Freelance writer Dominic Patten is a Deadline contributor
UPDATE, 4 PM: Mark Pedowitz says Marc Cherry never discussed financial ramifications or Nicollette Sheridan’s alleged “unprofessional behavior” when the Desperate Housewives executive producer asked the then-ABC Studios president for permission to kill off the Edie Britt character in May 2008.
Contradicting testimony from Cherry that money and Sheridan’s professionalism were reasons for getting rid of the Britt character, Pedowitz did confirm today that he gave Cherry studio permission in a small meeting on May 22, 2008, to get rid of the character. “They were seeking permission from the studio to kill off the character,” Pedowitz said. Pedowitz, who left ABC Studios in January 2009, said Cherry told him the character was to be killed off because “there were no more stories to tell.” Later, Pedowitz told the jury, under questioning from defense attorney Adam Levin, that he had rejected an earlier attempt by Cherry to kill off the Britt character in season 3 of the series but he approved killing her off in season 5 because “the character in my mind had run its course.”
Pedowitz also testified this afternoon that in a later meeting that same day, then-ABC Entertainment president Steve McPherson “blessed” the decision to kill off the Britt character. Pedowitz said that in the meeting with McPherson, Cherry and others, there were “ongoing conversations” about if the Britt character was to leave the series, “sooner or later.” Pedowitz said that both he and McPherson wanted it to happen “later, “preferably in May,” around the time of the season finale.
Pedowitz acknowledged that Sheridan was not informed of the decision for many months. “The delay in telling her was because we hadn’t determined when we were” going to kill off the Britt character. “By the time they did,” Pedowitz, who is currently the president of the CW, said “I was no longer in that position.” Sheridan was informed on February 10, 2009 that her character was to be written off of the show.
Earlier in his testimony, Pedowitz emphasized his anger that he only found out about the alleged Sept. 24, 2008, hand-hitting incident between Cherry and Sheridan a month after it occurred from a story in the National Enquirer. Pedowitz declined, citing attorney-client privilege, to reveal what he discussed on the phone with ABC Studios business affairs lawyer Howard Davine about the incident shortly after reading the Enquirer story. However, the former ABC Studios president did say he ordered a meeting and an HR investigation into the matter the next day. Pedowitz added that he received “an oral report” in early November 2009 from human resources executive Lynne Volk about the investigation ABC HR subsequently conducted on the incident. Volk told Pedowitz that allegations that Sheridan was hit hard on the head were “baseless.” Volk, who is scheduled as a witness in the trial, never informed Pedowitz the former ABC Studios exec says, of an email she received on Sept. 24, 2008 about an incident from Desperate Housewives line producer George Perkins. Pedowitz concluded his testimony this afternoon and Cherry resumed his testimony at 4 PM today and will be on the stand first thing tomorrow morning.
UPDATE, 3 PM: Pedowitz said he “was not pleased” to first hear about the alleged on-set incident between Cherry and Sheridan from the National Enquirer. “That would be an understatement,” testified the former ABC Studios president and current president at The CW, who took the stand this afternoon in Sheridan’s $6 million wrongful termination and battery case. Pedowitz, who said his role on Desperate Housewives during his time at ABC was to “oversee the creative, the business and the production for the studio,” is a pivotal witness as his testimony is expected to confirm Cherry’s contention that the decision was made in May 2008 to kill off Sheridan’s character on the hit series. Sheridan claims she was forced off the show because of the September 2008 altercation. Pedowitz, who answered plaintiffs lawyers’ questions in a concise, clipped manner, was seen earlier in the day in the halls shaking hands and laughing with Cherry and his lawyers. His testimony is expected to take the rest of today, with Cherry expected to take the stand afterward.
