Freelance writer Dominic Patten is a Deadline contributor
2ND UPDATE, 5 PM: Marc Cherry told the court that Nicollette Sheridan’s Desperate Housewives co-stars Eva Longoria and Felicity Huffman were “relieved” to hear that Sheridan’s character would be killed off the hit ABC series. They were, he testified, concerned that their deals might be affected by salary demands Sheridan might have been considering at the time. The show’s creator/executive producer testified that on or around the series’ 100th episode party on December 10, 2008 — more than two months before Cherry said he told Sheridan that she would be leaving the show – he told Longoria and Huffman that Sheridan’s character was being killed off to “calm them down”. Longoria and Huffman, both on the witness list for the trial along with fellow Housewives co-star Marcia Cross, were in Cherry’s office that December day to discuss conversations they had with Sheridan about all five stars renegotiating their contracts together to get a better deal out of the network. All five primary actresses on the hit series, along with Cherry, benefited from profit-sharing deals that grew the longer the series was on the air.
Meanwhile, over a month after the meeting with Longoria and Huffman, a January 27, 2009 email went out from Housewives producer George Perkins, quoting Cherry, that said “any attempts to diminish” Sheridan’s Edie Britt character’s role “is false”. Cherry confirmed that that the quote came from him.
Earlier in the afternoon, Cherry’s testimony followed the sequence of events on September 24, 2008, when Cherry allegedly hit Sheridan upside the head. Cherry, who has always contended that he “lightly tapped” Sheridan, said that he had been given implicit “permission” to touch Sheridan’s head accordingly while giving her direction for a scene that day. Cherry admitted that he “monitored every syllable he uttered around Sheridan afterwards.”
Testimony concluded today with a much more relaxed Cherry answering questions from his defense lawyer Adam Levin about his background, how he came up with the concept for Housewives and about how Sheridan was so great in the show’s pilot that Cherry decided to make her a series regular. His testimony continues tomorrow. Former ABC executive Mark Pedowitz, now entertainment president of The CW, is expected to testify next.
UPDATE, 12:30 PM: “I tapped her head, yes.” That’s what Cherry, on the stand this morning, insisted had occurred between him and Sheridan on the Desperate Housewives set on September 24, 2008. Cherry has been consistent on his version of events regarding the alleged incident, which differ from Sheridan’s claim that he hit her “hard”. Under questioning from plaintiff’s lawyer Mark Baute, Cherry wasn’t so consistent today about why Sheridan was let go from the show, though he said any reasons were secondary to “creative desires” to improve the series’ arc for the following season.
Cherry had claimed that the decision was relayed to kill off Sheridan’s Edie Britt character in Season 5 during a private five-minute meeting May 22, 2008 with then-ABC Studios president Mark Pedowitz in a studio hallway. During today’s testimony, though, he couldn’t recall what Pedowitz said on the matter except that he agreed to the move. Cherry has said and repeated today that eliminating Britt was an issue of “cost-saving” on Sheridan’s multimillion-dollar salary. But he testified that the series’ finances were not something in which he was directly involved. When questioned by plaintiff’s lawyers, Cherry said he had no idea how much revenue Housewives had generated over its lifespan — Cherry’s profit participation in the hit ABC series has made him millions. Cherry also didn’t recall further conversations or documentation about killing off Sheridan’s character. “I didn’t send any emails,” he said. “I just walked over” to talk to Pedowitz. Cherry added that later that day, then-ABC Entertainment president Stephen McPherson chimed in and agreed with the decision. In subsequent months, however, there were no emails on the issue from any of the parties involved that Cherry “was aware of”. He did tell the court that he informed the writing staff of that season’s Housewives “almost immediately” regarding the decision, but he swore them to secrecy. Various producers and writers from that season of the series are expected to testify later in the trial.
Cherry said another reason for letting Sheridan go was her “unprofessional behavior”. “It wasn’t the primary reason for my decision,” the chipper and clipped Cherry told the court early in his testimony, “but it was something I was aware of … it was on my mind.” Under questioning from Sheridan’s lawyers, Cherry cited an incident of Sheridan supposedly being rude to the series’ prop man, an incident that occurred in late 2008 — months after the supposed decision was made to let Sheridan go.
