Read the full article by Gustavo Turner at XBIZ.com

LOS ANGELES — The third day of the second set of hearings concerning the Labor Board petition filed on behalf of five former models against agent Derek Hay and LA Direct took place today in downtown Los Angeles, with Hay’s attorney calling in several witnesses.

First, Hay’s defense introduced a new witness, a woman only identified by her professional name, Adonia.

Adonia testified she has known Derek Hay for at least “14 or 15 years,” and that she met him during a video or photo session that was booked at her house. “We had a lot in common with drinking wine and eating steaks, and that’s how we became friends,” said the witness.

Asked by Hay’s attorney, Richard D. Freeman, about her familiarity with Hay, Adonia testified that she and her “life partner” had dined regularly in Los Angeles with the agent until he moved to Las Vegas around 2014.

Adonia described Hay as just a friend and denied ever giving to or receiving money from either Hay or LA Direct. Asked by Freeman if she had “any professional business or financial connection with LA Direct,” Adonia replied “none whatsoever.”

Allan Gelbard, representing the petitioners, attempted to cross-examine Adonia about her line of business, the number of passports she currently held and a different criminal case where she supposedly pled guilty, but the witness invoked Fifth Amendment privileges to all those questions.

Gelbard then attempted to strike the woman’s entire testimony from the record; the matter was still being contested by the end of the hearing, over an argument whether testimony from a witness in a civil case can be struck if they plead the fifth over other criminal charges.

Since Adonia’s line of business is not, at this point, part of the record, it is unclear why Freeman decided to call her as a witness or how her testimony rebuts any of the petitioners’ claims, since her name had not been mentioned during Gelbard’s presentation in late September or on Monday.

Freeman then recalled one of the petitioners, Charlotte Cross, to question her about the date of a number of productions she had been involved in and about her contractual status during those dates.