PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL — ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE / ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT — PREPARED AT THE DIRECTION OF COUNSEL
CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP
INTERNAL MEMORANDUM
Matter No.: 1017-00005
Date: July 25, 2023
To: Bernard Crawford, Responsible Partner, Labor & Employment
From: Devon Archer, Lead Associate, Labor & Employment Nadia Petrov, Working Associate, Labor & Employment
Re: Credibility Assessment — Comparative Analysis of Witness Accounts Investigation into Allegations Against Marcus Hale, President, Aurelius Pacific Studios Inc.
Reviewed By: Bernard Crawford
I. Purpose and Scope of This Memorandum
This memorandum provides a privileged, comparative credibility analysis of the principal witness accounts gathered during the independent workplace investigation conducted by Calderwood & Harkness LLP at the direction of the Board of Directors of Aurelius Global Media Group PLC ("AGMG" or the "Company"). The investigation concerns allegations of sexual harassment, sexually inappropriate conduct, and retaliation made against Marcus Hale, President of Aurelius Pacific Studios Inc. ("APS"), a wholly owned subsidiary of AGMG. This memorandum is prepared at the direction of counsel, is protected by the attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrine, and is intended solely for internal use by the investigation team and the responsible partner in connection with the formulation of legal advice to the Company.
The four principal witnesses whose credibility is assessed in this memorandum are:
1. Jenna Morales — Vice President of Development, APS (primary complainant);
2. Claire Ngo — Senior Director of Talent Relations, APS (complainant);
3. Darren Whitfield — Senior Vice President of Physical Production, APS (complainant — retaliation); and
4. Marcus Hale — President, APS (subject of investigation).
Each witness's account is evaluated under the following analytical framework: (a) internal consistency of the account across multiple recitations; (b) consistency with documentary and electronic evidence in the investigation record; (c) corroboration by other witnesses, including both percipient witnesses and individuals to whom the witness made contemporaneous disclosures; (d) demeanor and responsiveness during interview; and (e) identified inconsistencies or areas of concern that may affect the weight to be given to the witness's account.
This memorandum draws upon the full investigation record assembled to date, which includes the following:
• Witness Interviews: Twenty-seven (27) witness interviews conducted between May 22 and July 14, 2023, including interviews of all three complainants, the investigation subject (Hale), sixteen (16) current employees of APS and AGMG, four (4) former employees, and three (3) third-party production contractors.
• Document Review: A total of 4,218 documents marked relevant or responsive during the document review process, which was substantially completed on July 21, 2023. Of these, 312 documents were designated as "hot" (highly relevant to the core allegations). The total document universe reviewed was approximately 38,600 items, filtered through search terms, date ranges, and predictive coding from approximately 214,000 unique items (after de-duplication from approximately 847,000 documents collected by Linden Forensics Group Inc. from nine (9) custodians between May 10 and May 12, 2023).
• Position Statement: Marcus Hale's fourteen (14)-page written position statement, submitted on June 5, 2023, by his personal counsel, Graham Thornfield of Thornfield & Associates LLP, which denied all allegations and provided Hale's alternative account of the events at issue.
This memorandum presents findings of comparative credibility. Ultimate factual conclusions and comprehensive legal analysis are reserved for the forthcoming investigation report.
II. Analytical Framework
A. Credibility Factors
In assessing the credibility of each principal witness, this memorandum applies the following standard credibility factors, which are consistent with best-practice workplace investigation methodology and the analytical approach recognized by California courts and the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing:
1. Specificity and Detail of the Account. Whether the witness provided specific, detailed descriptions of the events at issue, including dates, locations, attendees, and the substance of the conduct or statements alleged. Accounts that include granular, verifiable details are generally afforded greater weight than accounts consisting of vague or generalized assertions.
2. Internal Consistency Across Multiple Recitations. Whether the witness's account remained materially consistent across multiple occasions on which it was provided, including written complaints, demand letters, position statements, and investigative interviews. While minor variations in peripheral details are expected and do not necessarily diminish credibility, material shifts in the substance of the account, the characterization of key events, or the offered explanations for conduct are noted and weighed.
3. Consistency with Contemporaneous Documents, Electronic Communications, and Physical Evidence. Whether the witness's account is consistent with — or contradicted by — documentary and electronic evidence in the investigation record, including emails, text messages, Meridian Solutions messages, calendar entries, meeting invitations, HR records, and other contemporaneous records. Documentary evidence is generally afforded significant weight because it is created at or near the time of the events and is not subject to the vagaries of memory or the influence of subsequent events.
4. Corroboration from Independent Witnesses. Whether any other witness, including percipient witnesses who observed the events at issue and individuals to whom the witness made contemporaneous disclosures, corroborated the witness's account in material respects. Corroboration from witnesses who have no apparent motive to favor one party over another is given particular weight.
5. Existence of Motive to Fabricate or Exaggerate. Whether there is evidence suggesting that the witness has a motive to fabricate, exaggerate, or minimize the events at issue. This factor is applied to all witnesses, including both complainants and the investigation subject, and encompasses financial incentives, personal animus, professional rivalry, self-interest in the outcome of the investigation, and potential exposure to discipline or liability.
6. Demeanor, Candor, and Responsiveness During Interview. Whether the witness appeared forthcoming, candid, and responsive during the investigative interview, or whether the witness appeared evasive, rehearsed, or defensive. While demeanor observations are inherently subjective and are afforded less independent weight than documentary evidence or corroboration, they nonetheless inform the overall credibility assessment.
7. Willingness to Acknowledge Unfavorable Facts or Uncertainty. Whether the witness was willing to acknowledge facts that did not support the witness's account, to concede areas of uncertainty or incomplete memory, and to offer nuanced rather than absolute characterizations of events. A witness who acknowledges limitations in their recollection or concedes unfavorable points is generally perceived as more reliable than one who presents a uniformly self-serving narrative.
