitled to know that.
MR. GELBLUM: That's not my purpose for asking. My purpose for asking is to find out
the beginning point of when you are going to assert the privilege.
MS. SAGER: Okay. And he has given you the beginning point.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: Well, when Mr. Kardashian called and asked you to come down to the jail to meet Mr.
Simpson, did you agree to go?
A: Yes.
Q: And was your purpose in going to gather information to disseminate to the public on
that first trip down?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you tell Mr. Kardashian that?
MS. SAGER: Same objection. But you can answer that question.
THE WITNESS: I don't remember.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: Did you tell anybody before you went down to visit Mr. Simpson that first time that
your purpose was to gather information for dissemination to the public?
A: Yes.
MS. SAGER: Same objection.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: Who? Who did you tell?
MS. SAGER: Same objection.
MR. GELBLUM: Last time you made the objection you said, "But you can answer," so is
that part of this objection or not?
MS. SAGER: No, I am not going to let him identify who he spoke to because I also think
that in addition to being privileged, that's confidential and proprietary business
information and private to Mr. Schiller.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: Did Mr. Kardashian tell you why he thought or somebody thought you might be a
material witness?
A: Yes.
MS. SAGER:I think that information is published, and for that reason I will allow Mr.
Schiller to answer, although I do think it's protected by the privilege if it were not
published.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: And what did he tell you?
A: I had an acquaintance relationship to Mr. Simpson and I had filmed him, and there
was a possibility that I could be a demeanor witness.
Q: Do you recall anything else Mr. Kardashian said to you on that subject?
A: Not on that subject, no.
Q: When had you filmed Mr. Simpson? Oh, for Kris Kardashian's birth-
day?
A: (Nods head.)
Q: Yes?
A: Yes.
Q: Is that the only occasion when you had filmed Mr. Simpson prior to October 1994?
A: Yes, filmed him.
Q: As opposed to what?
A: Photographed him.
Q: Okay. When had you photographed him?
A: As a photographer, I photographed him when he was at SC.
Q: At SC?
A: Yeah, as a photographer.
Q: Did you meet him when he was at SC?
A: No.
(Discussion held between the witness and counsel outside the hearing of the reporter.)
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: Did Mr. Kardashian-
A: The-
Q: I am sorry.
A: The picture has been published. That's what I'm saying to you. That I did a film at
SC.
Q: Did Mr. Kardashian explain to you how your knowledge of Mr. Simpson's demeanor
several years earlier would make you a material witness in this case?
MS. SAGER: Same objection.
MR. LEONARD: Objecton. Lack of foundation.
MS. SAGER: Same objection. I object on reporter's privilege grounds and I don't think
you are entitled to get into any unpublished information about that phone conversation
because Mr. Schiller has already testified that he was at that point gathering
information for dissemination to the public, including information he was getting from
Mr. Kardashian
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: Did you tell Mr. Kardashian that you were planning to use what he was telling you
to disseminate that to the public?
MS. SAGER: Asked and answered.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: You can answer it again.
(Discussion held between the witness and counsel outside the hearing of the reporter.)
MS. SAGER: Mr. Schiller is not going to answer any questions about what else was said
in that conversation other than what's been published.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: Did Mr. Kardashian tell you that the reason he was calling you was to give you
information for dissemination to the public?
MS. SAGER: Same objection.
MR. GELBLUM: You can't justifiably take the position, Kelli, that what Mr. Kardashian
said to him had anything to do with gathering information for dissemination to the
public. He is calling him to be a witness in the case.
MS. SAGER: That's like saying if you are interviewing a source, what information they
give you is not protected.
MR. GELBLUM: He is calling him to come down to the jail to be a material witness,
according to this. This may be false, but that's what it says. It has nothing to do
with the dissemination to the public.
MS. SAGER: That has nothing to do with what Mr. Schiller's intent was during that
conversation, and he has already told you he is not going to reveal information
related to what he was doing for gathering information for publication. You can ask
Mr. Kardashian that. I assume you did.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: Did you have any intention when you went to jail of talking to Mr. Simpson about
being a material witness as distinct from gathering information to disseminate to the
public?
