Document 4anJyw6M37wwJrb01YLrNKQQV

1 1 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 2 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 3 BEAUMONT DIVISION 4 5 CECIL SCOTT, ET AL 6 V. C. A. NO. B-84-1 10 3- CA 7 MONSANTO COMPANY 8 9 1 0 VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF 1 1 ROBERT EUGENE SHIRLEY 12 13 14 15 16 ] 7 June 29th, 1987 Bruntrager, Bruntrager & Billings 18 1015 Locust, Suite 1140 St. Louis, Missouri 19 20 21 22 2 3 Cheryll K. LeFevers Texas CSR No. 1690/Notary Public 24 Nell McCallum & Associates 2900 Smith, Suite 104 25 Houston, Texas 77006 NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0037053 I APPRAR ANCKS ; 2 3 F o r the P1 a :i r> t i f f s : 4 MICHAEL /V, POLL RRTC NT KLSKN 5 G i 1 p 1 n , I? o h 1 & Bonne 11 3 3 0 0 Post Oak Boulevard, 2 4 t h F 3 o o r 6 H o uston, Texas 77056 7 For 1.he. Def endant : 8 JONATBAN SBORBOTBAM 9 STEPHEN S, ANDREWS Woodard, Ball & Primm 1 0 4 7 0 0 Texas Commerce Tower H o xi s t o n , T e x a s 7 7 0 0 2 11 3 2 The Videograpber! 13 ,TAMPS HEIRONIMfJS Kxecn 15 ve S e r v i ces Oronp 14 P.O. Box 890306 Houston, Texas- 77289-0306 15 1 6 Videotaped deposition of RO B KRT EUG EN R 17 SHIRLEY, a witness called by the Plaintiffs, on June 3 8 2 9th, 3 98 7 , at the offices of Bniritrager, Brunt.rager 19 & Billings, 1015 Locust Street, Suite 1140, St, 2 0 Louis, Missouri, commencing at 9:15 a.m., before 21 Cheryl1 K , LeFevfirs, CS R No, 1. 69 0 and No 1;ary Pub 1 1 c 22 in and for the State of Texas, pursuant to Not3ce 2 3 and Subpoena and the 1'edera 1 Rules of Civil 2 4 Procedu r e. 25 NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0037054 3 1 INDEX 2 3 WITNKK8: ROBERT EUGENE SHIRLEY 4 b EXAMINATION BY; PAGE 6 Mr , P oh 1 7 7 Mr . S h o e b o t h a m 71 8 RE ~ E X A MIN A T10 N BY: 9 Mr . P oh 1 10 Mr . Shoeb o tha m 11 76 81 12 1 3 EXHIBITS 14 EXHIBIT NO, P AGE 15 1 ~ " P 3 a .i n 1.i f f f! ' Notice o f: 16 I n t o n t i o n L o T a k e V i d e o t a p e d Oral Hepos ition ancl Subpoena 17 Duces T e cum," f o r June 29, 1987 4 18 2 - I.tr dtd June 19, 1 9 87 , from 19 M r . P o h 1 to Mi'. S h o e bothara 4 2 0 3 - Monsanto achievement award approv e cl J u 1 y , 19 7 8 25 21 4 - Request for employment data 2 2 dtd 3 -7-8 4 47 23 24 25 NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0037055 4 1 f. 11 0 C JR. R D X N 1 S. 2 (8ibhop and 8hir1 y Exh1 bit No, 1 3 and 2 marked for .identification) 4 THE REPORTER; Do you-aU. want 5 njgna1u r e? 6 MR. SHOEBOTHAMj Yes, we would. 7 THE REPORTER; What about objections? 8 MR, P0H Ls The sa me an all the o th era. 9 MR. SHOEROTHAM; I'm holding here 1 0 Shirley and Bishop Exhibits No. 1 and No, 2. 1 1 Mr. Shir1 y has been preduced here this morn1ng ~~ 1 2 was lined u p t o b e p r o d u c e d in response to y o u r ~ 13 Mr. Poh 1, you're Ju no 1 1th, 1 98 7 , 1 e 11:er . We 3 4 received the deposition N o t i c e that's beer) m a r k e d a s 15 Exhibit 1 on, I believe, Thursday af ternoon , June 18 2ftth . 17 In reviewing the categori es urider 18 "Personnel Department" on the second page of the 19 Notice, I s e e that Mr, Shirley is the m ost 2 0 know 1edgeabIe current employee of Monsan to to 2 1 discuss the manageme r> t and/or direct. 5. o n of 22 Monsanto's personnel, department during the late 2 3 Seventies and early Eighties and spec.ificaJ J y o n e 2 4 particular area of the personnel department, which 2 5 Mr. Shirley can tell you about, that he's had NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0037056 I 8 pec if 1 c respons i b .1J. i t ies concern 1 ng , 2 He would be responsive to Categories b 3 and. c unda r "Personne 1 Department . " 4 MR, POHbt Okay. Fine. 5 MR. SHORROTH/VM s With regard to the 6 d oeument. request, the doc.umerits wh 1 eh ha ve been 7 produced here to d a y , which we can reference by 8 number at. some point * - maybe before Mr. Bishop's 9 deposition ~~ were gather ad in response to your June 3 0 33, 3987, correspondence. 11 The June 19, 1987, correspondence, 3 2 which has been marked as Kxh i bi. t. 2 , arid t.he subpoena 13 d u c e s tecum, w h i. c h h a s been marke d a s a p ortion of 3 4 K x h i b it 3 , were recei ved - - I g u e s s the J u n e 3 91. h 15 letter was received on Juno -- by me on June 20 and 3 6 the subpoena duces tecum was received on June 25th. 17 These documents that I have produced 3 8 today may or may not. be responsive to categories 19 contained in the 1 otter and the subpoena duc.es 2 0 tecum. We si mp3 y have not. had an opport.uni ty t.o 2 1 formulate a rfispomie to the June 19, 19B7, 2 2 correspondenee and the subpoena duces t.ecum . 2 3 To the extent that a .response wi .11 be 2 4 required at. this time, we wou 3 d ob j ec t. that we have 2 5 not had s uf f 1 eie nt time to f o rmulate a response. NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0037057 6 1 MR. P 0 H L: Sure. I u n d e r s t a n d . i e 2 you -- 3 1" you find -- X think, ha sed upon wha t y 3 a n d I have already talked about , J o Ivn, none o f d t b a t ' s a prob1em , because all 1 was trying to do wa 5 just g e t a 11 the docti m a n t s portal n 3. n g t o t h e s e ft b u b j e c. t ro a 1.1 e :r s and trie d i. o d e t a i 3 a b m u c. h o f th a t 7 as could i.n the ,Tune 3. 9 letter,, wh ieh I th ink is 8 conn j s tent w i t.b t.he subpoena . 9 hnd If you find that you over1ooked 10 any d o c. u in e n t f! that won 3 d have fall e r> jn - ~ 3 ns 3 d e U the s e o p e of that, just give th e m to me at a 1 a te r 3 2 date, in the n e xt couple weeks, and that will be 13 f i n e . 3 -3 MR. SHOP. BOTHAM; Okay. 1 appreciate 15 t h a t. 3 6 (Discussion off. the Record) 17 38 19 20 2 I. 22 23 2d 25 NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0037058 7 .1 ROBERT EUGENE SHIRT,EY, 2 h a v 5 n g b e e n f a rst d u 1 y sworn, testified as f o .1 3 o w s s 3 4 E X A M 1 N A T 3 ON BY MR . POH3. t 5 Q , Mr. Shirley, my name i s M i ke P o h 1 , And we 6 were j ntroduced for the first t i me this inorni ng ; i s 7 that correct? 8 A . T3iat.'s correct . 9 Q . Would you state on the re e ord your f. u 11 1 0 name? 3 1 A . My name is R o b e r t K n g e n e Shirley. 12 Q. Mr, Shirley, you understand that you're the 3 3 cl e s i g n a 1. e d representative of Mods a n t o h ere tod a y t o 3.4 t a 1k a bout the m at ters pertin e n t to Monsanto's 3 f p e r s o n ti e 1 depar l. went, a n o t. e d in o u r s u b poena? 36 A. Yes, l do. 3 7 Q. Okay. And I'd like to have a few 3 8 agreements with you, it we could, before we get into 3 9 t.he substance of your depoaition, 2 0 1? 1 rs t, i f at any time you don't 2 3 u rider s t. a nd my q u e s t. i on be c a use there's a distraction 2 2 i n t he room, b e cause I speak t o <3 f: a s t, or be c a use I 2 3 spea k too softly, or bee a use the Question is 2 4 confusing, I'd Like you to stop me and ask me to 2 5 clarify the question or to repeat the question so NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0037059 8 1 that we can be a b s o l u t e 1 y ;? u re that y o u u n tiers t a n d 2 e v e ry q u e s 1i o n t o w h :i c h you give a ri answer. Can w e 3 have that a g re e mo n t ? 4 A . Y e si , 5 Q . Also, I'd 1 ike you to answer aud j b 1 y to 6 <3 a c h q u e s t Lon. T h a t in a k e s it easier to r t h e e o u r t 7 reporter to record your i.estiinony . That is, don't 8 answer by n o d of t he he a d o r a shr u g o 1. h e 9 shoulders. 10 Car) we have that, agreement? I. 1 A. Yes. 1 2 Q. Okay. If at any ti me you wan t. t o t. a k e a 13 b r e a k, visit wit h e o un se1, get a cup o co fee, i 1 4 you'll J e t in e know, we' 1 .1 s t o p a t your c o ri v e n i e n c. e . 15 Okay ? 1 f A. That's fine. 17 Q. Also, please allow me to finish each J 8 q u e s t ion b e f o r e y o u s t. a r t. your-a n s w e r . And I w i 11 19 d o 1 i k e w i s e t h a t is, i'll 1 e t y o u i n i s h y o u r 2 0 answer before I start my next, question. 2 1 Can we have that agreement? 2 2 A . Yes . 23 o. 0 k a y . B a v e you ever- been deposed b e for e ? 24 A . No, i h a v e n o t . 2 5 Q. 0 k a y . Have you had a chance ~ has your NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0037060 9 I lawyer explained to you how this deposition may be 2 u s e d a t t. r 3 a 3 a r> d t. hat your' deposition is under 3 oath ? 4 ft . Yes, he has. 5 Q . ftnd today wo ' re in tho 3. i.brary of a 1 aw 6 firm in 81. Louis. ftnd even though these are rather 7 inform a 1 surro u nditigs , you understand that some or 0 a .3 3 o f y o u r deposition may be re a d o r s how n t o the 9 Court and j ury? 3 0 ft. Yes, I do. 1 1 Q. ftnd you understand that the oath that 3 2 you've been given today by the court reporter 5 s t he 13 same oath that would be administered to you if you 3 4 we3"e pres en t on the wi t ness s ta tid at. t.h e t i me of 15 tria1? 1 6 ft. Yes, I do. 3 7 Q. Okay. In preparation for the deposition, 18 have you read any other depositlons or excerpts or 3 9 s u hi m a r i e s f: r o m other depositions given in t h i s c a s e ? 2 0 ft. Yes, I have. 23 0. Which ones? 2 2 ft. 1 read a portion that referred to me by 23 name . 24 (). I s t h a t f r o hi Dr. Roush ? 2 5 ft. Dr. Roush. NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0037061 30 1 Q . (fJJh ~- huh. 2 A , That's a 3 3 1 recall. 3 Q. Okay. I've got that same p o rtion w i th m e 4 today. !)av e y o u r e. ad any o t h e r s ? 5 A. No, I have not, 6 Q , Okay. And 3 take 3 t that you've brovght a 7 box o t* documents with you today. And Mr. N I e3. sen i s 0 looking throng)) those. But generally are they the 9 documents that your Counse1 described that were in 3 0 r e s p o n s e t o m y r e g wests f o r Monsa n t o to p r o d u c e 1 1 various documents pertaining to the personnel 3 2 d epa rtmen t? 1 3 A. Our Counsel brought the box. 3'm n o t sure 14 what is contained in the box. 15 Q. Okay. You've not looked through the box, 1 6 and you don't know what's in it? 17 A . No, 3 have not.. 18 Q. Okay. I want to know just a little bit 1 9 about, your background. And 3 don't mean to pry; so, 2 0 I'm just going to ask you very general questions. 2 3 P i r s t, do y ou .1 i v e i n 81. . 1,ou3 s ? 2 2 A . I live in the unincorporated county of: 2 3 St. Louis. It's a suburb. Chesterfield by address. 2 4 Q , So, you 1 i ve i n a suburb o,f; S t. Louis and 2 5 inside the State of Missouri? NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0037062 33 1 Yes, I do. 2 Q. Okay. And 5 St. Lotus the corporate 3 h e adqiiar t ers of Mens a n t o ? 4 33 . Yes, 5 t i s . 5 (), Okay. How long have yon been a Monsanto 6 employee? . 7 A. Twenty-two years this August. 8 Q , Okay. 'I1 e 3. 1. m e very b r .1 e f I. y what you r 9 e d u c a 13 o n a 3 b a c k ground is f r o in h i g It s c h o o .1 o n . 10 A, Okay. 1 J Q. After high school. 12 A. After high school, I att e n d e d Georgia Tec h 3 3 f or on 1 y a s eines ter ; transf erred to North Georgia 14 M i 1 1 tary Co l lege f o r t wo yea r s ; wen t i n m i I. i t a ry 3 5 service. 13poTt c om 5 n g out of servir,e , 1 c oinp3. e ted iny 16 degrae requ.1 rentents at Georg 1 a State Un i,vo.vs ity in 3 7 Atlanta, Georgia, with a HA in insurance. It's a 10 business degree. 19 Q . Any pos tgradua te work? 2 0 A. No. 2 3 Q . Gi ve hie a brief, t.huinbnail sketch of your 2 2 employment background from the time that you got out 2 3 o f t It e in 5 3 i tary s e r v i c e . 2 4 A . Well, d u. r l NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0037063 NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0037064 6 1 MR, P 0 H L; Sure. 1 unde r st a n d. 1 f 2 you if you find --* I think, based upon what you 3 and 1 have a'Lready ta I.ked about, Jon none of that's 4 a p r o b 1 e m , because all X was trying to do was j u s t 5 g e t a11 the documents porta 1n i n g t o these subject 6 ma 11 ers and t r i ed t o detail a s inu cli o f t.h a t as I 7 eou 1 d in 1,he June 19 .1 etter, wh ;Lch I t h i. n k 1 s a consistent wit h t he s ubpoena. 9 And 1 f you f. i nd t ha t you over 1 ooked l o any docuinent.s that would have fallen i n - - ins 5 de 1.1 the scope of 1h a t, jus t g ive t h e in t o in e a t a 1 a t e v 3 2 date, in the next, couple weeks, and that will be 13 f 1 n e . 3 4 MR. BHOEBOTHAM: Okay, I appreciate 15 t h a. t . 16 (Discussion off the Re c o rd) 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2-3 25 NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0037065 33 1 A . Yes, I do. 2 Q. Okay. And if: Bt. Louis the corporate 3 hoa dquar t ers o f; Monsant o? 4 A . Yes, it is, 5 Q. Okay. Bow 3 on9 have you been a Monsanto 6 emp 1oyee? 7 A. Twenty-two years this- August. B Q . Okay. Te 13. me very br ie f1 y what your 9 ednca t i OTiai backgro u n d is from high school on. 1 0 A. Okay. 1 3 >. After high school. 12 A. After high school, 1 attended Goorgia Tech 13 for only a semester; transferred to North Georgia 14 MiXitar y Co 1 lege for two years; wen t in mi1ita ry 3 5 service. Upon coming out of service, 3 completed my 16 degree requireinent s a t Georgia B l:a te 0n i.ver s 11 y in 17 Atlanta, Georgia, with a BA in insurance. It's a 18 business degree. 19 Q. Any postgraduate work? 2 0 A . No . 21 Q . Gi ve me a brief, thumbna 5 1 sk et.ch of yovir 2 2 employment background from the time that you got out 2 3 of the military service. 2 4 A. Well, during t h e 11me t h a t I was a student 2t> at Georgia State .in Atlanta, I worked for Retail NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0037066 32 I Cred i t for abou t t wo years, I worked for Ke inper 2 Insurance for t w o years. 3 then work e d for Genuine 3 Parts Company, wh i. c h was my first entry into 4 personnel work, for f o u r years before join 5ng 5 Monsanto in 1965 in Decatur, A1 abama . 6 I s p e n t. two yea r s - - two and a half 7 years, really, in Deca I;ur A 1 a bama ; trans f ei*red to a Gaff n e y, S ou t h Carolina, w h e re M o n s ant o h a s a 9 plant ~- or had a plant a t the time, Pollowtng tha t 5 0 about 2,0 months, I transferred in 3 979 ~~ I'm 11 sorry 1969 to St, Louis, where I was per s on ne 1 12 superintendent at Monsanto's C h e s t e r fieId location. 13 Following that, I had assignments in 3 4 Hons a n t o ' s Kru m m r i c. h p 1 a n t, w h ,i c. h is here in t h a s 15 metropolitan area. Fo11owing that, I was 1a bor 3 6 relations manager and subsequently superintendent of 17 personnel in Monsanto's J . F , Queeny plant on this 3 8 side of the river in Missouri. 19 At that. poin t in time, 1977 , I 2 0 transferred to world headquarters, where I was 21 m a nager of compensation and benefits in t h e p1 a s t ics 2 2 and resins division; spent four years there, 2 3 transferring to corporate research in 19 -- December 24 of 3 9B 0 . Since t ha t time, I have had 2 5 responsibilities In corporate r e s e a r c h and NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0037067 33 1 development a rea, also covering the medical 2 department, patent, environmental . 3 Q. Are you ~~ are you head of the personnel 4 d e. par t m e ri t ? 