8. Prior Statements. Whether the witness made prior statements — including hotline complaints, demand letters, written submissions, or informal disclosures to colleagues — that are consistent or inconsistent with the account provided during the investigation. Prior consistent statements made before the witness had a motive to fabricate are afforded particular weight as corroboration.
B. Evidentiary Sources
The following categories of evidence were weighed in conducting the credibility assessments set forth in this memorandum:
• Witness Interview Memoranda. Memoranda of interviews of twenty-seven (27) witnesses, comprising three (3) complainants, sixteen (16) current employees of APS and AGMG, four (4) former employees of APS, three (3) third-party production contractors, and one (1) investigation subject (Hale). Each interview was conducted by one or more of the undersigned and/or the responsible partner and documented in detailed interview memoranda prepared within twenty-four (24) hours of each interview.
• Recovered Text Messages. Text messages recovered from forensic collections, including specific text messages from Hale to Morales dated November 14, 2022, November 29, 2022, and December 8, 2022. These messages were extracted by Linden Forensics Group Inc. from Hale's company-issued mobile device and authenticated against carrier records.
• Email Correspondence. Email communications recovered from custodial collections, including Hale's email directing the reassignment of Project Meridian and Project Halcyon from Whitfield to Cameron Briggs, dated February 6, 2023, and email chains reflecting Hale's discussions with other senior leaders regarding Whitfield's comments at the January 23, 2023 leadership meeting.
• Meridian Solutions Messages. Meridian Solutions messages recovered from APS's enterprise Meridian Solutions workspace, including near-contemporaneous messages from Morales and Ngo to colleagues describing the events at issue.
• HR Records. Human resources records for all principal witnesses and relevant personnel, including Hale's personnel file (which was notable for the absence of any written documentation of the August 2, 2021 verbal counseling regarding the Serena Whitcomb complaint), performance reviews for Morales, Whitfield, and Ngo, and disciplinary records (or the absence thereof).
• Ethics & Compliance Hotline Records. Records from the AGMG Ethics & Compliance Hotline, administered by Meridian Compliance Solutions LLC, including case reference MCS-1014-00001, filed by Morales on April 18, 2023.
• Calendar Entries and Meeting Invitations. Calendar records and meeting invitations for Hale, Morales, Ngo, and Whitfield, including records relevant to the Vancouver production trip (October 2022), the one-on-one meeting (January 11, 2023), the company dinner (February 3, 2023), the Monarch Valley Resort off-site (February 17–18, 2023), the leadership team meeting (January 23, 2023), and the talent-relations strategy meetings from which Ngo was excluded (March–April 2023).
• Hale's Employment Agreement. Marcus Hale's employment agreement with APS, dated January 7, 2019, which sets forth the terms of his employment, compensation, and obligations.
• Company Policies. The following company policies were reviewed and are relevant to the assessment:
• AGMG Global Code of Conduct, Version 4.2 (effective January 1, 2022);
• APS Employee Handbook, California Supplement (revised March 15, 2022), Sections 5.3 (Prohibition of Harassment), 5.7 (Prohibition of Retaliation), and 8.1 (Reporting Obligations);
• AGMG Board Corporate Governance Guidelines, Section 12 (Investigation of Senior Officer Misconduct).
• Hale's Written Position Statement. The fourteen (14)-page written position statement submitted on June 5, 2023, by Graham Thornfield of Thornfield & Associates LLP on behalf of Marcus Hale, which denied all allegations and set forth Hale's account of the relevant events.
C. Standard of Assessment
This memorandum applies a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard for credibility determinations. Under this standard, an allegation is considered substantiated if the evidence, taken as a whole, establishes that it is more likely than not that the alleged conduct occurred. This standard is consistent with the evidentiary standards applicable under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Cal. Gov. Code §§ 12940 et seq., and with the best-practice investigation methodology recognized by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and California Department of Fair Employment and Housing.
It bears emphasis that this memorandum presents findings of comparative credibility and does not set forth ultimate factual conclusions or legal analysis. The ultimate determination of whether the allegations are substantiated, and the application of California FEHA and company policy to the established facts, will be presented in the final investigation report.
III. Credibility Assessment: Jenna Morales
A. Summary of Account
Jenna Morales is thirty-eight (38) years old and serves as Vice President of Development at APS. She has been employed by APS since March 2020. In her role, Morales reports to Hale and is responsible for overseeing the development and acquisition of film and television properties for the studio. She is the primary complainant in this investigation.
On April 18, 2023, Morales filed a written complaint through the AGMG Ethics & Compliance Hotline, administered by Meridian Compliance Solutions LLC (case reference MCS-1014-00001). The complaint was initially submitted anonymously. On April 19, 2023, Morales self-identified by contacting Meridian Compliance Solutions and requesting that her name be associated with the complaint. Morales is represented by Sandra Reeves of Nakamura Reeves LLP. On April 20, 2023, Reeves sent a demand letter on Morales's behalf to APS, addressed to Victor Gallegos, Vice President of Human Resources, alleging violations of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Cal. Gov. Code §§ 12940 et seq., and demanding that an independent investigation be conducted.
Morales was interviewed on May 22, 2023, by Devon Archer and Nadia Petrov at Calderwood & Harkness's Los Angeles office. Counsel Sandra Reeves was notified of the interview in advance and advised of Morales's right to have counsel present but did not attend. The interview lasted approximately three (3) hours and fifteen (15) minutes.
During her hotline complaint, demand letter (through counsel), and investigative interview, Morales alleged that between approximately September 2022 and March 2023, Marcus Hale engaged in repeated unwanted sexual advances and explicit comments directed at her, specifically:
(a) Vancouver Production Trip — October 2022. Morales alleged that during a production trip to Vancouver, British Columbia, in October 2022 (related to the pre-production phase of a major APS series), Hale invited her to his hotel room on multiple occasions. Morales stated that the invitations were made verbally, outside the presence of other colleagues, and were framed as opportunities to "continue discussing" development matters but were, in her assessment, pretextual. She reported that she declined each invitation and that Hale's demeanor toward her noticeably shifted following her refusals.
