P V CM SEPT, 6TH 2011

 

THE PETITION FILED HERE

APPEARANCES: DEFENDANT CONRAD ROBERT MURRAY, PRESENT, REPRESENTED BY EDWARD M. CHERNOFF,   J. MICHAEL FLANAGAN, AND NAREG GOURJIAN,.; PEOPLE REPRESENTED BY DAVID

 

FOR THE PEOPLE   WALGREN AND DEBORAH BRAZIL, DEPUTIES DISTRICT ATTORNEY,

 

THE COURT:   GOOD MORNING.   LET ME CALL THE CASE OF PEOPLE VERSUS CONRAD ROBERT MURRAY, CASE NO. SA073164. DR. MURRAY IS PRESENT IN COURT WITH COUNSEL.   WE HAVE MR. CHERNOFF AND MR. GOURJIAN.   THE PEOPLE BY MR. WALGREN AND MS. BRAZIL. MR. FLANAGAN IS OTHERWISE ENGAGED?

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   HE IS IN A HEARING AT 9:00.   HE WAS GOING TO RUSH OVER HERE AS SOON AS HE COULD.   I THINK WE CAN START WITHOUT HIM.

 

THE COURT:   YOU ALL DID RUSH OVER BECAUSE ACTUALLY IT IS 22 MINUTES AFTER, AND YOU ARE HERE VERY EARLY AND I APPRECIATE IT. OVER THE WEEKEND, THE COURT DID RECEIVE AN E-MAIL AND SUBSEQUENTLY TODAY RECEIVED A FAX SUBMITTED BY THE DEFENSE IN THIS CASE IN THE NATURE OF A FILING BEFORE THE COURT OF FOR THE SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, CAPTIONED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND/OR OTHER EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF AND FOR STAY OF TRIAL; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF; IMMEDIATE RELIEF REQUESTED. DO YOU KNOW WHERE THIS WAS FILED, MR. CHERNOFF?

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   IT WAS FILED FRIDAY, 3:30.   NAREG, WHAT TIME WAS IT?

 

MR. GOURJIAN:   I BELIEVE IT WAS FRIDAY LATE AFTERNOON, YOUR HONOR.   I PUT OUR COPIES IN THE MAIL FOR YOUR HONOR.   WE WANTED TO SEND YOU A COURTESY COPY AS WELL.

 

THE COURT:   I APPRECIATE IT.

 

MR. GOURJIAN:   YOU’RE WELCOME.

 

THE COURT:   HAVE YOU HEARD ANYTHING?

 

MR. GOURJIAN:   NOT YET.   I HAVE NOT CHECKED THIS MORNING.

 

THE COURT:   OKAY.   FREQUENTLY, THE COURTS OF OPERATE BY WAY OF POSTCARD, BUT NOT IN EMERGENCY TYPE OF SITUATIONS.   SO ONE WOULD THINK THAT THERE WILL BE A TELEPHONE CALL OR SOME SORT OF E-MAIL. THERE IS MENTION OF SOMETHING AND I WANTED TO ASK THE PEOPLE ABOUT THIS.   THERE IS — DO YOU HAVE A COPY OF IT?

 

MR. WALGREN:   WE DID NOT GET A COPY, NOR WERE WE CC’D IN ANY E-MAIL.

 

THE COURT:   HOW COME?

 

MR. GOURJIAN:   YOUR HONOR, I DID SEND A HARD COPY TO THEM VIA MAIL.   I HAD LEFT THE OFFICE WHEN I SPOKE WITH MR. CHERNOFF, AND WE FELT IT WOULD PROBABLY BE A GOOD IDEA TO SEND THE COURT A COPY BY FAX AND E-MAIL.   SO I HAD MY ASSISTANT AT THE OFFICE DO THAT AS WELL.   I DID NOT DO THAT FOR THE PEOPLE OR THE A.G.’S OFFICE.   I DO APOLOGIZE.

 

THE COURT:   ALL YOU DO IS PRESS A BUTTON AND PUT THEM IN THE CC COLUMN, RIGHT?

 

MR. GOURJIAN:   I DIDN’T DO THAT.   I DIDN’T EVEN THINK OF THAT, YOUR HONOR.   WE WERE JUST REQUIRED TO SERVE THEM BY MAIL, WHICH WE DID.

