Direct examination of Leroy Taft (part 2)

📄 Direct examination of Leroy Taft (part 2) — Thursday, February 6, 1997

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CIVIL\1997\FEB\6\DIRECT-EXAMINATION-OF-LEROY-TA.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 55 of 57

◀ Jury recess Jury resumes proceedings ▶

Witness: Leroy Taft
Examiner: Peter Gelblum
Called by: Defense • Date: Thursday, February 6, 1997 • Utterances: 101

Judge Fujisaki conducted a limited Evidence Code 402 hearing to determine whether plaintiffs had been provided accounting records showing how approximately $826,000 in Honeybaked Ham proceeds were disbursed. Witness Taft (Simpson's accountant/financial manager) testified that roughly $782,000 went to federal and state taxes, ~$100,000 to civil litigation expenses, ~$15,000 to Kathy Randa's salary, and the remaining ~$285,000 to unspecified personal and business expenses. The hearing concluded with Fujisaki overruling the plaintiffs' objection after finding the specific Honeybaked Ham disbursement records had not actually been subpoenaed.

# 1 THE COURT:

The Court will conduct a semi-discovery -- semi-Evidence Code 402 proceeding at this time. You may conduct an inquiry, Mr. Gelblum, as to the proceeds and where those proceeds went, and see whether or not you received that information or not.

402 HEARING DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. GELBLUM:

# 2 Q:

Mr. Taft, what was the done with the proceeds from -- what was the last question -- you were at the Honeybaked Hams, the cornerstone?

# 3 A:

The proceeds were used to pay both federal and state income taxes and to pay personal and business expenses and attorney fees.

# 4 Q:

Do you know the amounts for each of those categories?

# 5 A:

Approximately $782,000 was paid in federal and state income taxes from that source.

# 6 Q:

Is that the lien on that house?

# 7 A:

There was a lien on the house as a result of those taxes.

# 8 Q:

I mean, that's what part of the money went, to reduce that lien?

# 9 A:

Correct.

# 10 Q:

And what -- how much of the money?

# 11 A:

And the balance, which was approximately $44,000, went to bills, personal and -- personal and business bills, and also to attorney fees.

# 12 Q:

How much to attorney fees and which attorneys?

# 13 A:

I really don't have that information to break it down.

# 14 Q:

What kind of bills were personal and business expenses?

# 15 A:

All of the personal bills would be all of the bills necessary to run the Rockingham household, and the --

# 16 Q:

And how much is that on a monthly basis?

# 17 A:

I don't know. I mean, I don't have that number right here.

# 18 Q:

Do you have it in front of you?

# 19 A:

No, I don't.

# 20 Q:

You have it with you in court?

# 21 A:

No, I don't.

# 22 Q:

And what attorneys got paid from those fees -- I'm sorry --from those proceeds?

# 23 A:

I'm not sure whether when I said attorney fees, I included in expert witnesses and expenses of the civil trial. I don't believe from the funds that we're talking about from the Honeybaked Hams source, I don't believe any civil attorneys got paid any money from that source.

# 24 Q:

Of the $400,000, approximately what portion went to pay expenses for the civil case?

# 25 A:

I'd say approximately a hundred thousand.

# 26 Q:

And the other three hundred to personal and business expenses?

# 27 A:

I would say so, yes, including some debt that was in there from the past, which would be an expense. But I mean, it wasn't even current expenses; it was past debt.

# 28 Q:

What debt?

# 29 A:

It would be some of the debt that we provided to you with respect to paying down accounts payable.

# 30 Q:

Through Orenthal Productions to Mr. Simpson?

# 31 A:

No, no, no. To outside vendors.

# 32 Q:

For the litigation?

# 33 A:

No. Through the litigation. And just some were other business expenses that were due, travel expenses for the experts, that sort of thing.

# 34 Q:

A hundred thousand, you're saying, went to pay certain expenses relating to this case, the civil litigation?

# 35 A:

That's my best recollection right now.

# 36 Q:

None of that is attorney; that's just experts and investigators and people like that?

# 37 A:

I think so, yes.

# 38 Q:

Do you know which experts and investigators?

# 39 A:

No, I don't.

# 40 Q:

And then the $300,000, you said some of that was for personal expenses like running the Rockingham household?

# 41 A:

Correct.

# 42 Q:

And the rest of that $300,000 was for debt that also included litigation expenses?

# 43 A:

No. It would -- it would be for office expenses.

# 44 Q:

What office?

# 45 A:

Well, there's salaries.

# 46 Q:

Whose salaries?

# 47 A:

There's Kathy Randa's salary.

# 48 Q:

How much was that?

# 49 A:

Pardon me?

# 50 Q:

How much?

# 51 MR. BAKER:

I'm going to object on privacy grounds.

# 52 THE COURT:

Overruled. No privacy there.

# 53 A:

I would -- I would say that's a approximately $3,000 a month, gross.

# 54 Q:

(BY MR. GELBLUM) All right. And how much of the $300,000 went to Ms. Randa?

# 55 A:

Well, this money we're talking about came in in August, so I would -- I would have to say that we're talking about maybe five months so.

# 56 Q:

So that question, about $15,000. And how about the other $285,000, sir?

# 57 A:

I would just be guessing Mr. Gelblum, without looking at the cash register.

KEY QUOTE

# 58 Q:

That's not in the courtroom?

# 59 A:

No, it's not.