(b) Sexually Suggestive Text Messages — November–December 2022. Morales alleged that Hale sent her sexually suggestive text messages on three occasions: November 14, 2022, November 29, 2022, and December 8, 2022. Morales described the messages as containing comments about her physical appearance, references to spending time together outside of work in a non-professional capacity, and language that she characterized as sexually charged and unwelcome. She stated that she did not respond substantively to any of the three messages and attempted to redirect communications to professional topics.
(c) One-on-One Meeting — January 11, 2023. Morales alleged that during a one-on-one meeting with Hale in his office on January 11, 2023, Hale made an explicit comment about her physical appearance, stating words to the effect that she "always looked incredible" and that he "noticed her" in ways that went beyond their professional relationship. Morales stated that she was uncomfortable and attempted to redirect the conversation to the business matters on the agenda.
(d) Company Dinner — February 3, 2023. Morales alleged that at a company dinner on February 3, 2023 — attended by approximately fifteen (15) to twenty (20) APS employees at a restaurant in West Hollywood — Hale placed his hand on her lower back and, separately, on her upper thigh while seated next to her at the dinner table. Morales stated that the physical contact was unwelcome, that she moved away, and that other attendees were present and may have observed the contact.
In addition to the foregoing, Morales alleged that after she rejected Hale's advances, Hale retaliated by reassigning certain of her development responsibilities and reducing her involvement in key projects without explanation or business justification. Morales stated that this retaliatory conduct began in approximately late February 2023 and continued through the time of her complaint.
B. Internal Consistency
Morales's account was detailed and specific across the three occasions on which she provided it: her April 18, 2023 written hotline complaint, the April 20, 2023 demand letter submitted by her counsel, and her May 22, 2023 investigative interview. We conducted a careful comparison of all three recitations and found them to be materially consistent.
The timeline of events described by Morales remained consistent across all three accounts. The chronological sequence of the Vancouver production trip, the text messages, the January 11, 2023 meeting, the February 3, 2023 dinner, and the subsequent retaliatory reassignment was presented in the same order and with the same approximate dates in each recitation. No material contradictions were identified between the substance of her April 18, 2023 written complaint and the more detailed account she provided during her May 22, 2023 interview.
Notably, Morales provided specific dates, locations, and descriptions for each alleged incident. She identified the Vancouver trip as occurring in October 2022, identified the three text messages by their specific dates, identified the January 11, 2023 meeting and the February 3, 2023 dinner with precision, and described the physical setting, attendees, and substance of Hale's conduct at each event.
Morales also acknowledged areas of uncertainty where her memory was incomplete, which enhanced the perceived reliability of her account. For example, she stated that she could not recall the precise wording of all of Hale's comments at the January 11, 2023 meeting but was confident in the substance and sexual nature of the remark. She similarly noted that she was uncertain whether Hale's hand placement at the February 3, 2023 dinner was observed by specific individuals and did not attempt to overstate the extent of any witness's observation. This willingness to concede the limits of her recollection is consistent with truthful recall and weighs in favor of credibility.
C. Documentary and Electronic Evidence
Morales's account is corroborated by documentary and electronic evidence in several material respects.
Text Messages. Three text messages from Hale to Morales, dated November 14, 2022, November 29, 2022, and December 8, 2022, were recovered from the forensic collection conducted by Linden Forensics Group Inc. and confirmed to exist in the investigation record. These messages were extracted from Hale's company-issued mobile device and were authenticated against carrier metadata. The content of the messages is consistent with Morales's characterization of them as sexually suggestive. The messages include comments about Morales's appearance and references to spending time together in a personal, non-professional capacity. These three messages are among the 312 documents designated as "hot" in the document review. The existence and content of these messages constitute significant corroboration of Morales's account and directly contradict Hale's initial characterization of his communications with Morales as "professional and collegial."
Calendar Records. Calendar entries and travel records corroborate the Vancouver production trip in October 2022, confirming that both Hale and Morales traveled to Vancouver during the relevant period and stayed at the same hotel. Calendar records also confirm the one-on-one meeting between Hale and Morales on January 11, 2023, which appears on Hale's calendar as a scheduled meeting in his office. Additionally, calendar records and a group email invitation confirm the company dinner on February 3, 2023 at the West Hollywood restaurant identified by Morales.
Email Evidence. No emails directly corroborating the hotel room invitations in Vancouver were recovered. Morales stated that these invitations were made verbally, and the absence of a written record is therefore not inconsistent with her account. However, emails from the relevant period confirm that both Hale and Morales were in Vancouver on the dates she described and were engaged in production-related activities that placed them in close professional proximity.
Meridian Solutions Messages. Contemporaneous Meridian Solutions messages from Morales to a colleague, sent shortly after the February 3, 2023 company dinner, were recovered during the document review. In these messages, Morales described unwanted physical contact by Hale at the dinner, using language consistent with her later formal complaint and investigative interview testimony. These Meridian Solutions messages serve as near-contemporaneous corroboration of Morales's account and are significant because they were created before Morales filed her formal complaint and before she had any apparent motive to fabricate or frame the events in a particular way for litigation or investigation purposes.
D. Corroborating Witness Testimony
Seven (7) witnesses provided testimony that corroborated aspects of Morales's account in material respects. The corroborating testimony falls into several categories:
• Witnesses to the February 3, 2023 Company Dinner. Multiple witnesses who attended the company dinner on February 3, 2023, independently reported observing Hale's physical proximity to Morales and noted conduct consistent with Morales's description of unwanted physical contact. Two witnesses specifically recalled seeing Hale place his hand on Morales's lower back. One witness stated that Morales appeared visibly uncomfortable during the dinner.