A: Did I have any intent?
Q: Yes, sir.
A: No.
Q: Did you tell anybody that?
A: Don't remember.
Q: Did you lead them to believe that you were going to go down to see if you could
help him out as a material witness?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Argumentative.
MS. SAGER: I am going to assert the same objection as well, and what Mr. Schiller did
or didn't do in the course of trying to get information for publication is privileged,
and I am not going to let him answer questions about it.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: Okay. On page XI of Exhibit 236, the last full paragraph on the page, you say that-
A: Starting with what words?
Q: "As soon as the deputies left."
A: Yes, sir.
Q: The last sentence there is, "Then he started talking to his attorneys." Do you see
that?
A: Yes.
Q: Okay. What did he say to his attorneys?
MS .SAGER: Same objection.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: What did his attorneys say to him?
MS. SAGER: Same objections.
MR. GELBLUM: Am I correct in assuming that you will not let him answer a single
question regarding anything that he observed or heard or said during any of his
conversations with Mr. Simpson in jail?
MS. SAGER: Unless that information is published. If that information has been
published, then I will let him confirm the published information. If it has not been
published, you are correct. I will not let him answer any questions about any of those
categories of information.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: So when you say here on page XI-you say: " I could tell by his body language what
he thought of people being mentioned. The moment his lawyers uttered the name of
someone he was unsure of, or mentioned a friend he felt had betrayed him, OJ's voice
would develop an edge" Do you see that?
A: Yes.
Q: Okay. Do you recall any people whose mention caused his voice to develop an edge?
MS. SAGER: Yes or no question.
THE WITNESS: Do I remember anybody?
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: The mention of whose name caused his voice to develop an edge.
A: I don't remember the names.
MS. SAGER: That's not the question. Do you remember anybody, was the question?
THE WITNESS: Anybody's name?
MR. GELBLUM: He answered the question. The name of anybody.
THE WITNESS: I don't remember anybody's name.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: Okay. And then the next sentence is: "Then a different person's name would come
up-someone he liked-and then his voice would soften, his firm posture would relax a
little." Do you recall the names of anybody, the mention of whose name caused him to
react that way?
A: No.
Q: Then at the end of the first paragraph on page XII you say, "Our conversation moved
to the subject of my being a material witness." Do you see that?
A: (Nods head.)
MS. SAGER: I'm sorry. Where?
MR. LEONARD: I don't see that either.
MR. GELBLUM: End of the first paragraph on page XII.
MS. SAGER: Oh, gotcha.
MR. GELBLUM:Got it?
MS. SAGER: Yes.
MR. LEONARD: Thanks, Arthur.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: Who was involved in that conversation?
MS. SAGER: Same objection.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: When you were having that conversation, was one of your purposes deciding whether
you would be a material witness in the case?
MS. SAGER: Same objection.
MR. GELBLUM: Wait a second. The privilege doesn't apply if the answer to that is yes.
MS. SAGER: Well, he has already answered his purpose in being there.
MR. GELBLUM: But I have a written statement here. You said I can ask him about his
written statements, okay, and I am asking him.
MS. SAGER: I said he will confirm information that's published.
MR. GELBLUM: I understand.
MS. SAGER: I didn't say that gives leeway to ask him questions that are on the same
general subject matter.
MR. GELBLUM: Believe me, I understand that.
Q: My question is: Was one of the purpose in the conversation at the time you mention
here where it moved to the subject of material witness, was one of your purposes at
that point in time helping Mr. Simpson and his attorneys decide whether you could be
helpful as a material witness?
MS. SAGER: You mean to the exclusion of any purpose he may have had to be gathering
information?
MR. GELBLUM: Was that one of the purposes. That's my present question.
MS. SAGER: One of his purposes.
MR. GELBLUM: Yes.
(Discussion held between the witness and counsel outside the hearing of the reporter.)
THE WITNESS: No.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: Is your statement here correct, that you did discuss your being a material witness?
MS. SAGER: You can answer whether that line is correct.
