The Second District Court of Appeal in California has revived a suit against “Friends” star Lisa Kudrow by her ex-manager, Scott Howard, stating that Howard’s expert witness testimony was improperly rejected by the lower courts. Howard brought suit against Kudrow in 2008, alleging that the actress had violated the terms of an oral contract when she declined to pay him a percentage of her earnings. Howard represented Kudrow from 1991 until his termination in 2007 and played a part in getting her the lucrative role of Phoebe Buffay on the NBC sitcom “Friends,” which aired from 1994 to 2004.
When Howard first represented Kudrow, the two made an agreement that Kudrow would pay her manager a 10% commission on her income. According to Howard, after Kudrow’s success on “Friends,” where she was making $1 million per episode, Kudrow and Howard orally agreed to reduce Howard’s commission to 5%.
Kudrow terminated Howard’s employment in 2007 after he requested that she continue to pay him a commission on the “Friends” work performed before 2007 but paid to Kudrow after.
Kudrow argued that there was no evidence of a post-termination compensation agreement and requested summary judgment from the court. Howard opposed this motion with the testimony of an expert witness, entertainment industry veteran Martin Bauer, who explained that a post-termination commission was common practice in the industry. The trial court declined to consider Bauer’s expert testimony, stating that Bauer lacked the proper foundation to make such statements. Bauer was unable to identify specific people and events to support his assertions.
In its reversal, the state appellate court stated that Bauer’s testimony should have been admitted, as Bauer was not required to provide the level of specificity that the trial court requested.
According to the court, “[a]s long as the expert has sufficient experience in the industry and with the subject matter of his testimony, he or she may give an expert opinion on that subject.”
Because Bauer had personal experience as a party to agreements similar to the one at issue, the court said Bauer had the foundation to speak on the topic. “Bauer’s testimony might be discounted at trial,” said the judge, “any flaws in an expert’s opinion may be exposed through the adversary’s own evidence or in cross-examination.”
Second District Revives Manager’s Suit Against ‘Friends’ Star