Document 1QYRGrv7O8eeXY3ppvB1wMe0X

/< y /3 Carol -- Gerson should prepare a motion to appear pro hac vice in Peter Montague's case the second he steps back into the office and FedEx it to Eddie Roth at Joe Leritz's firm so he can appear at depositions early next week. I am enclosing my motion, which follows the form required by the court there and was actually approved I I am also enclosing the address and telephone list for this case. A couple of notes on the local rules for appearing pro hac vice: [i] it's unusually tough and forbids an attorney from entering any appearance until the motion is approved by the court; [ii] it requires listing of all bars that Gerson is a member of; [iii] he does not need a certificate of good standing from any of those bar associations, but must certify that he is in good standing in each bar he is a member of; and [iii] the information must be stated either in a separate affidavit or be in a verified motion. I also need to speak to Gerson at the earliest possible moment. I am heading into depositions Saturday, with or without him, and need to talk strategy in light of everything that happened while he was gone. I also enclose a copy of the fax I sent to Gerson describing what's been going on, in case he didn't receive it. Since then, we responded to Monsanto's motion for protective order, reduced the scope of our discovery requests to it, moved for a continuance, and moved to disqualify Coburn and Croft from representing anyone in this case. I'll ask Eddie Roth at Joe Leritz's firm to send copies. Paul Merrell 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI 2 EASTERN DIVISION 3 WILLIAM R. GAFFEY, 4 Plaintiff, 5 6 vs. PETER MONTAGUE, et al 7 Defendants. 8 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CAUSE No. 91-1938-C-7/JCI 9 VERIFIED MOTION TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE IO Petitioner Paul E. Merrell moves for leave to appear pro hac 11 vice on behalf of defendants in this matter and in support of this 12 motion states pursuant to Local Rule 2(d) that: 13 1. My name is Paul Edgar Merrell; 14 2. My address is 7493 East Five Rivers Road, Tidewater, 15 Oregon 97390; 16 3. I am a partner in the law firm of Bradley & Merrell, 17 which is the name of the firm under which I practice; 18 4. I attended the University of Oregon School of Law, 19 Eugene, Oregon, and graduated on or about January 1, 1988; 20 5. I have been admitted to practice law before the 21 22 following bars: a . Supreme Court of the State of Oregon, Salem, Oregon, 23 April 14, 1989, # 89-101; 24 b. U.S. District Court, District of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon, 25 January 23, 1991; and 26 c . Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, October 2, 1991; 27 /iij * 1 6 . I am a member in good standing of each of the above bare 2 and am not under suspension or disbarment in any bar in which I an 3 a member; and 4 7. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746, I declare under penalty of 5 perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 6 Executed November 12, 1993. 7 a 9 io il CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 12 I CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing was on this day mailed to 13 attorneys for Plaintiff, Richard A. Wunderlich and Daniel D. Zequra, at the offices of Lewis, Rice & Fingersh, 8182 Maryland 14 Avenue, Suite 400, Clayton, MO 63105. 15 16 17 Date 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 C;.. sir MEMORANDUM TO: Gerson Sraoger FROM: Paul Merrell RE: Gaffey v. Montague DATE: November 18, 1993 Per your request relayed by Carol, here's a summary o f where the case stands: In a one-liner, the discovery process has turned into a small quagmire. Monsanto insisted that Evans & Dixon withdraw shortly after they received the subpoena because Evans & Dixon has a lawyer that works on Worker Comp defense for Monsanto, including dioxin cases. Evans & Dixon has acquiesced, although they are helping us make the transition. We made an effort to have the insurance company hire Mark Bronson, but were unsuccessful. The insurance company hired a fellow named Joe Leritz, who has a good reputation, old-time St. Louis defense lawyer, close relationship with Judge Hamilton, etc. I've done some relationship cementing by emphasizing my Vietnam veteran experience (he's the only military