 

THE COURT:   I WANT TO BE FAIR TO THE PARTIES BECAUSE I HAD A REQUEST FOR THE PEOPLE AND I MAY WANT TO GIVE YOU THE MATERIALS SO YOU CAN ANSWER BECAUSE THERE IS REFERENCE MADE IN PAGE 3 OF THE PETITION, WHICH READS AS FOLLOWS:

 

“IN FACT, IN AN AMICI CURIAE BRIEF FILED BY THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE ONLY TWO DAYS AGO, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY ACKNOWLEDGED A SERIOUS CONCERN OF JURY CONTAMINATION.” THEN AN INDENTED PORTION WHICH, I TAKE IT, MR. GOURJIAN, IS A PORTION FROM A BRIEF FILED BY THE D.A.’S OFFICE?

 

MR. GOURJIAN:   THAT’S CORRECT, YOUR HONOR.

 

THE COURT:   IT HAS SOME LANGUAGE IN IT.   MAY I PASS IT TO YOU BECAUSE — DOES THIS APPEAR TO BE A FILING FROM THE D.A.’S OFFICE IN THE PENDING CIVIL ACTION BEFORE JUDGE MICHAEL JOHNSON?   IS THAT WHAT WE ARE DISCUSSING HERE, SOME STATEMENT MADE ALLEGEDLY BY THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, IN CASE BC462973, CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS OF LLOYDS OF LONDON VERSUS A.E.G. LIVE, LLC. IS THAT THE FILING TO WHICH YOU ARE REFERRING?

 

MR. GOURJIAN:   YES, YOUR HONOR.

 

THE COURT:   SO IT IS THE DEFENSE REPRESENTATION THAT THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE IN A COMPANION CIVIL LAWSUIT FILED AN AMICI CURIAE BRIEF IN WHICH THEY MADE CERTAIN STATEMENTS?

 

MR. GOURJIAN:   THAT’S CORRECT, YOUR HONOR.

 

THE COURT:  WERE YOU EVEN AWARE OF THAT?

 

MR. WALGREN:   YES.   WE FILED IT, YOUR HONOR.

 

THE COURT:   YOU FILED IT?

 

MR. WALGREN:   YES.

 

THE COURT:   OKAY.

 

MR. WALGREN:   WHAT IT WAS, THERE IS CIVIL LITIGATION GOING ON AND LLOYDS OF LONDON HAD ISSUED SDT’S TO THE CORONER’S OFFICE, TO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, TO NUMEROUS COUNTY AGENCIES, SEEKING ALL THE AUTOPSY PHOTOS, ALL THE MEDICAL RECORDS, ALL THE FIRE DEPARTMENT RECORDS, ALL THE 911 RECORDS, JUST TO LIST A FEW OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. AS THE COURT KNOWS, FOR EXAMPLE, THE AUTOPSY PHOTOS, THE COURT RULED ONLY TWO OF THOSE WERE ADMISSIBLE IN THIS CASE. THE PEOPLE DID FILE THIS BRIEF IN THAT CIVIL LITIGATION ASKING THEM TO STAY ANY RELEASE PENDING THE OUTCOME OF OUR TRIAL.

 

THE COURT:   I WAS CURIOUS IF SOMEHOW OR ANOTHER THERE MIGHT BE DIFFERENT DEPUTIES FROM YOUR OFFICE WHO MAY HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN THE CIVIL CASE, AND YOU HAVE ANSWERED THAT. AND THIS CONCEPT OF “AUTOPSY PHOTOS” HAS BEEN ADDRESSED BY THIS COURT.   THEY AREN’T “AUTOPSY PHOTOS” AS WE SOMETIMES THINK OF THEM.   WE ARE TALKING ABOUT TWO. ONE OF THEM WAS A PHOTOGRAPH OF THE DECEDENT, MR. JACKSON, ON A GURNEY IN WHAT APPEAR TO BE HOSPITAL GARMENTS. WAS THAT ONE OF THEM?

 

MR. WALGREN:   YES.