5 3. I'm head of the 1 was head of the 6 persomie 1 departvnent for that division of Honsanto 7 Company. a Q. 0 k a y . And you s aid in 3 9 7 7 y o u t rans ferre d 9 t o t h e world h e a d g u a r t e r s ? 10 A . Yes. J1 Q And where are t. h e world headquarters? 12 A , T h a t 's a facility at Olive and Lindbergh. 13 Q. H e r e 5 ri S t.. L oui s ? 14 A . T h a t ' s our corporate headquarters. 11) 0.- Okay . Bo, the corporate headquarters here 16 i n St. Louis are sometimes referred to as the " w o r 1 d 17 h e a dquarters" ? 18 A . Yes . 3 9 Q. Okay . Now, as part, of your function a s 2 0 head of the pel's on net department at Monsanto, you 21 beeame invo.1 ved in -~ with a particular emp 1 oyee 2 2 nam e d Dr. Paul L, Wright; is that correc I; ? 2 3 MR. BHOKBOTBAM: Let. me make one 24 e o r rentio n 2.5 Mr. B h i r 1 e y is head of 1.1) e personne 3 NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0037068 14 1 depart m e n t f: or a s pe e 1 i c d .1 v i s i o n o f: Mona a n t o . 2 MR . FOB 1. j Okay. 3 Q. (By Mr. Pohl) Is there a particular title 4 that 1 should use 5 n referring to your posit .i on? 5 A . M a n a g e :r o p e r a o n n e 1, t echnical staff:. 6 Q . Okay. M a n a g e r o f person n e 1 , t e r. h n i cal 7 s t a f: f ? - 8 A . Right. 9 Q . Is t. h e r e a n o v e r a'll person n el man a g e r f o r 10 a 11 o f Monsanto? 3 3 A . Yes, there i s . T h e r e p o r t i n g 12 relati o n s h i p s -- I report to the dire c tor of 3 3 personnel for technical staff -- 14 Q . fJ h - h u h . 3 5 A , - - w h o , in t. u r n , r e p o r t s to 13i e 16 vice-president --- senior vice-president of personnel 3 7 and a d m i n i s t r a t i on. H i s n a in e is R o b e r t 33 e r r a . 18 Q. Can you spell his last name? 39 A. R K R R A. . 2 0 Q. Okay. Wlio is the director of personnel for 21 the techn iea 1 stafi ? 2 2 A. William Campbell. Be, however, was not 23 director of: personnel in 1980 at the point I 24 transferred back - - or into t.he CRDS operation. 2 5 Q. Now, what i s the t e c h n1c a 1 s t a f ? NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0037069 I T e c h n 1 c a J. a t a f; f. is m a d e u p of: corporate 2 research and development., environmental policy 3 staff;', department of medicine and environmental, 4 health, arid currently also includes world 5 headquarters adm1nistrat ion. 6 0. Now, as manager of personnel for the 7 t echn i ea 1 s ta f f:, wha t i s your job f unc t ion? 8 A . My j o 1) f ti nc t. 3 ori 3 s t. o g i v e d i rec t. per s ori ne 1 9 s u p p o r t to the e nvir o n m e n t a 1 p o 1 icy s t a f: f , 3 0 department of medicine environman1a 1 health, the 1 1 patent department, as well as the corporate research 3 2 funct3 on. 1 3 Q. And doe s that inc1n d e t.h 5 rigs 1 i k e mak i ng 14 sion s a s to who t <3 h i r e a. n d who to f Lre? IS A . Yes, 5 t. does , 16 Q Okay And there w a s a prog r a m i n 1: h e 17 1 9 7 0's with regard to merit awards t o e m pio y a a s. 1) o 18 y o u recall t h at prog ra m ? 1 9 A . Yes. T hat. p r o g r a hi still exists. 2 0 Q, Still exists. Okay. A n d would you h a v e a n 2 3 3 n v o 1 v a m a n t in that progra in ? 2 2 A. Yes, I do. 2 3 Q,. What, is t h a t role ? 2 4 A . That ro 1 e is to advise the d 5.rec tors and 2 8 managers of people as 1.o the amount of budget. they NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0037070 1 f 1 havfl o a u e h a w a r d s , the rules f o r d t. spers 1 n g t hose 2 mon Sea, and then the processing of the 3 reeommendations that they might make, 4 Q. Are the criteria for receiving a Monsanto 5 tner i t aviard t he same now as they were In the 1 97 0 ' s ? 6 A . Yes, they are. 7 Q- Okay. T e 11 the C o u r 1; and j u r y what the a c r i t. e r i a are a t. Monsanto for" r e c e i v i n g rx merit 9 awa rd . 1 0 A . I'm going to confine my ans wer t.o the iner i t 1 1 budget that is appropriate to the level of the 12 individual that we are talking about. -- 13 Q, Sure. 1 4 A . - - if that's y o u r i rite n t. . 15 Q. And let's - - for purposes of t h .1 s question, 3 6 let's assume it's somebody a. t t. h e 1 e v e 1 o f Paul 17 Wright in the 19 7 0 ' s. 3 8 A. Hr. Paul Wright was a member of select 19 m a n a g e merit w i t h .1 n Monsanto , A p p roximately on e -1 h i r d 2 0 of the managers 3.n se 1 ec t management ea c.h year- would 21 receive an award that might be as little as $1,000 2 2 or as much as six weeks' x>ay for an event that, is 2 3 clearly above and beyond expected performance. This 2 4 might be unusually good results; it might be 2 5 some t hin g t h a t has saved the company money. NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0037071 1 Q . Okay. Can you g i v e u s o in e t y p L a a 1 2 e x a mp] es of t h i r> g s t. h at, as perso n ne] -- as man a g e r 3 of personne I a n d t echnical s t a. f: i:, you t h ink would be 4 good examples of: the ty pe of conduc t that won .1 ci 5 j us I; i f y a Motisan to iner i t awa rd in tho 19 7 0's? 6 h . Well, yes. A good example might be a 7 director or manager who, by installing some new 8 equipment, might be able to operate his department 9 at a lower cost by having lesser people, rt m igh t JO be a person -- this goes ail across the company. it. 1 1 might be a salesperson who achieved particularly 1 2 good sales results. I t might be a s c 5 ent. i s t who ha s 13 made a discovery that is noteworthy, is patentable, 1 4 and is going t o m e a n i ri c o me for M o n s a n t o . 15 Q. Okay . 1 6 A . 11 * s a f onii o f i n s t. ant r e c o g n 5 t i o n . l 7 Q. Okay . And the goal, t h o n , o t h e mer i t J B award is to reward s o m e o n e who does something t h a t 19 is p a r ti<: u1arly good foi' the company? 2 0 A . Certainly. 21 Q . And t.ba t. i s to encourage tha t. penion and 2 2 others to do more things that are good for the 2 3 company? 2 4 A . Wei 1 , yes. 2 5 Q. Okay. Now, are there - ~ are t h e r e NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0037072 38 1. procedures established whereby there are - ~ there ' s 2 a s y s t e jo o f checks a n d b a 3 a n c. e s , t o review, t a tn a k e 3 sure that merit awards are properly giv e n; t hat i s, 4 t.hat. it's tic>t. just becarise someone happens to be 5 Eavored by anothe r person in his depar tinent or 6 because, of some crony relationship, but t.o assure 7 that Monsanto gives merit awards to only the people 8 t. h a t - - t h a t a r e t. r u 3 y e n 1113 ed to t. h e m ? 9 A. Well, yes. That is going to dopend on the 3 0 level of the manager tha t migh t make the t 1. recommendation. If: that manager is a very entry 3 2 level manager, then his proposal, recommendation, 13 writ e~up wi11 be proees s ed up t he 1ine to t h e 3 4 managing director; in some units, the 15 v Lce-pres ident ' s leve1. Depends on their 16 organ! 7a13 ona 3 s t.mature . 17 Q . Okay. In the case of Paul Wr 1. g h t, for 3.8 example, in the 3 97 0's, how many different levels of 19 review were there at Monsanto to m a ke s u r e that Pa u1 2 0 Wright was really entitled to one or- more merit, 21 awards ? 2.2 A. In Paul Wright's case, only one level for 2 3 technical evaluation would have been necessary. 24 Personnel department processes the paper work and 2.5 would only comme n I; i f: the amount wer e NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0037073 J9 1 inappropr 1 a t e s t o o 1 i I; tie, t o o in u e h . 2 i>. Okay. In Dr. Wright's case, did the 3 personnel department make any c o ni m ent that t h e 4 amount Dr. Wright, was receiving for merit awards i n 5 the 1970' s was either too little or too much? 6 h. That's difficult, to answer' as I'm not 7 holding those Eorms that you're referring to. a C>. X r e c a 11 t. h a t, f o r e. x a m j> 1 e , i n 1 9 7 5 h e 9 received a merit award in a $1,000 cash bonus for 1 0 f orest.a] .1 j n g prec .i p .i t. a u s a c t. i on by t h e K P h to b a n 1 1 the diseharge of PCfi ' s . 1 2 Do you recall if that was an amount 13 t h at you r department a g r e e d with? 14 h . X w a s n o t in the cor p o r a t e r e s e ar c h, 15 envl roninenta 1 area In 1976, Tha I: does , howe ve r, f i t 1 6 the. general guidelines established by policy. 1 7 Q. Did you have a chance, in preparing for 1 8 your deposition, to look over the merit awards for 19 Dr. W rig h t ? 2 0 h. Yes, X did. X believe there are three such 21 a ward s i n t h e f i.le. 2 2 Q Okay. 2 3 h . X briefly scanned those -- those awards. 1 ?A do not recall a personnel signature was on the 2 5 bottom, but that's not necessary. NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0037074 20 .1 Q, I referred a moment ago to one that 2 p e r t a i ried t. o PCH ' s , o r hroclore, h c. o p y of t h a 1. 3 document that was produced by Monsanto has been 4 i deni, i f j ed by one of your fellow employees, George 5 levinsk a s, as Ex h i b i t 3 8 to your d e p o sitio n . L et m e 6 p a s s t o y o u b e v i n s 1< a s Exhibit, 38. 7 Is that t h e d o c u m e n t t h a t you r <5 c a 11 8 that, p e r t a i ri s t o D r .W r i g h t ' s m e r i t a w a r (3 r e 1 a t. i. n g 9 to Monsanto's ftfiroclor products ? 3 0 h . bet me take a moment here t.o see. U Q. Sure. Take all the time you need. 3 2 h . I t.ei(i -~ 13 y e s , 1 do n ote Aroclors are a pa :r t o f 14 t h i, s award. 3 5 Q, Okay. And you mentioned a f e w momen t s a go 16 that, in preparing for your deposition, you reviewed 3 7 some docu m e ri t. s from D r . Wright's personnel file, 18 which included his merit awards? 3 9 h. Yes. 2 0 Q . Was bevi nska s Exhibit. 38 one of tbe 2 l documents you reviewed? 2 2 A, Yes, it was. 2 3 Q. Okay. Now -- may I see that back? 2A A . ( W i t. n e s s co m p 1 i e s ) 2 5 Q. Where on your form for a Monsanto merit NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0037075 23 1 a ward ,i a t h ere a s pae e f or approv a 1 by t h e per son n o 1 2 depa r t. in e n 1 ? 3 A. There's no such place on the form for .... 4 for an approval. I quite often sign just on the 5 bottom line so t.ha t t.he c 1 erk who reports t.o ine 6 knows t; h a t it's -- she's authorized t o put i, I; i n t o 7 the system and c a use a check to be created. 8 Q. Okay. What would happen if you or someone 9 in your department, received the document marked 1 0 Levinskas Exhibit 38, recommending I?au 1. Wright for a 1 3 merit, award with regard t.o A r oc 3 or produ c. t s and y ou 12 disagreed with it, you thought it was inappropriate 1 3 or that the amount was t.oo high? What, wou3 d you do? l 4 A . In t h e e v en t I thought t h e a wa rd a m oun t 3 5 might be too high, my norma3 thing to do would be go 16 visit with the director of that depar tment and poin t 17 out the possib] e inequity, discus s the amount, of hi s 10 remaining budget, perhaps, that kind of counsel. 19 Q . 0 k a y . iio , if ~ - if the amount, of the m e r i t. 2 0 award, as in the case of Dr. Wright, were in 2 3 q u e s t. 5 o n , y o u would visit di rec 1.1 y with t. h e m a n a g e r 2 2 of Dr, Wright ' s department? 2 3 A. In this ~ - in this case here. Dr. Levinskas 2 4 reports to Dr. Roush. I would have visited with 2 5 Dr. Roush. It would have come t.o me from Dr, Roush. NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0037076 22 1 Q. And 1 e t ' s a s s u m e t h a t you d i s a y r e e d w .11 h 2 the recoin me. n data on of t. h e merit, award b e c a u a e y o u 3 d1dn ' t agree with the substance o f it. What ac tlons -9 w o u .1 d y o u take ? 5 A . ? h a t.'s no t. m y con e e rn t. h e, r e . Id o n ' t. 6 evaluate the c onten t of the wrifce-u p. 7 0 Poes any o ri e i n y o u r d e p a r t in e n t. ? 8 A. Not in personnel, no. 9 Q . Okay. 3 0 A. Th e s e a r e p rim a ri3 y technical write-u ps, U and wo aren't qualified to pass on that. 3 2 Q . Okay. S a , no o n e out s i d e o f t h e in e d i c a 1 13 de pa r t me n t wo u 1 d h a ve r e v i e we d t h e s u b s t a nc e o f t he 3 4 r e com m e n d a t. i o n o t P r . Wright for a m or 3 t. a ward; i s 15 that correat? 3 6 A . Not necessarily. Now, it's certain .1 y 17 Dr, Roush's prerogative to have discussed an award 3 B like that, with his vice-president, on environ me n t. a 1, 19 who at the time was Monty Throdahl, There's no 20 i n d 3 c a t i o n t. h a 1 t h a t. t. o o k place. It c o u 1 d have. 21 Q. It notes on Levins leas Kxhib.it .38, which 2 2 you've just, had a chance t. o review, that Dr, W r 3 g h t. 2 3 played a prominent role In forestal11ng E P A ' s 7A promulgation of unrealistic regulations to limit, the 25 discharge of polychlorinated biphenyls. NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0037077 23 1 Did anyone else .in Monsanto receive a 2 merit award for forestalling unrealistic regulations 3 by the F,PA to limit the discharge of PCB's? 4 A . I don't know. 5 Q, Okay. Do you have a general recollection 6 one way or' t he ot.her whether anyone else recej ved 7 any kind of merit award f or taking ac t ions to 8 f o r e s t. a 1 1 1 5 m i ting the discharge of PCB ' 8 into the 9 e n vir o nment? 1 0 A. 1 r e a 11y don't know. 1 1 Q. Okay. When you -- when your department 12 receives a document, like I.evinskas Exhibit 38, 13 recommending someone 1 .i, Ice Paul Wright for a meri t 1 4 award, do you read the text of t.he document.? 15 A. Not usua11y. If Q . Okay. What do you look at on the document.? 1 7 A. 1 look at the individual's current salary, IB comp a r e t h a t. t o t h e a m cunt, requested , Since t h e s e 19 all process across my desk, I have a good feel for 2 0 whether t b e amount is appropriate. If i t. is, 1 pa s s 21 i t through f:or payro 11 action. 2 2 0 Okay. In t.he particular instance of 2 3 Dr. Wright's merit award for forestalling EPA's 24 promulgation of unrealistic regulations to limit the 2 5 discharge of PCB ' s into the environment, was it NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0037078 24 1 i mpor tan t t ha t both Dr. T,evi n s k a s and 17r . Hous h had 2. a f f i xed the.ir s.i gna tres to the bo11oin of th e 3 doc u m en t ? 4 h, Yen, 3t was. I would have only received 5 t h a t d o c u m e n t i r o m Dr. Roush. It i s h 3. s budget. 6 Once I 'vo noli f :i e d hi m w h a t. h i s b udgei. in, .it's h i s 7 business as to how he spends it, wi thin t h e 0 guidelines that I mentioned earlier. 9 Q. Do you know what Dr, Roush's budget was tor 3 0 m e r i t. awards 3 n 3. 9 7 f> ? 1 1 A . Not s p e c t E i e a 11 y , It's based upon t h e 3 2 riumber of peop3 e wi th i n his unit, their inon th 3 y 13 s a 1 a r i e s t otaled and a percentage applied to t h a I;. 3 4 i t ' s a r a t It e r small b u d cj e t, 15 Q . A ml d i d. anyone else in Dr. R o u s h ' s 3 6 depar true Tit. receive a merit, award in 197 6 besides 17 Dr. W rig h t, that you can r e c a! I ? 3 8 A . From specific, knowl edge, I can't answer 19 that; but T can te 11 you that he had a budget 2 0 adequate to reward about one-third of his people in 2 1 that employment class! f ication. It would be inos t 2.2 unusual for hi in to have not. spent some other 2.3 dollars. 2 4 Q . Is the merit award the type of an award 2.5 t ha t ' a g 1 v e n on e e a ye a r, or is i t g i v e n at s o m e NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0037079 1 o ther - - in some other t lme i n ter va 1 ? 