PREVIOUS, 11:49 AM: Nicollette Sheridan‘s longtime entertainment lawyer Neil Meyer testified this morning that the actress ”was afraid she’d lose her job” the day after Desperate Housewives creator/executive producer Marc Cherry allegedly struck her in the head on set in September 2008 because Cherry “was a vindictive man”. Meyer said today on the stand in Sheridan’s wrongful termination and battery trial that the actress “was extremely upset” by the incident, and that Meyer told ABC business affairs executive Howard Davine soon after that “he needed to know” what had happened between Cherry and Sheridan. Davine told Meyer he would look into it, the lawyer testified. “Nicollette was concerned about this behavior,” he said he told Davine in a phone conversation, “and if this could happen to her, it could happen to other people.” Judge Elizabeth Allen White ruled last year that examples of other alleged abusive behavior by Cherry can’t be brought up in court by Sheridan or her co-counsels. “We weren’t looking to ABC/Disney to do anything,” Meyer also told the court, “because Nicollette was concerned about retaliation. Marc Cherry had apologized, and she was prepared to put her head down and go back to work”. An official ABC human resources investigation into the incident was launched after a story in the National Enquirer was published in early October 2008. The investigation, which never questioned Sheridan or Cherry directly, concluded in early December of that year stating Sheridan “was not mistreated”.
During his testimony today, Meyer said he had not been successful in finding Sheridan either an agent or a job in the past two years; Sheridan was informed by Cherry on February 10, 2009, that her character was being eliminated. Earlier in the trial, Sheridan testified that she worked recently on a Hallmark movie and a CBS pilot.
Former ABC executive Mark Pedowitz, now president at The CW, is expected to take the stand later today, with Cherry to continue his testimony after Pedowitz.
(Photo: Getty Images)


Seems like this thing has been going on forever. It’s the McMartin preschool trial of producer-chokes-actress lawsuits.
Johnny… Seriously? “…Going on forever?”
The damn trial just started.
Thanks a lot video games.We are truly turning into an ADD Nation.
I said it SEEMS like it’s been going on forever because it’s been in the news for a couple years now. All things considered, I suppose it’s not that long a time, especially when we know the wheels of justice turn slowly. (For the record, I don’t play video games.)
“A man like Ringo’s got an empty hole right through the middle of him and no matter what he does he can’t ever fill it.”
No offense, Johnny: I can never seem to turn the channel when “Tombstone” is playing…
Judge Elizabeth Allen White ruled last year that examples of other alleged abusive behavior by Cherry can’t be brought up in court by Sheridan or her co-counsels.
That makes no sense the jury should know that he has a history of being abusive to cast and crew. He went crazy with power on this show it was such a sudden success he was not emotionally prepared for the whirlwind of doing this series. He couldn’t cope with the stress and the fame and fortune it all went to his head inflating his ego to monstrous proportions.
Human behavior while patterned is not inductive, at least not in way that makes it an operative assumption for a trial. There were two events and differing descriptions. It is work enough to just focus on that. As I understand the reporting, there really is not any dispute that there was an incident of physical contact and a termination from a program. This trial is about why that happened and does Ms. Sheridan have remediable damages as understood in civil law.
To bring in those allegations of earlier incidents from other parties and invite rebuttal and counter-witnesses from the defense and lengthen the trial significantly. Testimony is preceded by depositions making it more costly to complain and defend. And to what purpose? So those of us in the peanut gallery can see Marc Cherry or Nicolette Sheridan be (more) humiliated. I appreciate that some folks may want that, but, as a taxpayer, I’m not crazy about taking up the Court’s time with tangents.
The Judge knows what she’s doing and has told the parties what the salient points are and will keep them from going beyond and wasting the Court’s time. I’m not one to second guess her. If she erred, the attorneys will note that in any appeals and other judges will decide.
Money has gone into Marc’s fat little head… He needs to wake up n smell the coffee… Abuse and discrimination against employees a strict no-no everwhere…
Abuse and discrimination like making fun of someone’s “fat little head”?
Actors always get screwed in these cases. The L.A. Courts always side with the “power” It’s all about money…
cherry is allegedly quite a monster though right?
Yes. Google his name and see how many items about his temper you can find…
marc is nowhere at the level of Chuck Lorre
How about this—they’re all guilty of being participants in a colossal waste of time, effort, money, and the United States Judicial System.
Team Nicollette.
Its inconceivable that he had admitted to hitting her on set, in the workplace, hard enough that she was upset and that he had to apologize – and yet that behavior is somehow supposed to be acceptable.
Why did Cherry/ABC take this to trial. If she doesn’t win, I’ll be VERY surprised.
Because the lawsuit isn’t about him hitting her. It’s about whether she was fired in retaliation for reporting the incident.
The lawsuit IS also about him allegedly hitting her. That’s why it’s called a wrongful termination and battery trial.
I propose we settle this in the octagon, UFC-style. Sheridan vs. Cherry, bare knuckles, no holds barred, winner-take-all. My money’s on Sheridan.