• Witnesses Present on the Vancouver Trip. Witnesses who were present on the October 2022 Vancouver production trip reported observing Hale singling Morales out for individual attention and noted that Hale sought one-on-one time with Morales in a manner that struck them as unusual for a professional production trip.
• Witnesses to Whom Morales Made Contemporaneous Disclosures. Several witnesses confirmed that Morales confided in them about Hale's behavior at or near the time of the alleged incidents, including disclosures made after the Vancouver trip, after receipt of the text messages, and after the February 3, 2023 dinner. These contemporaneous disclosures are consistent with Morales's formal complaint and interview testimony.
• Witnesses Who Observed Changes in the Professional Dynamic. Multiple witnesses observed a noticeable change in the professional dynamic between Hale and Morales beginning in approximately late January or February 2023, consistent with Morales's account that the relationship deteriorated after she rejected Hale's advances. Witnesses described Hale as becoming colder and less engaged with Morales in group settings and noted the reassignment of certain development responsibilities from Morales without explanation.
It is significant that no corroborating witness contradicted Morales's account in any material respect. While no single witness observed all of the alleged incidents, the collective body of corroborating testimony — spanning the Vancouver trip, the February 3, 2023 dinner, contemporaneous disclosures, and observed professional changes — provides substantial independent support for Morales's account.
E. Demeanor Assessment
Morales was composed, forthcoming, and responsive throughout her approximately three-hour-and-fifteen-minute interview. She provided detailed answers to questions, engaged directly with follow-up inquiries, and did not appear to embellish or exaggerate any aspect of her account. Her responses were measured and thoughtful, and she took care to distinguish between matters she recalled with certainty and matters about which her memory was less precise.
Morales was willing to concede points that did not favor her account. For example, she acknowledged that she did not immediately report the earliest incidents (the Vancouver trip and the text messages) and that she continued to attend professional events with Hale and participate in meetings with him during the period of the alleged harassment. She explained that she initially hoped the behavior would stop and that she feared professional retaliation if she raised concerns. This acknowledgment is consistent with commonly recognized patterns of delayed reporting in harassment matters and does not diminish her credibility.
Morales's emotional responses during the interview were situationally appropriate. She became visibly distressed when recounting the February 3, 2023 dinner incident and the unwanted physical contact, and her distress appeared genuine and proportionate to the nature of the events she was describing. She did not display emotional responses that appeared rehearsed or calculated.
F. Identified Inconsistencies or Concerns
A minor timing discrepancy was noted. In her April 18, 2023 hotline complaint, Morales initially placed the Vancouver production trip in "late September or October 2022." During her May 22, 2023 interview, when shown calendar records, she confirmed that the trip took place in October 2022 and acknowledged that her initial recollection of the timing was imprecise. This discrepancy is de minimis — a difference of a few weeks in the recalled timing of an event that occurred approximately six months prior — and does not undermine the substance of her account in any material respect.
Additionally, it is noted that Hale, in his fourteen-page position statement, characterized the complainants' allegations broadly as "performance-related grievances" motivated by dissatisfaction with professional outcomes. With respect to Morales specifically, the investigation record does not support this characterization. Morales's performance reviews for FY2021 and FY2022 were both rated "Exceeds Expectations" or the equivalent rating under the APS performance evaluation system. No documented performance concerns, disciplinary actions, performance improvement plans, or negative feedback of any kind were found in Morales's HR file. The absence of any performance-related basis for the complaints undermines Hale's alternative explanation.
G. Credibility Conclusion
Jenna Morales is assessed as highly credible. Her account is internally consistent across three recitations (hotline complaint, demand letter, and investigative interview), corroborated by documentary evidence in the form of recovered text messages, calendar records, and contemporaneous Meridian Solutions messages, and independently corroborated by seven (7) witnesses. No material evidence in the investigation record contradicts her account. Her demeanor during the interview was forthcoming, candid, and consistent with truthful recall, and her willingness to acknowledge uncertainty and unfavorable facts further supports her reliability as a witness.
IV. Credibility Assessment: Claire Ngo
A. Summary of Account
Claire Ngo is thirty-three (33) years old and serves as Senior Director of Talent Relations at APS. She has been employed by APS since June 2021. In her role, Ngo is responsible for managing key talent relationships and participating in strategic planning for talent acquisition and retention across the studio's film and television divisions.
On April 24, 2023, Ngo filed a corroborating complaint directly with Victor Gallegos, Vice President of Human Resources at APS. Unlike Morales, Ngo did not use the Ethics & Compliance Hotline and instead submitted her complaint in writing by email to Gallegos. Ngo is not currently represented by personal counsel in connection with this matter.
Ngo was interviewed on May 25, 2023, by Devon Archer and Nadia Petrov at Calderwood & Harkness's Los Angeles office. The interview lasted approximately two (2) hours and thirty (30) minutes.
Ngo alleged two categories of misconduct by Hale:
First, Ngo alleged that at the company off-site retreat held at the Monarch Valley Resort, 905 Country Club Road, Ojai, California, on February 17–18, 2023, Hale made sexually suggestive comments about her attire during a social event on the evening of February 17. Ngo reported that Hale approached her, commented on her dress in terms she characterized as inappropriate and sexually charged, and asked whether she was "seeing anyone." Ngo stated that she was taken aback by the comments, which she perceived as personal and sexual in nature rather than professional or casual, and that she excused herself from the conversation shortly thereafter.
Second, Ngo alleged that after she expressed discomfort to a colleague about Hale's remarks at the off-site, Hale excluded her from three key talent-relations strategy meetings held in March and April 2023. Ngo stated that she had been a standing invitee on these meetings since their inception and that her removal from the invitation list occurred without explanation, without any change in her role or responsibilities, and in a manner that she believed was retaliatory.
