1017-00005 · Aurelius Global Media Group · Correspondence/Thornfield

letter-from-thornfield-re-interview-terms.docx DOCUMENT Funds

17 / 38 ← → ✕

Contract analysis Extract to table

CONFIDENTIAL — SUBJECT TO ALL APPLICABLE PRIVILEGES

THORNFIELD & ASSOCIATES LLP Attorneys at Law 10250 Constellation Boulevard, Suite 1950 Los Angeles, California 90067

Telephone: (310) 556-8200 Facsimile: (310) 556-8201

Email: gthornfield@thornfieldlaw.com

May 24, 2023

Via Email and U.S. Mail

Bernard Crawford, Esq. Responsible Partner, Labor & Employment Calderwood & Harkness LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2800 Los Angeles, California 90067

Re: Independent Workplace Investigation — Aurelius Global Media Group PLC / Aurelius Pacific Studios Inc.; Conditions for Participation of Marcus Hale in Investigative Interview

Dear Mr. Crawford:

I write in response to your letter dated May 19, 2023, in which you proposed scheduling an investigative interview of our client, Marcus Hale, President of Aurelius Pacific Studios Inc., as part of the independent workplace investigation being conducted by Calderwood & Harkness LLP at the direction of the Board of Directors of Aurelius Global Media Group PLC ("AGMG"). This firm represents Mr. Hale in his individual capacity in connection with this investigation and all related matters.

At the outset, I wish to confirm unequivocally that Mr. Hale intends to cooperate with this investigation in good faith. He understands the seriousness of the process, respects the authority of the Board to commission an independent investigation, and recognizes the important role that Calderwood & Harkness has been retained to perform. Mr. Hale further acknowledges that any attorney-client privilege arising from this investigation belongs to Aurelius Global Media Group PLC, and not to Mr. Hale individually, and that Mr. Hale does not and will not claim any such privilege as his own.

That said, Mr. Hale's cooperation must not come at the expense of fundamental fairness. The allegations under investigation are of the most serious nature and carry profound implications for Mr. Hale's career, professional reputation, livelihood, and personal well-being. He is entitled to conditions that ensure the investigative interview is conducted in a manner consistent with due process principles and the fairness standards applicable to workplace investigations under California law. Accordingly, this letter sets forth a series of conditions and requests that Mr. Hale considers reasonable and necessary for his meaningful participation in the interview. We respectfully request that Calderwood & Harkness review and respond to each of these conditions in writing prior to scheduling the interview.

1. Advance Written Notice of Specific Allegations

Mr. Hale requests that Calderwood & Harkness provide him, through undersigned counsel, with a reasonably detailed written summary of the specific allegations to be addressed during the investigative interview. This summary should be provided no fewer than ten (10) business days prior to the scheduled interview date.

At a minimum, the written summary should identify: (a) each complainant by name, to the extent not already known to Mr. Hale or his counsel; (b) the nature of each allegation, including the specific dates (or approximate date ranges), locations, and conduct alleged; and (c) the relevant company policies and legal provisions that the investigation team considers to be at issue in connection with each allegation.

Mr. Hale is aware generally that allegations have been raised by Jenna Morales (Vice President of Development), Claire Ngo (Senior Director of Talent Relations), and Darren Whitfield (Senior Vice President of Physical Production). However, the specific factual content of those complaints has not been shared with Mr. Hale in sufficient detail to allow him to prepare a meaningful and responsive account of the events in question. Without such detail, Mr. Hale would be placed in the untenable position of attempting to respond to accusations the substance of which he does not fully understand—a circumstance that would undermine, rather than advance, the truth-seeking purpose of this investigation.

This request is consistent with the investigative fairness standards recognized under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Cal. Gov. Code §§ 12940 et seq., and the guidance issued by the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (now the Civil Rights Department). It is well established that a subject of a workplace investigation is entitled to know the substance of the allegations against him in order to provide a meaningful and informed response. An investigation that denies the accused such information risks producing findings that are unreliable and legally vulnerable.

The need for advance written notice is further compounded by the fact that Mr. Hale was placed on paid administrative leave effective May 3, 2023. At that time, his access to company email, the company Meridian Solutions workspace, and all other internal systems and databases was suspended. As a result, Mr. Hale has been unable to review his own communications, calendars, files, or records since that date. Without advance knowledge of the specific allegations and the relevant timeframes, he cannot meaningfully prepare for the interview by attempting to reconstruct the relevant events and circumstances from memory alone.

