Thread by @meghanncuniff

It’s Friday in California, and I’m here at the federal courthouse in Santa Ana for the seventh day of testimony in Michael Avenatti’s wire fraud trial. I’ll be posting updates on this thread so stay tuned. ⚖️🧵⚖️

With the jury not yet in, Judge Selna asked Avenatti to please be more descriptive in his docket titles beyond just 'trial brief'. Avenatti finally uses his standby counsel: "Your honor, I couldn't agree more. I have not been physically filing the documents."

You can read the filing here on Google Drive (it showed up on the docket 20 minutes ago). It's about Regnier's texts and other correspondence that Avenatti says should have been disclosed by prosecutors. bit.ly/3jlqStd

AUSA Alex Wyman is challenging Avenatti's tactics for refreshing witness memory, and Judge Selna is agreeing with him. Issue is Avenatti acting as adverse party when he's questioning the witness. For legal eagles, Selna is referencing this 9th Circuit case anylaw.com/case/united-st…

Judge Selna said something about expecting the sides to conduct research on this after it arose yesterday, "And Mr. Wyman did." "I'd be happy to revisit this issue after you do your own independent research," the judge tells Avenatti.

Avenatti raised concerns about the remaining testimony of @KattenLaw's Joel Weiner, who was opposing counsel in the Alexis Gardner case. He told Selna he wants to get into details of the complex mediation without getting into merits of the case.

The judge told Avenatti, "You don't need to give me a preview of your cross examination."
Avenatti: "I just didn't want you to think I'm going into the merits, because I'm not."
That's it for outside-the-jury argument this morning. The jury is due in about 12 minutes.

One other issue: There's now a motion to quash Avenatti's subpoena of Geoff Johnson's current lawyer Drew Harbur of @Callahan_Blaine, filed by Harbur. Google Drive link: bit.ly/3zXlSBD

You all met Mr. Harbur in earlier tweets.

https://twitter.com/meghanncuniff/status/1418581993067929618

Judge Selna said this morning he'll take his motion to quash up Tuesday morning, but he bumped it to Wednesday after Avenatti said he needed more time to prepare.

Here's a declaration Harbur filed with his motion, on Google Drive: bit.ly/3j25V6h

Jury is in and AUSA Brett Sagel is continuing his direct exam of @KattenLaw's Joel Weiner, who represented NBA player @youngwhiteside as opposing counsel in Avenatti's case with Alexis Gardner. We heard from him yesterday about the case mediation, and the $3 million settlement.

We also heard a couple voicemails Avenatti left Weiner asking where the settlement money was, even though nothing was actually late. Sagel is trying to establish how desperate for money Avenatti was. (He's accused of stealing Gardner's settlement and buying a jet with it.)

Right now, Sagel is establishing that the settlement prohibited Gardner from contacting Whiteside, but she eventually tried to contact him trough Instagram, or by going to one of his @NBA games.

Weiner called Avenatti to tell him about this. Sagel asks if he was told Whiteside wasn't making his settlement payments. No, he wasn't. (This is all centered on Avenatti telling Gardner that Whiteside wasn't making his payments, when actually Avenatti already had her money.)

Sagel finishes with Weiner. Another witness who's point seemed to be that Avenatti lied to another client (Gardner), which is an element in the wire fraud charge related to her stolen settlement. Avenatti is up for cross now, and he's got his flip board chart.

^^^ whose point 🙄

Avenatti asks Weiner more about wealth management company Intersect Capital (which Sagel mentioned in direct) and its founder, Joe McLean.
Avenatti: "Who is Pat Riley?"
Weiner: "He is an executive for a team in the @NBA, to my knowledge."
Avenatti: "For the @MiamiHeat, right?

Yes, for the Heat, the team for which Weiner's client Whiteside used to play. McLean works with a lot of NBA players, including Whiteside. Avenatti is getting into his interactions with McLean, and it involved him basically shouting a profanity in the courtroom.

Avenatti asked Weiner if he knew of a conversation he had with McLean "and he told me quote to go fuck myself?" But Weiner already said he didn't know of the conversation, so Judge Selna sustained Sagel's objection.

Avenatti: "Did you learn that Mr. McLean had told me to take my best shot and fire whatever lawsuit I wanted?
Selna again sustains Sagel's objections. A couple similar rounds and now Avenatti is asking about his attempts to contact McLean "and set up a resolution process."