B. Internal Consistency
Ngo's account was consistent between her April 24, 2023 written complaint to Gallegos and her May 25, 2023 investigative interview. A comparison of the two recitations revealed no material discrepancies in the substance, timeline, or characterization of the alleged events.
Ngo provided specific details about the off-site setting, including the location (Monarch Valley Resort, Ojai), the date (the evening of February 17, 2023), the social context (a group dinner and networking event), the approximate number of attendees, and the general area of the venue where the interaction occurred. She described the nature of Hale's comments with specificity, including both the substance of the comments about her attire and the personal question about her relationship status.
With respect to the subsequent meeting exclusion, Ngo's description was similarly specific. She identified three talent-relations strategy meetings from which she was excluded, provided the approximate dates and subject matter of the meetings, and identified the individuals who continued to be included on the invitation list. Her account was detailed enough to be tested against the documentary record, and, as discussed below, the calendar and meeting invitation records corroborated her description.
C. Documentary and Electronic Evidence
Calendar and Meeting Invitations. Calendar records and meeting invitation data confirmed that three talent-relations strategy meetings were held in March and April 2023 to which Ngo was not invited. Prior to February 2023, Ngo had been a standing invitee on these recurring meetings, which had been held on a regular cadence since mid-2022. The removal of Ngo from the invitation list is clearly reflected in the calendar records and was not accompanied by any documented explanation, formal communication, or restructuring memorandum. The meetings continued with the same participants — minus Ngo — and covered the same subject matter as the meetings Ngo had previously attended.
Off-Site Attendee List. The attendee list for the Monarch Valley Resort off-site event on February 17–18, 2023, confirms that both Ngo and Hale attended the retreat. Travel and logistics records further confirm their concurrent attendance.
No Direct Electronic Record of Hale's Comments. No email, text message, or other electronic record directly captured Hale's verbal comments to Ngo at the off-site social event. This is not unexpected, as the comments were made in person during a social gathering. The absence of a direct electronic record is therefore not inconsistent with Ngo's account.
Contemporaneous Meridian Solutions Message. On February 18, 2023 — the day after the off-site social event at which the comments allegedly occurred — Ngo sent a Meridian Solutions message to a colleague expressing discomfort about "what [Hale] said last night." This message is contemporaneous with the alleged incident and is consistent with Ngo's account that Hale made inappropriate comments at the off-site and that Ngo was disturbed by them. The message was created before Ngo had any apparent motive to fabricate or frame the events in a particular way and serves as significant corroboration.
D. Corroborating Witness Testimony
Two (2) witnesses corroborated Ngo's account of Hale's comments at the Monarch Valley Resort off-site:
• One witness was physically present during the exchange between Hale and Ngo and recalled Hale making comments about Ngo's attire. This witness described the comments as "flirtatious" and "over the line" and stated that the witness was surprised by the nature of Hale's remarks in a professional setting.
• A second witness confirmed that Ngo reported the incident to them shortly after it occurred — consistent with the timing reflected in Ngo's February 18, 2023 Meridian Solutions message — and described Ngo as appearing upset and uncomfortable when she recounted the exchange.
No witnesses contradicted Ngo's account of the off-site comments. While the two corroborating witnesses represent a smaller pool of independent corroboration than was available for Morales's account, the combination of a percipient witness, a disclosure witness, and a contemporaneous Meridian Solutions message provides meaningful support for Ngo's version of events.
With respect to the meeting exclusion, multiple witnesses confirmed that Ngo had previously been included as a standing invitee on the talent-relations strategy meetings and that she was removed from the invitation list beginning in March 2023 without explanation. Several witnesses expressed surprise at Ngo's exclusion, given her role as Senior Director of Talent Relations and her prior consistent participation. No witness identified any business justification for the exclusion, and no witness corroborated Hale's assertion (discussed below) that the exclusion was part of a broader departmental restructuring.
E. Demeanor Assessment
Ngo was candid, measured, and cooperative throughout her interview. She answered questions directly and did not appear to exaggerate the nature or severity of Hale's comments. Her characterization of the off-site incident was moderate in tone; she described the comments as inappropriate and sexually suggestive without resorting to hyperbole or inflammatory language.
Ngo expressed uncertainty about Hale's precise intent in making the comments, acknowledging the possibility that he may not have fully appreciated the impact of his words but stating clearly that she perceived the comments as sexual in nature and that their effect on her was significant. This nuanced characterization — distinguishing between her perception of the conduct and any assumption about Hale's subjective intent — is consistent with candid, thoughtful recall and weighs in favor of credibility.
Ngo was also forthright about the professional impact of the meeting exclusion, which she described as both professionally damaging and personally hurtful. She expressed her account in measured terms and did not engage in speculation about Hale's motives beyond describing the temporal proximity between her expression of discomfort and the subsequent exclusion.
F. Identified Inconsistencies or Concerns
Ngo acknowledged that she did not file a formal complaint immediately after the February 17, 2023 off-site incident. She waited until April 24, 2023 — after Morales's complaint became known to her through workplace discussion in late April — to submit her written complaint to Gallegos. This delay is noted in the interest of completeness. However, delayed reporting is not inconsistent with common patterns observed in harassment matters, where complainants frequently wait to come forward until they learn that others have experienced similar conduct or until they feel that an investigation will be taken seriously. Ngo's delay does not, in the assessment of the undersigned, diminish the reliability of her account, particularly given the existence of the contemporaneous February 18, 2023 Meridian Solutions message that predates both Morales's complaint and Ngo's own formal complaint.
Additionally, Hale, in both his position statement and his investigative interview, asserted that Ngo's exclusion from the talent-relations strategy meetings was based on a "restructuring of the talent-relations function" within APS. This assertion was investigated thoroughly. No documentary evidence of any such restructuring was identified in the investigation record. No restructuring plan, memorandum, organizational chart revision, or communication to affected personnel was found. The meetings continued with the same participants and the same subject matter, with the sole change being the removal of Ngo from the invitation list. Hale's explanation is not supported by the documentary record and is not corroborated by any witness.