THE WITNESS: It is correct, if I'm reading the same line.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: "Our conversadon moved to the subject of my being a material witness."
MS. SAGER:Is that an accurate statement?
THE WITNESS: Moved to the subject, yes.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: And was there a conversation on the subject of your being a material witness?
A: Yes.
Q: And one of the purposes of that discussion from your point of view was helping them
to decide whether you could be helpful as a material witness?
A: No.
MS. SAGER: I think that's been asked now three times.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: Farther down on page XII, Mr. Schiller, you discuss a conversation where Mr.
Kardashian called you at home that night.
A: Which paragraph, sir?
Q: "That night, after I returned
home, Robert called."
A: Right.
Q: Is that sentence correct?
A: Yes, he called.
Q: Is each sentence in that paragraph true?
A: The second sentence is correct. It starts with "He" and ends with "along." The next
sentence is correct. Starts with the word "Robert" and ends with the word "jail." The
last sentence is correct. Starts with "He" and ends with the word "book."
Q: Okay. Is the next sentence correct, "I visited OJ the very next day?"
A: Correct.
Q: Before I go on, will you refuse to answer any additional questions regarding your
conversation at home that night with Mr. Kardashian?
MS. SAGER: Yes, he will, unless to the extent you have any other published information
that contains references to that conversation. But based on what you are showing us
right now, he will refuse to answer any additional questions about that conversation.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: Okay. At the top of the next page, on page XIII, it says "Robert." That means
Robert Kardashian. Correct?
A: (Nods head.)
Q: Yes?
A: Yes.
Q: "Robert hooked up a tape recorder..." Is that correct?
A: He hooked up the tape recorder, but in fact I don't remember whether he hooked it
up on this visit or in the visit after, whether it was on the third visit or the
second that he hooked it up. It may have been Mr. Taft hooked it up on the second and
Mr. Kardashian on the third. I wrote it this way and said he hooked it up,but I don't
remember specifically whether he did it on the second visit or the third.
Q: Did Robert only hook it up one time of all the times that it was hooked up?
MS. SAGER: Same objection.
THE WITNESS: I don't remember.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: The next paragraph starts, "What came forth was a flood of words." Is that correct?
A: That's correct.
Q: I mean, is that a correct statement?
A: Yes, it is.
Q: What did you mean by "flood of words?"
MS. SAGER: I am going to instruct him not to answer any questions about what the words
means. I think they speak for themselves, and to the extent he has any additional
subjective views, those are protected by the reporter's privilege.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: The next sentence says: "Before Robert could even get the tape going, OJ was
talking, telling me of his innocence, his emotional state, recent events, his whole
life." Is that sentence correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Two sentences after that it says: "He spoke so quickly, like torrents cascading
from a ruptured dam, that I soon had to interrupt him and try to channel his
thoughts." Is that an accurate statement?
A: Yes.
Q: In the next paragraph there, the third sentence says: "Later, reading the
transcripts of the interviews, I could see that he had answered the questions, not in
neat numbered paragraphs, but in a kaleidoscope of anguish and emotion." Is that
statement accurate?
MR. LEONARD: I am going to object to the extent that that calls for speculation.
THE WITNESS: The answer is yes.
MR. GELBLUM: Excuse me one second. I'm sorry.
(Pause in the proceedings.)
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: Okay. Sorry for the interruption.
A: Yes, sir.
Q: On page XIV-
A: XIV, the last page of the document?
Q: Yes.
A: Okay.
Q: The first paragraph starts on that page, it starts with the words, "noticed the
clock." Do you see that?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Is the second sentence accurate,"We had spoken this time for almost two hours?"
A: Slight exaggeration.
Q: How long was it?
MS. SAGER: I am going to object to that question as calling for information that's not
published.
MR. GELBLUM: Wait a minute. You will allow him to say whether it's true or not, but if
it's not true, you won't let him say what is true?
MS. SAGER: Yes, that's right.
THE WITNESS: Excuse me.
MR. GELBLUM: Sure.
(Discussion held between the witness and counsel outside the hearing of the reporter.)
BY MR. GELIBLUM:
Q: Did you want to amend your answer, supplement it?