veteran in his firm). The insurance company was making some noises about making an offer to confess a judgment, probably because they didn't want to pay the extra cost o f bringing a new law firm up to speed, having screwed up on their selection o f the first one. We have squelched that and they are no longer leaning toward an involuntary settlement (which according to the terms o f the policy, Peter has no right to stop). Shortly before the Monsanto subpoena was due to be returned, I received a telephone call from Ken Heineman o f Cobum & Croft, the lawyer who represented Monsanto in the Kemner case. He is representing Monsanto on the subpoenas, and has filed a motion for a protective order, delaying our discovery. I am rattling his cage over the conflict o f interest involved, because his firm has already had to withdraw from representing Gaffey after they hired an attorney away from Ortbals' firm who had worked on this case. Heineman says his firm has no problem representing Monsanto because Monsanto has no stake in the outcome on the merits and is only involved on the procedural issue o f the discovery subpoenas. I'm banging on him on the theory that if these subpoenas created enough o f a conflict to force the withdrawal o f Evans & Dixon (Monsanto's position), the same subpoenas should create a conflict with Peter's interests sufficient to force his firm's withdrawal. The Judge is virtually inaccessible, but we are preparing a motion for an expedited scheduling conference that we intend to file on Monday, seeking a delay in the discovery schedule and trial date, and seeking a briefing schedule on the Monsanto motion for a protective order and on our motion to disqualify Cobum & Croft, and associated relief like making them pay back to Monsanto all the fees they've received to oppose Peter's interests. Memorandum November 18, 1993 Page 2 In the meantime, we've had a major breakthrough. We've found the missing cohort that was supposed to be the Zack Gaffey study. It was among Rex Carr's documents, who apparently never realized what he had. This is the cohort that is described in the Zack-Suskind study as what was completed and about to be published. The cohort was 56 deceased process (as opposed to accident-exposed) workers who had filed claims with the Worker Comp Commission for chloracne or other skin conditions resulting from 2,4,5-T exposure. I have Dick Clapp looking at the data right now. To Carol and I, it looks extremely damaging with somewhere around 90 per cent of the workers dead of heart disease at an early average age, which provides an excellent explanation for why the Zack-Gaffey suddenly switched protocols sometime within a seven-month period before they published. Carol and I believe we have found the smoking gun Peter needs to show that Zack & Gaffey in fact manipulated their protocols to mask adverse health effects. The workup on the data was done by Janet Yung and seems quite thorough. Dick Clapp will try to get me a preliminary opinion on whether the data are statistically significant before the time set for taking the depositions of Janet Yung, November 27. That way, we'll know whether to try to build her up or tear her down. Carol and I lost several days work with the worst colds we've had in many years. We're battling back slowly. New research out showing a strong association between dioxin and endometriosis in rhesus monkeys. I'm proceeding on the theory that we should try to obtain a delay, but be prepared to take depositions nonetheless in case we can't. It would really help to speak with you, preferably well before we file our motion papers on Monday. Hope you're having a good time. c :\ ujen\rasc \ monta guc'\mommcti.006 Telephone: PAUL MERRELL Lawyer 7493 East Five Rivers Road Tidewater, Oregon 97390 (503) 528-7151 Telefax: (503) 528-7105 e a j < t e s m j t t t j ^e C/ e L c . C . 