 

THE COURT:   THE OTHER WAS A PHOTOGRAPH OF MR. JACKSON ON A TABLE IN THE CORONER’S OFFICE WITHOUT HAVING HAD ANY KIND OF AUTOPSY ALREADY PERFORMED. IS THAT ALSO CORRECT?

 

MR. WALGREN:   CORRECT.

 

THE COURT:   DOES ANYTHING THAT YOU SAY IN THIS SUBMISSION IN THE CIVIL CASE BEFORE JUDGE MICHAEL JOHNSON IMPACT YOUR PREVIOUSLY STATED POSITION IN THIS CASE REGARDING SEQUESTRATION?

 

MR. WALGREN:   NO, NOT AT ALL, YOUR HONOR.   I DON’T BELIEVE IT IS JUDGE MICHAEL JOHNSON, THOUGH.

 

THE COURT:   WHO IS IT?   I THOUGHT HE HAD THE CASE. DO WE KNOW?   THERE MIGHT BE OTHERS.

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   THERE IS ANOTHER CASE OUT THERE.   I THINK THIS IS A DIFFERENT —

 

THE COURT:   DIFFERENT BENCH OFFICER?

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   YES.

 

THE COURT:   IS THERE ANYTHING ABOUT THE SUBMISSION THAT AFFECTS THE PEOPLE’S POSITION STATED WHEN LAST WE WERE IN COURT, BECAUSE I DID TURN TO THE PEOPLE AND I ASKED THE PEOPLE TO RESPOND TO THE DEFENSE MOTION FOR SEQUESTRATION.   AND AS I RECALL, THE PEOPLE’S RESPONSE WAS THAT THE PEOPLE DID NOT FEEL THERE WAS ANY BASIS OR JUSTIFICATION FOR SEQUESTRATION AND REPRESENTED THAT. IS THAT STILL YOUR POSITION?   HAS IT CHANGED?

 

MR. WALGREN:   OUR POSITION HAS NOT CHANGED, YOUR HONOR.   WE FEEL THAT THE COURT IS CAPABLE OF, AND THE JURY IS CAPABLE OF FOLLOWING THE COURT’S INSTRUCTIONS. AND WE FEEL THAT IT CAN BE HANDLED APPROPRIATELY SHORT OF SEQUESTRATION.

 

THE COURT:   MY RULING WAS MADE AND THE DEFENSE, AS IT IS ENTIRELY JUSTIFIED IN DOING, IS SEEKING APPELLATE REVIEW.   THE DIFFICULTY WITH SEEKING APPELLATE REVIEW OVER A THREE-DAY WEEKEND IS THAT IT IS A THREE-DAY WEEKEND WHEN THE FILING IS ON A LATE FRIDAY AFTERNOON. BUT THE COURTS OF APPEAL ARE REMARKABLY CONSCIENTIOUS, AND I’M SURE THEY ARE ON IT.   AND WE, HOPEFULLY, WILL EXPECT SOME SORT OF DIRECTION FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL. BUT ABSENT A MANDATE FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL STAYING THE PROCEEDINGS, WE ARE ON COURSE. I HAVE BEEN WORKING DILIGENTLY ON THE QUESTIONNAIRE.   I HAVE RECEIVED A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF INPUT FROM THE PARTIES, AND I SHOULD HAVE THE QUESTIONNAIRE BY NOON.

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   DO YOU THINK, JUDGE, IT IS POSSIBLE THAT YOU — BOTH PEOPLE AND I TALKED ABOUT THIS BEFORE COURT THIS MORNING — IS IT POSSIBLE FOR YOU TO GET US A HARD COPY OF YOUR QUESTIONNAIRE BUT ALSO A DIGITAL COPY OF THE SAME QUESTIONNAIRE.?

 

THE COURT:   I THINK MR. SEO CAN DO THAT.

 

MR. SEO:   I CAN DO THAT.

 

THE COURT:   HE IS VERY AUTHORITATIVE.

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   THANK YOU, JUDGE.

 

THE COURT:   ONCE AGAIN, I AM CONCERNED ABOUT CONFIDENTIALITY AND PROTECTIVE ORDER, BUT IT SEEMS TO ME YOU SHOULD HAVE THAT AND WE WILL MAKE THOSE ARRANGEMENTS.