A: No.
Q: A couple sentences down you say, "I would make nine more trips to visit him." Is
that statement accurate, or is that a slight exaggeration also?
A: No.
MS. SAGER: Is it correct or not? Answer yes or no.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: That would make a total of 11visits with him.
A: Yes.
Q: Yes, it's accurate?
A: Yes, to the best of my memory.
Q: Then a few sentences down you say: "In each interview I seemed to find a different
man, but one who was ultimately optimistic, reflective and introspective." Is that
statement accurate?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Calls for speculation, vague.
THE WITNESS: That is inaccurate.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: What is inaccurate about it?
(Discussion held between the witness and counsel outside the hearing of the reporter.)
THE WITNESS: Do you mean for the sentence to be taken literally?
MR. LEONARD: Well, see, that's where-
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: It was Orenthal James Simpson each time. Correct?
A: It was Mr. Simpson sitting there each time, yes.
Q: What did you mean by the sentence?
MS. SAGER: I am going to object to that.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: You said it's not accurate?
MS. SAGER: Some of the words are a characterization,but you asked him if it was
accurate literally.
MR. GELBLUM: That's all you let me ask him, Kelli.
MS. SAGER: Right. I don't want him to get into what he means by different phrases. He
wanted to make sure that you weren't asking him if this was literally true, that it
was a different man.
MR. GELBLUM: I will ask whatever you let me ask, which isn't much.
MS. SAGER: Then there is no question pending.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: Is it fair to say that he seemed different to you each time you saw him,
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Vague. Lack of foundation, calls for speculation.
MS. SAGER: What I think the question is, if I understand it correctly, is whether you
were intending to say that he seemed different as opposed to that you were actually
with a different person.
THE WITNESS: Right.
MS. SAGER: You are not being literally true.
THE WITNESS: Yeah, not being literally true. There was something subtly different
about him each time.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: What?
MS. SAGER: I am not going to let him answer that question for the same reasons
previously stated.
MR. GELBLUM: Okay. Off the record just for a second.
(Discussion held off the record.)
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: Did you live in the same block as he and Marquerite?
A: Yes.
Q: For how long?
A: If he moved away in '76, I moved away in '75 or '74. I know I moved away in
'74-'75. Okay?
Q: Okay.
A: I don't know-'75. I don't know when he moved away. I've been told he moved away in
'76 or '77. Okay?
Q: You moved away first, anyway. Right?
A: Yes.
Q: So you weren't living on the same block from that point forward.
A: Correct.
Q: So you lived on the same block for how long?
A: Well, I-again, I built my house in '63, but I don't know when he moved into his
house. I only met him-
Q: During the time-
MS. SAGER: The answer is you don't know.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: That's fine. During the time you were living on the block, did you ever hear
anything about his having beaten his wife?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Lack of foundation, calls for speculation.
MS. SAGER: During the time he lived there from, whatever, '63 to'75?
MR. LEONARD: Leading.
THE WITNESS:No.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: Did you ever hear about any domestic discord-
MS. SAGER: Same objection.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q:-between he and Marquerite during that time?
MR. LEONARD: Vague, lack of foundation, leading.
MS. SAGER: Between '63 and '75.
THE WITNESS: No.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: Did you ever meet-not ever. Prior to-let me start again. While you were living on
the same block as Mr. Simpson, did you meet Jason or Arnelle Simpson?
A: Yes.
Q: Did they ever come to your house?
A: My daughter brought them once, yes.They were children.
Q: How old, approximately?
A: Oh, they would have been like three, four, or something, you know. I don't remember
how old. My
daughter was a baby-sitter.
Q: Did you ever meet Nicole Brown Simpson?
A: Never.
Q: I would like to find out, unless your attorney won't let me, in general terms the
process by which the taped interviews were transformed into the published book. Will
you allow him to answer any questions regarding that process?
MS. SAGER: No, not unless it's been published somewhere.
MR. GELBLUM: Let me just try a few, for example, and make sure that we are on the same
wavelength here.
Q: Who decided which letters to Mr. Simpson would go into the book?