2 A. It's preferrable that it. be given close to 3 fche time that is be i.ng recognised. Bo, it's 4 t. h r o u g h o u t. t h e year-, 5 Q . B (a t h a t someone, t h e oretic a 11 y , cou 1 d 6 receive more than one merit award within the same 7 1 2-mon t h p e r i o d ? 8 A , T h a t ' s e x a e t .1 y right. 9 MR. POHL i Le t ine mark Le v x ns kas 1 0 Exhibit, 38 as a d e p o s i t. i on to - - as an ex h i b .i t. t o 11 this deposition, as we1L, 1 2 (Shirley Exhibit. No. 3 marked 13 for i d e n t i f i. c a t ion) .1 4 MR. SHOEROTBAMt Oust, so the record is 15 clear, Mike, is that ~ - is that your h i g h 1 i g h t i n g (3 n ] f the e x h i 1) i t t. h at we ' v e j ust marked as E x h i b i t 3 ? 17 MR. 1? 0 H L ? It is. 18 MR. SHOEROTHAM: Okay. 19 MR. POHLi And this is the actual T 7.0 thin k t he original exhibit to the depos 5 15 o n o f 21 Dr'. Levinskas . And I'm just going to have -- - 1 f 2 2 it's okay with you, I'll just h a v e her make a xerox 2 3 of this for this deposition ~- 24 MR. SBOEBOTBAM; Sure. 2 5 MR. POHL: -- and then I'll put the NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0037080 26 1 o r i. g i n a l b a a Ic w i t h t h e L e v i n s k a s exh 1 b 11 s . 2 MR. SHOKBOTHAMs That wi 3 .'I be fine. 3 Q. (By Mr. Pohl) Ami, Mr, Shirley, Dr. Wright; <3 a 3. s o receiv e d a m e r 5 t award for forestalling 5 p r e c i p i I: o u s a a I: ion against a product, mat e i c 6 anhydride, by the FDA; is that correct? 7 A. Yes. I saw that doeument. 8 Q . Is the d o c u m e n 1. tha t y o u 're refer r .1 n g to 9 Levi n s k a s R x h i b i t 3 7 ? 1 0 A . 1 ' in sorry ~ yes. 3 see on the bottom, in 1 1 the s ta inped a rea , " Le v i n s ka s -3 7 , " 1 2 Q . And w h a t is t h e d a t. e o f t h a t m e r it aw a r d ? 13 A. It's processed in 1975. Looks like 11 1 4 September. I'm not certain of the .... of the writ, ing 15 t h e r e . 3 6 Q . There's ano t h er da t e a t t. h e top rig h t h a n d 17 corner, isn't there? ] 8 A . Well, there's a date of his 1. a s t 19 p e r f o r in a nee appraisal, February of '75. 2 0 Q . Okay. How can we tell when these iner i t. 21 awards were given? What date should we look at? 2 2 I'm showing you now Le v d n s k a s 37 and 7,3 Lev Lnslcas 3 8. 2-3 A . The f o:rm ca 11 s for a date by the signature 2 5 of; the person making the recommendation . That won 1 d NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0037081 1 appear to me to be 16 September, 1975. 2 Q. Ofay. That's on Levj nskan 37? 3 A. Ves, on 37. d Q. And what about l,ev A risk as 38? 5 A. 16 July, 1976. 6 Q . And w h a t 5 s t h e time period b e t w e e n the t w o 7 m er It aw a vds? 0 A. Well, from N o v e mb er ti3 3 Ju3 y, a b ou t nAn e 9 or ten months , 10 Q . Okay. And dur 3 ng that same nine or l l m o ti t h - - d. u ring t h a t same approximately nine - m o n t h 1 2 period, did Di". Wright also receive a pay increase, 13 as reflected by these two documents? 3 4 A . Let,' s s e e . The J 9 7 5 d o c it tri e ri t 3 rt d i e a t e s a ir> s a 1 ar y of 2 8,980 ; and the 1 a ter docume n t, 3 L, 8 0 0 . 3 (> Bo, yes, he would ha ve received a merit 3 ncrea s e 17 dtiring that period of time. 10 Q, Okay. Bo, during less than one year. 19 Dr, Wright received two merit awards and a pay 2 0 raise; is that correct? 2 1 A . He received two mori t -- two mer 11 awards 2.2. c o v er ed by these documents. And during that s a in e 2 3 period of time, he received a merit award, which may 2,4 or may not have been on a 12"month basis. It may 2 5 h a v e been m o r e o r l ess than a 12-month ha sis. NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0037082 20 1 Q. Okay, So, during that same 12 -mon t h 2 period -- 1 may be confused - - did h e receive yet. 3 another merit award or did he receive just his -- 4 j u s t a pay increa s e ? 5 A, It's a n o r m a 1 merit i n e i' e a s e . N o r m a 11 y 6 inost. Mon s an t o emp.1 oyeea are reviewed on a n a nn u a 3 7 basis and might receive a merit increase between 11, a 3 2, 33 in o n i, h s , p e r h a p s .longer. A ti d t h a t w i 3,3 b e 9 determined by their goals document and the results 10 review that's performed once a year. 11 Now, the results reviews do take plat:e 3 2 in February, March of e a c. h year. 13 Q . Okay, S o , in t h e context o f: h e v i n s k a s 1 4 R x h i 3> i t 3 7 and38, d u r i ri g t. h a t a p p r o x i in a t e 3 y 1 5 nine- month period. Dr, W r i g h t r e c e ived t w o in e r i. t 1 6 awards with cash supplements p3us - 17 A. That's corre ct. IB Q. -- a pay raise? 19 A. T h a t is c o r r ect. 2 0 Q . Okay. And 13ie fir s t of t.bene t.wo mer .i t 21 awards was for f. or e a t a 13. i ng actions by the FDA with 2 2 regard to a Monsanto product known as maleic 2 3 anhydride ? 2 4 A . T ' 3 3 need to read d a t.es again. 2 5 Okay, Now, male:i. c anhydr ide was t he NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0037083 29 l subject of the aw a r <i t h a t t ook p 1 a c e i n S e p t e m b e v o f 2 1975. Bo, it was first. 3 Q. Okay. And what was it specifically that 4 Dr. Wright, did that resulted in his receiving the 5 19 7 5 Monsanto merit award? 6 A . Well, we're dealing with a f u .1 1 ~ p a g e 7 wI* i. te-up here. T t ta 1 ks about a cons 1 dcr ab 1 e amount f! of ~ - of det.a i 1 I.ha t. Dr. Wright, wa s respons i b 1 e 9 for. 10 Without t a k i n g t. 5 m e t. c>r e a d t h e w h o 1 e U thing, it would be h a r d f o r me to t e 11t h e s p e c i f: i c 1 2 5 tein or weigh the i inpor tarice of the of the 5 t.ems . 13 Q. Did you -- but did you have a c h a n c c to 1 4 r e a d t. h e d o c u m e n t. b e f ore y o u r d e p o s i t. i o n ? 15 A. Yes, I did, 16 Q. Okay. So, y ou'r e generally familiar with 1.7 it? 18 A . Yes, I am. 19 Q. Okay, What, is your general understanding, 2 0 t hf5n , ofi why Dr. Wright reoei ved t he 1975 mer .11 2 3 award? 22 A. It was a it was a t e e h n 5 c a 1 award fa r a 2 3 teohnica1 achievement. 2 4 I'm sorry. I .really, n o t. being a 2 5 technical person, have a d i i: i c u 1.1 t i me a ns wer 1 ng NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0037084 30 1 tha t . 2 Q. Okay. When did you first learn the fact 3 that Dr. Wright had been indicted? 4 A. I would have read that in the newspapers,, 5 probably '80 --- '80, '81, '82. I'm no t car ta i n . 6 Q . What w e r e the p r o c. e d u r e s i n t h e p e r s o n n e 1 7 departments to accommoda I:e a fact such as one of 8 your employees being criminally indicted? 9 A, Would you like for me to s peak ge n e ra 11y to 1 0 t hat. q u e s t. i o n ? 11 Q. 8 ura, 1?. A. Generally, if an employee is accused of a 13 crime, we X o o k in to it; but we do not norm a 11y f a k e 1 4 action until the person has been proven guilty of - 15 of whatever. 16 Q. What is the standard procedure of Monsanto 17 for paying for the criminal attorneys' fees of the 18 attorney retained to represent your employee in 19 connection w i t h a. - - w i t h the e m ployee ' s criminal 20 i n d i c t in e n t ? 21 A . I'm sorry. 3 ' in not familiar with that. 2 2 Q . Are y o u f: a in i 1 i a v with whether or not the r e 2 3 is a procedure? 2 4 A. No, I'm not. 2 5 Q. Okay. There's none that, yon know of? NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0037085 33 1 A . The r e ' s none that X know of:. 2 Q. Okay. Axe you aware that Monsanto paid for 3 Dr. Wright's a.ttorneys ' f ees ? 4 A , Ves . b 0.. Okay. Are y on f u m :i ] iar with the a hi ou n t 6 that Monsanto paid tor Dr. Wright's c r 5, m i n a 1 7 3 awyera? 8 A. No, I'm not. 9 Q. Okay. Do you know of any other incident, 1 0 since you've been employed by Monsanto, where 3 3 Monsanto has paid the attorneys' fees, or the 12 criminal lawyer hired to represent an individual? 3 3 A. I'm not, personally. .1 4 Q. Okay. No other incident that you can 3 8 reca.1 3 ? 16 A . That I reca 11. 3 7 Q. Okay. What, about. .... with r e g a rd to t h e 18 amoti n t of the attorney' s fees t hat were pa1d to t h e 3 9 3 awyer who rep r e s e n 1. e d Dr. W rig ht, would that have 2 0 come through your department? 2 3 A, No, it wo u3d not. 2 2 Q. Would t h e fact that a lawyer was retained 2 3 to represent Dr. Wright have been a fact that was 2 4 c o m in ti n i o a t e d to your depart in e n t ? 2 8 A . Not a t. t.h e t i in e . NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0037086 32 1 Q . At any t i. m e ? 2 A. I've only recently heard that. that, was the 3 c ase, 4 Q. When did yon first, learn that Monsanto had 5 actua11y hired or paid for the lawyers t h a t f represented Dr, Wright in his r.riiriinal trial? 7 A. Diree t inter ma t i on tha t I can swe a X' t o ? 8 Q . Yes . 9 A, I don't know it, yet. 3 0 Q . Okay. When did yon fir a t. 1 e a r n a b o n t i t. 1 1 iml treatly? 3 2 A , In t h e - ~ i n t he last, w e e k o r s o . 13 Q. Okay. So, you learned that Dr. W rig h t was 3 4 criminally indict.ed .in approximately 35)01? 15 A . I'll have to hedge a 1 i 111 e o n t he time. 3 6 I ' m s orry . I d on ' t. - - 1 d on ' t have t.h a t. c omm i 1.1 ed .17 to memory, 18 Q * okay. 3 9 A , H vi t it was i n t. h e early K i g h t i e s that, all 20 o f t h i s t a r t <5 d and ! was a w a re that Dr, W r i g h t ha d 2 3 a probl e xti, but. 1 don' t. k now s p e c 3 f i c d a t e s . 2 2 Q. So, even though you don't know the specific 23 d a t. e , you g a i n e d k now! e d g e. that. Dr. Wright, was 2 4 c r i miiial ly ind 1 c ted i n t h o e arly 1 9 8 0 ' s ? 25 A. Yes. NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0037087 33 1 Q , Poss 1 b .1. y 19 8 1? 2 A . Yes. 3 Q . Andy ou X e arned for t he f ;! r s t. t. 5 in e 1 h a t, 4 Monsanto had p a i d Co v D r , W r i g h t ' s criiin a 1 d o f. e n s e Ei s oine 15 me dur 5 ng the mon 1.h of Jnno, 1 987 ? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q . W5 t.h 5 n 13) e las 1 weeli or s o be f ore. y ou r 8 d e p o s :i. 11 o n h ere t o d ay? 9 A , 'J'hat1 s correct. . 1. 0 Q . Okay, And did anybody tell you 1h e a m o u n t 3.1 that. Monsanto h a d s p e n t t. o c. r 5 m :1 n a 1 3 y d e f e. n d 12 Or. Wright? 13 A . No, t h e y d 3 d not.. 1 4 Q . Do you know w h e t It er o.r n o t Dr. Wr 3. g h t wa s 1 5 on a pa j d leave of absence from Monsan t o s u b s e gu eri t 16 to his indie t in e n t and throu g h t he - - t h r o u g h the 17 c o n c. .1 ns 3 on of his era m in a 3 t r 3 a 1 ? 18 A . Dr. W r ight was on a pa id leave o i: abs en c e 19 during a period of t.3.me , bu t certai n 1 y not t.he 2 0 eliti re 11 me . I t was a period of weeks or pos s ib 1 y 23 months that he was on ~~ on leave. 2 2 Q. Okay. Well, was he on leave for the entire 2 3 length o f h i s c r 3 in i n a 1 t r i a 3 ? 2 4 A, I don't know when that started and when it 2 8 s t. o p p e d , b u t. in y r e. c o 3 lectio n 5 s h e. w a s ri o t o n a p a i d NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0037088 34 1 1 nave mor e t h a n a few mon t hs . 2 Q . Okay. And tiow in a n y m o n 1 h s is "a few"? 3 A . P e w m o n t h s , four, six months perhaps. 4 Q. Okay. And was that - - why was Dr, Wright, S on a paid leave of absence in connection with these 6 c r i m 5 n a .3 p r o c e e d 5 n g s ? 7 A. X was not involved in that decis 1 on to fl p .1 a e e 3) i m o n 3 e ave. X know t it a t t. h e. d e m a n d s o f 9 t he ~- t i me demands of t he tr 1 a. 1 ma.de i t d 1 f: f i cu 11 1 0 f o r h .i m t o p e rf or in . 1 1 He was on a special a s s j gninent. f or a l 2 p> e r 3. o d o f t line, w h e re he was d o i n g cle r 1 c a 3. t y p e 3 3 work, technica 3 nature. And at some point your 1, 4 absence s become a p r o b1e m. 1 5 (>. Who had made the decision to put Dr. Wright, 16 on a paid .'Leave of absence in connection with his 3 7 criminal trial? 18 A. X don't know. 3 9 {). W e 3 1 , w h o co m in u n i c. a t e d t h at. fa c t. 1 o y o u ? 2 0 A. My director. 23 Q. Who a s tha t ? 2 2 A. Hill Cam p b e11. 2 3 Q . Okay. And wha t did he t.e33 you? 2 4 A . '.5 imp .1. y that he was go.1 ng to be on a - on a 2 8 .3 e a v e o f a b s e n e e u n til t h e t rial was con c 3 u d e d NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0037089 35 1 Q . Ok a y. 2 A . -- and that, following t he trial, unti3 3 s e nten e i n g , 4 Q. Did Bill Campbell tell you that he had made 5 t ha t dee 3. s i on or s oinebody (31. se had made the decis Lon 6 a nd commua i cated i t. t o h i m ? 7 ft. He did not tell me that. a Q . Okay. Ha s there ever beeti arioth er 9 situation that you're familiar with at Monsanto 3 0 where an employee was given a paid leave of absence 1 1 f o r a period of mo n t h s in conne e t i o n w i. t h a c r 1. m i n a 1 1 2 trial? 1 3 A. F o r a p erio d o f t5m e, yes. 14 Q. How long? 3 a A . Weeks, possibly in t. o m o ti tbs . T his was 16 probably a Ion g e r one. 3 7 H. Okay. Did anybody tell that, you 1.8 Dr. Wright's criminal t r i a 1 itself took s e v e n 3 9 m o n t. h s ? 20 A, No. 23 Q. Okay. And are yon certain that, he was only 2 2 oit paid leave of absence for a period of months, or 2 3 cou 1 d he a c. 1.ua .1 1 y bave been oti leave of abs enee f or 2 4 m u c h 1 o n g e r t h a it t h a t ? 2 a A. No. I'm certain that, it was a period of NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0037090 36 1 monihs . 2 Q . 0 k a y , And how did you o b t. a 3 n t h a t 3 know 1ed g e ? 4 A . J u n t. b e 5 n g t h e p e r s o n n e 1 person responsible 5 for that department, t knew when he was there and 6 when he was not there. 7 Q .Okay. What documents can w e 1 o o k a t t h a. t B wou 1 d t.e 1 1 u s how .1 onq Dr, W:r 5 g h t. was or a paid 9 leave of absence? 1 0 A . Well, 3 n loo k 3 n g throng h 1 h e f 3 1 e, t. b e r e 1 1 was anindica11 on at the time thetria 1 cone 1uded ....... 12 or when he was found guilty, actually, from that. 13 P o 1 n t forward 1 s d ocunente d in the f 11 e . Pri o r t o 1 4 t h a t. 13 in e, 1 - - I d 3 d. n ' t p e r s o ri a 11 y note dates t h a t. 15 you in i g h t look at. 16 Q. Okay. For how long was Dr, Wright b e 5 ng 17 p a 1 d to do e 1 e r i cal duties prior to the t ,1 me that he IB went on a full paid leave of absence? 19 A . I? r o b a b 1 y for - - probably for a period of a. 2 0 year. Now, this 3 s not s t. r 3 o 11 y clerical. X t. * s 21 ju st a technic a1 d e sk job. 2 2 Q . 0 k a y . What, d 3 d h e do 3 n t his clerical d e s k 2 3 job? 24 A. He was preparing M S D Si reports. And I'm 2 5 s o r r y . X c a n ' t tell, you what those i n 3. t i a X s stand NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0037091 37 1 for. 2 Q. 0 k a y . Is it. a r e p o r t. t h a t. u s e d h i s 3 s c i e n t, 1. f i c TM 4 A . Yes . 5 Q. - - e d u c a t ion, o r i s i t - -f A . 3 t ' s a t.ec3)n i ca .1 safety report. 7 Q. On --- 8 A . A pr od u c t r epor t.. 9 Q. 0kay. He did a - - whi 1 e he was d o 1 ng JO c 1 e r 3 c a 1 /1 e c. h Tt i e a 1 work for a year o r so, h e deal 1. 11 with the preparation of documents pertaining to the 3 2 safety of a Monsanto product? 