ELISABETH WATERS: No, I do not know.
MR. DOLAN: Why did you write here in this letter—well, you spoke to Camille LeGrand before writing this letter, correct?
ELISABETH WATERS: Yes.
MR. DOLAN: What did Camille LeGrand tell you about the writing of this letter?
MR. BURESH: I’m going to object to the question. It invades the attorney/client privilege. Instruct the witness not to answer.
MR. DOLAN: That has been waived. It says, “I have talked to our lawyer, Camille LeGrand, yesterday regarding liability of MZB Enterprises for your behavior at any conventions or shows you attended. She informs me that MZB Enterprises is not responsible,” and she goes on to indicate what they talked about.
MR. BURESH: I don’t consider that to be a waiver of the privilege.
MR. DOLAN: Mark it please. (Whereupon, the previous question was marked for the record.)
MR. DOLAN: Did Camille LeGrand, quote, “inform you the MZB Enterprises is not responsible for anything that Walter had already done”?
MR. BURESH: Same objection, same instruction as to all communication between Camille LeGrand and this witness.
MR. DOLAN: Mark it. (Whereupon, the previous question was marked for the record.)
MR. DOLAN: Did someone inform you that once you had good reason to believe that Walter was capable of violating the law in the course of his association with children you meet at the functions, that MZB Enterprises could be liable for future behavior in any situation in which he was acting as your employee? MR. BURESH: Let me hear the question again, please. (Whereupon, the record was read by the reporter.)
MR. BURESH: The same objection, same instruction.
MR. DOLAN: I’m not asking what any lawyer told you. I’m asking, did anyone ever tell you that?
MR. BURESH: In the context of this letter, same objection, same instruction.
MR. DOLAN: I’m not asking her the context of this letter.
MR. DOLAN: I am just asking, did anyone ever tell you that MZB Enterprises could be held liable for the actions of Walter Breen once you knew that he might be molesting children?
MR. BURESH: Same objection, same instruction. It’s not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
MR. DOLAN: Certainly, there may be a claim if he was involved somehow in the molestation of children as an employee.
MR. BURESH: What somebody told her about that is of no relevance. Same instruction, same objection.
MR. DOLAN: I just want to make sure I understand for the record, please, which objections are you making, attorney-client privilege, or you just don’t want her to answer?
MR. BURESH: Attorney-client privilege, and also all the objections that I just got through stating, which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
MR. DOLAN: At the time you wrote this letter, were you aware that Marion Zimmer Bradley Enterprises could be held liable for the activities of Walter Breen if he were to molest someone after the allegations had been raised regarding Ken Smith?
MR. BURESH: Object to the question assumes facts not in evidence and calls for a legal conclusion. You’re grilling her on the law here.
MR. DOLAN: No, I’m not. I’m asking her if she had knowledge or awareness. I’m not asking her the status of the law.
MR. BURESH: Her own knowledge or awareness of potential vicarious liability is of no meaning in this case. Either they’re vicariously liable according to what the law is or they’re not. Her understanding–
MR. DOLAN: This isn’t a proper objection, Scott. A proper objection is foundation, the form of the question or attorney-client privilege, but this colloquy is not appropriate, and I will ask you please to refrain from doing it. If you’re going to instruct her not to answer, go ahead and do that.
MR. BURESH: I have, and now you started the colloquy.
MR. DOLAN: I am just trying to make sure that we please keep to the CCP. We have been pretty good at it in doing this so far, and I don’t like it when we start having this other stuff.
MR. BURESH: I don’t either.
MR. DOLAN: Did you ever have an understanding that once you were aware that Walter Breen may have molested a child, that MZB Enterprises could be held liable for any further acts that he undertook in molesting a child?
MR. BURESH: I’m going to object to the question. Calls for a legal conclusion, and it’s also not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
MR. DOLAN: Are you instructing her not to answer?
MR. BURESH: No, she can go ahead and answer the question.
MR. DOLAN: I’ll have it read back, please. (Whereupon, the record was read by the reporter.)