Avenatti brings up letter Avenatti sent to Pat Riley of the @MiamiHeat about Gardner's allegations against Hassan Whiteside. Weiner was aware of it, and he set up a mediation with Avenatti after it was received. Avenatti emphasizing it was sent "before" Weiner reached out to him.

#HeatTwitter

Avenatti really proud of this letter and keeps bringing it up. "At that time, you knew about my letter to Pat Riley at the Miami Heat, correct?" Yes, Weiner knew about it when the mediation was scheduled." (This is September 2016 era.)

Avenatti keeps trying to talk about his lawsuit threat when mediation was being scheduled, but Judge Selna is sustaining Sagel's objections and warns Avenatti: "Mr. Avenatti, if I sustain an objection to a question you're not entitled to ask the same question again."

Avenatti asking a lot of questions about his threat to sue.
"Do you have some doubt as to whether whether that happened?" he asks.
"No," Weiner answers.
"When I informed you of that, did you doubt it?" Avenatti asks.
"I don't recall," Weiner answers.

"Do you have a recollection of thinking 'Avenatti's full of it; he's not really going to sue if we don't go to mediation'?"
Selna sustains Sagel's objection. Avenatti now asking Weiner how mediations are arranged. It's not a courtroom setting, is it? No. Office conference rooms.

Avenatti is going through who was at the mediation. One was Joe McLean of Whiteside's wealth management company. "Because Mr. McLean was the money guy, right?" Selna sustains Sagel's objection under Rule 403. law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule…

Judge Selna told Avenatti we've heard enough about what happened before the settlement. "Let's move on to another topic." So Avenatti again asks about mediation???
"Mr. Avenatti, move on to another topic."
Avenatti asks about payment date talks, and Selna again says move on.

Weiner cited mediation privilege in declining to answer a question, but, like with other witnesses, Selna isn't honoring private confidentiality agreements. "Sir, the mediation privilege doesn't apply in this context. Answer the question," the judge said.

The question was about whether the mediator, Louis Meisinger, had suggested a certain term that's in the settlement. I didn't catch exactly what, but Weiner didn't have much for Avenatti regarding it. Couldn't say who definitely thought of it.)

Avenatti turns to the actual settlement and the terms of the payment, in an apparent attempt to refute the testimony in direct that suggested Avenatti was anxious for money even though the settlement was on track and no payments had been missed.

Avenatti asks if Weiner understood Joe McLean was the money source for the settlement. "The same guy I had conversed with long before you, right?"
Selna sustains Sagel's objection for asked and answers, relevance.

Avenatti asks if Weiner knew he had concerns that McLean wouldn't pay "due to my prior dealings with him."
"I had no reason to believe there was any concern about that," Weiner answers.

Avenatti is asking about Weiner's contacts with federal investigators. Weiner is not remembering details, but yes he did get a call from AUSA Brett Sagel around April 2019.

Avenatti asks if he told Sagel he'd have time the next day to talk about this matter.
Weiner: "I have no specific recollection of that."
Avenatti: "Do you dispute you wrote that?"
Weiner: "I'm sorry, dispute that I wrote what?"

^^^ a great example of Avenatti's slow and incremental cross. He clarifies for Weiner that this is an email Weiner wrote Sagel. And Weiner says he doesn't dispute that he wrote it. A long line of questioning to get to that answer.

Avenatti is going over Weiner's meeting with prosecutors. At last one before trial, @KattenLaw's general counsel Michael Verde was there to advise Weiner. katten.com/Michael-Verde (I wouldn't expect anyone to think this is unusual, but I guess you never know with a jury.)

Avenatti gave Weiner a document to try to refresh his recollection that his meeting with prosecutors was through video conference, but it doens't work. He says he still doesn't remember. (This is a meeting that happened on July 6, 2021. 24 days ago.)

But Avenatti seems to recognize that whether it was a video meeting or not is a pretty small detail, so he moves into what prosecutors told Weiner during the meeting.

Still, Weiner's memory problems persist, prompting this line of questioning:
Avenatti: "Do you believe you have a pretty good memory?"
Weiner: "I don't know how to answer that."
Avenatti: "Well, I'm asking you do you think you have a good memory?"
Weiner: "It gets me by."

Avenatti asks Weiner if he told Sagel it's common practice for settlement payments to be made into an attorney client trust account.
"Yes, I think so," Weiner answers.

"Did Mr. Sagel ever ask you any questions about what had happened before Dec. 22, 2016, in any of your meetings with the government?" (That's the date of the settlement.)
Sagel objects as vague, but Selna overrules.

