Free Motion for Judgment - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

EXHIBIT I
Case 2:04-cv-00299-DGC D0cument614—3 Filed O2/27/2007 Page10f3

I UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
3 ______________u_wo,,o,,,,,_,_
e MEADOWLARK LEMON, e mexxiee mem,)
ee el., )
5 3
Fleintiffe, ) CV O4~0O299~PHX—DGC
6 )
ve. ) Phoenix, Arizona
7 } January 23, 200Y
HARLEM GLOBETROTTERS }
3 INTERNATIONAL, INC., et e1., }
)
9 Defendente. )

10
11
22
13 BEFORE: THE HONORABLE DAVID G. CAMPBELL, JUDGE
14
15 REPORTER'S PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
16 TRIAL — DAY 1
17 {Direct Examination of Mannie Jackson)
18
19
20
21 Officiel Comte Repoxter:
Patricia Lyons, RPR, CRR
22 Sendxe Dey O'Con¤o: U.S. Courthouse, Suite 322
401 West Weehington Street, Spc. 41 E
23 Phoenix, Arizona 85003-2150 ;
{602} 322~7257 §
24 §
Proceedings Repoxted by Stenogrephie Ceuxt Reporter ;
25 Txensczipt Pxepexed by Computer~Aided Transcription Q
Case 2:04-cv-00299-DGC Document 614-3 Filed O2/27/2007 Page 2 of 3

is
in >:1a l the deal with the purchase of Harlem Globetrotters back in, am
2 I correct, l993? is that when that happened?
3 A The deal was finalized in August of 1993.
e Q and before that deal was consummated, am I correct that it
is:24 as 5 is your testimony that you told someone to look at all of the
6 contracts?
7 A. Ouring the due diligence process they were asked to look
8 at all contracts and verify the fact that the rights did in
9 fact transfer as an asset through the acquisition, yes.
15:24:57 10 Q Okay. So that was a clear instruction of yours?
ll A Absolutely clear.
12 Q And one of the people involved in that process was
L 13 Mr. Garvey?
le MR. TELLEMAN: Objection. Attorney—client privilege,
15:25:06 15 Your Honor.
16 THE COURT: Overruled on that question.
17 THE WITNESS: There were a team me there’s a team of
18 probably four legal groups.
19 BY MR. MITNIK:
15:25:17 20 Q was one of tnem Mr. Garvey?
21 A Mr. Garvey’s one of them, yes.
22 Q And it was very important to you to make sure those
23 contracts were reviewed because it was important to your
2Q investors, right?
r? $:32 25 A It was important to the transaction. That was one of the
Case 2:04-cv-00299-DGC Document 614-3 Filed O2/27/2007 Page 3 of 3

Case 2:04-cv-00299-DGC

Document 614-3

Filed 02/27/2007

Page 1 of 3

Case 2:04-cv-00299-DGC

Document 614-3

Filed 02/27/2007

Page 2 of 3

Case 2:04-cv-00299-DGC

Document 614-3

Filed 02/27/2007

Page 3 of 3