MR. BURESH: I want to talk to my client.
MR. DOLAN: Please let the record reflect that they’re breaking during a pending question. (Discussion off the record.)
MR. BURESH: I’m going to instruct the witness not to answer the question.
MR. DOLAN: On what basis, please?
MR. BURESH: Same basis.
MR. DOLAN: Which one, attorney/client privilege or it calls for a legal conclusion? I just want to be clear, Scott; that’s all.
MR. BURESH: I have stated three different objections to this line of questioning. Invasion of attorney-client privilege, calls for a legal conclusion, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
MR. DOLAN: I just want to be very clear that you understand my question. I’m not asking if an attorney told you anything. I’m asking, did you understand? I’m not asking if you, as a lawyer, just as you as a person; if you had any understanding at this time in 1989 as to whether or not, once you knew that Walter Breen was capable of molesting children, that Marion Zimmer Bradley Enterprises could be held responsible if he did so as an employee?
Is it the same instruction not to answer?
MR. BURESH: Correct.
MR. DOLAN: Please mark that. (Whereupon, the previous question was marked for the record.)
MR. DOLAN: At some point did you become concerned that Walter’s behavior might cause liability for MZB Enterprises? Unless your lawyer objects, please look—I understand that you’re looking at him, but unless he objects, I’m entitled to an answer.
ELISABETH WATERS: After I found out what he had done to Kenny, yes, I became concerned that his behavior would cause future liability.
MR. DOLAN: Were you concerned that it might cause the loss of one or more of the houses as well?
ELISABETH WATERS: Well, since he and Marion owned 2221 Prince Street as husband and wife, I was concerned that it might cause the loss of that house if he were sued.
MR. DOLAN: Was that one of the reasons why the title to 2221 Prince Street was transferred over to Marion solely?
ELISABETH WATERS: That was done as part of the divorce because she was the one living there.
MR. DOLAN: The question was, was that one of the reasons why that property was transferred over to Marion Zimmer Bradley?
ELISABETH WATERS: I don’t know. I was not a party to the divorce negotiations.
MR. DOLAN: Was it your testimony that you never contacted Camille LeGrand regarding the divorce?
ELISABETH WATERS: I called her secretary to set up an appointment.
MR. DOLAN: Did you participate in any way whatsoever in terms of the handling of the divorce other than calling the secretary of Camille LeGrand to set up an appointment?
MS. DURRELL: I’m going to object. That’s overbroad, vague and ambiguous as to “handling the divorce proceedings.”
MR. DOLAN: You may answer.
ELISABETH WATERS: I believe I helped draw up the list of assets and sort out what was community property and what wasn’t.
MR. DOLAN: Did you have any understanding as to whether or not one of the motivating factors in divorcing Walter Breen was to protect Marion Zimmer Bradley for any liability for his conduct?
MR. BURESH: Object to the question.
<
br /> ELISABETH WATERS: I’m sorry, could you rephrase the question. I don’t quite understand it.
MR. DOLAN: Did you finish your objection?
MR. BURESH: I was going to state the grounds for my objection. It’s not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and I’ll also object based on what the witness said that it’s ambiguous and unintelligible.
MR. DOLAN: Do you have any understanding that one of the motivating factors for Marion Zimmer Bradley to divorce Walter Breen was to protect herself from any liability for the actions of Walter Breen in molesting children? You keep looking at your counsel, which you’re free to do, but this is a deposition that is really controlled by me asking you questions and not your counsel sort of controlling the gate of information.
ELISABETH WATERS: Well, after he’s objected to the last five or six, I want to be sure. So I can answer this?
MR. BURESH: Yes.
MS. DURRELL: Also, you feel free to look at your attorney.
ELISABETH WATERS: Thank you. My understanding of the reason why Marion divorced Walter was that she was so angry to discover that he really was a child molester that she just didn’t feel that she could live with him anymore.
MR. DOLAN: The question was, was one of the reasons why she divorced Walter Breen, as far as you know, in an effort to protect herself from liability for his actions in molesting children?