2. Limitation on Interview Duration

Mr. Hale requests that the investigative interview be limited to a single session not to exceed four (4) hours in duration, inclusive of any breaks taken during the session.

This investigation involves serious allegations against a senior executive in the entertainment industry. Mr. Hale's career, livelihood, and personal reputation are directly at stake. While Mr. Hale is prepared to answer the investigation team's questions fully and candidly, an excessively lengthy or repeated interrogation is neither necessary nor appropriate in the context of an internal workplace investigation. Prolonged questioning sessions of the kind sometimes employed in adversarial litigation proceedings are inconsistent with the cooperative, fact-finding character of a properly conducted internal investigation and risk producing unreliable responses from a fatigued or distressed witness.

Four hours provides ample time for a thorough and focused interview, particularly if the investigation team adheres to the reasonable scope limitations discussed below. Should the investigation team determine, following the conclusion of the initial four-hour session, that additional time is necessary to address discrete follow-up matters, undersigned counsel is willing to discuss the scheduling of a brief supplemental session at that time. Mr. Hale reserves the right, however, to decline to participate in any further sessions at that juncture, taking into account the nature and scope of any additional questioning proposed.

In addition, Mr. Hale requests that the interview include at least one fifteen-minute break for every ninety (90) minutes of questioning. These breaks are necessary to allow Mr. Hale to collect his thoughts, confer briefly with counsel, and maintain the composure and concentration required for accurate and complete testimony.

3. Presence of Personal Counsel

The undersigned, Graham Thornfield, Founding Partner of Thornfield & Associates LLP, will attend the investigative interview as Mr. Hale's personal counsel. Mr. Hale's participation in the interview is conditioned upon counsel being permitted to be present in the room at all times during the interview session.

Mr. Hale further requests that counsel be permitted to confer privately with him during any scheduled or requested breaks. Such conferences will take place outside the interview room and will not unreasonably delay or disrupt the proceedings.

I wish to be transparent regarding the role I intend to play during the interview. I understand and acknowledge that the interview will be conducted by the Calderwood & Harkness investigation team and that my role is to advise my client—not to serve as an advocate or interlocutor in the interview itself. I do not intend to obstruct or unduly interject during the investigation team's questioning, and I will conduct myself in a manner that respects the integrity of the process.

That said, I reserve the right, on behalf of Mr. Hale, to object to questions that: (a) are beyond the reasonable scope of the investigation as defined by the allegations under review; (b) seek information protected by the attorney-client privilege between Mr. Hale and his personal counsel, including any communications between Mr. Hale and Thornfield & Associates LLP or any other attorney retained by Mr. Hale in his individual capacity; (c) are unduly repetitive of questions already asked and answered during the same session; or (d) are harassing, argumentative, or otherwise posed in a manner designed to confuse, intimidate, or badger the witness rather than to elicit truthful and relevant information.

Finally, Mr. Hale requests confirmation that no audio or video recording of the interview will be made without the advance written consent of both Mr. Hale and his counsel. Mr. Hale understands that the investigation team may wish to have a court reporter or note-taker present, and he does not object to the preparation of a written summary or notes of the interview, provided that such notes are not characterized as a verbatim transcript and that Mr. Hale is afforded the opportunity to review and comment upon any written summary before it is finalized and incorporated into the investigation record.

4. Right to Submit a Written Position Statement

Mr. Hale requests that he be afforded the right to submit, through counsel, a comprehensive written position statement setting forth his detailed response to the allegations under investigation. This request is an essential component of a fair investigative process. An interview, by its nature, is conducted at the direction of the questioner; a written position statement affords the subject the opportunity to provide a complete, organized, and considered narrative of the relevant facts and circumstances from his own perspective, without the constraints and inherent power imbalance of a question-and-answer format.

Mr. Hale requests confirmation that the written position statement will be accepted by the investigation team and considered as part of the evidentiary record, with the same weight accorded to witness testimony obtained through interviews. The statement should be treated as a substantive evidentiary submission and not merely as an ancillary or supplementary filing.

Mr. Hale further requests that the written position statement may be submitted either before or after the investigative interview, at Mr. Hale's election. In the event that Mr. Hale elects to submit the statement after the interview, the deadline for submission should be no earlier than ten (10) business days following the completion of the interview (or the final supplemental session, if any).

Thornfield & Associates currently intends to submit the written position statement in advance of the interview, provided that Calderwood & Harkness furnishes a sufficiently detailed summary of the allegations in a timely manner consistent with the request set forth in Section 1 above. If the allegations summary is not provided with adequate specificity or timeliness, we reserve the right to defer submission of the position statement until after the interview.