13 A. Various products. Many products. 3 4 Q. Okay. 3 5 A, It's a job normally do tie by a technical 16 person. Immediately prior to Dr. Wright's doing 3 7 this, there was a woman Ph . D . who was doing this 18 work - 19 Q . Okay. And what is ~ - what - - w h a t i s t. h e 2 0 f u n e t i o n .... 2.3 A. -- in toxicology. 2 2 Q. What is the funct ion of the reports or 2 3 for in s 1. h a t. Dr'. Wright wool d be doing in this 2 4 capacity? 2 8 A. What is the function? NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0037092 3a 1 Q Y e a h . What's their service? 2 A . Th oy ' re r eqinred by .law; but w3) eri T say 3 t h a t, I ' v e s a i d a b o u t all I know a b o u t 1; h a I;. 4 Q 0 k a y , I s t h e s u b j e c t in a 11. e r o f tho s e for m s 5 t he poss 1 b1e e n vir o n m en t a 1 o r - - or h u ma n healt h fi e f f a e t. s of e x p a s xi ;r e t. o p r o d u c t s in a ri u f a c t u r e d by 7 Mens anto? B A. I'm sorry. 1 don't know that. But MHOS 3s 9 an iden t i f iab I. e teoh n ica 1 terin t ha. t can ea.s i I.y be 3 0 f o xi n d . 3 3 Q. Okay. And whale Dr. Wright, was performing l 2 the function of preparing the MSDS forms, was he 3 3 paid his normaJ salary? 1 4 A. Yes, he was. IS Q . Okay. And did h e w o r k full t. i m e a t 16 Monsanto preparing MS DS forms during the time 3 7 i in m e d i a t e 3 y preceding t h e c o m in e n c e m e n t of 3i i s IB c r i in i n a 1 trial? 3 9 A . Yes. To the best of my know 1 e.dge , he did. 2 0 Be worked directly for Dr. Levinskas and was on 1.y a. 2 3 few fee t away from his office. He could t. e s 15 f y t o 2 2 that bet ter t h a n I c o u 1 d. 2 3 Q. Dr. Levinskas could? 2 4 A. Yes. 2 5 (). Okay. Who made the decision to have Paxil NELL MC CALLUM 8t ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0037093 39 1 W r l g h t p e r i: o r m c .1 e r 1 o a 1 / t e c h mi cal f u n c t ions du r 1. n g 2 t h e 1. 5 in e b e t ween - - or- was it dur i n g the t. i m e 3 l)etween his c r 1 m i. na 1 ind ictment and the s tar 1: of t he 4 17 x a .1 ? 5 ft . B e t w c; e n t h e era tni.nal indie t m e ti t a n d t. h e 6 s 1; a r t o f t h e 11: i a 1 ? 7 T o in y know .1 edge , t h a t is t h & p e r 5 o cl of B 11 me we're ta 1king about, yes. 9 Q. Okay. ftn d who made the d eoisio n t o h a v e 10 Dr. Wright per for m o I. a rical/ t e c h nieal i: u. n c t ion s 1 3 d vi r x n g that t i m e ? 12 ft. He would have been instrueted by 13 Dr. L e v 5 n s k a a and Dr. Roush. I 'm n o t s n re if I've 14 answered your question thore -ir. Q. Okay. 1 6 ft . - ~ because bey o ti d t hat, 1 d o n ' 1. k ti o w . 17 Q. Someone other than a -- than a member of J B the persontie 1 depart.metit.? 19 h . C & ;r t a i n 1 y . R i g h t. 20 Q. Okay. Did the personnel deparl.me.T>t. have i.o 2 1 concur in the decisions to reassign Dr. Wright to a 2 2 different job f unct.i oti , to pu t h 5 m on 3 ea ve of 2 3 a b s e n c e, t o h i r e a n d p a. y for criminal at t o mays? 2 4 ft . No. 25 Q. Okay, NELL NIC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0037094 40 1 A . I did not haa.vve to do that. 2 Q. And, to your know) edge, no one else in your 3 depart me n t? 4 A . To hiy know3 edge . 5 Q . Okay. T o y o u r knowledge, what e f: f: o r t s w e r e 6 in a d e by M o n a a n t o t o m o n i t o r the prog r e as of 7 Dr. Wrigh t's crimina 1 1nd 1 c tmen t and hIs subsequent 8 0 r i in .ins] trial? 9 A. I have no knowledge there. 3 0 Q. D5 d you p3 ay any role in tha t ? 1 1 A, No, r did not. 3 2 Q. All right. You've road Dr. Roush's 13 t es tiraony, haven't you? 3 4 A. Yes, 1 have. 1.5 Q. Okay. You know that Dr. Roush testified 3 6 t hat. you told hi m n o t to 5 n v e s 15 g a t e o r a n y t h i n g 17 about what was go i ng on with Dr. Wri gh t ? 18 A . Right. Yes, I did read that. 19 Q . Okay. Did you ins truct or tell Dr . Rouw h 2 0 n o t. to in q u ire abo u t. t h e criminal in a 11 e r s p e r t a i n i n g 21 1; o Dr. W r 1 g h t ? 2 2 A . No, 1 did not., 2 3 Q . Ok a y . T o y o u r knowledge, did. anyone i n t h e 2 4 per s on ne 3 d epar t.men t. ins t r u c t Dr. Roush no t t.o 2 5 1 n q u i r e a, b o u t t h e o r imin a 1 m a 11 e rs per t a. i n L n g t o NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0037095 41 1. Dr. W r 1. g h t ? 2. A. Not. to my know!edge. 3 Q. Okay, Have you had a chance t o t alk t o 4 Rou ah talk to Dr. Roush about this cl 5 f f er etic e in 5 y o u r t e s t i monies? f> A . No, I have not. 7 Q. Okay . D id you ta Ik to Dr. Roush a t any B s i n c e he gave his d epos i t. i on 5 n t. h i s case ? 9 A . No, I have not * 3 0 Q. Okay . Di d you h a v & any curiosity your se1f 11 or in<1 uiri.es as to what the nature of 12 Dr. W r i g h t ' a criminal, indictment was? 13 h. During tha t per iod oC time, t here we re a 3 4 couple of newspaper articles; beyond that, only l 5 1 u n c h r o o m c o n v e r s a t i. o n s . 3 f> Q. Did you ever ask anyone's permission to 17 inquire as to what t h e p a r tic u1 a r nature of t he 1 B crimin a1 5 n dic t ment was? 19 A. No, I di d not.. 2 0 Q. Okay. Did you ever attempt to ob s e r v e any 21 of the t r i.a 1 i n progr es s ? 2 2 A. No, I did not. 2 3 Q . Was t he prepa.ration of the MB D5 forms an 2 4 i iriportant task at Monsanto? 25 A. Yes. It is it is a necessary and NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0037096 *3 2 1 ongo i ng r equii'em en t 2 Q Okay. 3 A . - - of o u r company a n d o t h e r like c o in p a n 3 e . 4 Q . Would i, 1 be fa .1 v to n a y that any t a s k t h a t 5 p e r t a 3 n a t. o 1h e s a f e t y of Mo n a n to ' s p r o d u c t s 5 s a n 6 i in p o r I: a n t t a s k ? 7 A . C e r t. a 3 n .3 y . 8 Q . 0 )< a y . And from t h e 3 u n c h r o o in t. a 3 k that, y o u 9 participated in and from the articles which you read 1 0 in the press and the magazines, dad you u n d e rs I a n d 1 1 that Dr, Wright w a s c r1min a 11y in d1c t e d for 12 falsa f y A ti g t. e t; t d a t. a ? 13 A . X u n d e r s t o o d that Dr, Wright had a fa r i o r 1 4 a n v o 3 vein e n t w a t. h a n o t. h e r c o m p any p r a o r t o c o in A n g l 5 back to Mons an to and that the whole ma 11;ox' was being i a 5 nvest a gated and a t had to do with a n a in a 1 t. e s t a n g 17 and product Information, That's really all I know i a a b o u t. t hat. 19 Q . Dad you unde r stand, t. hough, t- h a t. t h e g u t s 2 0 of the charge against Dr. Wright w 11h regard to the 21 a ria ma 3 testa ng was tha t he part. a c a pa ted a n t.he 2 2 falsifying of t e s t d a ta ? 2 3 h . No, 1 dad not. 24 Q , WouId that have been important or wou1d 2 5 that have been a consideration to Monsanto in NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. ~ HARTOLDMON0037097 33 1 assigning Dr. Wright the task of completing the MSI)s 2 f o r in s which p e r t a 1 n e d to p r a d u c t safety? 3 MR. SHOSBOTtUMj I think Mr. Shirley 3 t o 3 d yon t h a t h e was no t i n volve d i n t h e d e c i s i o n t. o 5 assign Mr. W r i g h t t o th a t task. 6 MR. POD I. j 3 understand that. I'm 7 asking about the nompany's po 11 ey . a A . T h e c o m p a n y p o J icy i n d e a ling with 9 e m p 1 o y e e s who might have been a c c u s e d of: - ~ o f: a 3 0 crime is that, we w i 31 await, t. h e o u t c o m e of t. h a t 11 proceeding befor e making ha r s h dec i s i on s a s t o 3 2 whether the employee is continuing to work or what, 13 he's to work with. 3 3 Q . (By Mr. P o h 1 ) Hut. at 1 e a s t i n Dr. W r i g h t ' s 1.5 case the decision was made that he show 1dn ' t 3 6 c on t. i n ue i n h i s pr i or e in p 1 oy m en t.; t. h er e s h ou 1 d b e a 17 chan g e in his job C u n c t i o n t o a -- w h a t you*ve 3 B d e s e r 5 b e d as a c. 3 e r i c a 3 /1 e c h n 5 c a 3 f n n c. t. i o n ? 19 A. My opinion is s That was more an 2 0 a c c o m in o d a t. ion because of his d e in a n d s o n his t. i m e 2 1 than anything else. 2 2 Q. But, nevertheless, a change was made in his 2 3 job fun ct i o n ? 2 3 A , Change was made, yes. 2 5 Q . As a consequence o f his c r i. m i na 1. NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0037098 ,1. i n d l e t m e n t ? 2 A . If * hi sorry . 1 can't r e ally answer- that 3 d i root. X f you* 3.1 r <5 p h r aso it, X ' ! 1 try, 4 Q. Bure. The decision to reassign Dr. Wright 5 was made prior- to the time that he was convicted? 6 A . Yes. 7 0 . And after he was conv 5 cte,d , he was 8 t ermin a ted? 9 A . That's t. rue. 10 Q . Okay. And you signed the 1 i 111 e I: o r tn t h a t 1 1 terminated Dr. Wright's employment, correct? 12 A , X sent Dr. W r .1 g h t a I e 11: e r i n d .1. c a t i n g his 1 3 t. e r mi n a t ion, indicating his rights and so for t h . 14 Y o u ft a v e t h a t as a d o cume n t. lf> Q . And I'll talk to you abou t t.ha t 1 n ju s t a 16 moment because X want to ask you about the form that 17 bears y o u r s i g n a t. u r e . 18 A, (Witness nods head) 3 9 Q . You i n cl 1 c a t. e d t. o m e -j u s t. a moment ago t. h a t ?.0 there was another incident that you recall where 2 3 Monsanto put. somebody on a paid leave of absence for 2 2 a period, you thought, of weeks? 2 3 A . Weeks. At. 1 e a s 1t. weeks . 2 4 Q Okay . What was the nature of that cr imina 1 2 5 m alter? NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0037099 45 I A W11. h o vi t v i. o l a t i n g the o m p 1 oyee's privacy, I 2 c a n j uni c o m m e n t. t b at. an e in p 1 oye e b a d b e e n acnis e d 3 of; so in e d r u g de a 1 I. n g s of; some sort and had be e n 4 arrested but bad been immediately released; during 5 the period of: weeks, was on a leave pend i n g t h e 6 ou t c ome of tbe trial. 7 Q. Okay. Ho, that employee was on leave of a a b s e n c e d u r 5 n g t h e p e n d a ncy o f h i s criminal trial ? 9 A . Yes. 3 0 Q. Was be paid during that time? 1 1 A . Yes, to my knowledge. 3 2 Q Okay. And tbat leave of absenc.e wa s 13 11 m 11 e d to t he d.uva t i on of! the ac t ua 1 er i. m l na 1 3 4 t r 5 a 1 ; s t h a t c, o r r e v. 1. ? 15 A . In t ha t case , as T. reca 11, a. 1; t er t he t r ia 1 36 and he was found gui1ty, between then and 17 s<ontencing, was an unpa. 1 d 1 eave of absent:e . 1 B Q . Okay, Ho, that empl oyee was f ou nd gu i 1 t y 19 1 n <: on nection w.11h th e drug t r.1 a 1 ? 2 0 A . Yes , 2 3 Q. Wa a that, employee terminated by Monsanto? 2 2 A . Ha s not been. 2 3 (>. Okay , When was the drug trial completed? 2 4 A . lias t y e a r . 25 Q. Okay . Ho, the employ ee 5s s ti11 on you r NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0037100 46 3. p a y r o 1 1 ? 2 A . No. In s t. :i 1 1 - - is still a n e in > 3 o y e e o n a n 3 un p a id leave of a b se n c e. 4 Q . Okay. And does tha t employee have a jot) 5 with Monsanto when ho finishes serving his time? 6 A. The employee is appealing the charge. 7 Q. it's on appeal? B A . Yen, 9 ii. Okay. Dr. Wright's case went up on appeal, 1 0 too, r i g h t. ? J 3 A. I was not aware of that. 12 Q. You didn't know that Dr. Wright took an 3 3 a pp ea 3 ? 1.4 A. No, I did not, 1 5 Q. Okay. And - 1.6 A . intact, I didn't t hink t ha t ho did. I wa s J 7 not aware of 1.hat. IB . 'In any event, Dr. Wright was t.erini pated 19 upon the conclusion of his criminal trial and h 1 s 20 sentencing; is t h a t c o r r e c t. ? 21 A . Sente n cin g. 2 2 Q . Okay. And w h o in a d e t he d e c i s ion to 2 3 t e r m i n a t o Dr, W r i g h t ? 2A A . I believe you have a d o c u in e n t i n t. h e f .i 3 e 2 5 t ha t speaks t o that, do you not? NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0037101 -4-7 1 Q. 155 the company paying this other employee's 2 attorneys' fees in connection with his drug trial? 3 A . I'm not aware, 4 Q . You're n o t a w a r e t. h at the company is ? 5 A , Y. e s . I'm n o t a w a r e jus t w h e t h e r it Is o r 6 not, b ut I won 1d -- I would not t hink so . 7 Q . Okay. O' a n y o u t h ink of a n y i n c i d e n t s w i. 1; h 8 any ot her ompi oy ee wh ere Monsan t o pa i d th e cr i hii.tia 1 9 lawyers to represenl the Monsanto employee, o ther 1 0 t h a n f it e i. n c i d e n t involving Dr, W r i g h t ? t 1 A. Not my personal know1edge. 1 2 MR. POD I. t Would you mark this as the 13 next numbered exhibit? 1 4 J on, w h a t I 'vr given t. h e cour t 15 reporter* is t h e s (-3 con d p age o f L ev ins k a. s R x h i b 11 39. 16 MR. SHOKHOTHAM: Okay, 17 (S h i r 1 e y R x h i b i. t No. 4 marked 1 8 for id e n t. i f 3 c a t ion) 19 Q. (By Mr. P o h1) Mr, Shirley, 1e t m o show y ou 2 0 the document which has been marked as Kxb.ibit, 4 to 2 1 your deposition an d ask if you recognise t h i s 2 2 d o cum e n t. 2 3 A . Y e s, Ido. 24 Q. Okay. Does 5t. bear your signature at the 2 5 l) <311; o in ? NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0037102 4B 1 A . Yes . 2 fi . Do you recog7ia vse your signature;? 3 A . Yes, tha.t Is my s igna ture . 4 Q . Okay. What was the purpose; of this 5 doc ument? 6 A . T h 5 s was in respotiB e; t o a r e q u e s t. f o r 7 e m p 1 o y m e n t d a t a . X believe t h e c over 1 e I; t e r a 3. nd a cates th c c.our t a gency t.ha t had requested a 9 p r o b a t ion off 1 e e or so m e t h i n g 1 i k e t. h a t, 1 0 Q . (Indicating) 1 1 A . Au thori viatJ on to release; 5 nf orma t i o n , wh3 oh 12 we would have had to have before respondlng . rJn i I;ed ] 3 5ta t es Probation Of f 3 ce had r eque s ted t his 14 information be f. u r n ished, 1 5 Q . Okay. Tb e n your office c o p 1 e t e d t h e 16 document that's been marked Rxh.ib.it 4 to your 17 d e p o s i t i o n ? IB A. That's co r re c t. 19 (). Okay. And you see the handwritten notation 2 0 i n a p p r o x i m a. t e 1 y the m 1 d d 1 e of t h a t d ocument, w h i c h 21 s t a ten the; reason f o r t e r m i. n a t. i n g t h e; e; in p 3 oyme n t. ? 2 2 A. Yes. 2 3 Q . Okay. Who filled in t h a t b .1 a n k ? 2 4 A. That's not my writing. As X reca 11, a 2 b clerk who has since retired in the; -- in the NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0037103 ...... 4 9 1 dopart men t had f .111 ed that i n . 2 (). Okay. And what did Monsanto state were the 3 reasons Cor terminating Dr. Wright's employment, it 4 you w ouId re a d t h a t p o r tion ? 5 A . " Engag l ng I n act .1 v i t I es de trimental to 6 Monsanto ' s i ntc;rests . " 7 Q . Okay. Wha t were t.he interests of: Monsan to 0 t h a t Dr. W r i g h t * s a ct t. i v i t. 5 e s harmed? 9 A . Well, Dr. Wright had been f ound gu i. 11 y of a 3 0 criminal offense. Employees found guilty of such 11 o f: fens e s are normally he r m i natfid. 1 2 Q. Well 1 3 A . 'it's co n s i d e r e d d e t r i iri e n t a 1 t. o o u r - t o 14 our bes t i.n t:erest. 3 Ji Q. Well, what tyj>e of criminal offense results 16 in an employee's termin a t .i o n a. t Hons a n t o ? 3.7 A. Are you looking for- examples or - 1.8 Q. Bure. 3 9 A. -- or what? 2 0 Any serious oh a r g e a n e in p 1 o y e e m i g b 1. 