ELISABETH WATERS: No.
MR. DOLAN: Did you ever hear Marion Zimmer Bradley state, “If Walter ever did this again, I would divorce him”?
MR. BURESH: Asked and answered.
MR. DOLAN: You can answer unless you’re instructed not to.
MR. BURESH: Well, other than what she has already testified to?
ELISABETH WATERS: We went over all that this morning.
MR. BURESH: I’m going to object. It’s argumentative. Instruct the witness not to answer.
MR. DOLAN: I asked her, did she ever hear Marion Zimmer say this; that’s argumentative?
MR. BURESH: In light of the fact that you asked the question this morning and in light of the context, yes.
MR. DOLAN: No, I’m allowed to re-ask certain questions in certain ways at different times to probe an issue.
MR. BURESH: No, you’re not.
MR. DOLAN: You guys are obstructing me now, and I’m trying to play this fair, but we will be in front of a judge mega times on this because this is not something I engage in. I am asking her questions to probe on an issue of why this woman divorced her husband.
MR. BURESH: You’re asking her the same question repeated times.
MR. DOLAN: I am not asking repeated times and the record will bear that out. I know when I’m asking repeated times, and I’m not.
MR. BURESH: We went into that.
MR. DOLAN: The record will bare it out, and it will be in front of a judge, and I will seek sanctions, and it’s unfortunate.
MR. DOLAN: Did Marion Zimmer Bradley ever tell you that if Walter ever molested children again she would divorce him?
ELISABETH WATERS: No.
MR. BURESH: You just asked that.
MR. DOLAN: That’s all I want to know.
MR. BURESH: Object to the question. You’re going to have to look at me and give me time, just as Chris told you at the beginning, especially when I’m objecting like this.
MR. DOLAN: Do you know if Marion Zimmer Bradley ever met Mary Mason prior to the report of molestation of Ken Smith in 1989?
ELISABETH WATERS: To the best of my knowledge, Marion has never actually met Mary Mason, aside from perhaps talking to her at a convention as a fan, which is different from meeting someone as a person and establishing a personal relationship.
MR. DOLAN: To your knowledge, do you know if Marion Zimmer Bradley has ever discussed the issue of Ken Smith in any form with Mary Mason?
ELISABETH WATERS: To the best of my knowledge, she has not.
MR. DOLAN: Do you know if she has ever discussed Ken Smith’s molestation with Mary Mason after it was reported to the police?
17 ELISABETH WATERS: To the best of my knowledge, she has not.
MR. DOLAN: Do you have any doubt in your mind as to whether or not Walter Breen molested Ken Smith?
ELISABETH WATERS: Well, yes, I do have a little bit. When I read the police report, I could tell that Kenny was lying to Officer Harris.
MR. DOLAN: So do you believe that Walter Breen molested Ken Smith?
ELISABETH WATERS: I believe he may have done it once, but I don’t believe all the stuff that’s in the police report.
MR. DOLAN: Did you ever investigate to find out if he had done it more than once?
ELISABETH WATERS: No.
MR. DOLAN: After you rented the property to Walter Breen in 1986, did you ever hear any allegations of child molestation against Walter Breen up and through the time that he was reported to the police?
ELISABETH WATERS: Until he was reported for molesting Kenny, no.
MR. DOLAN: Do you know if there are any letters that exist between Walter and Marion from the time period that they were courting?
ELISABETH WATERS: No, I know of no such letters.
MR. DOLAN: Did you look for any such letters when you were providing your response to the request for production of documents?
ELISABETH WATERS: Yes, I did.
MR. DOLAN: When you were providing your response to the request for production of documents, did you go through all of Marion Zimmer Bradley’s papers and effects as well?
ELISABETH WATERS: Yes.
MR. DOLAN: Were the responses that you provided to the request for production of document only those documents which you had in your personal possession, or were they also the documents that Marion Zimmer Bradley had in her possession?
ELISABETH WATERS: Both. Since I’m her secretary, most of her documents are in my possession.