3 6 P a , r if to r o 3 0 7 t o : toe*~S oyi 5 m o c^e r ________ n o . O H sh eet 3 / 7 Q From: M ________________ transmitting from (503) 528-7105. Date : II / l W f - 3 Pages (including this sheet) 2 . Message: __________________________ If you experienced any difficulties in receiving this transmission, please call (503) 528-7151. N o t e z We now have a separate fax line and can receive telefax messages automatically. If the message is urgent, please follow-up with a telephone message because the telefax receiver is in a remote location. *************** -COMM.JOURNAL- ******************** DATE MOU-18-1993 ***** TIME 16=25 **** P.l MODE NO. TRANSMISSION COM SPEED/NTWK STATION NAME/ TELEFUONE NO. START=N0U-18 16=22 END=NOU-18 16=25 PAGES PRG.NO. PROGRAM NAME 001 OK a 003 -ALDER HILL FARM *************************************** c FAX--310 02.18)* - 503 528 7105- ************ ADDRESSES & TELEPHONE NUMBERS Gaffey v. Montague Client: Peter Montague Maria Pellerano (married to Peter) Environmental Research Foundation P.O. Box 5036 Annapolis, MD 21403-7036 410-263-1585 410-263-8944 (fax) Opposition attorneys: Mike Newport, Esq. Tom Byceline, Esq. ext. 2989 Monsanto in-house attorneys 314-694-2811 Ken Heineman Cobum, Croft & Putzell 1 Mercantile Center Suite 2900 St. Louis, MO 63101 314-621-8575 314-621-2989 (fax) Attorneys for deponent Monsanto Company Richard A. Wunderlich Daniel D. Zequra Lewis, Rice & Fingersh 8182 Maryland Avenue Suite 400 Clayton, MO 63105 314-854-8544 314-444-7600, ext. 308 314-854-8530 (fax) Attorneys for Plaintiff William R. Gaffey Gaffey v. Montague -- Defendant's address list Last updated November 22, 1993 c:\uscrs\njsc\montague\gaffcy.fon 1 C lient's C o-counsel: Joe Leritz, Esq. Edward M. Roth, Esq. Leritz Plunkert & Bruning 1 City Centre Suite 2001 St. Louis, MO 63101 314-231-9600 314-231-9480 (fax) 314-821-6516 (home) Attorneys for Defendants Peter Montague and Environmental Research Foundation John Michener, Esq. Kathi Chestnut, Esq. Evans & Dixon 200 North Broadway Suite 1200 St. Louis, MO 63102-2730 314-621-7755 314-621-3136 (fax) Attorneys for Defendants Peter Montague and Environmental Research Foundation Gerson Smoger, Esq. Pearce, Rathjen & Smoger 1333 North California Blvd. Suite 540 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 510-746-8745 510-746-8799 (fax) Attorneys for Defendants Peter Montague and Environmental Research Foundation Mark Bronson, Esq. Newman & Bronson 1015 Locust Suite 1024 St. Louis, MO 63101 314-231-4800 314-231-7803 (fax) Attorneys for Defendants Peter Montague and Environmental Research Foundation Gaffey v. Montague --Defendant's address list Last updated November 22, 1993 c:\uscrs\msc\montague\gaffey.fun 2 Gerald R. Ortbals, Esq. 1800 Equitable Building 10 South Broadway St. Louis, MO 63102 Attorneys for Defendants Peter Montague and Environmental Research Foundation Paul E. Merrell, Esq. Carol Van Strum Bradley & Merrell 7493 East Five Rivers Road Tidewater, Oregon 97390 503-528-7151 503-528-7125 503-528-7105 (fax) Attorneys for Defendants Peter Montague and Environmental Research Foundation Gaffey v. Montague --Defendant's address list Last updated November 22, 1993 c:\usm\msc\mamaguc\gaffcy.fon 3 Expert W itnesses: / Dr. Cate Jenkins Cougar Associates 1660 Lanier Place, N .W . Washington, D .C . 20009 202-260-4792 202-260-0225 (fax) FedEx Address: c/o Julie's Hallmark - 102 401 M Street, S.W . Washington, D.C . 20024 202-863-0770 Dr. Richard Clapp Center for Environmental Health Studies 210 Lincoln Street Boston, MA 02111 617-482-9485 617-482-0617 (fax) Dr. Devra Lee Davis OASH/HHS 200 Independence Avenue S.W . Room 718F Washington, D .C . 20201 202-401-7681 202-690-6630 (fax) Dr. Samuel Epstein University o f Illinois-Chicago School o f Public Health 2121 W est Taylor Room 324 Chicago, IL 60612 312-996-2297 312-996-1374 (fax) Dr. Ellen Silbergeld University o f Maryland Department o f Epidemiology Gaffey v. Montague --Defendant's address list Last updated November 22, 1993 c:\ujers\msc\nmntagtte\giffey.fcm 4 J ' Howard Hall * 4^?Suite 102A 660 West Redwood Street Baltimore, MD 21201 410-706-3461 410-706-8013 (tax) Dr. David Ozonoff Boston University School of Public Health Department of Environmental Health 80 East Concord Street Talbot 3C Boston, Mass. 02118-2394 617-638-4620 617-638-4857 (fax) Gaffey v. Montague -- Defendant's address list Last updated November 22, 1993 c:\uscri\msc\njontBguc\gaffcy.fon 5 act Witnesses: ymond R. Suskind Hill and Hollow Lane Cincinnati, Ohio 45208 513-321-8512 Dr. Judith A. Zack 3795 Chippendale Circle Okemos, Michigan 48864 William R. Gaffey Mary Gaffey R. Emmett Kelly Marcie Strauss James K. Collins Janet Yung (Janet Barnes) Phyllis Korte William Halperin Monsanto Company George Carlo Gaffey v. Montague --Defendant's address list Last updated November 22, 1993 c:\userc\msc\mantaguc\gaffcy.fan 6