5. Scope of Questioning

Mr. Hale requests that the investigative interview be limited in scope to the specific allegations identified in the complaints of Jenna Morales, Claire Ngo, and Darren Whitfield, together with matters directly related thereto. The investigation was commissioned to address specific complaints by specific individuals; it should not be permitted to become a roving inquiry into every aspect of Mr. Hale's professional or personal life.

In particular, Mr. Hale objects to any questioning concerning his personal life, personal relationships, or conduct that is unrelated to the workplace or to the specific allegations under investigation. Mr. Hale's private affairs, to the extent they do not intersect with the conduct described in the complaints, are not relevant to this investigation and inquiry into such matters would constitute an unwarranted invasion of his privacy.

With respect to prior human resources matters, Mr. Hale takes the following position: any prior informal complaints, counseling sessions, or HR interactions (if any exist) should be addressed during the interview only to the extent that they are directly relevant to the current allegations. Mr. Hale reserves the right to object to questions that improperly seek to use unrelated past matters to establish a propensity or pattern, particularly where such matters were resolved, withdrawn, or otherwise concluded without any finding of wrongdoing. The investigation team should not be permitted to bootstrap stale or unrelated matters into the scope of the current inquiry in order to create an impression of cumulative misconduct where none exists.

To facilitate a focused and efficient interview, Mr. Hale requests that the investigation team identify in advance the general topics and categories of documents it intends to discuss during the interview. This need not be an exhaustive catalog, but a reasonable outline of the anticipated subject areas would allow Mr. Hale and his counsel to prepare appropriately and would reduce the likelihood of disputes during the session itself.

6. Document Access

Mr. Hale requests that he be provided, through counsel, with copies of any documents that the investigation team intends to show, reference, or question Mr. Hale about during the interview at least five (5) business days prior to the scheduled interview date.

As noted above, Mr. Hale's access to all company systems—including his company email account, the Aurelius Pacific Studios Meridian Solutions workspace, shared network drives, project management platforms, and all other internal databases and communication tools—was suspended effective May 3, 2023, when he was placed on administrative leave. He has had no access to these systems since that date. He cannot independently retrieve, review, or search his own email correspondence, Meridian Solutions messages, calendar entries, or files.

Fundamental fairness requires that a witness not be confronted for the first time during an interview with documents he has had no opportunity to review. This is especially true where, as here, the witness has been denied access to the very systems in which those documents reside. Ambushing Mr. Hale with unfamiliar documents during the interview would compromise the reliability of his responses and undermine the integrity of the investigative process.

This request applies specifically, but not exclusively, to any text messages, emails, Brightmoor Data Systems, internal memoranda, performance reviews, meeting notes, calendar entries, or other records that are attributed to Mr. Hale, were sent or received by Mr. Hale, or concern Mr. Hale, and that the investigation team plans to reference during the interview. Mr. Hale does not seek access to the complete investigative file or to documents that are not intended to be discussed during the interview; this request is limited to the documents the team intends to use in the interview itself.

7. Confidentiality and Non-Disclosure

Mr. Hale acknowledges that this investigation is privileged and confidential and that the attorney-client privilege and work product protections associated with the investigation belong exclusively to Aurelius Global Media Group PLC. Mr. Hale does not claim any such privilege as his own and will respect the confidentiality of the investigative process.

In return, Mr. Hale requests reciprocal assurances that the substance of his investigative interview, his written position statement, and any other information he provides to the investigation team will be treated as confidential within the investigation and will not be disclosed to the complainants, other witnesses, the media, or any third parties outside the investigation team and the Board-level committees overseeing the matter. Mr. Hale understands that the investigation is being overseen by the People & Culture Committee of the AGMG Board of Directors (chaired by Dame Cordelia Ashworth) and the Audit & Risk Committee (chaired by Raymond Okoro), and he does not object to appropriate reporting by Calderwood & Harkness to those committees in connection with the discharge of their oversight responsibilities.

Mr. Hale is aware of, and has complied with, the direction he was given at the time of his placement on administrative leave not to discuss the investigation with company employees. He takes this obligation seriously and intends to continue to honor it. He respectfully requests that the complainants and other witnesses be held to the same standard and that Calderwood & Harkness take reasonable steps to ensure that information flowing from the investigative process is not selectively disclosed in a manner that could prejudice Mr. Hale's rights or reputation.

8. No Adverse Inference

Mr. Hale requests written confirmation from Calderwood & Harkness that no adverse inference will be drawn from any of the following: (a) any invocation by Mr. Hale of his right to consult privately with counsel during breaks in the interview; (b) any request by Mr. Hale or his counsel for a break during the interview; or (c) any decision by Mr. Hale, on the advice of counsel, not to answer a specific question or category of questions.