2.1 have. Forget traffic offenses and that nort of 22 thing. If an emp1oyee is found guilty of a crime 2 3 serious enough to result in serving time, generally 2 4 t h a t would be r e a s o n fo r d 5scharge, 2 5 Q, And In the ease of Dr. i?au 1 W r i. g h t, who NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0037104 50 1 m a d e the d e e 1 s ion t h a t t h e p a r t .1 c u 1 a r off: e n s e o f 2 which he was found guilty was serious enough that he 3 shou 1 d be torin inated as an amp 1 oyae off Monsanto? 4 A . j> e e 5 f5 c a 1 3 y t h e p a r son w h o made t h e 5 decision, I do not know, 6 Q . 0it a y . What depar t m e n t made th e d e c. i s i o n 7 that Dr, Wright's offense was serious enough that he B 3 a d t o b e t. e r m 5 n a t e d a s a ri e m p 1 o y e e of Monsan t o ? 9 A . Since we'r e d e a 1 ing wit h ff a c t s, I'll h a v e 3 0 to say 3 do not. know tha t, t l Q. Okay. What's your best information? 1. 2 ft. From t h e file inform a tion, 1 see an 13 L n dication t h a t he was found g u. i 1.1 y ; h e wa s g o i n g t o 14 b(', d i scharg e,d ; and i 1. was s i gne d by th e man i.ha t 3 15 report to. Hill C a m p b e 1 l . 3 f> Q. T s Mr, Campbe.l 1 still '.mp3 o y e d by Monnarito? 17 A . ifes, he i s . 3 B Q> Okay . H a v e y o u talk e d to Mr . C a m p b e 3 3 19 about Dr. Wright's personnel fi1e in order to 2 0 prepare for 1 h i s deposi t.3 on? 2 1 A. Not i. n any depth. Friday I told him that T 2 2 was go 5 ng t.o be t.es t i f y j rig on this, and he had no 2 3 e o in m e nts . 2 4 Q, He didn't give you any -2 5 A . Nor did we discuss it. I was stand i. n g i n NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0037105 53 1 his doorway at the 11 me. I tndicated where 1 was 2 going i.o be today. He: did no t g i ve ine any a d v .i c e , 3 e o u n s el, o r c o in nt e n I: s . 4 Q . K x c. u s e: in e . 5 Bo, the interest of Monsanto t,bat.'s 6 be i ng referred, to in the text of Bh i r 1 ey Kxh Lb i t 7 No. 4, is what ? 8 A . T h a t * b a rat. h c: r b r o a d s t a t. e in e n t . My 9 interpretation of: "the interest of Monsanto" is that 3 0 as a ~ - as a g o o d - c i t .i x e n c o rapany, it's no t o u r 11 i n t e n t to employ c onv 1. c t e d. c r i m i n a 1 s . 1 2 Q. Now, what activities did Dr. Wright engage 13 in that were d e t r 1 in e n t a l to Mon s an to ' a into r e s t s ? 3 4 A. That would have been evidence of the t.ri. a], 15 borne out by the docnments there. Bpecifica 1.1y, I 3 f. do riot 3cnow. 3 7 Q. Okay. And who at. Monsanto would have had 18 knowledge of what evidence was borne out at the 3 9 cri mi na 3 tri a 1 ? 2 0 A . C.erta 1 n3 y our 3 aw department would. 21 Q. Okay, Did you or Mr, Campbell consult with 2 2 13i e law d e p a r i. m e n t 5 n c o n n e c t. ion w i t h the decision 2 3 t o t e r m i n a t e Dr. W r i g h I:'s e m ployme n t ? 24 A . 1 did not. 2 5 Q. Do you know if he did? NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0037106 52 I No, I do not. 2. Q. And the f 5 rs t word of the r ea son f or 3 term ina11 ng the emp 1 oyment of: Dr. Wright was 4 "engaging," "engaging in activities." Did you 5 u n d e r s t a n d o r d id you h a v o any umlers t a n d i n g o 1: t h o 6 time period during which Dr. Wright would have 7 e n g a g e d 1 n t h e s e a c t i v i t i. e s ? 8 A . No, I'm sorry. 3 did not know t ha t.. 9 Q . Okay. And w i t h r e g a r d t o t o 1 I, i n g 3 0 Dr. Wr 5 ght. t.hat his einp3 oy ment at. Monsanto was 1 1 term .1 n a t e d, who p e r f! o r mod that task? 3 2 A. The letter that you would have in the file, 13 t hat I took t o him, i nd S. ca ti ng the da te of his 3 4 1 er in i na 11 on was, in effect., his notice. I'm sure 15 that he was aware I:ha 1; h 1 s job was on the line, 3 6 depending on the outcome of the case. Hut, 1.7 s p e c i. fie a 11 y, I. tan d l e d t he letter. 3 8 Q. And did he raise any questions to you a bou t 19 why hewas being t erm i n a t e d or couldn't he go on an 2 0 unpaid leave of absence while he appealed the case 21 or questions of that sort? 2 2 A. No, he did not. He did not reapond to my 2 3 1c t ter a 1 a 11 . 24 Q. Okay. And the. actual decision to terminate 2 5 Dr. W r 1 g h t was made at a lev e 1. of the com p a n y t h a t NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0037107 53 1 was h1gher than your 1eve1; Is that correct? 2 ft, That's c or r e ct. 3 Q . 13von tho(jh you were the manager of: 4 personnel for the tectuiical staff? 5 A. yes, 6 Q. Okay. ftnd the othor empioyoe that you've 7 i d e n t i f: I. e d t o u s t hat w a s s u b j e c t e d t o a criminal 8 trial and lost, was he a technical staff employee? 9 ft . In the over a 1, l umbrel l a o f 11, yes. He's a 10 plant employee; and this particular case is a a 1 1 much, much low e r level salaried employee. 12 Q. And with regard to this other emp1oyee who 13 lost a drug-re 1 a t e d trial, d .1. d y o u make t he decision 1 4 t o pu t hi in on an unpaid leave of absenee wh 5 1 e he 15 a p p ealed? 16 ft. The recommendation was m ad e t o m e a s t o 17 doing - - taking that action; and I s u. p p orted it, 1 8 yes . 3 9 Q. Okay. Would that recommendation have, been 2 0 approved if: you had objected to it or vetoed it? 21 ft. Yes. 1 could have vetoed it, yes. 2 2 Q. Okay. Could you have vetoed the decision 2 3 to put ))r . Paul W r i g h 1. on a paid leave of absence 2 4 d u r i n g his c r i m i. n a 1 case? 2 5 ft. 'that's a theoretical question, in that 1 NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0037108 1 was not asked. 2 Q. Okay. Nobody -- .in the case of Dr. Wright, 3 nobody a s k ed for y o ur a ppr ov a 1 one way or the o ther? 4 h , No . 5 Q . A n d won ,1 d i t be fa i r t o say that wh a t. 6 happened with regard to hiring a criminal Lawyer Ifor 7 D r , W r 5 g h t. - - p a y 1 n g $1, 4 00 , 0 00 i n c o n n e e t. i on with 0 Dr. Wright's criminal defen a e ; p u t ting Dr. W r i g h t <5 n 9 a paid ] eave of absence all t.hose were clec 1 s i ons X 0 that you either didn't know about or weren ' t asked 1X about.? 12 A , Tot a 1 1. y . X 3 Q. lathat correct? 1 4 A. That is cor r e c t. x r> Q. Okay. had with regard to some of those 16 matters, you didn't find out about it until about a X 7 week before; your deposit) o n ? 18 ft . Part of what you just said I found out now. 1 9 Q. hi X right. You didn't know, for example, 3 0 until I just told you that your company had >aid 2X $ 1 , 4 00 , 000 to help) sustain Dr. Wright's defense, 2 2 fund? 3 3 A. That ' s correct. 3 4 Q. Okay. Do you know of any other incidents 3 6 w h e r e y o u r c. o m p a n y h as paid over a m i 3 3 i o n d o 3 3 a r s NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0037109 1 in attorneys' lees to represent a Monsanto employee 2 who was criminally indicted? 3 A . I have no firsthand knowledge of anything 4 3ike t hat. 5 Q. And have yon heard of anything like that, 6 ever? 7 A . No. B Q . Okay. If y o n had b e on asked i n t h e. 3 97 0's 9 or in the 1980's as to whether or not M o n s a nt o 1 0 should pay $3,4 00, 000 to he 1 p defend Dr. Wr3 ght 5 n 11. his crim .1 na 1 proceedings, wou 1 d y ou have approved 3 2 that, action or would you have d i s a p prov e d t h a t 13 a c tion? 14 A. I would have had no authority for approving 1 5 or disapproving such a - - such an a.c t i. o n . 16 Q . 0 If a y . Arid whoever mad e thos e d e c i s i o n s 1 n 17 the company did them a t a - - at a 1 e v e 1. t h at w a s 3 R h i g It e r in the company than you were a t t h e 13 m e. ? 19 A . Certainly. 2 0 0 . We overlapped. 21 A . I'm sorry. 2 2 0 . bet me ask it again - 2 3 A . All rig h t. 2 4 Q. -- beca u s e we were t a 1 k 3 ng at the s a m e 2 5 time. a nd that's a pr o b 1 em . NELL MCCALLUM& ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0037110 56 1 Who e v e r m a d e the decisions w 5. t h regard 2 to nr. Wright's paid leave of absence, employing 3 e rimin a 1 cou ns e1, p ay ing the criminal counsel, d 1 d 4 so at. a level that was higher than your level at 5 Monsanto during t hose 11 me s ? 6 A . T h a t i s c. o r r e c t . 7 Q . Okay, Now, when those people at h i. gher 8 levels t h a n you would make these k 3 n d o f d e c 5 si on s , 9 would t, h o s e decisions f i mi their w a y i n t o 3 0 Dr. Wr3 ght's personne.1 f 1 1 e? 11 A. Not necessarily. 3 2 Q. Okay. Well, how was it that the personnel 13 department wa s kept apprised of what was happen L ng 3 4 with recjard t.o Dr . Wri gitt ' s si t.ua13 on? 15 A . Ac t ti a 11 y , 1; hat would have b e en r a t h e r 3 6 i nf reguen 11 y , ju s t a s 1.a tus report, and then f i na 1 1 y 17 the docu m e n t I; h a t you see t h a t i ndic a tes a t this 1 8 po3 n t 3 ri 13 me we ' re cj o 1 ng to awa i t the sentenc i ng 5 n 19 making the fina1 decision. 2 0 That was my knowledge that this was 21 that a discharge was pending. 2.2 (). Okay. And -just so we can be cl ear about 2 3 this and not be confused, ma 1: ters perta ining to 24 whether o r n o t a n e m p 1 o y e e is r e a s s 3 g n e d 3 n h 3 s j o b, 2.5 whet h e r o r n o t a n e m p 1. o y e e i. s o n a 1 e a v e <3 f a b s e n c e , NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0037 111 57 1 w h e i her it's p a. i d o r not, t h o s e a r e m atters I; h a t 2 p c! r t a i n t o p e rson n e 1 f u n c t .ioiifi, a r e n ' t t h e y ? 3 A , That's no r ma 11 y true. 4 Q. Okay, And in the case of Paul Wright, even 5 t h o u g h t hose matters genera 11 y or nor in a 11 y p e r t a 1 n o d 6 l. o p e r s o n n e 1 f u n c t.i oris , y o u w e r e n't a p p rased of t h e 7 :? pficif ic a.c t i.ons wh ich were being taken wi th retjavd 0 t o 1) r . Wright's s 1 t u a 1.1 o n ? 9 A , T h a t ' :? c o r r e c t. 1 0 (). Okay. 11 MP . FOHLi Let's take a break because 1 2 I want t o took a t these documents; and I'm g e 11ing 1 3 near the end, anyway. 1 4 A n d., j on, y o u m i g h t c a I 1 M r , B i s h o p 15 up . 1 6 Have you gone through most of those, 17 13 r I c ? 1 8 MP . N1KLSKN: There's so much stuff 19 here, T don't know why these weren't produced 2 0 earlier. 21 MP. POBLi Let's do this t Let's take 2 2 a bou t a. 1 5 -m i. n u t e br eak and jus t go through t hem . 2 3 And if we've got any more later this afternoon -- 2 4 Are you going to be here? 2 5 THK VIDKOGRAPHHP : We're off the NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0037112 I r o e ord. 2 (S3)or t Rec. es s) 3 T H R VIDROGRAPHER s We've been off the 4 record for a short break. We're now back on the s record. The time is 10:49 a,m, 6 Q . (By Mr. P o h 3 ) Mr. 5 h 3 r 3 e y , sobseg u e n t t o 7 t he t i me tha t you communica ted to Dr. Wright the 8 fact that h.3s employment with Monsanto was 9 termi nated, ha ve you had. any other conversat ions or 10 in e e 15 n g s w 3 t h h 3 m ? 1 1 A, N o, T have not. 3 2 Q . Okay. T o your- knowledge, after- Dr. W r 3 g h t 13 was termina,ted by Monsanto, has he ever sought 14 r e e iri pi o y m e n 1 b y Morin a n t o ? 15 A. Not to my knowledge, no, he has not. 3 6 0. Okay. Are situations where employees are 17 r e p r imanded by the 1 r supervisors in the i r - - i n 1 8 their d e. p a r t. m e n t. s d o c indented 3 n t. h a t e m p 1 oyee ' s 19 personnel file? 2 0 A. That would depend on the severity of the 21 r e p r 3. m a n d . 2 2 Q. Okay. What 3s Monsanto's procedure 5n that 2 3 regard? 2 4 A . In t he even t t h c-ire's a p e r f ortna n c e pro b lent, 2 5 the normal procedure would be to discuss that NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0037113 fi 9 1 perlormanoe problem with the employee, week leg a 2 c h a n g e of a c t. .3 o n o r :i rn p r o v e m e n t o f p e r f o r tri a n c e o r - 3 or whatever. If that f a i1s to yield results, a d written do crime Tit containing the problems and 5 s o 1 u 11 o n i5 a n d d 1 s c u $ s 1 ons a n d expect a t ions wo it 1 d b e 6 created, wh .1 ch m 1 gh t or w 1 gh t not. 1 n 3 13 ally go 1.o 7 the employee's file, 8 (). If an employee, for e x amp 1 e , comm3 ts an act 9 o f t heft of company proper ty, 1s t ha t the k1nd o f 3 0 thing that's usually documented In the employee's 11 personnel file? 3 3 A . Normally, yes. 13 Q. Okay. And the puuishment that eomes when 3 4 a n e m pi 1 o y e e Is c a u g h t m 1 s a p p r o p r 1 a 1.1 n g p r o p e r t. y o f 15 the company, is that left to the d1rector of the 3 f> empl oyee ' s depa r 1 men t ? 17 A. Not entirely, We would be somewhat 3 B concerned about precedent setting, but his ~~ 19 cert a inly his r e c o m me ndatlon carries good weight. 2 0 Q. Okay, For example, have you r e v1e wed all 21 of Dr. Wright's file be f o r e *-- personnel file be f o r e 2 2 giving y o u r d e p o s1 lion? 2 3 A . Ve s , I h a v e . 2-3 0.. There's a document in there -- - It's a 2 5 handwritten note, and somewhere In these documents NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0037114 6.0 1 I've got i. t ~ - bu t i t re f ers to him ha v 1 ng -- 2 according to his department, having been accused and 3 bound to have stolen a m 1 crowave oven and eome 4 animal feeds and stuff like that. Do you recall 5 that incident? 6 h . I saw the doc u m e n t a t i o n t. hat you ' r e 7 referring to, ye s . a Q . What was the r e s u 1 t o f - - o r w h a t a c t. i o n 9 was ta k e n by Monsanto as a consequence of Dr. Wr 1 ght 1 0 having in 1 sappropri a ted a microwave oven and some It 0 t h e r s m a 11 t h i n g s ? 12 h. Well, that i>ex-5od of time that's documented 13 1 n 1 hat not a 1i o n i s p r i. or to my c o m 1 n g into t h e u n i t 14 a n d having a r e s p o n s i b i 1 i t. y . I n o ted 5 n r e a d i n g t h e 15 file that he was moved from his job of (leading up 3 6 t be la b o r a t o r y t o a new manager's -~ manage r o f 17 spec! a. 1. stud 1 e s p o s 111 o n . IB Q. When Dr. Wright was rehired by Monsanto, he 19 eaino i n a.3 mana.ge r of toxicology, Rven though t ha t 2 0 was prior to the t,i me that you were manager of 21 personnel, who would be I;he decisionmakers that 2 2 would d e c i d e at. w h a t 1 e v e 1 a n employee is r e h 5 red? 2 3 A.. In Monsanto, each professional job is 24 specs fie a 1 1 y e va 1 ua t.ed . We use a four -- 2 5 fou:r ~ factor point s y s tem to de term i ne appropr i ate NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0037115 63 I grad e 3! or it, A nd t h a t ' s - t h a t w on 1 d b e t h eg r a d e 2 o f t h e j o b . T hat's a person n e 3 f u n c t. i o n . T h e 3 write - up w o u 1 d p r .1 in a r i 1 y bo done by t h e line 4 manage m e n t., t h o ugh . 5 Q. Okay. When Or. Wright was to be rehired by 6 Monsanto, would the pevs on ne l depart men I: ha v e to 7 approve the reh 3 r5 ng ? 8 A. They would have to approve the grade 9 level. The line .... in this ease, the appropriate l 0 p o r k o n to have m a do the hire decision would h a. v e 1 1 been Dr. Roush. 3 can't., without look 3. ng back in 12 the file, t e11 you whether ha was on t ha t s po t. 1 1 3 believe he was at. t h e t i m e . 1 4 Q . Would the piirsonnn 1 departmen t have 3 S c o n d u c. t. e d an interview of Dr. W r 5 g It t i n c. o nriecti o n 16 w i t h h i s r e h x r i. n g ? 3 7 A. Yes. They would have probably arranged the 18 pane1 tha t wouId have interviewed Dr. Wright, wh 1 ch 3 9 would have consisted of several technical peopie. 