MS. SAGER: Objection.
MR. LEONARD: I object. Lack of foundation, calls for speculation.
(Discussion held between the Witness and counsel outside the hearing of the reporter.)
MS. SAGER: Okay. My client informs me that that has been published, so he can answer
that question.
MR. GELBLUM: Good.
MR. LEONARD: Same objection.
THE WITNESS: I made a selection and I brought them to Mr. Simpson,and he accepted my selection.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: Do you know whether his attorneys, any of his attorneys, had any involvement in
the selection-the process of selecting the fetters that were in the book?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Calls for speculation.
MR. GELBLUM: Dan, if the question is, do you know, that doesn't call for speculation,
which is the question.
MS. SAGER: I am going to object to the question to the extent that it calls or any
unpublished information, but I believe that there has been information published. In
response to that question, I will let Mr. Schiller reveal that.
THE WITNESS: In my presence his attorneys had nothing to do with it.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: Do you know whether they had anything to do with it out of your presence?
MS. SAGER: Same objection as to the extent there is unpublished infrmation, but
published information you can answer.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: Who selected which portions of Mr. Simpson's interviews would be included in the
book?
MS. SAGER: Same objection. To the extent that there is published information on it, I
will let Mr. Schiller answer.
(Discussion held between the witness and counsel outside the hearing of the reporter.)
MS. SAGER: You can answer that.
THE WITNESS: I made the total selection.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: Without anybody else's input?
MS. SAGER: Same objection. To the extent there is published information, I will let
Mr. Schiller answer that.
MR. LEONARD: Well, I-never mind.
(Discussion held between the witness and counsel outside the hearing of the reporter.)
THE WITNESS: Me and members of my editorial staff.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: Did any of Mr. Simpson's attorneys have any input into deciding which interviews
would be included in the book?
MS. SAGER: Same objection. I will let him answer to the extent that that information
has been publicly revealed.
THE WITNESS: None whatsoever.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: Where was that information publicly revealed?
A: I've said a couple times on television shows and so forth that Mr. Simpson's
attorneys had nothing to do with the writig of the book, and I made the total
decisions.
Q: Are the-
A: Excuse me a second.
(Discussion held between the witness and counsel outside the hearing of the reporter.)
THE WITNESS: Yes.
MS. SAGER: He has already answered the question, so...
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: Are the words that are attributed to Mr. Simpson in the book I WANT TO TELL YOU
verbatim transcripts of the interviews?
MR. LEONARD: Objection.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: I don't mean complete, but is every word that's printed in here something coming
from Mr. Simpson, something that he actually said?
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Compound, overbroad.
MS. SAGER: To the extent you can answer that question without looking at it, I will
let you answer it, but...
(Discussion held between the witness and counsel outside the hearing of the reporter.)
THE WITNESS: No person speaks in perfect English that you can read, and sometimes
people use the same word in a sentence many, many times. So all of the material is
exactly what he said, but it has been made readable so it can be consumed and
disseminated in a literary form. So in some instances he may have used in a paragraph
the same word five times or four times, and I may have looked up in the thesaurus
other words that were more apropos.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: More apropos of what?
A: From a reading point of view.
Q: It sounded better to your ear?
A: Or that might be better to a reader, a reader's ear. When you read, you don't
hear. Sometimes you hear yourself reading, yes, okay, but, you know-so the grammar,
the structure, has been made readable, but it is what he said.
MS. SAGER: I think that answers question. Sounds like it's a no, not verbatim.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: So the substance of everything-you didn't change the substance of anything.
A: That's correct.
Q: Did you ever discuss with Mr. Simpson his whereabouts on the evening of June 12,
1994?
MS. SAGER: Same objection to the extent that information is not published. If that
information has been publicly disseminated, I will let Mr. Schiller answer to the
extent that it has been.
MR. LEONARD: Objection. Leading.
(Discussion held between the witness and counsel outside the hearing of the reporter.)
MS. SAGER: We are not aware of any published information that answers that question.
If it's out there, then he would answer it, but we are not aware of any, so the
objection stands.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: Did you ever discuss with Mr. Simpson any of his activities from June 12, 1994
through June 17, 1994?