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   ALL RIGHT.   THANK YOU, JUDGE.

 

MR. WALGREN:   ARE WE GOING TO DISCUSS THE PROPOSED QUESTIONNAIRE, YOUR HONOR, OR ARE WE JUST COMING BACK AT NOON TO GET THE FINAL QUESTIONNAIRE, OR —

 

THE COURT:   YOU CAN COME BACK AT NOON TO GET THE FINAL QUESTIONNAIRE, AND I AM HAPPY TO DISCUSS IT.   I AM COMFORTABLE WITH THE QUESTIONNAIRE IN ITS PRESENT FORMAT. I KNOW COUNSEL HAD VERY DIFFERENT VIEWPOINTS.   I HAVE LISTENED INTENTLY TO WHAT YOU HAVE SAID.   I HAVE READ WHAT YOU HAVE SAID.   I HAVE INCORPORATED AS MUCH AS I FEEL IS NECESSARY. I’M NOT AT ALL ADVERSE TO HAVING YOU TAKE A LOOK AT IT AND COMING BACK IF YOU WANTED TO THIS MORNING. REMEMBER, THE PEOPLE ARE THE ONES WHO HAVE TO PHOTOCOPY THIS.   I WANTED TO GET IT TO YOU AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.   IF THERE IS SOMETHING THAT IS DESERVING OF ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION, I’M AT YOUR DISPOSAL. I DON’T KNOW YOUR SCHEDULES TODAY.   I’LL HAVE THE QUESTIONNAIRE FOR YOU BY LATE THIS MORNING.   IF YOU WANT TO TAKE A LOOK AT IT AND YOU WANT TO MAKE PLANS TO COME BACK TODAY AT A LATER POINT IN TIME, THAT IS FINE WITH ME.   ANY OTHER SUGGESTIONS, I’M OPEN O THEM AS WELL. WHAT DO YOU THINK, MR. WALGREN?

 

MR. WALGREN:   WELL, I THINK WE WILL JUST TAKE ONE STEP AT A TIME AND REVIEW THE QUESTIONNAIRE AND GET BACK TO DEFENSE AND THE COURT IF WE HAVE ANY CONCERNS.

 

THE COURT:   MR. CHERNOFF?

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   I THINK WE CAN WORK ON THAT BASIS.

 

THE COURT:   OKAY.

 

MR. WALGREN:   THE COURT DID HAVE OUR DRAFT THAT WE SUBMITTED, I THINK WE STAMPED 8-29-11.

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   AND OURS AS WELL.

 

THE COURT:   YOURS AS WELL, AND I SPENT A LOT OF TIME REVIEWING THEM, INCORPORATING AS MANY OF THE SUGGESTIONS AS POSSIBLE.   NOT ALL OF THEM.   IT IS AN EXHAUSTIVE QUESTIONNAIRE.   IT IS AN EXHAUSTING QUESTIONNAIRE. SO JURY SELECTION IS SET TO COMMENCE THIS THURSDAY, THE 8TH OF SEPTEMBER, IN THE COURTROOM AT 9:00 A.M.   AND THEN WE WILL BE MOVING ELSEWHERE SHORTLY THEREAFTER WHEN WE GET WORD FROM JURY SERVICES. MY RESPONSIBILITY ON THURSDAY, FRIDAY, AND PERHAPS ON MONDAY, IS ALSO TO PROVIDE PROSPECTIVE JURORS WHO ARE CALLED TO GENERAL JURY DUTY WITH ORIENTATION. ALL OF OUR JUDGES OF THE L.A. SUPERIOR COURT INTRODUCE OURSELVES AND THANK PROSPECTIVE JURORS ON A DAILY BASIS, AND THOSE ARE MY DAYS.   SO THOSE ARE NOT PUBLIC PROCEEDINGS.   THEY ARE JUST HELLO PROCEEDINGS AND THANK

YOU TO PROSPECTIVE JUROR PROCEEDINGS. BUT THE MATTERS IN THIS CASE WILL BE PUBLIC PROCEEDINGS, AND JURY SERVICE, AND THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE, AND THE SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT WILL BE INVOLVED IN IT.   BUT MY SUGGESTION IS THAT WE REGROUP AT 9:00 A.M. WITH AN EXPECTATION THAT WE WILL BE CONDUCTING VOIR DIRE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE JURORS AT ABOUT 9:20-ISH OR 9:30-ISH OR SO ON THURSDAY. BUT BETWEEN NOW AND THEN, DO YOU WANT TO TENTATIVELY SET A DAY, I MEAN A TIME, FOR GOING OVER THE JURY QUESTIONNAIRES BEFORE THEY ACTUALLY ARE PHOTOCOPIED? THAT IS UP TO YOU.