Really long pause. from Weiner
"I really don't recall, the focus was this settlement agreement and the payments," Weiner says.
Weiner confirms prosecutors didn't ask him about Joe McLean or Pat Riley of @MiamiHeat.

And we're on a 15-minute break. Don't forget to read my @lawdotcom article that went out this morning: "Jury Hears of 'Another Matter' After Avenatti Opens Door to Testimony About NY Case" bit.ly/3yf4lo1

Look out the windows at the Orange County federal courthouse long enough and you’re bound to see a plane heading in for landing at @OCAirport.

We're back, and with the jury still out Avenatti is raising a Jencks issue (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jencks_Act) regarding the current witness, Joel Weiner of @KattenLaw. He wants the government's notes from its meeting with Weiner.

AUSA Brett Sagel says the July 6 interview is the only interview, any contacts before were to get settlement documents Avenatti didn't give his client, "so we needed to get it from Mr. Weiner" (the opposing counsel)

Sagel also says, "Mr. Avenatti still doesn't know what Jencks is" because notes aren't witness statements. He says there are no notes about the substance of Weiner's statements to them.

Avenatti: This is the third time Sagel has disparaged me regarding Jencks. "I can assure you have read more on Jencks in the last week than Mr. Sagel has in the last 10 years," Avenatti tells Judge Selna.

Judge Selna: "Sir, please hold your voice down. I can hear you."
Avenatti: "I'm sorry, your honor. It's the mask." (I think people who've watched Avenatti on TV would say otherwise.)

Avenatti suggests Selna review all the material and decide if it's Jencks material. Avenatti describes emails, texts he says are "textbook Jencks."
Selna: "They're not by definition textbook Jencks. It depends on the context."

Judge Selna halts this fight because jury is waiting, but he tells prosecutors to submit for in-camera review aka private review by judge. Now jury is in and Selna just told them he's wearing a mic because his face shield muffles his voice and his court reporter can't hear him.

Avenatti: "In your experience, does your memory get better with time?"
Weiner: "I don't know if it gets better or worse."
Avenatti asks why his memory of events in 2017 (settlement, mediation) are better than his memory of talks with prosecutors just three weeks ago.

Weiner answers, "I don't think that's the case," and says Avenatti was asking about "a phone call in the midst of many phone calls" whereas 2017 involved a major proceedings. Avenatti ends cross, and Sagel doesn't have any re-direct. Next witness is Alexis Gardner.

Sagel is handling the direct exam of Alexis Gardner. She's a full-time theater student, and she sings and writes music apart from that. In December 2016, she was in LA, living in her car. "Do you know who Michael Avenatti is?" Sagel asks.
"Yes," Gardner answers.

Gardner says her mother introduced her to Avenatti. "I was just kinda going through it" so she called her mom, and mom said she had someone who could meet me and "would be able to help me."
"Who was that person?" Sagel asked.
"Michael," Gardner answered.

Gardner met Avenatti that same day at a @Starbucks in Santa Monica. She tries to clarify which one, but Sagel keenly notes there are probably 100 on that street. She gives better location.

"Who was there other than you and the defendant," Sagel asks.
"Patrons of @Starbucks and people who work there," Gardner answers. It was just Gardner and Avenatti talking, and she signed a contingency agreement with him right then. Sagel gets the agreement into evidence.

Sagel ask Gardner the purpose of her meeting, then backs up and asks if she knew Avenatti was a lawyer when she met with him. Yes, she did. Why meet with a lawyer? Needed help with situation.

Sagel asks if she knows Hassan Whiteside. Gardner is silent, and Sagel asks if she's hesitant about violating a confidentiality agreement. Judge Selna steps in and says that answer isn't necessary, move on to next question. Sagel now going over agreement and Gardner's signature.

This is obviously not an easy topic for Gardner. She's reading aloud from agreement, and she stops when she gets to Whiteside's name.
"You can state his name," Sagel tells her.
"Do I have to?" Gardner asks.
"You do," Sagel says gently.
Gardner does so.

Sagel asks about Gardner's pay arrangements with Avenatti, and she goes over the contingency agreement. No payment upfront. After she left Starbucks that day, she went to a hotel. Sagel asked who she worked with on that. Michael at first, Gardner said, then another firm employee.

Alexis Gardner just broke down crying on the stand after AUSA Brett Sagel asked her to identify Michael Avenatti. Avenatti stood up at the defense table, and Gardner choked up. 30 seconds or so of it before she manages to say through her tears, yes, he's standing up.