2 0 Q. What are the type of things tha t y ou as k 2 3 someone, generally, when you consider hiring or 2 2 r e h i r1n g t hem? 2 3 A. Well, we're looking for the experience that 2 4 would be applicable to t he j o b tha t we had 1 n m1nd. 2 8 We would 1 ook 5 nto their educat.5 ona 1 NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0037116 f2 .1 gual ificatlons. We'd look into their experiences, ?. W e w o u 1 d n o r in a 1 .1 y e x p e c. t t. o g e t a ref e. r e n c e t hat. 3 would substantiate that. That would be the 4 personne] dopartment' s s 5 da of t.hat.. 5 T hat ' s n o t a I. ways d one, h o w e v e r . C Q . Okay. Was 5 t d on o 5 n Dr . Wr 5 g h t ' s ca s c*. ? 7 A. I have no know1edge . 8 Q . With regard t o t h e e x p e r i e n e es, would t. h a t 9 include the person's immediately preceding job? 1 0 h . Yes. Kxce p t 5 t b e c o in e s d e 1 i ca t e if the 11 person is s 1111 working tor an emp 1 oyer. Quite 3 2 often we can't, inquire into the quality of the work 13 there without jeopardizing the position. 1 4 Q . 0ou Id you i nqu i re of the einp 1 oyee a s to 15 what he had done, what his job responsibi1ities were If. a t his then current. empi oyinent? 17 A. Yes, that's correct. 18 Q. So, j ri t he case of Dr. Wright, for example, 19 if he was employed at IRT and Monsanto were seeking 2 0 t. o re hi re him, then it. would have been part of 21 Monsanto's normal pi'oced tires to inquire of 22 Dr. Wright, about the nature and funct.ion of his job 2 3 at TBT? 2 4 h. Certainly. 2 F , Q. Okay. And one of the things Mon s an t.o wou 1 d NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMONOQ37117 63 1. want to know is : What have you been doing for the 2 last yearor two? What kind of assignments have you 3 had ? How muc h have you bee n paid? Who did y ou 4 report, to? 5 3' b o s e t y p e o f t h 1 n g s ? 6 h. Yes . 7 Q . Okay. And if the e m p 1 oyer w e r e u 3 t i m a 1. e 3 y e i n f o r m e d t h a t 1; h e e mployee was leav i n y, w o u I. d 9 Monsanto call t. h e p r 3 o r e m p 3 oyer - - i n t his case,, 10 IHT -- and ask them how the employee, such as 1 1 Dr, Wright, had - had performed w h 5 3 e an employee 12 of TBT? 1 3 A . The privacy 1 a w s n o :r m a 1 1 y p r o h 5. b i t us f r o m 1.4 doing t hat. With a w r i 11 e n r e1e a s e f ro m t h e 1 1) p r o s p e c. 13 v e e m ploy e e , we mi g h t d o t h a t. a f t. e r t. h e 16 fact. Hut it's certain1y not done on a 11 eases . 3 7 Q . Okay. Ho, it's done: 5 ri some cases, b u t n o t 18 all c a s e s ? 19 A . 3' It at1 s t r u e . 2 0 Q. Ok ay . Prom t h e pe r s pe c tiv e o f t he 21 personnel departifient, would it be a fair statement 2 2 that you would want to find out as much as you cou 1 d 2 3 aboil t. t. h e Monsanto p r o s p e c t i v e e m p 3 o y e e ' s p r i o r 2 4 employment so you could have as many facts as 2 5 possible upon which you would base your decision to NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0037118 1 h i re or no t to h i ve? 2 A . That ' s a .1 way s a goo(1 deci s i on . Tha t.'n 3 a 1, w a y s a g o o d p r o cedure to f ol. low. 4 Q . hitd i f 3)r , Wr5 gh t. 3)ad been willing, t.here ' s 5 no reason why Monsanto cou.1 dn 1 t ha.ve contacted I RT 6 a nd anted 3)ow he 3)a d per f ormed at. 1 RT? 7 A . T h a t ' s e o r r e c t. fl (). 'J'h er e ' n 3> e en a n i nd i c a 13 on i n t. 3i e 9 depot? i 11 on s t hat we have t a k en t hat nobody a s ked 3 0 3)r. Wright. any questions whatsoever about bin 1 1 employ me n t a t IR T. 1 ?, A . U h - 3 u h . 33 0 .I) o y o u k n o w or- h a v e any k n o w 1 e d g e an to w h y 1 4 no one at M o n s a nto w o u 1 d h a v e a sked I) r . Wright 3 r> anything about 3 B T i n c o n n e e t ion w i t h 3i i a 16 reemployment; by Monsanto? 17 A . A sho r t a n n w e r in "no." However, 1 w c> u .3 d ie comment to you that he was a prior employee and was 3 9 a proven asset w3ien 3ie left on hin good accord . He 20 was seek I n g t o c ome b a ok. We te n d to be less ?.l invest igat.3 ve on retiires than we do on original 2 2 hires, 2 3 Q . Okay. Well, won 1 d i t still 3>e a true 24 3tatement that -- that from the perspective of the 2 5 personnel department, you would have wanted to know NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0037119 65 1 a s ffl u c h a s p o s a i b 1 e a bout w h a t D r , W r i g h t h a d done 2 wh 5 3 e he wa a off, employed by somebody else? 3 A.. T h a t w o u 1 (J be the basis for rehiring h 5. m . 4 Q. Sure. And if Dr. Wright, had done a real 5 bad jol> at T11T or had had a 1 ot of unexcused 6 absences, had gotten into criminal problems, 7 whatever, those might -- those facts might have 8 a f f e, e t e d y o u r d e c 5 s i o n a n t h e. p e r s o n n e 1 d e p a r t. m e n t 9 as to whether' or not you would concur in his J 0 rehiring; is that, correct? l 1 Ml? . SHORBOTHAMj X ob ject to the form 12 0 f t h e q u e s t ion. 'J' h e q u e s t i o n is m u 1 t i f arious . 13 It's c o m p lie a t e d.. 11 a 1 s o i g n o r e s Mr. B h .1 r ley ' s J 9 t es t. i mony t.ha t. on a reh i re t.he t.y pe of 5 nveeti ga t. 5.on 15 that would be done wou 1 d b e d i f. f erent. 3 6 Q . (By Mr. P o h1)L e t me b rea k it down be c a use 17 J on isp r o b a b1y right. It may have been a little 3 8 1 ong . 3 9 In a rehire situation, where someone, 2 0 such as Dr. Wright, had previously been employed by 23 Monsanto, would t h e a o m p a n y still wan t t. o know, from 2 2 the p e r s p e c t i ve of 1; h e p e r sonnet d e p a r t m ant, t h e 2 3 t y p e o f job p e r f o r m a n c. e t. h a t your- f o r m er employ e e 24 h a d a. c hiev e d while employed by a nothar comp a n y ? 2 8 A . Tha t would be g ood information t.o have, l)u t. NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0037120 1 I'm po r s ona 11 y aware o f; many s .11ua t i ons where we 2 h a v e c a 3 3 e d a n e x - e in p 3 o y e e who 3 b off w o r J< 5 n g f o r 3 anot he r company and. said, "Hey, we have a spot hero 4 tha t 3 oo)< s grea 1 for you. If f you' re 3 Titeres ted, 5 come on down. Let's talk about it." And we have 6 r e h 3 red with a in 3 n 3 m u in a in o u n t of 3 n v e s t. 3 g a t. 3 o n . 7 Q. Pave you e vor rehired with abs o1ute1y no 8 3 n v e b 13 g a 13 o n ? 9 A. Yes. JO Q. Ot.her than 3n the case of Paul Wright? l 1 A. Yes. 1 2 Q . Okay . So, that's a c e e p t. a b 3 e p roc e dure at 13 Monsanto? 3 4 A. The shorter the time - the shorter time a 15 person might be away from Monsanto employment, the 16 more 33 k e 3 y we a r e t o handle that, rather cavalier. 17 Q. Well, 18 months is not that short a period 3 8 3 m e, 5 s 3 t ? 3 9 A . It's relative. Yes, 1 t. h 5 n k s o . 2 0 Q Okay, Well, I th1n k you've answered the 2 3 q u e s 13 o n . 2 2 Mods a nto a 3 s o hired anoth e r e in p 3 oye e 2 3 who had prev.iotis I.y beon hired by IBT ; isn't that 24 correct.? 2 6 A . I'm not aware of tha t.. NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0037121 67 I Q. You don't? 2 A . Uh- uh , a Q. Okay. Ho you know a person na me Manua 3 4 Reyna? s A . M a mi a 3 Rainer? 6 Q. Reyna, REYNA.. 7 A . No. I've heard that 3 a s t. n a m e b e f o r e , a n d 8 T I rem e in her hea r .1 n g t h e name "Manny." 9 Q. That's it, M a n ny R e yn a . l 0 A . And it n i. g h t - - t h a t might be it, b u t it's 3 3 -j u js t a name I've heard. 12 Q. Okay. You don't recall anything about the 3 3 proceduren for his hiring by Monsa n t o? 14 A . Not at all, no. 3 5 Q. Okay. Do you know if Dr. be.vi nskas has 16 ever received any merit awards by Monsanto? 3 7 A. To clarify terminology, our normal 18 increases at Monsanto are called "me r it" - - " me r 11 3 9 pay i n c r e a s e. s . " 20 Q . Okay. I'm talking a b o u t. t h e s p e c i a 3 m e r i t 21 award. 2 2 A . An achievement award, a bonus, a special 2 3 payment, yes, he has. 2 4 Q. Okay. Have any of 1.hose pertained to his 2 5 actions wit h r e g a r d t o R C B ' s ? NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC, HARTOLDMON0037122 60 1 A. Dr. f, a v 1 lislcas Is In a <1 i (: f: e v e n t 2 cJafisifjr.alion than Dr. Wright, and hiss bon ns 3 prog r a m pays oft b a s e d o n t h e company's 4 p e r f o x jii a Ti c e . 5 H c; 5 s a m e in b e r o f k e y in a n a g e in e n t.. H e 6 n o r in a 11 y gets a bonus annually. 11 ' a no t w v i 11 e n 7 up . a Q . All right. So, Dr. Levinskas' merit bonua 9 would not be based on a part icular ly good job by 3 0 h 1 wi, but. on h o w well the company performed i n t e r m s 11 of making a profit? 1 2 A. '3'hat's true. Or --- or against its goals, 13 n o t n e c e s s a r i 1. y a prof i. t. 3 4 Q . So, t. hen, if Dr. W r i g h t we r e successful in 1 5 f o r estal 1 in g 1 h e P A ' s promul g a t i. o n o f u n r e a 1 i s t i c 3 6 r e g u1 a 15 o n s t h at would have barred the disc h ar g e o f 17 P C B'8 into the environment, which would have 3 B r e s u 11 e d in a loss of sal e a t. o M o n s a n t. o , t h e. n 1.9 Monsanto's retention of those sales and the profits 2 0 thereon would indirect.ly accrue to Dr. ievinskas ' 21 benefit? 22 MR. SPOEBOTBAM 1 object to the form 2 3 of the question. Mr. Shirley has told you 24 previously that, the award that you're referring to 2 5 was a technical, award aw a r d e d b y t e c h n leal p e o p 1 e , NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0037123 69 1 and I think you're indirectly trying to get him to 2 0 o m in e n t o n that. 3 0 . (By Mr. Voh! ) Wc 1 ] , i n t erms of proc ednr e , 4 Mr. Shirley, if an employee, such as Dr. Wright, 5 were t o t a k e a c 11 ona and t o cl o t li 3 n g n t. hat w o u .1 d 6 1 n c r ease the hot t o m -1 i n e p :r o f i t s of Monsanto, won 1 d 7 that, as a matter of company policy, accrue to the 8 b e n e f i t o f people w h o we r e in key man a g e in e n t, sue h 9 as Dr. I.evi nsk as ? 3 0 A . The overa 1 1 prof i tabi 3 ity of the company 11 against t lx e goal s that are set each ye a r are 3 2 influenced by many factors . That. could certainly be 13 a factor. 3 4 Q. Okay. 3 f. A. Rut it would just be one of many. 16 Q. It would be a factor? 3 7 A . 0erta i n 1 y . 3 8 Q. And yoxx talk - you say ---- in terms of the 19 goals set by the company, does that mean it's 2 0 p erf ormance vis-a v 3 s t h e b u d g el. of t. h e c o m p any? 2 1 A. Well, 11 will be a bonus that is s et at our 2 2 highest leve1s - - by our pres 3 dent, chairman of 2 3 board, the board of directors .... that would be used 24 t. o m e astire w h e t h e r o r n o t t he per for m a n c e ha d b e e n 2 5 adequate to pay the key managers a bonus and, if so, NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0037124 70 1 what level o f bon u s , ?! Q. And is that with regard to the company an 3 it pertains to it s A m e r lean opera11 o n s o r it s 6 wor] d w 3 d e o j>er a t.3 on s ? 5 A - I'm not aware of the con n e c tio n .... I only f. k now d o m e sU ca] 3 y * I c a n ' t com m e n t o n t h a t. . 7 Q . Bo, Dr. levinskas, then, b e i n g a me in h e r o i: B key in a na g einen i., won 3d receive a bonus based up) on 9 t h e - - at least the p e r 1 o r m a n c e of M o n s a n t o 1 0 n a 15 onwi do? 3 X A . W e 3 3 , yes, t. h a t.'s t r u e . 12 Q. And It an employee was snc c e s s f u1 1n 3 3 prev en t. i rig a a 13 on wh i ch wou 1 d h av e p>re c: 3 u ded t h e u s e U of a. par t i c u 1.ar ma ter ia 1 by one o f Monsanto ' s 3 5 customers , then that. 5 s the typ>e of act3 on i.3)a 1. 16 would indlre e 11 y or could 1 ndirectly accrue to the 1 7 benefit, of a key manager of t h e a o m p a n y ? 18 MU. S HO RBOTtI AM s l object again. In 3 9 a d d i 15 on to my previouso b j e a 11 o n t. h a t. j t.'s an 2 0 i nd j. rec t a 11e m pt to get Mr. Shirley to comment on 23 the subs tanc.e of the Paul Wr 5 gh t mer 1 t bonu s , tha t 2 2 qn e s t i on is also v a g ue a n d a m biguous. 2 3 Q. (H y Mr. P o h 3 ) You can answer. 24 A. I woold b e d r a win g a cone 1 u s ion in 2 5 answer) n g t. h at q u e s 13 o n t hat 3 d o n ' t f e el q u a 3 3 f i e d NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0037125 7l 1 to do. 2 MR. POHL: 3*33 pass the w5 triesa . 3 MR. BH0HBOTHAM: Could we take a quick 4 break? F> MR, POHL: Sure. 6 THE VrDGOORAPHRRi We're off the 7 record 8 (S h o r t R e c e a s ) 9 THK VIDROCKAPHKRs We've been off the 30 record for a short, break We're now bade on the 1. 1 record. The time Is 11:15 a.m. 32 13 3 4 EXAMINATION BY MR. 5HOFBOTBAM: 15 Q. Mr. Shirley, my name is Jon Bhoebotham. 3 f. I'm a lawyer' fr om Houston, Texas . And, as you know, 17 T represent Monsanto Company here today. 3 8 I have just a few questions to f o How 19 up some of the th 1 ngs that Mr. Poh1 asked you. 2 0 First, of a .1 3 , in the area of the merit, 3,1 raise and the bonuses that Dx*. Wright received, that 2 2 you discussed with M:r . Po3> 3 , with r egard to th e 2 3 bonuses, the two bonuses, that Dr.', Wright received, 2 4 would tha t. be unus ua 3 f or an employee of 2 5 Dr. Wright's level to recRive bonuses o f that ty pe? NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0037126 72 1, N o , i t i s5 n o t. T, men t toned e a r 3. ,i e r 2 approximately one-third of our managers of t. h a t. 3 level would receive a bonus at any time that he 4 m i g 3i t h a v c: d o n e s o in e t h i n g deserving. 5 Q . Wou 1 d tha t be 1;rue dur ing the 1 9 75 to 1 9 76 6 t i m e f r a in e ? 7 A > Yes. T h a t was t he pro g r a m t h a t was; i n 8 e f f: e. c t a t t h a t 1 1 m e . 9 Q* Okay. Bo, between '78 and *76, about 1.0 one-third of the managers at Monsanto who would be 1 3 at Dr. Wri ght ' s level wou 1 d have rec.ei ved a bonus of \2 tha t t y p e ? 3 3 A . That's true. 14 Q. Have you yourself received bonuses o f th a t 3 5 type while you've been employed at Monsanto? 16 A . Yes, I have. Over a period, of years, I ' ve 3 7 received a half a dozen such bonuses. 18 Q. Is the r e anything un u s u a 1 a bout Dr. Wright 19 receiving a raise during that same time frame? 2 0 k. The two pr ogra m s are inde pe nd e n t, Th e 2 3 Monsanto empioyeen, profes siona 1 and the 2 2 nonteclinical, are normally reviewed annually. That 2 3 timin g may g o 1o ng er than a yea r; it may g o 1e s s 2 4 than a year. Most emp 1 oyees receive a 12 -mon th 2 8 increase, and they do that on a calendar basis. In NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0037127 73 .1 o t h e i' w o i" d s i f! ideally, we won I.d have as many 2 p e o p> 3 e g e tt. 3 n g a r a 5se i n January a s D e c, e jn b e r , 3 Q . Bo, a 11 of the employees at Dr. Wright's 4 .level would have been at least reviewed for a raise 5 d u r 1 n g the ' 7 5 t o ' 7 6 t i m e I: r a m e ? 6 A . Yes, that's tru e . 