G. Credibility Conclusion
Claire Ngo is assessed as credible. Her account is internally consistent across two recitations (written complaint and investigative interview), corroborated by two independent witnesses (one percipient and one disclosure witness) and a contemporaneous Meridian Solutions message, and supported by calendar and meeting invitation records that confirm her exclusion from the talent-relations strategy meetings without explanation. No material inconsistency in her account was identified. The delay in filing a formal complaint does not diminish the reliability of her account in light of the contemporaneous corroborating evidence.
V. Credibility Assessment: Darren Whitfield
A. Summary of Account
Darren Whitfield is forty-seven (47) years old and serves as Senior Vice President of Physical Production at APS. He has been employed by APS since September 2017 and has been in his current role since 2019. In his capacity as SVP of Physical Production, Whitfield oversees the physical production of APS's slate of film and television projects, including budgeting, scheduling, and on-set production management. Whitfield reports to Hale.
On April 26, 2023, Whitfield voluntarily contacted Victor Gallegos, Vice President of Human Resources at APS, to report concerns about retaliation. Whitfield stated that he came forward after learning of the investigation into Hale's conduct and believed that his own experience was relevant. Whitfield is not currently represented by personal counsel in connection with this matter.
Whitfield was interviewed on May 30, 2023, by Devon Archer at Calderwood & Harkness's Los Angeles office. The interview lasted approximately two (2) hours and forty-five (45) minutes.
Whitfield alleged that at a leadership team meeting on January 23, 2023, he raised concerns about Hale's treatment of female employees within APS. Whitfield stated that he spoke up during a discussion of team dynamics and workplace culture, expressing his view that Hale's interactions with certain female members of the leadership team were inappropriate and creating discomfort. According to Whitfield, Hale reacted with visible irritation and displeasure during the meeting but did not directly respond to Whitfield's comments at that time.
On February 6, 2023 — approximately two weeks after the January 23, 2023 meeting — Hale reassigned two of Whitfield's highest-profile production projects, codenamed "Project Meridian" and "Project Halcyon," to Cameron Briggs, SVP of Production. The combined budgets of these two projects totaled approximately $187 million. Whitfield alleged that the reassignment was retaliatory, that it was a direct response to his having raised concerns about Hale's conduct at the January 23 meeting, and that it lacked any legitimate performance-based justification.
B. Internal Consistency
Whitfield's account was consistent between his April 26, 2023 report to Gallegos and his May 30, 2023 investigative interview. A comparison of the two recitations revealed no material discrepancies.
Whitfield provided specific details about the January 23, 2023 leadership team meeting, including the identities of the attendees (approximately eight to ten members of the APS senior leadership team), the general topic of discussion during which he raised his concerns, the substance of his comments, and Hale's visible reaction. He also provided details about the context in which he raised his concerns, explaining that he had observed Hale's behavior toward female colleagues over a period of months and felt compelled to speak up during a discussion that touched on team culture and interpersonal dynamics.
Whitfield identified the date of the project reassignment as February 6, 2023, and identified the two projects by their codenames and combined budget. He described the reassignment as unexpected, without prior warning, and without any accompanying explanation or discussion of performance concerns. His account was specific enough to be tested against the documentary record, and, as discussed below, the documentary evidence corroborated his description.
C. Documentary and Electronic Evidence
Email Evidence. A February 6, 2023 email from Hale directing the reassignment of Project Meridian and Project Halcyon from Whitfield to Cameron Briggs was recovered during the document review and is among the 312 hot documents. The email, addressed to Briggs with copies to relevant production personnel, directs the immediate transfer of supervisory responsibility for both projects from Whitfield to Briggs. Critically, the email contains no performance-related rationale for the reassignment. It does not reference any concerns about Whitfield's capacity, creative direction, timeline management, or any other business factor. The email is terse and directive in tone, stating only that the projects are being "transitioned" to Briggs effective immediately.
Calendar Records. Calendar records confirm that the January 23, 2023 leadership team meeting occurred as described by Whitfield. The meeting appears on the calendars of multiple senior leaders, including Whitfield and Hale, and is identified as a leadership team meeting.
HR Records. Whitfield's HR file was reviewed in its entirety. His performance reviews show consistently strong ratings throughout his tenure at APS, including in the most recent evaluation cycle. No documented performance concerns, formal counseling, performance improvement plans, or negative feedback of any kind were identified. This is significant because it is inconsistent with Hale's assertion that the project reassignment was motivated by performance-related considerations.
Absence of Written Justification. No contemporaneous memorandum, email, or other document was found in the investigation record providing a business justification for the reassignment of Project Meridian and Project Halcyon from Whitfield to Briggs. The absence of any written rationale for a significant organizational decision — involving the transfer of $187 million in combined production budgets — is notable and weighs against the legitimacy of the proffered business justification.
Temporal Proximity and Email Traffic. The timing of the reassignment is significant. Recovered email traffic shows that in the days following the January 23, 2023 leadership meeting, Hale discussed Whitfield's comments with at least one other senior leader via email. The reassignment email was sent on February 6, 2023, which was the day after the next business day following a period of this email activity. The close temporal proximity between Whitfield's protected activity (raising concerns about Hale's treatment of female employees) and the adverse action (reassignment of his two most significant projects) is a well-recognized indicator of retaliatory intent.
D. Corroborating Witness Testimony
Multiple witnesses who attended the January 23, 2023 leadership team meeting confirmed that Whitfield raised concerns about Hale's treatment of female employees during the meeting. These witnesses corroborated both the substance of Whitfield's comments and his description of Hale's reaction, which witnesses variously described as "visibly irritated," "angry," and "displeased." The corroborating witnesses reported that there was a palpable tension in the room following Whitfield's comments and that Hale did not engage substantively with the concerns raised.