 

MR. WALGREN:   YES, YOUR HONOR, BUT I DON’T BELIEVE I’M AVAILABLE THIS AFTERNOON.   SO I’D ASK —

 

THE COURT:   THE QUESTION IS IF SOMEONE FROM YOUR OFFICE CAN PHOTOCOPY THEM.   WE WEREN’T TALKING ABOUT PHOTOCOPYING HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS.   WE MIGHT BE PHOTOCOPYING SOMEWHERE IN THE ORDER OF MAYBE 80.   AND IF YOU FEEL YOUR OFFICE CAN DO THAT SOMETIME TOMORROW, IF WE MEET TOMORROW MORNING, THAT IS OKAY WITH ME. I DON’T KNOW THE DEFENSE AVAILABILITY.

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   WE ARE AVAILABLE, JUDGE. THE ONLY THING I WOULD ASK IS IF WE DO NEED TO COME BACK, THAT DR. MURRAY NOT BE REQUIRED TO SHOW FOR THAT PARTICULAR DISCUSSION, JUST BECAUSE IT IS A REAL — IF IT IS NOT NECESSARY, HE WOULD PREFER NOT TO GO THROUGH ALL THE RIGAMAROLE THAT IS REQUIRED TO GET TO COURT.   NOT HIM PERSONALLY, BUT HE FEELS LIKE HE IS PUTTING UPON THE SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT EVERY TIME HE COMES BECAUSE THEY DO A GREAT JOB AND ARE SO GEARED UP TO GET HIM THROUGH THE BACK AND EVERYTHING ELSE.   WE PREFER TO HAVE HIM AVOID THAT IF WE CAN, IF IT IS UNNECESSARY.   NOT ON THE 8TH, OF COURSE.

 

THE COURT:   OUR SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, IN PARTICULAR SERGEANT PARRA AND DEPUTY JONES AND THEIR CREW, ARE REMARKABLE AND CONSCIENTIOUS TO A FAULT.   AND THEY ARE DEDICATED TO ENSURING THAT THINGS PROCEED SMOOTHLY AND THAT DR. MURRAY IS TREATED WITH RESPECT, DIGNITY AND IS KEPT SAFE.   DR. MURRAY SHOULDN’T FEEL HE IS PUTTING ANYTHING UPON THEM.   THAT IS THEIR JOB. IF DR. MURRAY DOESN’T FEEL HE WANTS TO COME IN TOMORROW, THAT IS FINE WITH ME.

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   OKAY.   THANK YOU, JUDGE.

 

THE COURT:   IS THAT YOUR POSITION, DR. MURRAY?

 

THE DEFENDANT:   YES, SIR.   YES, YOUR HONOR.

 

THE COURT:   SHOULD WE SET IT FOR A TIME TOMORROW MORNING?

 

MR. WALGREN:   THAT IS FINE, YOUR HONOR.

 

THE COURT:   COUNSEL, YOUR SCHEDULES?

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   HOW EARLY DO YOU WANT TO DO IT?   I MEAN, WE CAN DO IT AS EARLY AS YOU NEED TO.

 

THE COURT:   I’M CONCERNED ABOUT HAVING THESE QUESTIONNAIRES PHOTOCOPIED.   I KNOW THAT WHENEVER I WANT TO PHOTOCOPY SOMETHING USING THE COURT PHOTOCOPY SYSTEM, INVARIABLY IT BREAKS.   SO, 10:00?   DOES THAT GIVE YOU ENOUGH TIME?

 

MR. WALGREN:   9:30.

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   THAT IS FINE WITH US.