Sagel asks if Gardner told Avenatti what she wanted to get out of the mediation. "The only thing I wanted was a roof over my head and not to wonder where my meals were" coming from, she says.

"Did you ever tell him how much you were looking to get?" Sagel asks.
"No," Gardner answers.
"Did defendant ever tell you how much you would get through this mediation process, prior to it?" Sagel asks.
"No," Gardner answers.

Sagel asks if Avenatti went over the settlement with her.
"He told me some things, but not everything." He did tell her it settled for $3 million. She'd get a lump sum - "He never gave me a number" - then $20,000 a month for the next eight years.

Sagel asks Gardner what Avenatti told her about settlement confidentiality.
"Did defendant tell you anything about what would happen to your settlement if you disclosed it to anybody?"
"Not to my recollection, but I had a general fear of losing it if I did," Gardner answers.

Sagel asks when the first time she saw the full settlement agreement. Gardner answers it was when the AUSAs with @USAO_LosAngeles sat her down to talk to her about this case.

Sagel asks Gardner if Avenatti told her there was a $2.75 million payment being made in January 2017. No, he didn't.
Gardner says she knew about the $3 million total, but Avenatti didn't tell her any of the other details. He also didn't go over her advice of counsel line.

Sagel asks why she signed it at the mediation if she didn't go over it.
"It was late, and everybody was trying to leave ... The lights were off in the building," Gardner said.
She continued: "I trusted my lawyer, and I trusted I would get a copy of the agreement.

Sagel: "When you say you trusted your lawyer, who was that?"
Gardner: "Michael."
Sagel now asking Gardner is she had concerns the $2.75 million wouldn't be paid on time.
"I didn't have a concern about it because I didn't know about it," Gardner answers.

Gardner said she thought Whiteside was going to be making the monthly payments to her for eight years.
Sagel asks if Avenatti told her he got $2/75 million from Whiteside. No. Sagel asks if she'd expect him to, and she said yes.

"Because that's what I hired him to do, to help me," Gardner said. "I thought that he would be honest and truthful in what we discussed." "Excuse me," she added as she teared up. Avenatti really seemed to care about her, she said. But then the deposits stopped.

"They became late, and then months went by," Gardner said. (And this whole time, she thinks it's Whiteside stiffing her on her monthly payments and doesn't realize Avenatti got all the settlement money and bought a jet with it.)

Jury sees texts Gardner sent Avenatti. One is from March 2018, and she asks where her monthly deposit is. Avenatti replies to her, "Did you not get it?" She says 'nope' and Avenatti replies, "I will find out!!!!"
"With four exclamation points," Gardner testifies.

We're seeing more texts from Gardner. "Hey Michael, I still didn't get the deposit." It's April 2018. Keep in mind what Avenatti was doing at this time. He was *all over* cable TV for the @StormyDaniels saga. As Gardner was pleading for her money, Avenatti was getting famous.

Judge Selna dismisses the jury for lunch. They'll be back at 1:30. Miraculously, there doesn't appear to be any outside-the-jury argument. Remember, here's my latest @lawdotcom article on the trial, posted this morning: bit.ly/3yf4lo1

We are back, and AUSA Brett Sagel is finishing his direct exam of Alexis Gardner. We heard about $34k Gardner got after she complained to Avenatti about missed settlement payments. She didn't know Judy the paralegal sent it; she thought it was her ex finally paying.

Sagel asks what Avenatti told her he was doing at this time. What was he telling her? "These guys are assholes. My ex is an asshole; he really doens't want to see my succeed." Avenatti blamed the lack of payments on "my ex and his counsel," Gardner said.

"Who if anyone did he tell you was fighting on your behalf?" Sagel asks.
"Him. Michael," Gardner answers.
"Did you believe he was fighting on your behalf?" Sagel asks.
"Wholeheartedly, yes," Gardner answers.

"Why?" Sagel asks.
"Nobody else was, really. He called me all the time, and that's what he told me. He reassured me constantly, all the time," Gardner answers.

Gardner thought Avenatti was hounding her ex and his lawyer (Joel Weiner @kattenlaw, who we heard from earlier) for her missed payments, when really, Avenatti had already gotten the settlement money.

Sagel asks Gardner about her music and theater pursuits, and if Avenatti took an interest. This is getting into Avenatti's "but the costs and fees!" defense. Gardner says she wanted an entertainment lawyer as she pursued an album deal, and Avenatti said he'd help her.