Cameron Briggs was interviewed on June 8, 2023. Briggs confirmed that he received the reassignment of Project Meridian and Project Halcyon from Whitfield, effective February 6, 2023. Briggs stated that Hale told him the reassignment was due to "bandwidth" issues affecting Whitfield's ability to manage the projects effectively. However, Briggs stated that he found this explanation "surprising" given Whitfield's track record and reputation within the production division. Briggs further stated that, to his knowledge, no staffing changes had been made to Whitfield's team, no additional projects had been added to Whitfield's plate, and there was no other objective indication that Whitfield was experiencing capacity constraints. Briggs's testimony directly undermines Hale's proffered business justification for the reassignment.
Other witnesses within the production division observed the reassignment and described it as unusual, unexpected, and unexplained. Several witnesses stated that the reassignment was a topic of discussion among production personnel and that no one had been given a clear explanation for the change.
E. Demeanor Assessment
Whitfield was direct, professional, and measured throughout his interview. He presented his account in a straightforward manner, without embellishment or dramatic emphasis. He did not appear to harbor personal animus toward Hale beyond the specific reassignment at issue; notably, he acknowledged positive aspects of his working relationship with Hale prior to January 2023, describing Hale as an effective studio executive with whom Whitfield had a productive professional relationship for several years.
Whitfield expressed reluctance about coming forward and stated that he did so only after learning of Morales's complaint and the initiation of the investigation. He explained that he initially considered the reassignment to be an isolated act of retaliation and was uncertain whether it was related to the broader pattern of conduct alleged by Morales and Ngo. This reluctance, and his candor about it, is consistent with a witness who is providing a genuine account rather than one motivated by personal grievance or opportunism.
F. Identified Inconsistencies or Concerns
Hale asserted in both his interview and his fourteen-page position statement that the reassignment of Project Meridian and Project Halcyon was a legitimate business decision based on Whitfield's "capacity constraints." As noted above, no documentary evidence supports this assertion. No memorandum, email, or other contemporaneous record identifies any capacity concern related to Whitfield. Whitfield's HR file contains no performance-related criticism. And Briggs's own testimony — that he found the bandwidth explanation "surprising" and unsupported by the facts known to him — directly undermines the credibility of Hale's justification.
No material inconsistencies in Whitfield's account were identified. His description of the events was consistent across both recitations, supported by documentary evidence, and corroborated by multiple independent witnesses.
G. Credibility Conclusion
Darren Whitfield is assessed as credible. His account is corroborated by email evidence showing the reassignment on February 6, 2023 — in close temporal proximity to Hale's awareness of Whitfield's January 23, 2023 comments — by the absence of any documented performance-related justification for the reassignment, and by the testimony of Cameron Briggs and other witnesses who found the reassignment surprising and unexplained. The temporal proximity between the protected activity (raising concerns about Hale's treatment of female employees on January 23, 2023) and the adverse action (reassignment of $187 million in combined production budgets on February 6, 2023) is a significant factor supporting Whitfield's account of retaliatory motivation.
VI. Credibility Assessment: Marcus Hale
A. Summary of Account
Marcus Hale is fifty-four (54) years old and has served as President of Aurelius Pacific Studios Inc. since January 2019, pursuant to an employment agreement dated January 7, 2019. In his capacity as President, Hale is the senior-most executive at APS and reports directly to Elliot Vane, Chief Executive Officer of AGMG. Hale's total annual compensation is approximately $4.7 million, consisting of a base salary of approximately $1.85 million, a target annual bonus of approximately $1.39 million, and equity-based compensation valued at approximately $1.46 million.
On May 3, 2023, following the initiation of Calderwood & Harkness's independent investigation, Hale was placed on paid administrative leave by the Board of Directors of AGMG. His access to company email, Meridian Solutions, and all internal APS and AGMG systems was suspended on the same date. On May 3, 2023, Hale retained Graham Thornfield of Thornfield & Associates LLP as his personal counsel in connection with the investigation.
On June 5, 2023, Thornfield submitted a fourteen (14)-page written position statement on Hale's behalf. The position statement denied all allegations of sexual harassment and retaliation, characterized the complainants' allegations as "performance-related grievances" driven by professional dissatisfaction, and provided Hale's alternative account of the events at issue. The position statement included general character references but did not identify specific exculpatory witnesses or point to specific documentary evidence supporting Hale's denials.
Hale was interviewed on June 15, 2023, at Calderwood & Harkness's Los Angeles office, located at 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2800, Los Angeles, California 90067. The interview was conducted by Bernard Crawford and Devon Archer. Graham Thornfield was present throughout as Hale's personal counsel. The interview lasted approximately four (4) hours and twenty (20) minutes.
During both his position statement and his interview, Hale denied all allegations of sexual harassment directed at Jenna Morales and Claire Ngo and denied that the reassignment of Project Meridian and Project Halcyon from Darren Whitfield was retaliatory. He maintained that all of his interactions with the complainants were professional and appropriate and that the challenged personnel decisions were based on legitimate business considerations.
B. Internal Consistency
Hale's denials were broadly consistent between his written position statement and his interview in that he denied all allegations on both occasions. However, internal inconsistencies were noted in several areas, and these inconsistencies are significant to the credibility assessment.
Regarding the Text Messages to Morales. In his fourteen-page position statement, submitted on June 5, 2023, Hale characterized his communications with Morales as "professional and collegial." The statement made no specific reference to the text messages of November 14, November 29, and December 8, 2022, and the general characterization of his communications as "professional" implied that no communications of a personal or sexual nature had been sent. During his June 15, 2023 interview, when shown the three recovered text messages by the interviewers, Hale acknowledged that he had sent them. However, he recharacterized the messages as "joking" and asserted that they were "taken out of context." This represents a material shift in characterization — from a blanket assertion that all communications were "professional and collegial" to an acknowledgment that the specific messages existed but were merely humorous. The shift suggests either that Hale was not fully forthcoming in his position statement or that his recollection and characterization of his own conduct changed when confronted with documentary evidence. In either case, the inconsistency undermines his credibility.