MR. DOLAN: Do you know if any documents exist that you did not go through that are owned by Marion Zimmer Bradley—strike that. Do you know if there are any documents owned by Marion Zimmer Bradley that you did not go through in formulating your responses to the request for production of documents?
ELISABETH WATERS: I don’t believe so.
MR. DOLAN: Did you talk with Marion Zimmer Bradley when you were putting together your responses to the request for production of documents?
ELISABETH WATERS: Yes, I did. She went into the hospital the next day.
MR. DOLAN: Do you think those two were connected?
MR. BURESH: Well, I will let her answer. Objection, it calls for an opinion, an expert opinion, but go ahead. If you’ve got an opinion.
ELISABETH WATERS: Yes, I think there is a connection. She had a heart attack when she found out what Walter had done. Having to relive one of the most traumatic times of her life could not have been good for her health.
MR. DOLAN: Prior to having her heart attack, was she able to manage her financial affairs?
ELISABETH WATERS: Yes.
MR. DOLAN: Prior to having her most recent heart attack, was she able to remember events that occurred between 1985 and 1989, as far as you know?
ELISABETH WATERS: Define “most recent heart attack”.
MR. DOLAN: Well, you indicated that when you were filling out your request for production of documents she had a heart attack and she went into the hospital?
ELISABETH WATERS: No, she went into the hospital. She didn’t have a heart attack.
MR. DOLAN: Okay. Prior to her going to the hospital the most recent time, let’s say that, when you were doing the request for production of documents, was she able to remember events which occurred between 1985 and 1989, as far as you know?
MR. BURESH: Objection, calls for an expert opinion. Calls for speculation.
MR. DOLAN: You can answer.
ELISABETH WATERS: Some of them.
MR. DOLAN: Was Marion Zimmer Bradley having difficulty remembering events—strike that. Did you witness, see or hear anything that would lead you to believe that
Marion Zimmer Bradley was having difficulties remembering events that occurred between 1985 and 1989 before she was admitted to the hospital this last time?
ELISABETH WATERS: I don’t know. She’s a science fiction writer. Her brain has always been on another planet, and more recently she’s just been less and less interested in daily life. She turned more of it over to me to manage. I don’t know what she can remember or can’t remember.
MR. DOLAN: Has she ever told you that she has memory problems?
ELISABETH WATERS: No.
MR. DOLAN: Have you ever witnessed anything about Marion Zimmer Bradley prior to being admitted to the hospital this last time that led you to believe that she was having memory problems?
ELISABETH WATERS: Well, yeah, she had a couple of strokes.
MR. DOLAN: And how did that affect her memory that you were able to observe?
ELISABETH WATERS: Well, while she was having these strokes, she would insist she was fine when she couldn’t walk across the room. This last time when she was in the hospital visiting—when the visiting nurse called to arrange to come out and asked to verify her street address, they had the address wrong. Marion had given them the wrong address. It’s hard to tell sometimes what’s loss of memory and what’s just loss of interest.
MR. DOLAN: Do you have any personal belief as to whether or not Marion Zimmer Bradley’s memory has been affected by her stroke?
MR. BURESH: Objection, calls for an expert opinion.
MR. DOLAN: I’m just asking her belief.
MR. BURESH: Her personal beliefs are irrelevant. Go ahead. I’m not going to argue.
MR. DOLAN: She said she saw her on a day-to-day basis.
ELISABETH WATERS: I think her cognitive function has been affected by her strokes. I’m not sure to what extent her memory has.
MR. DOLAN: Were you ever informed that Walter was giving drugs to children?
ELISABETH WATERS: Moira said that he used to give her marijuana to put in the spaghetti sauce to cook for him.
MR. DOLAN: When did Moira tell you this?
ELISABETH WATERS: Sometime when she was in her late teens, I think.
MR. DOLAN: Did you find that to be inappropriate?
ELISABETH WATERS: Well, I didn’t think that you should give drugs to children, so, yes.
The Last Closet_The Dark Side of Avalon Page 58