PREVIOUS, 11:24 AM: Desperate Housewives creator/executive producer Marc Cherry is set to testify next in Nicollette Sheridan‘s wrongful termination and battery lawsuit against Cherry, ABC Studios and ABC. Sheridan concluded her testimony about 30 minutes ago. The main focus of questioning this morning centered on a December 5, 2008 letter from ABC’s human resources department that concluded its investigation into an alleged September 24, 2008 on-set incident in which Cherry allegedly struck Sheridan on the head. In the letter, the network found that the producer’s apology over the incident had effectively ended the matter and no further action would be taken for “inadvertently upsetting [Sheridan].” Sheridan, who first took the stand Thursday morning, expressed “outrage” over the letter. However, she later admitted to defense lawyer Adam Levin that she didn’t actually see the letter at the time it was sent to her then-lawyer, nor did she contact the studio to disagree with its assertions. Sheridan later broke down in tears while reading a hand-written letter from Housewives producer George Perkins. The note was penned in early 2009 after the actress’ final table read for the series and complimented her for her “class” and “grace”.
Previous: ‘Desperate Housewives’ Trial: Nicollette Sheridan Was Never A Star Of The Show, Defense Says



The cost-saving lie makes no sense considering they subsequently hired stars like Vanessa Williams and Drea DeMatteo who couldn’t have come cheap. The only season they didn’t sign up a name for is this final season.
not true. by the time you hit season five, your actors salaries have contractually risen with each season, often to amazingly high sums. other actors/actresses that would be signed on, would be for undoubtedly much lower sums.
If it was purely a cost-cutting measure, they should have gotten rid of Felicity Huffman whose character is one of the most aggravating and annoying characters ever committed to television screens. Eva Longoria isn’t much better. At least Nicollette Sheridan’s character was fun – she was the right dose of campy, bitchy and slutty that a lot of people loved. Every show like this needs a troublemaker and she was perfect in the part. Instead, they got rid of her (ratings tanked) and they kept the boring sour faces. They also made a mistake of radically changing Shawn Pyfrom’s character and then getting rid of him. He was terrific in the first season or two when he was driving his mother to the brink. Marc Cherry and the writers would rather deball any interesting character as they did with Dana Delany and Kyle MacLachlan as well.
Those are YOUR views and evidently NOT the views of Cherry. If you ask someone else they may like the other 3 actresses. Personally I find Sheridan’s character very irritating. Getting rid of characters in hit series is nothing new for ABC look at who they got rid of in the first season of Lost. It almost becomes a once a season event. Next week one more main person goes on DH.
To me this is just a case of sour grapes by Nicollette Sheridan.
They could of cut cost by dumping Teri Hatcher. She plays the most immature (and annoying) woman in the history tv. I had to stop watching show after they killed of the wrong housewife. Marc Cherry killed off the most interesting housewife.
Marc proved in Season 2 of the show he was just a “ONE SEASON PONY”. I doubt his next show will last beyond one season.
When the ad market began to slump in 2009, all networks asked their shows to cut costs. By the time the ad market rebounded it was too late for Sheridan to return.
I’m thinking Nicollette has never seen an episode of NCIS where Mark Harmon’s Gibbs character is constantly smacking his team members on the back of the head. It sounds like Mark Cherry was pulling a Mark Harmon. If I had been slapped on the head like that and didn’t like it I would have spoken up at the time let my feelings be known and an apology would have been suffice. I don’t think an incident like that is sue-worthy and worth tax payers dollars for a trial.
Unless she had signed some sort of multi-year contract, the producers had every “write” to kill off a character.
That’s an idiotic excuse to condone a boss hitting an employee. Remember: NCIS is just a TV show.
I didn’t say it was an excuse, I said that it wasn’t sue-worthy. But if I read you correctly it sounds like you’re saying that if something happens on TV it doesn’t happen in real life? Abuse should not in any way be condoned but there is a way to put on adult pants and deal with a situation rationally and not sue for millions if it’s not warranted.
The many Americans who have lost their jobs because their bosses have shut down their businesses/factories to move the jobs out of the country so the CEO’s can make more money, now that’s a “wrongful termination” suit that I would support. Hollywood needs to get perspective.
“Hit me once, shame on you.” No excuse Marc Cherry. Man-up and pay her and keep your hands to yourself in the future.
Our country is based on laws (including assault and battery), not NCIS scripts.
I don’t think he was arrested.
if letting her go had been planned for such a long time then the writers really stink… all they could come up with was a random car accident?… which had nothing to do with the plot… had nothing to do with her storyline… wasn’t even the cliffhanger… it was a wasted opportunity…
Uh, it didn’t makes sense, and had ‘nothing to do with anything,’ because HELLO it was a wrongful termination, and spur of the moment lets get rid of this bish whose making waves about me hitting her. I mean duh.