"Did he ever say to you, 'this will come out of your settlement agreement?" Sagel asks.
"No," Gardner answers.
"Did he ever say to you, 'I'm going to need to charge you for this as separate legal work?" Sagel asks.
"No," Gardner answers.

Gardner recalls Avenatti's reaction when she contacted another attorney from his firm about her settlement. "He just seemed flustered by it. Very flustered." He later assures her he's going to secure her payments. "He just kept reassuring me he was working on it."

Sagel asks why Gardner sent Avenatti a screenshot of her depleted bank account. Our, "Hey Michael so my bank account has been like this since Sept. 29." She can't pay for class or apartment. A long message that detailed her plight.

Sagel asks about her saying she know Michael is dealing with a lot.
"Michael's all over the news. I felt like based off the things he was dealing with in the public eye, my problems were minuscule," Gardner answers.

Gardner lists her problems, including a negative bank account, not having a car etc. She had said she doesn't want her problems to be Avenatti's problems, and Sagel asks, "Did he ever say to you, 'Your problems are because of me?'"
"No," Gardner answers.

Gardner reads aloud a Thanksgiving note she sent Avenatti in 2018. "Hello my phenomenal lawyer, confidant and future president," it began. "I'm so thankful for you and how you came into my life and changed it for the better..."

Sagel asks Gardner why she wrote that. "I thought he was fighting for me all the time. I thought he was working for me all the time. I was very confident the person calling me was doing the things he said and was in my corner," Gardner says of Avenatti.

"He always seemed to genuinely care and take an interest in my well being," Gardner says of Avenatti. She was trying to get a record deal and has big ambitions for her music career.

We saw another message she sent Avenatti that began, "I want to apologize because I've had to really learn how to be a professional..."
"Why are you apologizing to the defendant?" Gardner asks.
"I'm apologizing because I just didn't feel competent as a person," Gardner began.

Sagel is asking Gardner if Avenatti ever told her that the things she said about the settlement in her messages to him - that her ex wasn't making payments etc - was wrong. No, he didn't.

"Did you expect your attorney to tell you the true terms of the settlement agreement?” Sagel asks.
“Yes,” Gardner answers.
“Why did you expect that from your attorney?” Sagel asks.
“That’s what he’s supposed to do. And he also told me that he would,” Gardner answers.

“Did the defendant tell you that he used $2.5 million of your settlement money to buy a private plane?”
“No,” Gardner answers.
“Would you have expected him to tell you that that’s what happened to your money?” Sagel asks.
“I’m a little confused by the question,” Gardner answers.

Sagel tries again: “If the defendant received settlement money on your behalf, what did you expect hm to do with it?”
“Tell me, and send it to me,” Gardner answers.

“Did you ever authorize defendant to use your settlement money to buy a private plane?” Sagel asks.
“No,” Gardner answers.
Sagel ends with that. Avenatti up for cross now.

Some have asked if Avenatti's standby counsel could do this cross, but no, only Avenatti can have a speaking role the trial. He's asking Gardner about how the prosecutors got her text messages, and if she was careful when going through her phone to get them for them.

Avenatti isn't hard charging with Gardner, he's telling her to take her time and go through the texts. Judge Selna just recessed court for the 15-minute afternoon break.

Selna asked how much of prosecutors' case is left. Sagel says they probably have 6 more trial days, but Selna said it was too indefinite to give the jury an update yet. The judge also said he doesn't think we need to hear from expert on special needs trusts, and Sagel agreed.

We're back, and Avenatti starts by telling Gardner: "If at any point in time you'd like to take a break, just let us know."
He continues asking her about the phone info she sent federal investigators. Did they ask to make an electronic forensic copy of her phone? No, they didn't

Avenatti asks Gardner to find texts in which she asks him for settlement agreement. Gardner spends couple minutes looking.
"I didn't send you a text in regards to the agreement," Gardner finally answers

Gardner told Avenatti during 1st meeting @Starbucks that she was living in her car.
"What was my reaction?" Avenatti asked.
"You were shocked, appalled," Gardner answered.
"And what, if anything, did I tell you?" Avenatti asks.
Selna sustains Sagel's hearsay objection.

Avenatti asks her about the @Airbnb his law firm set her up in, then moves into her problems with Whiteside and why she hired Avenatti. Had his "financial people" been trying to get her to sign a nondisclosure agreement? Gardner says it was actually Whiteside's cousin.

Avenatti asks if Gardner felt like she'd been jerked around by Whiteside and his people for the better part of a year, but Selna sustains Sagel's objection under Rule 403 (repetitive, cumulative etc). Avenatti moves onto contingency agreement, which is displayed for the jury.

Avenatti pointed out a line in agreement that says if other legal matters arise, they're outside the cope of the agreement. He moves onto asking Gardner what she did after mediation. She says she went to her AirBnB. Avenatti asks if he drove her to get her car...

... and Gardner says no, the mediator Judge Meisinger, did. Avenatti asks if he was in the car with them, but Selna sustains Sagel's objection under Rule 403 (cumulative, we hear that one a lot) and Rule 401, relevancy. law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule…

Avenatti goes over how Gardner was to be truthful in meetings w/ USA, just like she's to tell truth now. Asks if she remembers saying she'd requested "in writing" the settlement agreement "over and over again."
"The words 'in writing,' I don't recall. It's been a few years."

(Side note: We're definitely at the point in the Friday trial day where time slooowwwssss down. Gonna be a long 45 minutes. Someone mentioned during break that Judge Guilford always did a half trial day on Fridays. People were wistful.)

Avenatti asks Gardner if she remembers telling feds she'd turn over all the text messages she had on her phone.
Did you do that at that meeting or later?
Gardner says she doesn't recall, things were a little scary. (Selna agrees with Avenatti to strike last part as nonresponsive)

"At one point, the government asked you if you had any voicemails from me is that correct?" Avenatti asks.
"Yes," Gardner answers.
"And did you search for any voicemails I may have left you?"
"Sure I did," Gardner answers.

"Did you give any voicemails to the government?" Avenatti asks.
"Not that I can remember," Gardner answers.
"Do you recall finding voicemails that I had left for you?" Avenatti asks.
"Not that I can remember," Gardner answers.

Avenatti just grabbed his flip board and moved over to the lectern.
"And on April 2, 2019, you told Mr. Sagel and his colleagues that at the end of the mediation, you believed that the total settlement amount was $3.6 million, right?" Avenatti asks.
"Yes," Gardner answers.

Avenatti asks if she said Avenatti had a 33 percent fee agreement. Yes, Gardner says.
Avenatti asks Gardner what 33 percent of $3.6 million is, and she gives a pretty fantastic answer: "I'm not great with numbers. If you want to give me a pencil, I'll do some math."

Avenatti is really putting his flip chart board to use. He wrote on it and asked to approach Gardner with it. Sagel: "Your honor, he can just tell her what he wrote on the board. I don't know why he needs to approach."
But Selna lets him. "If you want to show it to her, you may."

I can't see the chart, but it sounds like Avenatti has written monthly payment amounts on it and he's asking Gardner to add a couple figures, one is in $1 million in change, the other is $100k or so. Selna suggests we get a calculator, which elicits chuckles. But he's serious.

Gardner using a calculator now to add numbers Avenatti is giving her. Avenatti is writing numbers on his flip board, saying stuff such as, "Now these two numbers are not the same, are they?"

I think he's showing that the numbers Gardner gave prosecutors don't add up, but when he asks Gardner about it, she reminds him (and the jury) she never saw the settlement agreement so didn't have the true figures.

Avenatti: When you provided the $3.6 million figure to the government, did you provide any amount related to "what costs and expenses were going to have to be deducted?"
She says they didn't ask. Avenatti moved to strike as nonresponsive, but Selna declined.

Gardner says she was told "I did't have to worry about it" regarding costs and fees, and that her settlement would cover it. Avenatti asks if she knew an attorney had to travel to Italy to investigate her allegations against Whiteside.

Sagel objects because it gets into case details barred by a motion in limine, but Selna overrules. Gardner is wondering about attorney-client privilege. But the attorney is Avenatti, and Gardner apparently signed a privilege waiver.

There's some confusion here, and Avenatti asks if Gardner wants to consult with her current attorney, who's in the audience. He also suggests we end for the day mow, and Selna agrees. (You could practically feel the relief in the courtroom when he did.)

Neither side has outside-the-jury arguments this afternoon, so we're clearing out now. "OK. We're good. Enjoy the weekend," Judge Selna ordered.

So that's it for the day! Thanks for following along. Remember: No trial on Monday. Check back Tuesday about 8:30 a.m. for another thread, and check out my in-depth coverage at @lawdotcom. bit.ly/3yf4lo1

@threadreaderapp Please unroll. Thank you!