7 Q. Let me ask you about the practice at 8 Mon s a Ti t o conce rn i ng a n emp.l oyee wh o in 3 gh t. be 9 c o n v 1 e ted of a crime. You recall answering s o m e 3 0 questions of that type for Mr. Pohl? l 1 A . Yes, Ido. 3 2. Q . What, is the practice at Monsa n t o 3 n t. h e 13 event tha t an employea shou1d be conv 1 c ted of a 3 /I c r 3 m e t h at ' s s e r 1 o u a e nough t h a t t. hat. e m p 1 o y e e m 3 g h t 15 have to go to jail? 1 6 A . N o r la a 1 1 y that, e in p 3 oyee 3 s going t o b e 17 terminated a t t hat p o i n t. 3 B Q . Is that t, he u s u a 3 p r a c t. 3 c e a t M o n s a n t. o , is 19 that the employee w 111 be ter ini na. t ed a t such time 2 0 t.ha 1 he, 3 s convi c. 1.ed? 21 A . Yes, it is. 2 2 Q . You told Mr. Pohl. abou t. one case 3 n wh 5 c h 23 an employee of: Monsanto was placed on an unpa 1 d 7A 3 ea ve a t. t.he time oi c.onv 3 c 13. on . Do you reea3 .1 t ha t. 25 t es t iinony? NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0037128 74 1 A . Y oo ss, It dd. oo .. 2. Q. Was there anything unusual or uni quo about, 3 that part 1c u1ar case? -5 A. Yes, in that, this was an employee of our 5 M 1 a m I. sburg, 0h io , opera t ion, wh i ch we opera t e for 6 t h e P e d era1 Gov o r n m e n t. All o f o ur erap1oy e e s t h e re 7 have Q clearances, which is a top-secret atom 1 c a cl eara n e e . 9 B e i n g accused of a in a jor crime w 1 1 .1 10 cause the Department of Energy to pu11 a elearance, 3 1 B u t. t. h e t e a r e procedures involved that t. h e employ e e t 2 has a year to appea 1 that decision to pu.11 the 3 3 clearance, during which time we cannot normally 14 d 1 s c h a r g e t h a t e m p 3. o y e e . 15 Q . Is that, e m pi o y e e ' s salary re 3 m b u r & e d b y t h e 16 D e p a r t metit o f E nergy? 3 7 A . Yes, All the -- the. operating expenses of 18 the M Lam 1 s hurg 1 oeati on are -- are totally 3 9 rei mburaabJ e wi t.h - - wi th very few except.3 ons . 7.0 And on top of the cost-plus, we are 2 3 given a bonus or a ~~ an award on an annual basis 2 2 for opera t .1 n g t h e f a c 11 11 y . 2 3 Q. So, in the instance of that particular 2 4 e m p1o y e e t h a t you t old M r. P o h1 about, b e c a u s e o f 2 5 the employee's relationship with the Department of NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0037129 75 1. Rne rgy , Monsan I:o 3. s no 1 in a pos 1 lion to term i na I:e 2 him? 3 A . That's t x' u e. 4 Q. Let me ask you some questions, Mr, Shirley, 5 about the key management bonus program that you. told e Mr. Pohl about. Do you recall your testimony that 7 Dr. Levinskas was on the key management bomis B progra m? 9 A. Yes. 1 0 C>. When was t h o key m a n a g e m e n t b o n u s p r o g r a m l t placed i it 1: o e f (: e c 1; ? 3 2 A. A a 1 recall, both the key and the select 13 program came into being in 1978. 1 4 Q. So, the program by which Dr. Levinskas' 15 b o n u s e s h a d soni e v elations h i. p t o t h (5 pert o r m a n c e o t 3 6 the company wa s not. i n p.1 ace un 1 3 1 3 97 B ? 1 7 A. That's to the best of my memory. 3 B Q . Thank you, Mr. Shirley. 19 MR. SHORBOTff AM : I'll pass the 20 wit ness. 21 22 23 24 25 NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. , HARTOLDMON0037130 76 1 RI2--BXAM I NAT TON BY MR. I'OflL : 2 Q . J u s t. a few q u est.i ons , M r . 8 h :i r 3 ey . 3 You i n d t ca t o d y ou received 4 a p p r a x :i in a 1 e .1 y a half a do?, on merit bo raises while you 5 wore employ o.d by Mons an to? 6 A . Yes, :f have. 7 Q . And f: o r h o w Ion g have y o u b e e n employ e d ? 8 A . Twontytwo years . 9 Q . Twon ty- two years. S o , over 2 2 y ea rs, y ou 1 0 received approximately six merit bo misses;? 11 A. Yes, I have. 3 2 Q. Okay. And, so, when you indicate t h at a 13 t hir d of the managers receiv e me r it bo n u ses, t ha t ' s 3 4 n o t. t o i m j> .1 y in a n y w a y t h a t y o u - - t h a t. a t h i r d 15 r ec e 1 ve 1t ~- roceive a mer 3. t bonus overy year; i s 3 6 tha t corree t? 17 A. Approximately a third will r e c e i v e a bonus 18 each year, yes. Qu i to of ton i t will be some of t he 3 9 same ones, who wi 1 1 coritimie to get increases, 2 0 because they perform in that manner. But hopefully 2 3 there's a good mix, that new people will roll in, 2 2 T he money I s there. T h e in a n a g e r s are 2 3 e.ncouraged to spend t.hat. money . It's a root.5 vat.i ona 1 2 4 tool. 2 b Q. Okay. And do you consider yourself to be a NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0037131 77 1 good emp 1 oy e e of; Mons an I;o? 2 A . yes, I do. 3 Q. And in your particular ca.se, you've 4 received six merit bonuses over 22 years? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q . O k a y . And have you ever receive d. t. w o in e r .1 t 7 bonuses within less than 12 m o n t h s ? 8 A . I ha ve reee 1 ved - - on 3 2-mon 1.h 9 ann 1 ver s a. r les , I have, on th ree oc cas i ons ; bu t not 1 0 within t h e 3. 2 hi o n t h s . 1 1 Q, Okay. You've never received -- ignoring 3 2 pay raises now. Okay? 13 A. Yes, J 4 C>. You've, n e v e r r e c e i v e d m e r 51 a w a r d s o r m e r 5 t 15 bonuses, over and above pay raises, in as close a 1 6 frequency as those which we've talked about today 17 for Paul W r1g h t ? 3 8 A . Yes, 1 have, because as 1 --- a s I po5 nted 19 out earlier, the programs are independent of each 7,0 other. As a.l 3 Monsanto pr of e s s i 07ia 1 employees - ~ 31 just to stay with that group of people -- are going 3 2 t.o get. an annual review for salary increase. That's 2 3 independent of any bonus actions. 2 4 Q. Sure. And I want, to ignore that, for' a 2 5 m o ment. Ignore t h e y e a r l y s a. 1 a r y i r> c r e a s e s - - NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0037132 78 1 A . Mir i g h t. 2 Q . -- or- sal ary bor>u s es . 3 A . M .1. v 1. g h t. 4 Q . I'm talking a b o u t j u s t the special in e r 1 t 5 bonu res -- 6 A . R 5 g h t. . 7 Q . ~ - f o v t h e b o nus p r o g r a in - 8 A . Extra. R5 g ht. 9 Q, - - tor work above and beyond the call o f: 1 0 duty . l l A . Right . 1 2 Q. Okay? 13 A. Right, 3 4 Q . Have you ever received those t yje of mer 5 t 15 bonuses for activities above and beyond the call of: 3 6 duly in a s c 1 o s e a f r e q u e ncy as P au3 W r i g h t. did? 1 7 A, I have not personally. 18 Q. Okay. Now, with regard to the o n e ~ t h i x d of 19 I:he managers who would normally receive merit 20 bonuses, those are people who would be - - the 21 managers would be -- all managers wou 1 d be e 11 g 1 b 1 e 2 2 for merit bonuses -2 3 A. That's true. 2 4 Q. - - correct? 25 A. Yes. NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0037133 79 J. Q. And from that group, the department heads 2 would select from a mo n g t h e in t. hose t h a 1 t hey w o u 1 d 3 recommend to rec e.1 ve th t a mer i. 1; award? 4 A . Ri ght . 5 Q . And they would also sugges l. an amouid. of 6 money t ha t m .1 gh t accompany the me r i t award? 7 A . That's right.. They're g 1 v e n s o m e g e n e r a I 8 guidelines. They know what they can expect that 9 would be approved as 31 goes up the 1 3 ne f or 10 approva1, J 1 Q. Is a merit award, for example, 3n the 12 amount of! $2500 , would that be a large or a small J 3 merit a wa rd 3 n t he mid 3 9 7 0 ' s ? l 4 A . In the m 1 d Seventies? I t wou 1 d - - I;h e l)e s t IS answer t o that, probab 1 y wou 1 d be to d et.e3-m5 ne wha t. 16 p e r centage of; pay t hat was at the time. 'i? he aw a r d 3 7 well m3 glit. be; an a 3.0 to 2 0 percent, range. If it. t 8 were more or less than that, we m ight quest!on it. 3 9 Q. Okay. you indicated, I believe, in 2 0 response to your attorney's questions that it's the 2 3 usual practice of your company to terminate an 2 2 employee who was convicted of a crime? 2 3 A . Convicted of a cr 3.me , y e s , that ' s tru e . 2 4 Q. All right. And t ha t ' s not all crl mes, as 2 8 we established earlier; is t h a t. c o r r e c t ? NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0037134 80 1 A . That's correc I; . 2 fi . 11 h a s to be a b oide wh a t. serious cr 5 ine 3 before Honsanto will terminate the employee upon c o n v i c 15 on ; .is t h a t c o r r e o t. ? 5 A . Well., w e <j e t 1 n t o a. m a. 11 e r of d e f i n i t Lon, 6 b u t. -- 7 Q. G en erally speaking. 8 A . Gener al .1 y s peak 1 ng we're no t -- we' re no t 9 violating folios normally for traffic conviction, to a 11 h o u g h that's certainly not e nt i r e1y out o f the 3 J. question etther. 3 2 Q. Okay. But 5t's not the usual practice of 13 Mons a.n t o so fa r a s you know, to h 5. r o I; h e s u s p e c t e d 1 4 c r i m i n a 1 s attorney; is that correct? 1.5 A . I'm not aware of other cases . 3 6 Q. You're not. aware that that's the accepted 17 p r a c tice or usual practice at Monsanto, are you? 18 A . No, I'm not. aware of tha t.. 19 Q. Okay . 2 0 MK. POHLt Pass the wit ness. 21 22 23 24 25 NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0037135 I RE-EXAMINATION RY MR, SHOE R 0 T H A M: 2 (). Mr , B h a r 3 ey , j u s t a c ou3 e of more 3 queg11ons , 4 Are. y o u - - w 51 h reg a r d t o 1 h e m e r a t 5 bonuses, have other employees at Monsanto received 6 t. w o hi e r at bomises w a t. h a n a o n e - y e a r p e r .i o d. o f t a m e ? 7 A. Yes, they have. I can recall instances a w h e r e e m p 3 o y e e a r e c. e ,i v e d t w o b o n u s e r. w a t h a n a 9 q u a r ter. 3 0 Q . 0 k a y . S o , that* s n o t. unusual and would n o t 11 have been unus u. a 1 back in the mid S e v e n t ies , f o r a n 3 2 employee to r e cei v e t wo mer .i t b onus e g w i t It i n a 13 one -year period of time? 3 4 A . T h a t ' s t. rue. 3 f> MR. SHOHROTRAMt No further questions. 1.6 T ha n k you. 3 7 MR. RORL: That's all 1 have. Thank IB you so much. 3 9 THE V 1 D K 0 G R A P13 E R : This concludes 2 0 M r . S3 h i r 3. e y ' s depos i f ion. The time is now 11:2 S 2 3 a . in . We ' re off th e r ec ord . 2 2 (The Depos i tion was Conc1uded) 2 3 ***** 24 2f NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0037136 3 SIGNATURE OF WITNESS 2 3 <1 3 , R 0 E K U T K U G E N K S I RLKY , s o .1 e)n 3 y 5 s w e a r o r a f: f: i. r m , u n (3 e r t h e p a Ins a n d p e n a .11 3 e s o f 6 per jury , t.ha 3. 3.he. f orego j ng B 3 pages cor>ta5 n a true 7 a n d c o r r e r, 1; I; ranscr 1 p t o f: t h e t e s t inioiiy g i v e n b y in e a a t t h a t :5 in e and p 3. a c e s 3. a t e d , w i t. h t h e c o r r e c 3. ions, 9 if: any, and the reasons thereto r n o t e d on a s e p a r a t e 3 0 sheet, of paper an d a 11 ached h e r e 3. o ; a n d 3. hat. 3 a m 1 1 s i g n i n g this before a Notary P u b 1 i. e . 32 33 R 0 B E R T E U (3 R N 31 S H I R L E Y 14 3 F> 3 6 THE STATE OF TEXASt 3 7 SUBSCRIEKI) AN P 33 WORN TO ERF ORE MR, the 38 undersig ne d authority, by the witness, R 0 B G R T R f IG R N R 3 9 SHIRLEY, on this the ________ day of ____________ , 20 3 987 . 23 22 Notary J.5 u b 1 i. c i n a n d f o r 2 3 The State of Texas 2 4 My commissi on expires? 25 NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0037137 R3 1 THE 0 T A T R OR TEX AG: 2 I, C h e r y 1 1 K . 1, e F e vers, a C e r t i f 5 e d 3 ShoX' I;ha nd Repor tor, hereby cert, i f y t hat the 4 f or eg o :1 ng t e s t5 in oriy was g 5 vein b e f or e me a f t er t h e 5 Witness had been first duly sworn. 6 3 further certify that. 3 prepared this 7 tr an s e r1pt an d tha t t h e f o r egoing p a g e s con stit u t e a 8 complete and corree t. eopy of t.he t.rans cr i pt. of the 9 profie e ding s. 1 0 3 fur t her c e r t i f y t h a t 3 am n e 3 t h e r 11 attornoy for, related to, nor employed by any of the 1 2 p a 5't. 3 e s t. o t. h e laws n 5 t in whi c h t h i s d e p o s i 15 on w a s 13 take n ; further, I am ne i ther re 1 a. ted to nor employed 1-3 by any a 11, o r n e y o f r e c o r d in this c a u se, nor d o J 15 have a financial i n t e r e :s t in t h e m a t, t e v . 36 1 7 G3VRN UNDER MY HAND AND REAL OF OFFICE 10 in Houston, Texas, on this the 7th day o 1: July, 19 1 9 8 7. 20 21 22 2 3 Cer15fica15 on Number: 3 6 9 0 Date of F, x p i r a lion : Decern b e r 31, 1988 2 4 Address : 2 900 S m 5 t. h F> t r e e t., G u i t e 304 Houston, Tex a s 77006 2 5 Phone: 713/523-3767 NELL MC CALLUM & ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0037138 Pag Lin * LAWYIR * S N0T13 NELL. MC CALLUM 1 ASSOCIATES, INC. HARTOLDMON0037139 B ;r HARTOLDMON0037140 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS BEAUMONT DIVISION CECIL SCOTT, et al Plaintiffs V. C. A. NO. B-84-1103-CA MONSANTO COMPANY Defendant PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE OF INTENTION TO TAKE VIDEOTAPED ORAL DEPOSITION AND SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM TO: Defendant, MONSANTO COMPANY, by and through its counsel of record, Mr. Jonathan B. Shoebotham and Mr. Robert A. Hall, Woodard, Hall & Primm, 4700 Texas Commerce Tower, Houston, Texas 77002 Mr. Walter J. Crawford, Jr. , Wells, Peyton, Beard, Greenberg, Hunt & Crawford, 624 Petroleum Bldg., P. 0. Box 3708, Beaumont, Texas 77704 Mr. John M. Johnson, Mr. Warren B. Lightfoot, Bradley, Arant, Rose & White, 1400 Park Place Tower, Birmingham, Alabama 35203 Mr. Michael R. Fruewald, Mr. Michael Rosiello, Ms. Anne C. McGown, Barnes & Thornburg, 1313 Merchants Bank Bldg. 11 South Meridian Street, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 Pursuant to the provisions of Rule 30(b) (6) of the Federal Rules of Civi1 Procedure, the Plaintiffs in thi s cause hereby give notice to the Defendant that the videotaped oral deposition of the representative(s) of Monsanto Company will be taken on the date and time and at the place hereinafter stated. Specifically, the Plaintiffs intend to take the videotaped oral deposition of the HARTOLDMON0037141 representative(s) designated by Defendant pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and- charged with the responsibility for maintaining custody of the documents listed below and such designated representative(s) shall testify as to matters known or reasonably available to the Defendant as well as the custody of the herein designated records and their maintenance by Defendant: I. Public Relations a. The person most knowledgeable about the management and/or direction of Monsanto's public relations department during the 1970's; and, b. The person most knowledgeable about any and all press releases involving Dr. Parvis Pour, the work of Dr. Renata Kimbrough, IBT and the environmental or human health effects of PCBs. II. Personnel Department a. The person most knowledgeable about the management and/or direction of Monsanto's personnel department during the 1970's; b. The person most knowledgeable about the raises, promotions and merit awards of Dr. Paul L. Wright; and, c. The person most knowledgeable about any and all documents prepared and executed in connection with the termination of the employment of Dr. Paul L. Wright. The deposition will be taken at the offices of Bruntrager, Bruntrager & Billings, 1015 Locust, Suite 1140, St. Louis, Missouri 63101 beginning at 9:00 a.m. on Monday, June 29, 1987, and shall continue until completed. -2- 00002 HARTOLDMON0037142 This oral deposition will be taken before a certified court reporter. The testimony given during this oral deposition will be used as evidence in this matter, together with the documents produced at this deposition. You are invited to attend and cross-examine. Pursuant to Rules 30(b)(5) and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, certain