Lawyers for Katherine Jackson on Tuesday requested the authority to interview attorney John Branca and former music executive John McClain this Friday, as well as demand they produce business contracts and other documents related to the late pop star.
Her lawyers argued in a court filing that the information was “potentially crucial” to a hearing set for Monday that could determine the permanent representatives of Jackson’s estate, which is estimated to be worth more than $500 million.
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Mitchell Beckloff put off dealing with their request until Monday, effectively quashing it.
Beckloff may determine at Monday’s hearing whether special administrators Branca and McClain will transition from temporary to permanent representatives of the estate, and whether an allowance will be granted to Katherine and Jackson’s three children.
Jackson’s 2002 will puts his assets in a trust that benefits Katherine, his three children and unnamed children’s charities.
Tuesday’s filing was meant to expedite the process of obtaining “important personal, business and legal information and documents relating to Michael Jackson” including his deal with concert promoter AEG Live, according to a written statement from L. Londell McMillan, who is part of Katherine Jackson’s legal team.
They’re also seeking “life insurance policies, settlements and disputes as well as agreements between the temporary special administrators and Michael Jackson (and others).”
McMillan said they’d requested some of the documents before and had hoped to see them before the Aug. 3 hearing.
Katherine Jackson’s lawyers alleged in filings that Branca and McClain were “intent on keeping her in the dark as much and for as long as possible.”
Branca and McClain’s legal team responded that the singer’s mother had made “voluminous, burdensome and invasive discovery demands” that were impossible to meet in a short time frame.
It added that it could not produce the contract detailing Jackson’s comeback tour with promoter AEG Live because of confidentiality provisions, but was willing to share the contract if Katherine Jackson agreed to the provisions. The parties were unable to agree on the terms.
The administrators’ legal team also argued that it was unclear why Katherine Jackson was demanding so much information. Her subpoena and deposition notices had “all the earmarks of a protracted and expensive legal battle which does not appear to be justified,” the administrators’ lawyers said in a filing.
No comments:
Post a Comment