MS. SAGER: Same objection.
MR. LEONARD: Same objection.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: Are you aware of any published material regarding any of that time period, your
discussions with him during that time period?
A: No.
Q: Upon Mr. Simpson's release from jail, you took some pictures of him. Correct?
A: That is correct.
Q: And some of those pictures have been published?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you take pictures of Mr. Simpson within a month after his release from jail
anywhere other than at Rockingham?
MS. SAGER: I am going to object to the question to the extent it calls for any
unpublished photographs or material that Mr. Schiller gathered for the future
publication. To the extent there is published information, I will let him answer that
question.
(Discussion held between the witness and counsel outside the hearing of the reporter.)
THE WITNESS: The answer is yes.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: Yes? Where?
MS. SAGER: And again, only as to published photographs.
THE WITNESS: The residence of Don Ohlmeyer; a golf course in Panama City, Florida; my hotel room in Panama City, Florida; the beach in Panama City, Florida. Various
locations in Panama City Florida. There may have been one other location, but I don't
remember specifically. I have some images in my mind, but I don't remember exactly
where, but it's in that period of time.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: And did you take pictures of Mr. Simpson's children during this time frame also?
MS. SAGER: Same objection. To the extent the information is published, I will let Mr.
Schiller answer it.
THE WITNESS: His older children.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: Did you take any pictures of his younger children after-
A: Never.
Q: Have you taken any pictures of Mr. Simpson's younger children, that is, Sydney and
Justin, since Mr.
Simpson's acquittal?
MS. SAGER: Same objection to the extent the information is unpublished.
(Discussion held between the witness and counsel outside the hearing of the reporter.)
THE WITNESS: I have not photographed the children, the younger children. That
information has been published.
MR. LEONARD: Do you mean that the fact that you have not photographed them-
THE WITNESS: Yes.
MR. LEONARD:-has been published?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
MR. LEONARD: Because I didn't-
MS. SAGER: The fact that he has not
MR. LEONARD: Okay. Take a break?
(Discussion held off the record.)
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: Were the photographs that you took of Mr. Simpson and his older children after his
release from jail pursuant to a written agreement that Polaris Communications entered
into with American Media?
MS. SAGER: To the extent that information is public, I will let Mr. Schiller answer
it. Otherwise I will object on the same ground.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
(Discussion held between the witness and counsel outside the hearing of the
reporter.)
THE WITNESS: Okay.
MS. SAGER: You are talking about the publication of the photographs? I missed the
question. I'm sorry. Was the publication pursuant to? Is that what you said?
THE WITNESS: Then my answer is yes.
MR. GELBLUM: Did he take them pursuant to.
THE WITNESS: Did I take them pursuant to, the answer is yes.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: Are you aware of whether Mr. Simpson has ever taken a lie detector test in relation
to the murders of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson?
MS. SAGER: Same objection. Instruct the witness not to answer unless there is
published information one way or the other.
MR. GELBLUM: What's your definition of "published" for these purposes?
MS. SAGER: If Mr. Schiller has information that he has publicly revealed, then he has
published that information, and he can't assert the privilege as to information he has
already revealed.
MR. GELBLUM: But only if he has publicly revealed it?
MS. SAGER: Right. Because he is the one who holds the privilege, so... And as to
anything, if it's published information or something that's been revealed by Mr.
Schiller, I will let him answer as to that, so I don't need to keep saying that.
MR. GELBLUM: Well, I assume your objection was only if he had some information-if he had obtained some information, if there was any, in the course of gathering information or dissemination to the public.
MS. SAGER: Correct.
BY MR. GELBLUM:
Q: Okay. Other than in the course of gathering information for dissemination to the
public, have you ever learned any information about Mr. Simpson having taken a lie detector test regarding the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman?
A: No.
MR. GELBLUM: Why don't we take a break to change paper, and when we go back on, we are going to have to do it under seal, because there are going to be documents from-these are the contracts.
(Recess.)
(The remainder of the transcript is confidendal pursuant to the protective order and is bound separately.)