Mr. Hale intends to answer all questions posed by the investigation team in good faith and to the best of his ability. However, he reserves the right, on the advice of counsel, to decline to answer any question where a response could implicate personal legal exposure in any potential subsequent proceeding, whether civil, administrative, or regulatory. This reservation is consistent with established principles governing workplace investigations and is not indicative of any consciousness of wrongdoing. Mr. Hale should not be penalized in the investigation's findings for the exercise of rights that the law affords to every individual in his position.

9. Interview Location and Logistics

Mr. Hale confirms that the proposed interview location at Calderwood & Harkness's Los Angeles office, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2800, Los Angeles, California 90067, is acceptable.

With respect to the interview date, Mr. Hale requests that the date be set in a manner that allows for full compliance with the advance-notice and document-access timelines requested above. Specifically, the interview should not be scheduled earlier than ten (10) business days following Calderwood & Harkness's provision of the written allegations summary requested in Section 1, and documents to be referenced in the interview should be provided no fewer than five (5) business days prior to the interview date. Mr. Hale and counsel are prepared to accommodate a reasonable schedule and will work in good faith with Calderwood & Harkness to identify a mutually convenient date.

Mr. Hale requests that the interview be conducted in a private conference room and that only members of the Calderwood & Harkness investigation team be present in the room during the interview, together with Mr. Hale and undersigned counsel. Specifically, no representatives of Aurelius Pacific Studios Inc. management, AGMG management, in-house legal counsel, or human resources personnel should be present in the interview room or observe the interview by any means. The independence of this investigation requires a clear separation between the investigation team and company management, and the presence of management representatives would compromise both the reality and the appearance of that independence.

10. Reservation of Rights

Mr. Hale expressly and comprehensively reserves all of his rights, including but not limited to any and all rights arising under or in connection with: (a) his Employment Agreement with Aurelius Pacific Studios Inc. dated January 7, 2019, as amended, including any provisions relating to termination, compensation, benefits, indemnification, and dispute resolution; (b) the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Cal. Gov. Code §§ 12940 et seq.; (c) the California Labor Code; (d) all other applicable California and federal statutes, regulations, and common law; and (e) any other contractual, statutory, or equitable rights and remedies available to Mr. Hale.

For the avoidance of doubt, Mr. Hale categorically denies the allegations of sexual harassment and retaliation that have been raised against him. He maintains that the complaints filed by Ms. Morales, Ms. Ngo, and Mr. Whitfield are rooted in legitimate performance-related disagreements and management decisions, not in any actionable misconduct. Mr. Hale is confident that a fair and thorough investigation will bear out this position.

Nothing in this letter, and nothing in Mr. Hale's agreement to participate in the investigative interview or to comply with the conditions set forth herein, shall be construed as a waiver, release, or relinquishment of any of Mr. Hale's rights, claims, or defenses, whether known or unknown, at law or in equity. Mr. Hale's cooperation with this investigation is voluntary and is undertaken in reliance upon the representations and assurances provided by Calderwood & Harkness and AGMG. Should those representations or assurances prove to be inaccurate or should the conditions set forth in this letter not be honored, Mr. Hale reserves the right to withdraw his cooperation and to pursue all available remedies.

We respectfully request that Calderwood & Harkness respond in writing to each of the foregoing conditions at the earliest practicable date so that the investigative interview can be scheduled in an efficient and orderly manner. We are mindful that the Board and its committees have an interest in the timely completion of this investigation, and we share that interest. Delay is in no one's interest, and Mr. Hale does not seek delay. He seeks only the basic protections that fairness demands.

I am available to meet and confer by telephone at your convenience to discuss any of the conditions set forth in this letter. My direct line is (310) 556-8200, and I can be reached by email at gthornfield@thornfieldlaw.com. I am confident that with good-faith engagement on both sides, we can reach agreement on terms that serve the interests of all parties and allow the investigation to proceed without further delay.

Mr. Hale remains committed to a fair and thorough process. He looks forward to the opportunity to provide his account of the relevant events and is confident that the facts, when fully and fairly examined, will vindicate his conduct.