documents shall be produced by the designated representative(s) or custodian(s) of Monsanto Company (referred to herein as "Monsanto") at the commencement of the oral deposition or prior thereto by agreement of counsel. The originals and all drafts of the requested documents named in Exhibit "A" shall be produced. Unless otherwise specified herein, the documents to be produced include all documents in the possession of Monsanto from the date of the first production or manufacture of PCBs in any form by Monsanto to the present time. As used in this notice, the term "documents" means any printed, typewritten or handwritten matter, or reproduction thereof, of whatever character, in the possession, custody or control of a witness or his agents, representatives or employees, including without limitation, correspondence, contracts, memoranda, agreements, letters, brochures, reports, handwritten or typewritten notes, sound recordings or transcriptions thereof, computer print-outs, inter-company and intra-company communications, work papers, diaries, calendar pads, appointment books, ledgers, -3 00003 HARTOLDMON0037143 financial statements, checks, bank drafts and writings of whatever kind and character, whether originals or reproductions, and whether in draft or final form, including copies bearing different markings or notations. OF COUNSEL: David M. Lacey GILPIN, POHL & BENNETT 1300 Post Oak Blvd. Allied Bank Tower, 23rd Floor Houston, Texas 77056 (713) 623-8800 Joseph C. Blanks REAUD, MORGAN & QUINN 909 Laurel Avenue Beaumont, Texas 77701 (409) 838-9941 Thomas Henderson HENDERSON & GOLDBERG 1030 Fifth Avenue Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219 Benton Musslewhite LAW OFFICES OF BENTON MUSSLEWHITE 609 Fannin, Suite 517 Houston, Texas 77002 (713) 222-2288 David S. McCrea McCREA & McCREA 119 S. Walnut Street Bloomington, Indiana (812) 336-4840 47402 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS, CECIL SCOTT, ET AL. -4- HARTOLDMON0037144 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that oh the tk day of 1987, a duplicate original of the foregoinguPlaintiffs Notice of Intention to Take Oral Deposition was filed with the Clerk of the Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Beaumont Division. I also certify that a true and correct of this Notic49/was served upon counsel of record on the m day of UJuL' . 1987, by messenger delivery and/or by placing^same in the United States mai1, certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid and addressed as follows: Mr. Robert A. Hall Mr. Jonathan B. Shoebotham Woodard, Hall & Primm 4700 Texas Commerce Tower Houston, Texas 77002 Mr. Walter J. Crawford, Jr. Wells, Peyton, Beard, Greenberg, Hunt & Crawford P. O. Box 3708 Beaumont, Texas 77704 Mr. John M. Johnson Mr. Warren B. Lightfoot Bradley, Arant, Rose & White 1400 Park Place Tower Birmingham, Alabama 35203 Mr. Michael R. Fruewald Mr. Michael Rosiello Ms. Anne C. McGown Barnes & Thornburg 1313 Merchants Bank Bldg. 11 South Meridian Street Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 YUu. $ MICHAEL A". POHL MAP:jar/scottmon/054 -5- 00004 HARTOLDMON0037145 EXHIBIT "A" SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM 1. All documents identified in the letter from Mike Pohl to Jon Shoebotham dated June 19, 1987; 2. A document stating the total amounts spent by Monsanto with IBT during each year that Monsanto utilized the services of IBT and, to the extent a separate breakout exists, the amount spent by Monsanto with IBT in connection with PCB related studies for each year that such studies were conducted; 3. Any manual, pamphlet, corporate policy document or memorandum of Monsanto stating or referring to Monsanto's standards from 1965 to date for the conducting of Monsanto or Monsanto sponsored toxicological studies; 4. Any investigative or background file pertaining to or referring to Dr. Renata Kimbrough, Dr. Parvis Pour, Dr. Ward Richter, Dr. Donovan Gordon and/or Dr. Paul L. Wright; 5. All correspondence to or from Dr. William Rivelin and any reports prepared by him which pertain to PCBs; 6. Any document pertaining to meetings between Monsanto and any employee or agency of the United States government in the fall of 1975 regarding PCBs including trip reports, correspondence to or from IBT, memorandums, hand-written notes, photographs, expense reimbursement requests, travel itineraries, etc.; 7. Any document pertaining to any trip by a Monsanto employee to Europe with any employee of IBT; 8. All Electrical Power Research Institute reports, articles, papers, etc. pertaining or relating to PCBs or excerpts therefrom which were shown or otherwise made available to Monsanto's expert witnesses; and, 9. Any correspondence by or between Monsanto and Nalco regarding Monsanto sponsored IBT Aroclor studies, PCBs, the employment of Dr. Paul L. Wright or changes or alterations in connection with any IBT Aroclor report or the backdating of any documents by IBT for or in collaboration with Monsanto. MAP:jar/scottmon/087 00005 HARTOLDMON0037146 HARTOLDMON0037147 Gilpin. Pohl & Bennett ATTORNEYS AT LAW *mo 'Duo. two na uoo orr om oulsvo HOUSTON. TEXAS 77050 TIJ I3 MOO vm Mi-mo wo <wtb ` ' *ss * June 19, 1987 Mr. Jonathan Shoebotham Woodard, Hall & Primm 4700 Texas Commerce Tower Houston, Texas 77002 HAND DELIVERY RE: C. A. No. B-84-1103CA; Cecil Scott, et al v. Monsanto Company; In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas; Beaumont Division Dear Jon: In connection with the depositions of Dan Bishop and Robert Shirley, I would like for Monsanto to produce the following documents: 1. All documents to or from any agency of the United States government regarding Dr. Paul L. Wright (probation report, employment information, etc.),* 2. All documents submitted by Dr. Wright to any agency of the United States government in connection with Dr. Wright's successful effort to forestall unrealistic government regulations as they pertain to the discharge of PCBs (See SCM 058795) ; 3. All communications between Monsanto and Dow Chemical with regard to (a) the possible adverse health effects of Maleic Anhydride and/or (b) Dr. Paul Wright's efforts to forestall action by Dow Chemical in regard to Dow Chemical's product stewardship problem (See SCM 058799) ; 4. All documents pertaining to the termination of the employment of Dr. Paul L. Wright which have not heretofore been produced; 5. All those policies, standards or procedures of Monsanto with regard to the use or employment of independent toxicological testing laboratories applicable to the period 1965 through 1977; \ 0000 HARTOLDMONOQ37148 Mr. Jonathan Shoebothara June 19, 1987 Page 2 6. Any and all documents pertaining to primate studies conducted by or for Monsanto with regard to Monsanto's PCB products; 7. All internal documents authored by Monsanto with regard to PCB primate studies conducted by or for Monsanto; 8. Any and all documents regarding potential hamster studies by or for or regarding Monsanto1 s PCB products; 9. Any document pertaining to conversations between Robert Shirley and any other employee of Monsanto with regard to (a) the IBT criminal investigation, (b) the criminal indictment of Dr. Paul L. Wright, and/or (c) the United States v. Calandra criminal trial; 10. Any document whatsoever pertaining to conversations between Mr. Shirley and Dr. Rousch regarding the involvement of Dr. Rousch and/or employees of Monsanto's medical department in connection with (a) the criminal indictment of Dr. Paul L. Wright, (b) the trial of United States v. Calandra, and/or (c) the relationship between Monsanto and IBT; 11. All communications between Monsanto and the Eppley Institute or Dr. P. Pour pertaining to PCBs, IBT and/or Dr. Ranada Kimbrough; 12. Any document pertaining to Monsanto's retention of the Eppley Institute and/or Dr. P. Pour in regard to any PCB related matter; 13. All invoices from Dr. Pour and/or the Eppley Institute in connection with those services pertaining in any way to PCBs; 14. A document which would evidence the total amount paid to the Eppley Institute and/or Dr. P. Pour (including expenses) in connection with PCB related matters or alternatively, all cancelled checks; 15. All documents commenting or discussing or mentioning the report(s) of (a) Dr. P. Pour and/or (b) Dr. R. Kimbrough; 00007 HARTOLDMONOQ37149 Mr. Jonathan Shoebotham June 19, 1987 Page 3 16. All actual or proposed press releases regarding the PCB related report of Dr. Pour, other than SCM 058058, SCM 058337 and SCM 058338-340; 17. All documents pertaining to the 1976 PCB position paper prepared or authored by Dan R. Bishop; 18. Any and all documents gathered or produced by the Monsanto task force ("Monsanto IBT Task Force") (See e. g., SCM 068317) formed to undertake the validation or investigation of matters pertaining to Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories, Inc. ("IBT") and/or the studies performed by IBT for Monsanto; 19. All report (s) of the Monsanto IBT Task Force to the management and/or Board of Directors of Monsanto; 20. All documents created or compiled by the Monsanto IBT Task Force; 21. The entire contents of the files of the Monsanto IBT Task Force; 22. All records generated by, received by or under the direction or control of Monsanto with regard to the activities of Booz, Allen and Hamilton as such activities relate or pertain to IBT and/or Monsanto products tested by IBT; 23. Any document containing or referring to any assertion to the government, the news media, any customer or others that Monsanto (a) did not misrepresent to the government the hazards of PCBs, (b) did not conceal from the government or Monsanto's customers vital information with regard to the hazards of PCBs, (c) did not act unethically or illegally in its dealings with IBT, or (d) did not request or direct any changes in the test reports of IBT with regard to Monsanto products; 24. All documents recording expenses or fees paid by Monsanto in connection with United States v. Calandra, et al including expert witness fees, travel expenses, witness fees, out of pocket trial expenses, local counsel fees, joint defense costs, etc. other than those documents attached as exhibits to the deposition of Mr. Duesenberg; 00008 HARTOLDMON0037150 Mr. Jonathan Shoebotham June 19, 1987 Page 4 25. The complete files of F. C. Richfeld, R. T. Berendt, M. C. Throdahl, P. J. Arnold and Dan R. Bishop regarding United States v. Calandra; Dr. Paul Wright; the termination of Dr. Wright's employment by Monsanto; Dr. Wright's job performance at Monsanto; and/or, Monsanto1s dealings with IBT other than those documents attached as exhibits to the deposition of Mr. Duesenberg; and, 26. ' The complete contents of the file (s) of D. R. Bishop and his department as such file (s) pertain to (a) Monsanto's manufacturing and/or sale of PCBs, (b) the governmental ban on the manufacturing and/or use of PCBs, (c) incidents of human exposure to PCBs, (d) the health effects of exposure to PCBs, (e) United States v. Calandra, et al, (f) Dr. Paul L. Wright, (g) litigation against Monsanto which litigations pertain(ed) in any way to PCBs, (h) the work performed by Dr. Paruis Pour for Monsanto in connection ' with Monsanto's PCB products, and/or (i) the contaminants and by-products of PCBs including furans and dixoins. I would appreciate Monsanto producing all of these documents, whether heretofore produced or not, unless otherwise stated above, at Friday's depositions. If possible, I.would like for you to produce these documents sometime Wednesday because I plan to leave on Thursday afternoon to go to St. Louis. Very truly yours, MAP:jar/scottmon/022 cc: Mr. Thomas Henderson Mr. Joseph C. Blanks Mr. David M. Lacey Michael A. Pohl ooooo HARTOLDMON0037151 xx m HARTOLDMON0037152 'A e I I1 Monsanto O ' . .HIEVE'.IE\ r a//4 Nam* ol Nemmt Paul Unit o# Stiff L. Oipt W. ritzOhivttlU_M_I________________ Butina** Grou* Med. `if EW. PvutimTm& . RltlLL ' '' Salary Grad fcoxiceloov Manager 19 Annual Salary Department Location Creve Coeur Osteal Lett (nutate. Oete Lett EntptAfe Review Typo at A>|I . (Select the ii caUory tram me aapoMe tide ol tfite meet wnleft mass aopraprlately oucrieet me award end enter me category end code below.) , Award Category Category Code Nemi OTetcenecehtnne aiceflaievlemsntJe^ndcitos Urogn^iftclaJnteastloffMlgennu^ete betowt At a recent meeting in Creve Coeur, Glenn, Schweitzer, head of the Office of Toxic Substances of EPA, offered some interesting comments. He observed that Monsanto' s toxicologists were held in high regard at EPA. However, since it lacked an in-house toxicology facility, Monsanto as a company was not as highly regarded overall as duPont, Carbide, or Dow. Dr. Wright's professional and personal characteristics have contributed sig nificantly to Monsanto's image at EPA. He has shown unusual perseverance and dedication, frequently involving his own time, to review and interpret large volumes of data which he subsequently organized for presentation to EPA officials. Particularly noteworthywere-his effort* on*polyehTorifratid 'biphenyls (Aroclors) - and chlorinated isocyanurates (ACL products) . Inrthe former instance, his excellent-- analysis synthes is of"widely' scattered observations played a preadswnfe. role*'isrrforestalling EPA ^ promulga tion of unrealistic regulations to limit discharge* of polychlorinated biphenyls^ SPA's proposed regulations would have, precluded the use oe these materials ''l* Monsanto' s customers. With respect to chlorinated isocyanurates, Dr. ght has had several contacts with individual scientists at EPA to answer specific questions that they had raised or to inform them of the status of additional studies which, had been undertaken* ~ :: Overall, by virtue of the qualities of leadership which Dr. Wright has dis played, he has Bade an important contribution to Monsanto's image at EPA. That favorable image will become increasingly important to Monsanto as the areas of interaction vith EPA multiply. :- DEPOSITION1 I| EXHIBIT l! eeonmw^syi Qam -//|>j* , - -- 4SO tttrau Anusunt AB#yeyeB Bv> C m Bess hhljl A'awppaparrdyomvaemednotluienet 7&-/M SCM 058795 00010 HARTOLDMON0037153 HARTOLDMON0037154 PROS UO (3/M) UNITED STATES 0 hS r A l C T C0u*T pioiral mosation mriM REQUEST F0H EMPLOYMENT DATA AOORCSS OP probation oppicc 111 U.S. Court & Custom House 1114 Market Street St. Louis, M0 63101-2071 r* - Personnel Department Monsanto Company 800 North Lindbergh Blvd. St. Louis, MO 63141 L mmmmmmhmrnUMiMUtmAimmimi 3/7/84 Deer Sir: The person identified below is under investigation by tkis office. The infonsetion requested is needed to complete this investigation. Your cooperation will he greatly appreciated. Please return this tam jato three days in the enclosed aavj " Pat 1 NANS OP PthtVimiNU ISvSSTIOATtO On* Pint MMSt.) WRIGHT^ Paul Lea'.. aoorcss op pcrson imo invsstioateo 2001 North Geyer Rd. J St. Louis, MO 63131 ____ 308-34-3416 States employed ov., 197$V "to Eeb. 29, 1984, as manage?"oi special projects in Dept, of Medical & Bnvlronaental Health earning $35,000 per year. