Page 22 - RICHERT V. WGA - JUDGE WEST JAN 10 2010

IT
1 THI}'IK ACTUALLY VIOLATES CALIFORNIA PROCEDORE FOR

2 COUNSEL TO IN
COME AND ASK FOR THTNGS THAT ARE BEYOI{D THE

3 SCOPE OF THE AGREEIIENT.

4 SO THIS IS NOT ABOUT THE SPIRIT OF THE

5
AGREEIIENT, NOT ABOUT THE LETTER OF AGREE}IEI{T. IT'S
.-
6 ABOUT A DEAL. A
WE HAD AND t,lE HAD DEAL THAT EVERYOI{E

7 COI'IPLIED WITH AND I,IO ONE HAD ANY OBJECTIOXS
TO.

8 IF }!R. JOI{NSON, WITH THE BENEFIT OF HIS

I
I
CONSULTANT I{OW REGRET TIIAT DEAL, CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT
..
10 IT. BUT HE GOT HE
GOT DEAL POINTS AND COI{SIDERATIOI{

't1 FROII D.G.A. THAT HE DIDN'T GET FROI'I AI{Y OTHER
DEFENDAI{TS,

12 SO TO THAT EXTENT, HE SUCCEEDED IN }JHAT HAPPE ED,

I -.
13 SO THINK, YOUR HOIIOR, YOU HAVE YOU'VE

14 LAID our A rHAT CAt{ tlovE O , IF
FRA|IIEWoRK WE F0RWARD

15
COUNSEL WANTS TO EXPLORE THE ADITINISTRATIOI{ AS
FEES YOU

16
IiIDICATE, THERE'S A PRESU||PTI0N; At{D rF ll,E HAVE TO RELY oN

tHE I'LL
PRESUIIPTIoN AND PUT TtlE oNUS 0N PLAINTIFF, I,ORK

'18 WITH I'IR, JOHI{SON TO T
SEE WHAT CAI{ OO TO SATISFY HII.I .

19 AS FOR THESE OTHER THINGS ABOUT RE-DOING
THE
..
20
REPORTS, D.G.A, SPEI{DS TOO IIUCH I4OI{EY WE'RE TOO FAR

21 DOWN THE ROAD TO NOI{ REWRITE. THE REPORTS IN THE I,IANIIER

22
SU6GESTED.

llR. JOHNSON: llAY I
RESPOND?

24 THE COURT: SURE.

tlR. IrS I
25 JOHNSOI{: OUTRAGEOUS FOR HIft TO SAy

26 DOI{'T ON CLIENT. I O
SPEAK BEHALF OF THE SPEAK BEHALF OF

27 THE CLASS. IF TIE IIAI{TS }tE TO GET 25
PEOPLE TO URIT€ A

28
PETITION TO SAY PLEASE GIVE US THIS IIIFORIIATION, I.'E
CAII

KENYNIA D. DARDEN, CSR
,D^
')lloT.).'.lr,w(ta ^E