Live Nation Seeks Sanctions After Unsealed AEG Email Raises New Questions in Antitrust Trial

A newly unsealed email in the Justice Department’s antitrust case against Live Nation and Ticketmaster has opened an unusual new front in the closely watched trial, with Live Nation accusing both AEG and the state plaintiffs of crossing a line in their handling of a defense witness whose testimony went to the heart of one of the government’s core arguments.

In a sanctions motion filed Thursday, Live Nation asked Judge Arun Subramanian to punish the plaintiffs over what it described as an improper effort to dissuade former AEG executive Rick Mueller from testifying, or at minimum to influence how he would testify before the jury. The filing marks a sharp escalation in a dispute that had initially surfaced as an evidentiary fight over the scope of Mueller’s cross-examination.

Previous Trial Coverage: Live Nation Seeks Pre‑Verdict Win as Judge Orders More Trial Records Unsealed

The motion gained added weight after the public filing of redacted correspondence ordered onto the docket by the court (1375-1, embedded below). In that correspondence, AEG attorney Justin Bernick sent plaintiffs materials relating to Mueller and wrote, “Please let us know your thoughts on how to use this,” adding, “We think there is a good chance he would try to avoid testifying if he knew this would come up.”

That email is now central to Live Nation’s argument that the Mueller dispute was not merely a routine impeachment disagreement, but part of a broader attempt to blunt testimony the company says would undercut the states’ claims about competition in primary ticketing.

For years, AEG has been among the most vocal corporate critics of Live Nation and Ticketmaster. As AEG Presents CEO Jay Marciano told staff in a 2024 memo, AEG had “long maintained that Ticketmaster has a monopoly in the U.S. ticketing marketplace” and accused Live Nation of using that power to “impose its will on the live entertainment business.”

That history gives the present clash a sharper edge: Live Nation is now attempting to turn the coercion narrative back on one of the companies that has most forcefully backed the government’s case.

According to a declaration (1379 – embedded below) from Live Nation counsel Jennifer Giordano, plaintiffs’ counsel Adam Gitlin told the defense that the states had received information from AEG outside discovery and intended to use it to impeach Mueller if he would not testify that AEG had terminated him for “misconduct.” Giordano said Gitlin initially refused to provide a copy of the letter in question, later agreed to a narrower line of questioning, and then reversed course after what he described as encouragement from “other people.”

Emails attached to the declaration support at least part of that chronology. On the morning of March 26, Gitlin wrote to Giordano, “We have a deal.” Later that same day, however, he emailed that “Plaintiffs’ position is that these issues are fair game for cross regarding bias.” (1379-1 and 1379-2)

The states, for their part, have sharply disputed the notion that they acted improperly. In a March 26 letter to the court that was later docketed in redacted form, the state plaintiffs argued that the Mueller materials were legitimate impeachment evidence bearing on bias and credibility, not an attempt to affect his willingness to testify. They said Mueller, now employed by Live Nation, was expected to criticize the quality of his former employer’s ticketing platform, making evidence related to his relationship with AEG probative for cross-examination. The states also argued that because they viewed the material as impeachment evidence, they did not believe they had an obligation to disclose it in advance to defendants. (1375-2)

Judge Subramanian has not adopted Live Nation’s account as fact, and the court has not yet ruled on the sanctions request. But the judge did signal concern about the underlying personnel material itself in an earlier order, writing that information from Mueller’s personnel file was “highly sensitive,” was not used at trial, and was “potentially” disclosed in violation of parties’ rights under law.

Live Nation is asking for more than a reprimand. In its sanctions motion, the company wants the court to admit certain AEG documents for the truth of the matters asserted, allow the jury to consider other already-admitted exhibits for their truth as well, and instruct jurors that they may infer plaintiffs and AEG feared the full record on AXS quality would damage the states’ case. (1377, 1378)

That request is tied directly to Mueller’s importance in the broader trial. Live Nation argues that his testimony, along with internal AEG documents, cuts against a key premise of the government’s case: that AXS was sufficiently comparable to Ticketmaster to serve as a meaningful competitive alternative. In its sanctions memorandum, Live Nation pointed to internal AEG communications describing AXS in harsh terms, including one email calling it “the worst ticketing service, pathetic,” another referring to widespread internal frustration, and a later message stating the “AXS system still mostly stinks at simple, basic things.”

That matters because the government’s case has sought to portray Ticketmaster’s long-term exclusives and Live Nation’s alleged retaliation tactics as helping preserve dominance in a market where rival ticketers were capable of competing for major venues. Live Nation, by contrast, has repeatedly argued that its strongest rivals often lost because their products were worse, not because they were foreclosed by unlawful conduct.

The sanctions fight therefore lands at an especially sensitive moment in the defense case. What might otherwise have remained a sealed dispute over witness impeachment has now become a public clash over whether one of Live Nation’s chief industry rivals, while aligned with the government’s broader monopoly narrative, may itself have helped create the kind of pressure tactic the trial is supposed to expose.

If the court ultimately rejects Live Nation’s sanctions bid, the episode may still remain a colorful procedural sideshow. But if Judge Subramanian finds the conduct crossed a line, the dispute could have real evidentiary consequences in front of the jury during the final stretch of one of the most consequential antitrust trials the live entertainment business has seen in decades.

EVIDENCE DOCUMENTS REFERENCED

1375-1: Redacted email correspondence filed on the docket showing AEG counsel’s message to plaintiffs regarding Rick Mueller and how the materials might be used.

1379: Declaration from Live Nation counsel Jennifer Giordano laying out the defense’s account of how the Mueller impeachment dispute unfolded.

1379-1: Email exhibit in which plaintiffs’ counsel confirms to Live Nation’s counsel, “We have a deal.”

1379-2: Follow-up email exhibit in which plaintiffs’ counsel reverses course and says the Mueller issues are “fair game” for cross-examination on bias.

1375-2: Redacted letter from the state plaintiffs arguing the Mueller materials were legitimate impeachment evidence bearing on bias and credibility.

1377: Live Nation’s formal notice of motion seeking sanctions against the plaintiffs over the Mueller dispute.

1378: Live Nation’s memorandum of law arguing that the Mueller episode warrants sanctions and broader evidentiary relief at trial.