Never watched the show but if what you’ve stated is true it’s v telling. Brings to mind what I believe HBO did with Pitt on Boardwalk Empire. His death was foreshadowed but it was obviously a v late decision in the series and based on the fact his own ex agency bad mouthed him as difficult you can’t help but come to a certain opinion.
so Mark…you really don’t keep track of how much revenue your series generates? ummm…ok…..
Whether it was a tap or a strike, it was still apparently unwanted, inappropriate contact proffered in something other than an affectionate manner.
Not cool.
I don’t think this is a case of her suing him b/c he hit her. She’s claiming that once she complained to upper management about the assault, he has her terminated as an act of retaliation which is against the law. I believe this is the crux of the lawsuit, no?
Was he wearing tapshoes?
Bottom line…he should have never struck her to begin with…simple communication would have been feasible with this but he was also protecting Longoria and Huffman from possibly bolting the show as Longoris is not that great of an actress to begin with. Huffman needed work after her show got canceled on the old WB but again, hoping this case doesn’t drag on for too much longer.
Amazed that so many people are willing to dismiss the fact that Cherry admits he made physical contact with Sheridan. Whether it was a “smack” or a “tap”, it is incredibly inappropriate and unacceptable behavior for someone in a position of power to do that.
If Patton wasn’t allowed to do that in war time, what makes anyone think its OK for a showrunner to?
Greedy Housewives is more like it. What a pair of selfish bitches. They wanted Nicolette off the show so there would be more money for them to share.
Cherry is not stupid and im sure he has been advised very well by his legal counsel.
Its always best to say i dont recall, i dont remember.
Because once you give an answer- right or wrong it can and will be used against you.
And him saying Eva and Felicity being “relieved” is a bunch of hearsay, as i would have my attorney counter.
ABC and Cherry are very stupid for not having settled out of court.
They will be taken for twice as much, than if they had settled.
I am not a fan of either side but im just saying.
It’s not hearsay if he heard it directly from the two women.
If A told him that B said she was relieved and he testified about it, then his testimony regarding B’s words would be hearsay.
Wrong. Hearsay is an out of court statement used to prove the truth of the matter asserted. So any statements made by Eva & Felicity out of court, and testified to by Marc as facts, is hearsay.
Of course, there are reasons some hearsay statements come into evidence, but that’s a bit above your head for today.
“All five primary actresses on the hit series, along with Cherry, benefited from profit-sharing deals that grew the longer the series was on the air.”
Interesting, considering Cherry and ABC swore up and down Sheridan was not a primary character on the show. This guy is so full of shit he can’t keep his lies straight day to day.
“Eva and Felicity were relieved.”
Ah well bless their black little hearts. Poor Nicolette was always treated like a red headed step child on the show. She hit the tone of a black comedy spot on.
Not like Eva who’s a barking small dog in a tutu trying desperately to get attention. Or Felicity who acts like there’s an Oscar in the offing with every episode.
They hang out together a lot. Neither one threatens what the other one deems to be their primary talent. Eva gets to be pretty and Felicity gets to be Gods gift to the acting world in her head.And it works fine for them.
But to see them bend Marc’s ear and be such nasty “see you next Tuesdays.” Well, i hope we all hear an audible boom when the show ends and they collectively fall off the face of the earth.
i don’t want to bash eva or felicity, but i gotta agree with you— even though i always hated nicolette’s character and thought it had become tired. seeing what they replaced it with— it made me appreciate her role. i like vanessa, but the writing for her role made it nothing more than a hacked off lower level version of nicolette. i think cherry is a corrupt pig (as in, absolute power corrupts abolutely) that thought he could get away with things b/c he was sitting pretty on a popular show. no different than the pigs on wall street. they’ve got all the money and power and they forget that there are little things like laws that apply to everyone… i mean, let’s forget about morals b/c we know they don’t have those- but laws, my friends, we all have to follow those. nobody can hit anybody. period. a BOSS hitting a subordinate? well, okay, you’ve stepped it up a notch pig. but then, when she complains about it, to get her fired so flippantly and arrogantly— well, sorry, you may be in hollywood, but california has the most protective laws for employees. i don’t see how you get around that… you hit the woman, she complains, and she’s fired. are we supposed to believe that’s just a coincidence, you pig? and- to eva and felicity, i hope you realize that you should support your fellow co-workers, not grapple behind her back in hopes of getting an extra buck… cuz cherry or any head will turn their back on you the second you don’t make money for them. you could be next.