Cherry took it to trial as a ‘desperate’ attempt to get publicity during these final weeks of the show. There is no reason why this couldn’t be settled.
Team Sheridan.
There are too many power egos that are abusing people out there with no consequences, the labor laws for retaliation and wrongful dismissal are there because it’s not ok. My question is – how does that HR representative at ABC look in the mirror- anytime a superior lays hands on an employee, that is Mistreatment, wow, that proves that if you have an actual labor complaint, go straight to the law because the human resource departments are still answering to the money folks.
I know she has a terrible reputation but if Cherry really did as she alleges I hope he is punished accordingly – it is way to easy for entertainment execs to get away with this kind of thing.
perhaps Sheridan is having trouble finding representation because she doesn’t pay them…
Why don’t they just get the writers assistant from the time to release his/her room notes. Will probably be the first time anyone actually looks at them. #writerassistanthumor
Regardless, I’m sure everyone will be chomping at the bit to hire Sheridan after this
Independent of the slap on the head :
1 : If they picked up her option they picked up her option. Did they pick up her option?
2 : There had to have been a guarantee of the number of episodes, no?
3 : Boilerplate would probably permit them to do whatever they want with the character including writing her out of the show.
4 : Regardless of what they would choose to do or did with the character ABC would have had to meet the obligations of having had picked up the option meaning the contract and what should have been an ironclad guarantee on the basis of the option having been picked up…
5. …unless the contract was purposefully (or otherwise) left unsigned; there is no effectively worded deal memo in lieu of an unsigned contract; or the contractual definition of “picking up” the option was technically or otherwise not effectively disposed of or addressed by ABC; for reasons of “wiggle room” perhaps in light of escalating budgets vs. lesser ratings – a reality of all long-running shows drawing to a close.
6. If Sheridan showed up for work, and there was work for her to do, even if the appropriate documentation didn’t exist, wouldn’t the option having been picked up be an implicit? That is unless there were other discussions going on about the actress and/or her character while at the same time the appropriate signed documentation simply did not exist. Were there?
7. If any or all of the foregoing is accurate is Sheridan using (the absolutely inappropriate) head tap to redress such trappings…as fear of retaliation…by staging a sort-of preemptive retaliation of her own in order to get the full compensation her signed contract should have guaranteed…regardless of whether or not all of this was appropriately executed? Would she be wrong or out-of-pocket if she showed up and they had stuff for her to do?
Technically…maybe.
Who’s fighting what rat? Basically. (Plus factor in what law enforcement would characterize as an assault if they had to write it up.) That tug-of-war includes knowledge of her litigious reputation.
Generally speaking, I could be completely wrong, but I smell more than a couple potential – let’s call them snafus – that’s what they would do in the worst case scenario – committed by some hit show-enabling “suits” at ABC possibly originating in Business Affairs.
But who leaked to the National Enquirer in October? And for what purpose? To construct a visibility of suggestibility about conclusive closure? Preemptive damage control of potentially costly escalating legal matter(s) basically I’m suggesting. Could have been the prosecution and it backfired. Could have been the defense. Could have been some other source paid or otherwise.
“Pedowitz, who answered plaintiffs lawyers’ questions in a concise, clipped manner, was seen earlier in the day in the halls shaking hands and laughing with Cherry and his lawyers.”
That shows a clear conflict of interest the jury should know about.
I’m confused at what sheridan is actually fighting for — did they not pick up her option for an additional year — so did she lose out on that additional year and does she not get profits from the show in syndication? This show has killed off many characters and they have always teased us about killing edie off and it was always frustrating because she was one character that was really fun. Do producers not have the right to kill off a character? Again, I can’t believe that this is not in their contract, it seems like a common thing in daytime soaps.
I can’t believe that ABC would not settle this before letting it get to this — this is just airing dirty laundry.
Pedowitz is merely kissing up to ABC/Disney, although not sure why since they terminated him after 20 years at the studio. Guess he hopes they will take him back after the CW network throws him out.
They got rid of Edie & made the show really boring.
If Edie’s death was really planned for 9 months then the writing quality on DH really went downhill after the first season. Unless, Marc Cherry had originally a different death planned for her character, but made the decision to turn it into such a pointless joke because of his personal grudge towards Nicollette Sheridan?