Regarding the Project Reassignment. In his position statement, Hale asserted that the reassignment of Project Meridian and Project Halcyon from Whitfield to Briggs was based on "capacity constraints and production timelines." During his interview, when pressed on the absence of any documentary support for this explanation, Hale alternatively cited "creative direction" concerns with Whitfield's approach as a contributing factor in the reassignment decision. The introduction of a second, alternative justification that was not mentioned in the position statement — and that, like the first justification, is unsupported by any documentary evidence — constitutes a shifting rationale. The inability to offer a single, consistent explanation for a significant personnel action is a recognized indicator of pretext and weighs against Hale's credibility.
Regarding the Off-Site Comments to Ngo. During the interview, Hale initially stated that he had "no specific recollection" of speaking with Ngo at the Monarch Valley Resort off-site on February 17, 2023. Later in the same interview, after further questioning, Hale acknowledged that he had engaged in "casual conversation" with Ngo at the off-site but denied that the conversation included any sexually suggestive content. The evolution from no recollection to an acknowledgment of conversation — within the same interview session — is notable and suggests that Hale's initial response was not fully candid.
C. Documentary and Electronic Evidence
The documentary and electronic evidence in the investigation record is, in several material respects, inconsistent with Hale's account and supportive of the complainants' accounts.
Text Messages. The three recovered text messages from Hale to Morales, dated November 14, 2022, November 29, 2022, and December 8, 2022, are inconsistent with Hale's initial characterization of his communications with Morales as "professional and collegial." The content of the messages — which includes comments about Morales's physical appearance and references to spending personal time together outside the workplace — supports Morales's characterization of the messages as sexually suggestive. Hale's subsequent recharacterization of the messages as "joking" and "taken out of context" does not adequately account for the content of the messages, which, read in their entirety, is difficult to construe as purely professional humor.
Reassignment Email. Hale's February 6, 2023 email directing the reassignment of Project Meridian and Project Halcyon from Whitfield to Briggs is devoid of any performance-related justification. The email does not reference capacity constraints, creative direction concerns, production timeline issues, or any other business factor. This absence is inconsistent with Hale's post hoc explanations, both of which (capacity constraints and creative direction concerns) would presumably have been documented or at least referenced in the reassignment communication itself if they were the genuine basis for the decision.
Calendar Records. Calendar records confirm the timing and locations of the alleged incidents as described by all three complainants, including the October 2022 Vancouver trip, the January 11, 2023 one-on-one meeting, the February 3, 2023 company dinner, the February 17–18, 2023 Monarch Valley Resort off-site, and the January 23, 2023 leadership team meeting. Hale did not dispute these dates or locations but did not acknowledge their significance to the allegations.
Meeting Exclusion Evidence. No documentary evidence supports Hale's assertion that Ngo's exclusion from the talent-relations strategy meetings in March and April 2023 was part of a departmental restructuring. The investigation team conducted a thorough search of the document collection for any restructuring plan, organizational chart revision, memorandum, email, or other communication reflecting a restructuring of the talent-relations function. No such document was found. The meetings continued with the same participants and subject matter, with the sole change being the removal of Ngo from the invitation list. The complete absence of documentation undermines Hale's explanation.
Prior Complaint — Serena Whitcomb. During his interview, Hale was asked about the July 2021 informal complaint by Serena Whitcomb, a former executive assistant. Hale initially denied awareness of any complaint by Whitcomb. When informed that Victor Gallegos had confirmed, during Gallegos's own interview, that Gallegos issued a verbal counseling to Hale on August 2, 2021, regarding Whitcomb's complaint about inappropriate comments, Hale's response shifted. He acknowledged a "brief conversation" with Gallegos but characterized it as a "miscommunication" and denied that it involved a counseling or any finding of inappropriate conduct. The investigation team notes that no written record of the August 2, 2021 verbal counseling was retained in Hale's personnel file, which represents a policy deficiency under APS Employee Handbook Section 8.1. However, the absence of documentation does not negate the fact that the counseling occurred, as confirmed by Gallegos. Hale's initial denial of awareness, followed by a minimizing acknowledgment, follows the same pattern of evolving recollection observed in connection with other aspects of his account.
D. Corroborating Witness Testimony
No witnesses corroborated Hale's denials in material respects. This is a significant factor in the credibility assessment. Across twenty-seven (27) witness interviews, no current or former employee, no third-party production contractor, and no other individual provided testimony supporting Hale's version of events in any area of material dispute.
Specifically:
• Cameron Briggs's testimony regarding the project reassignment directly undermined Hale's stated business justification. Briggs found the "bandwidth" explanation surprising, noted the absence of any objective indication of capacity constraints, and did not corroborate Hale's alternative "creative direction" rationale.
• No witness confirmed that a departmental restructuring of the talent-relations function occurred or was planned, undermining Hale's explanation for Ngo's meeting exclusion.
• No witness corroborated Hale's characterization of his communications and interactions with Morales as purely professional and collegial. To the contrary, multiple witnesses observed conduct consistent with the complainants' descriptions.
• The fourteen-page position statement submitted by Thornfield on Hale's behalf provided general denials and included references to Hale's professional accomplishments and general character, but it did not identify any specific exculpatory witnesses who could be interviewed or any specific documentary evidence that would support Hale's version of events. When asked during the interview whether there were individuals who could corroborate his account, Hale was unable to identify any specific witnesses.
E. Demeanor Assessment
Hale was generally composed during the early portions of his interview, when questioning focused on background information and general topics. However, his demeanor shifted notably when confronted with specific documentary evidence and pointed follow-up questions.
When shown the recovered text messages from November 14, November 29, and December 8, 2022, Hale