Very truly yours,

THORNFIELD & ASSOCIATES LLP

By: ________

Graham Thornfield Founding Partner

10250 Constellation Boulevard, Suite 1950 Los Angeles, California 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-8200

Email: gthornfield@thornfieldlaw.com

cc: Marcus Hale (via counsel copy)

CONFIDENTIAL — SUBJECT TO ALL APPLICABLE PRIVILEGES
THORNFIELD & ASSOCIATES LLP Attorneys at Law 10250 Constellation Boulevard, Suite 1950 Los Angeles, California 90067
Telephone: (310) 556-8200 Facsimile: (310) 556-8201
Email: gthornfield@thornfieldlaw.com
May 24, 2023
Via Email and U.S. Mail
Bernard Crawford, Esq. Responsible Partner, Labor & Employment Calderwood & Harkness LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2800 Los Angeles, California 90067
Re: Independent Workplace Investigation — Aurelius Global Media Group PLC / Aurelius Pacific Studios Inc.; Conditions for Participation of Marcus Hale in Investigative Interview
Dear Mr. Crawford:
I write in response to your letter dated May 19, 2023, in which you proposed scheduling an investigative interview of our client, Marcus Hale, President of Aurelius Pacific Studios Inc., as part of the independent workplace investigation being conducted by Calderwood & Harkness LLP at the direction of the Board of Directors of Aurelius Global Media Group PLC ("AGMG"). This firm represents Mr. Hale in his individual capacity in connection with this investigation and all related matters.
At the outset, I wish to confirm unequivocally that Mr. Hale intends to cooperate with this investigation in good faith. He understands the seriousness of the process, respects the authority of the Board to commission an independent investigation, and recognizes the important role that Calderwood & Harkness has been retained to perform. Mr. Hale further acknowledges that any attorney-client privilege arising from this investigation belongs to Aurelius Global Media Group PLC, and not to Mr. Hale individually, and that Mr. Hale does not and will not claim any such privilege as his own.
That said, Mr. Hale's cooperation must not come at the expense of fundamental fairness. The allegations under investigation are of the most serious nature and carry profound implications for Mr. Hale's career, professional reputation, livelihood, and personal well-being. He is entitled to conditions that ensure the investigative interview is conducted in a manner consistent with due process principles and the fairness standards applicable to workplace investigations under California law. Accordingly, this letter sets forth a series of conditions and requests that Mr. Hale considers reasonable and necessary for his meaningful participation in the interview. We respectfully request that Calderwood & Harkness review and respond to each of these conditions in writing prior to scheduling the interview.
1. Advance Written Notice of Specific Allegations
Mr. Hale requests that Calderwood & Harkness provide him, through undersigned counsel, with a reasonably detailed written summary of the specific allegations to be addressed during the investigative interview. This summary should be provided no fewer than ten (10) business days prior to the scheduled interview date.
At a minimum, the written summary should identify: (a) each complainant by name, to the extent not already known to Mr. Hale or his counsel; (b) the nature of each allegation, including the specific dates (or approximate date ranges), locations, and conduct alleged; and (c) the relevant company policies and legal provisions that the investigation team considers to be at issue in connection with each allegation.
Mr. Hale is aware generally that allegations have been raised by Jenna Morales (Vice President of Development), Claire Ngo (Senior Director of Talent Relations), and Darren Whitfield (Senior Vice President of Physical Production). However, the specific factual content of those complaints has not been shared with Mr. Hale in sufficient detail to allow him to prepare a meaningful and responsive account of the events in question. Without such detail, Mr. Hale would be placed in the untenable position of attempting to respond to accusations the substance of which he does not fully understand—a circumstance that would undermine, rather than advance, the truth-seeking purpose of this investigation.
This request is consistent with the investigative fairness standards recognized under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Cal. Gov. Code §§ 12940 et seq., and the guidance issued by the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (now the Civil Rights Department). It is well established that a subject of a workplace investigation is entitled to know the substance of the allegations against him in order to provide a meaningful and informed response. An investigation that denies the accused such information risks producing findings that are unreliable and legally vulnerable.
The need for advance written notice is further compounded by the fact that Mr. Hale was placed on paid administrative leave effective May 3, 2023. At that time, his access to company email, the company Meridian Solutions workspace, and all other internal systems and databases was suspended. As a result, Mr. Hale has been unable to review his own communications, calendars, files, or records since that date. Without advance knowledge of the specific allegations and the relevant timeframes, he cannot meaningfully prepare for the interview by attempting to reconstruct the relevant events and circumstances from memory alone.
2. Limitation on Interview Duration
Mr. Hale requests that the investigative interview be limited to a single session not to exceed four (4) hours in duration, inclusive of any breaks taken during the session.