# 60 Q:

So, $285,000 to general, personal and Mr. Simpson's people for any summary of his financial

# 61 A:

That I can't identify at this moment. But, you know, it's a part of our -- our office records; it's part of his books; it's part of the Orenthal Productions books.

# 62 Q:

And did any of that go directly to Mr. Simpson?

# 63 A:

No.

# 64 Q:

It went all to outside vendors?

# 65 A:

All to outside vendors.

# 66 Q:

Any of that related to either the criminal or civil litigation? We're talking about the $285,000 portion of the $300,000. Did any of that go to pay civil or criminal litigation expenses?

# 67 A:

It may have. I just -- I'm trying to --to make it a distinction that it didn't go to lawyers, but it went to expenses related to the civil case.

# 68 Q:

Did you think the balance of the $285,000 went to civil case expenses?

# 69 A:

I'm not positive. I'd have to check my records.

# 70 Q:

Some portion of it, then?

# 71 A:

Yes, I think so.

# 72 Q:

Over half?

# 73 A:

I don't know.

# 74 Q:

Do you have any idea what percentage?

# 75 A:

Not without guessing, which I'd prefer not to.

# 76 Q:

Okay.

# 77 THE COURT:

Excuse me, Mr. Gelblum. You're conducting general cross-examination. I'm conducting this hearing because you told me up here at side bench that you were provided ledgers that showed the receipt of the sale of the Honeybaked Ham, but that you were not provided any ledgers or entries showing disbursements of those amounts. And I'm allowing you to ascertain whether or not there were such books and whether or not they were provided to you. I'm not conducting general discovery for you. It's kind of late for that.

# 78 MR. GELBLUM:

Well, I agree that was the purpose of my objection, Your Honor, that we weren't provided --

# 79 THE COURT:

I'm trying to ascertain that information so I can rule on that objection.

# 80 MR. GELBLUM:

All right. Okay.

# 81 Q:

(BY MR. GELBLUM) Are there -- are there books and records that reflect this information?

# 82 A:

Certainly.

# 83 Q:

What are they?

# 84 A:

What are they what?

# 85 Q:

What are they?

# 86 A:

Books and records.

# 87 Q:

What?

# 88 A:

Accounting records.

# 89 Q:

With regard to the books and records?

# 90 A:

Accounting records.

# 91 Q:

And where are they, at your office?

# 92 A:

Yes.

# 93 Q:

Have you provided those to us?

# 94 A:

You haven't asked for them, so the answer is no.

KEY QUOTE

# 95 MR. GELBLUM:

Okay. Can I ask Mr. Baker what he intends to inquire of the disposition of other proceeds which we have also not received information about?

# 96 MR. BAKER:

Your Honor, they asked for certain specific records. We've been over that in open court. We've gone through and provided those records.

# 97 THE COURT:

Were those records requested?

# 98 MR. GELBLUM:

I believe that all these records that would show the disbursements of these proceeds were requested. I don't have the discovery documents in court with me. Let me have the subpoena. Mr. Gelblum reviews document.)

# 99 MR. GELBLUM:

The only thing in the subpoena, Your Honor, that would cover it, that would be in this area, it's not the Honeybaked Hams area that we just approached, but use of the insurance proceeds. We did ask for information regarding that.

# 100 THE COURT:

Then your objection is overruled. Okay. Take ten. We'll resume examination.

KEY QUOTE

# 101 (Recess.)

Temperature

procedural

Key Quotes (4)

Witness (Taft)

You haven't asked for them, so the answer is no.

Pivotal admission that accounting records exist and were never produced — but only because plaintiffs never specifically requested them, which ultimately doomed their own objection.

Hiroshi Fujisaki

You're conducting general cross-examination. I'm conducting this hearing because you told me up here at side bench that you were provided ledgers that showed the receipt of the sale of the Honeybaked Ham, but that you were not provided any ledgers or entries showing disbursements of those amounts.

Fujisaki reins in Gelblum, clarifying the narrow purpose of the 402 hearing and signaling impatience with scope creep.

Hiroshi Fujisaki

Then your objection is overruled. Okay. Take ten.

After Gelblum admits the subpoena didn't specifically cover Honeybaked Ham disbursements, Fujisaki overrules the objection — plaintiffs failed their own discovery argument.

Witness (Taft)

I would just be guessing Mr. Gelblum, without looking at the cash register.

Illustrates the witness's limited ability to account for $285,000 in unspecified disbursements without records in court.

Evidence (3)

Informal

Subpoena for financial records — reviewed by Gelblum in court

discussed; found not to specifically cover Honeybaked Ham disbursement records

Informal

Orenthal Productions accounting/bookkeeping records reflecting disposition of Honeybaked Ham proceeds (~$826,000)

referenced; confirmed to exist at Taft's office but never produced because never specifically requested

Informal

Ledgers showing receipt of Honeybaked Ham sale proceeds

previously provided to plaintiffs

Notable Exchanges (2)

Hiroshi Fujisaki•Peter Gelblum

Fujisaki interrupts Gelblum mid-examination to remind him the hearing has a narrow scope — only to determine whether disbursement records existed and were provided — not to conduct general financial discovery. Gelblum ultimately concedes the subpoena didn't cover this specific area.

corrective

Peter Gelblum•Robert Baker

Brief dispute over whether disbursement records had been properly requested; Baker maintains they provided what was asked for; Gelblum cannot produce discovery documents in court to counter.

strategic

Witness Demeanor

(Recess.)

Objections

1 objections (0 sustained, 1 overruled)

Proceeding 8907 • 101 utterances • Defense witness

Civil Trial

Department 103