What a fat weasel this guy is… his comments dont even add up… like hell would the other stars leave the show even with a diminished salary. I dont see producers hogging eva and felicity for movies… they are popular only because of DH. What preposterous allegations.
And so much of this is heresy. This fat weasel doesn’t even have anything to prove he is telling the truth except a couple of money-weaseling ‘former’ bosses of abc. Why didnt they document such a significant event in the series? This whole thing reeks of physical, financial, and psychological abuse on Nicollette.
Hope she get every penny and MORE from this advertisement for obesity
Am I the only one who finds this more interesting than this season of Desperate Housewives? (Sorry current writing staff, cast and crew of Desperate Housewives I know you folks are working hard, I couldn’t resist.) In your defense, there really are no more directions to take this series in. A series like this can’t really go on creatively for more than 3-5 years I think, could be wrong.
Ok, the more I hear about Marc Cherry, the more convinced am I that he’s a nasty human being in real life. Not only does he lay his hand on his employee, he’s also the kind of boss who would inform several employees (Longoria and Huffman) of a person’s firing before he informs the person in question (Sheridan). And he does not seem to be particularly smart either. He just spilled that Eva Longoria and Felicity Huffman live by the ‘Every woman for herself’ mantra, which IMO greatly devalues anything they’re going to say in his defense in court (the blackball situation comes to mind).
It is quite clear from all of these absurd comments that most of you are not in the entertainment industry.
LUCKY FOR US!
No A person, I’m not in the entertainment industry and thank God I’m not. People in your industry don’t get a pass to act like vile, selfish spoiled children. Actions have consequences and Mr Cherry’s excuse don’t pass the smell test. He’s an arrogant Hollywood executive that most of America can’t stand. The fact that Longoria and Huffman were in on her being fired for selfish reasons only highlights the low lifes that permeate Hollywood.
Hollywood should be ashamed, but of course, Hollwood has no shame.
I have been reading the Deadline updates on this trial with great interest since I once worked for Marc Cherry. My experience was extremely positive; he was kind, undemanding and a pleasure to work for. But I fear this jury is going to decide against him. He admitted to physical contact and that’s all there is to it.
apparently you had the foresight not to ever complain… it’s easy to get along with someone when everyone’s happy. true colors come out in situations like these. he’s an unprofessional pig with the audacity to hit a subordinate WOMAN, and then fire her for complaining about it- as if we should all be so pleased to be even paid attention to negatively or positively by his eminence. fat. pig. trash.
Why didn’t they settle? It takes a whole bunch of audacity to go into a court of law and admit to hitting your employee and expect no consequences. ABC should have written a check and saved everyone the embarrassment. BUT this is the best thing to come out of this show since the first season.
About Shawn Pyfrom’s Character Andrew VanCamp -
This is another example of Marc Cherry’s ability to completely waste talent and opportunity.
Andrew’s character was – at one time – a gold mine for possible storylines – but soon turned into a afterthought and is now a mostly forgotten character.
Andrew’s being gay and seducing his mother’s boyfriend was one of the best story arc’s ever on the series. When Bree left Andrew on the side of the road – to fend for himself – at the end of the first season – it was both shocking and heartbreaking.
I believe where ABC went wrong was not launching a spin-off series – based on the “children” of the Housewives – who were always more interesting than their mothers.
Even little Mason Vale Cotton (Mike, Jr.) has more natural talent than half the adult cast of this show.
It’s really quite simple and has been happening on sets everywhere:
The creator of a show that becomes so popular turns into a demi-god. He has to approve everything and everyone and after a while it gets to his head and no-one is to question his decisions.
Mark Cherry used to be called from his office to approve every new scene staging and solve any line problems. He was the last word on the set.
Now, every set has a ‘bad seed’. It can be a crew member or an actor. That person is unhappy. Unhappy about the salary, unhappy about the conditions and unhappy about call times. This person creates a terrible atmosphere on the set.
The solution is usually – replace the crew member and pronto. When it comes to cast member who get millions off the show and still complains – most executive producers will live with it as long as the formula works, and let everyone else suffer.
So kudos to the show for removing the bad seed. She is just looking to save face and says she was fired because she complained instead of admitting she was a trouble maker that made life miserable for everyone.
Eva and Felicity are just pulled into the fire for trying to do the right thing and remove a malcontent cast member.
I’m with team Cherry.