 

THE COURT:   ALL RIGHT.   WHAT ABOUT ANY OTHER ISSUES THAT MAY BE OUT THERE THAT WE SHOULD BE ADDRESSING BEFORE THE COMMENCEMENT OF VOIR DIRE ON THE 8TH, MR. WALGREN AND MS. BRAZIL?

 

MR. WALGREN:   WE DON’T HAVE ANYTHING TO RAISE AT THIS TIME, YOUR HONOR.

 

THE COURT:   MR. CHERNOFF?

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   I CAME IN LATE TO TOWN.   MY UNDERSTANDING IS MR. FLANAGAN HAS FILED A 402.   DID YOU RECEIVE A COPY OF THAT?

 

MR. WALGREN:   I DID GET SOMETHING.   I HAVEN’T HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK AT IT.   APPARENTLY, IT WAS FILED FRIDAY.

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   I HAVEN’T LOOKED AT IT EITHER.

 

THE COURT:   DO I HAVE A COPY OF IT?   THIS IS SOMETHING WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO ADDRESS TOMORROW DEPENDING UPON IF COUNSEL HAVE HAD ENOUGH OPPORTUNITY.

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   I’M SURE WE WILL.   MR. FLANAGAN WILL BE HERE.

 

THE COURT:   I’M NOW BEING HANDED IT FOR THE FIRST TIME.   OKAY.   IT IS A FILED DOCUMENT AND WE WILL ADDRESS THAT TOMORROW.

 

MR. CHERNOFF:   OTHER THAN THAT, I CAN’T THINK OF ANY OTHER ISSUES.

 

THE COURT:   I CAN THINK OF SOMETHING ELSE.   THAT IS, COUNSEL, I HAVE BEEN VERY RELUCTANT TO COME DOWN EXTRAORDINARILY HARD ON ANYONE INVOLVED IN THIS CASE ABOUT INTERVIEWS, ABOUT COMMENTS, GRATUITOUS OR OTHERWISE, ABOUT THE COURT’S RULINGS AND THE STATE OF THE EVIDENCE.

 

IT HAS COME TO MY ATTENTION THAT THERE HAVE BEEN COMMENTS MADE REGARDING CERTAIN RULINGS OF THIS COURT, WHETHER THEY MAY BE CORRECT OR NOT. I WANT TO ADMONISH COUNSEL AND DR. MURRAY, MEMBERS OF YOUR TEAMS AND ANY WITNESSES TO WHOM YOU ARE IN CONTACT, THIS CASE WILL BE TRIED IN THIS COURTROOM. IT WILL NOT BE TRIED ON INTERVIEWS.   IT WILL NOT BE TRIED AT THE DOORSTEP OF THIS COURTHOUSE, OR IN THE MALL, OR THE RESTAURANT, OR ON TALK RADIO, OR ANY OTHER INTERVIEWS.

 

I WANT TO MAKE IT REALLY CRYSTAL CLEAR.   I DON’T WANT THE DEFENDANT, THE ATTORNEYS, THOSE INVOLVED IN THEIR TEAMS, MAKING COMMENTS, GRATUITOUS OR OTHERWISE, ABOUT WHETHER THEY AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH ANY OF MY RULINGS OR COMMENTING ON EVIDENCE WHICH EITHER IS GOING TO BE PRESENTED OR IS NOT GOING TO BE PRESENTED, PERIOD. SO WE WILL SEE EVERYBODY TOMORROW AT 9:30 A.M.   YOU WILL HAVE COPIES IN HARD COPY AND DIGITAL FORMAT AROUND NOON TODAY.   THE PROTECTIVE ORDERS REMAIN IN PLACE, PLEASE. AND I JUST WANT TO SEE COUNSEL VERY INFORMALLY IN CHAMBERS ABOUT SOME PURE SCHEDULING MATTERS THAT REALLY ARE NOT SUBSTANTIVE WHATSOEVER. SO WE WILL BE IN RECESS UNTIL 9:30 A.M.   BOND TO STAND FOR DR. MURRAY.   HAVE A GOOD DAY.   THANK YOU.

 

                   

 

 (NEXT  PROCEEDINGS 9:30 A.M., SEPTEMBER 7, 2011.)