This investigation involves serious allegations against a senior executive in the entertainment industry. Mr. Hale's career, livelihood, and personal reputation are directly at stake. While Mr. Hale is prepared to answer the investigation team's questions fully and candidly, an excessively lengthy or repeated interrogation is neither necessary nor appropriate in the context of an internal workplace investigation. Prolonged questioning sessions of the kind sometimes employed in adversarial litigation proceedings are inconsistent with the cooperative, fact-finding character of a properly conducted internal investigation and risk producing unreliable responses from a fatigued or distressed witness.
Four hours provides ample time for a thorough and focused interview, particularly if the investigation team adheres to the reasonable scope limitations discussed below. Should the investigation team determine, following the conclusion of the initial four-hour session, that additional time is necessary to address discrete follow-up matters, undersigned counsel is willing to discuss the scheduling of a brief supplemental session at that time. Mr. Hale reserves the right, however, to decline to participate in any further sessions at that juncture, taking into account the nature and scope of any additional questioning proposed.
In addition, Mr. Hale requests that the interview include at least one fifteen-minute break for every ninety (90) minutes of questioning. These breaks are necessary to allow Mr. Hale to collect his thoughts, confer briefly with counsel, and maintain the composure and concentration required for accurate and complete testimony.
3. Presence of Personal Counsel
The undersigned, Graham Thornfield, Founding Partner of Thornfield & Associates LLP, will attend the investigative interview as Mr. Hale's personal counsel. Mr. Hale's participation in the interview is conditioned upon counsel being permitted to be present in the room at all times during the interview session.
Mr. Hale further requests that counsel be permitted to confer privately with him during any scheduled or requested breaks. Such conferences will take place outside the interview room and will not unreasonably delay or disrupt the proceedings.
I wish to be transparent regarding the role I intend to play during the interview. I understand and acknowledge that the interview will be conducted by the Calderwood & Harkness investigation team and that my role is to advise my client—not to serve as an advocate or interlocutor in the interview itself. I do not intend to obstruct or unduly interject during the investigation team's questioning, and I will conduct myself in a manner that respects the integrity of the process.
That said, I reserve the right, on behalf of Mr. Hale, to object to questions that: (a) are beyond the reasonable scope of the investigation as defined by the allegations under review; (b) seek information protected by the attorney-client privilege between Mr. Hale and his personal counsel, including any communications between Mr. Hale and Thornfield & Associates LLP or any other attorney retained by Mr. Hale in his individual capacity; (c) are unduly repetitive of questions already asked and answered during the same session; or (d) are harassing, argumentative, or otherwise posed in a manner designed to confuse, intimidate, or badger the witness rather than to elicit truthful and relevant information.
Finally, Mr. Hale requests confirmation that no audio or video recording of the interview will be made without the advance written consent of both Mr. Hale and his counsel. Mr. Hale understands that the investigation team may wish to have a court reporter or note-taker present, and he does not object to the preparation of a written summary or notes of the interview, provided that such notes are not characterized as a verbatim transcript and that Mr. Hale is afforded the opportunity to review and comment upon any written summary before it is finalized and incorporated into the investigation record.
4. Right to Submit a Written Position Statement
Mr. Hale requests that he be afforded the right to submit, through counsel, a comprehensive written position statement setting forth his detailed response to the allegations under investigation. This request is an essential component of a fair investigative process. An interview, by its nature, is conducted at the direction of the questioner; a written position statement affords the subject the opportunity to provide a complete, organized, and considered narrative of the relevant facts and circumstances from his own perspective, without the constraints and inherent power imbalance of a question-and-answer format.
Mr. Hale requests confirmation that the written position statement will be accepted by the investigation team and considered as part of the evidentiary record, with the same weight accorded to witness testimony obtained through interviews. The statement should be treated as a substantive evidentiary submission and not merely as an ancillary or supplementary filing.
Mr. Hale further requests that the written position statement may be submitted either before or after the investigative interview, at Mr. Hale's election. In the event that Mr. Hale elects to submit the statement after the interview, the deadline for submission should be no earlier than ten (10) business days following the completion of the interview (or the final supplemental session, if any).
Thornfield & Associates currently intends to submit the written position statement in advance of the interview, provided that Calderwood & Harkness furnishes a sufficiently detailed summary of the allegations in a timely manner consistent with the request set forth in Section 1 above. If the allegations summary is not provided with adequate specificity or timeliness, we reserve the right to defer submission of the position statement until after the interview.
5. Scope of Questioning
Mr. Hale requests that the investigative interview be limited in scope to the specific allegations identified in the complaints of Jenna Morales, Claire Ngo, and Darren Whitfield, together with matters directly related thereto. The investigation was commissioned to address specific complaints by specific individuals; it should not be permitted to become a roving inquiry into every aspect of Mr. Hale's professional or personal life.
In particular, Mr. Hale objects to any questioning concerning his personal life, personal relationships, or conduct that is unrelated to the workplace or to the specific allegations under investigation. Mr. Hale's private affairs, to the extent they do not intersect with the conduct described in the complaints, are not relevant to this investigation and inquiry into such matters would constitute an unwarranted invasion of his privacy.
With respect to prior human resources matters, Mr. Hale takes the following position: any prior informal complaints, counseling sessions, or HR interactions (if any exist) should be addressed during the interview only to the extent that they are directly relevant to the current allegations. Mr. Hale reserves the right to object to questions that improperly seek to use unrelated past matters to establish a propensity or pattern, particularly where such matters were resolved, withdrawn, or otherwise concluded without any finding of wrongdoing. The investigation team should not be permitted to bootstrap stale or unrelated matters into the scope of the current inquiry in order to create an impression of cumulative misconduct where none exists.
To facilitate a focused and efficient interview, Mr. Hale requests that the investigation team identify in advance the general topics and categories of documents it intends to discuss during the interview. This need not be an exhaustive catalog, but a reasonable outline of the anticipated subject areas would allow Mr. Hale and his counsel to prepare appropriately and would reduce the likelihood of disputes during the session itself.
6. Document Access
Mr. Hale requests that he be provided, through counsel, with copies of any documents that the investigation team intends to show, reference, or question Mr. Hale about during the interview at least five (5) business days prior to the scheduled interview date.
As noted above, Mr. Hale's access to all company systems—including his company email account, the Aurelius Pacific Studios Meridian Solutions workspace, shared network drives, project management platforms, and all other internal databases and communication tools—was suspended effective May 3, 2023, when he was placed on administrative leave. He has had no access to these systems since that date. He cannot independently retrieve, review, or search his own email correspondence, Meridian Solutions messages, calendar entries, or files.
Fundamental fairness requires that a witness not be confronted for the first time during an interview with documents he has had no opportunity to review. This is especially true where, as here, the witness has been denied access to the very systems in which those documents reside. Ambushing Mr. Hale with unfamiliar documents during the interview would compromise the reliability of his responses and undermine the integrity of the investigative process.
This request applies specifically, but not exclusively, to any text messages, emails, Brightmoor Data Systems, internal memoranda, performance reviews, meeting notes, calendar entries, or other records that are attributed to Mr. Hale, were sent or received by Mr. Hale, or concern Mr. Hale, and that the investigation team plans to reference during the interview. Mr. Hale does not seek access to the complete investigative file or to documents that are not intended to be discussed during the interview; this request is limited to the documents the team intends to use in the interview itself.
7. Confidentiality and Non-Disclosure
Mr. Hale acknowledges that this investigation is privileged and confidential and that the attorney-client privilege and work product protections associated with the investigation belong exclusively to Aurelius Global Media Group PLC. Mr. Hale does not claim any such privilege as his own and will respect the confidentiality of the investigative process.
In return, Mr. Hale requests reciprocal assurances that the substance of his investigative interview, his written position statement, and any other information he provides to the investigation team will be treated as confidential within the investigation and will not be disclosed to the complainants, other witnesses, the media, or any third parties outside the investigation team and the Board-level committees overseeing the matter. Mr. Hale understands that the investigation is being overseen by the People & Culture Committee of the AGMG Board of Directors (chaired by Dame Cordelia Ashworth) and the Audit & Risk Committee (chaired by Raymond Okoro), and he does not object to appropriate reporting by Calderwood & Harkness to those committees in connection with the discharge of their oversight responsibilities.
Mr. Hale is aware of, and has complied with, the direction he was given at the time of his placement on administrative leave not to discuss the investigation with company employees. He takes this obligation seriously and intends to continue to honor it. He respectfully requests that the complainants and other witnesses be held to the same standard and that Calderwood & Harkness take reasonable steps to ensure that information flowing from the investigative process is not selectively disclosed in a manner that could prejudice Mr. Hale's rights or reputation.
8. No Adverse Inference
Mr. Hale requests written confirmation from Calderwood & Harkness that no adverse inference will be drawn from any of the following: (a) any invocation by Mr. Hale of his right to consult privately with counsel during breaks in the interview; (b) any request by Mr. Hale or his counsel for a break during the interview; or (c) any decision by Mr. Hale, on the advice of counsel, not to answer a specific question or category of questions.
Mr. Hale intends to answer all questions posed by the investigation team in good faith and to the best of his ability. However, he reserves the right, on the advice of counsel, to decline to answer any question where a response could implicate personal legal exposure in any potential subsequent proceeding, whether civil, administrative, or regulatory. This reservation is consistent with established principles governing workplace investigations and is not indicative of any consciousness of wrongdoing. Mr. Hale should not be penalized in the investigation's findings for the exercise of rights that the law affords to every individual in his position.
9. Interview Location and Logistics
Mr. Hale confirms that the proposed interview location at Calderwood & Harkness's Los Angeles office, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2800, Los Angeles, California 90067, is acceptable.
With respect to the interview date, Mr. Hale requests that the date be set in a manner that allows for full compliance with the advance-notice and document-access timelines requested above. Specifically, the interview should not be scheduled earlier than ten (10) business days following Calderwood & Harkness's provision of the written allegations summary requested in Section 1, and documents to be referenced in the interview should be provided no fewer than five (5) business days prior to the interview date. Mr. Hale and counsel are prepared to accommodate a reasonable schedule and will work in good faith with Calderwood & Harkness to identify a mutually convenient date.
Mr. Hale requests that the interview be conducted in a private conference room and that only members of the Calderwood & Harkness investigation team be present in the room during the interview, together with Mr. Hale and undersigned counsel. Specifically, no representatives of Aurelius Pacific Studios Inc. management, AGMG management, in-house legal counsel, or human resources personnel should be present in the interview room or observe the interview by any means. The independence of this investigation requires a clear separation between the investigation team and company management, and the presence of management representatives would compromise both the reality and the appearance of that independence.
10. Reservation of Rights
Mr. Hale expressly and comprehensively reserves all of his rights, including but not limited to any and all rights arising under or in connection with: (a) his Employment Agreement with Aurelius Pacific Studios Inc. dated January 7, 2019, as amended, including any provisions relating to termination, compensation, benefits, indemnification, and dispute resolution; (b) the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Cal. Gov. Code §§ 12940 et seq.; (c) the California Labor Code; (d) all other applicable California and federal statutes, regulations, and common law; and (e) any other contractual, statutory, or equitable rights and remedies available to Mr. Hale.
For the avoidance of doubt, Mr. Hale categorically denies the allegations of sexual harassment and retaliation that have been raised against him. He maintains that the complaints filed by Ms. Morales, Ms. Ngo, and Mr. Whitfield are rooted in legitimate performance-related disagreements and management decisions, not in any actionable misconduct. Mr. Hale is confident that a fair and thorough investigation will bear out this position.
Nothing in this letter, and nothing in Mr. Hale's agreement to participate in the investigative interview or to comply with the conditions set forth herein, shall be construed as a waiver, release, or relinquishment of any of Mr. Hale's rights, claims, or defenses, whether known or unknown, at law or in equity. Mr. Hale's cooperation with this investigation is voluntary and is undertaken in reliance upon the representations and assurances provided by Calderwood & Harkness and AGMG. Should those representations or assurances prove to be inaccurate or should the conditions set forth in this letter not be honored, Mr. Hale reserves the right to withdraw his cooperation and to pursue all available remedies.
We respectfully request that Calderwood & Harkness respond in writing to each of the foregoing conditions at the earliest practicable date so that the investigative interview can be scheduled in an efficient and orderly manner. We are mindful that the Board and its committees have an interest in the timely completion of this investigation, and we share that interest. Delay is in no one's interest, and Mr. Hale does not seek delay. He seeks only the basic protections that fairness demands.
I am available to meet and confer by telephone at your convenience to discuss any of the conditions set forth in this letter. My direct line is (310) 556-8200, and I can be reached by email at gthornfield@thornfieldlaw.com. I am confident that with good-faith engagement on both sides, we can reach agreement on terms that serve the interests of all parties and allow the investigation to proceed without further delay.
Mr. Hale remains committed to a fair and thorough process. He looks forward to the opportunity to provide his account of the relevant events and is confident that the facts, when fully and fairly examined, will vindicate his conduct.
Very truly yours,
THORNFIELD & ASSOCIATES LLP
By: ________
Graham Thornfield Founding Partner
10250 Constellation Boulevard, Suite 1950 Los Angeles, California 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-8200
Email: gthornfield@thornfieldlaw.com
cc: Marcus Hale (via counsel copy)

CONFIDENTIAL — SUBJECT TO ALL APPLICABLE PRIVILEGES

THORNFIELD & ASSOCIATES LLP

Record

Parties

Dates

Amounts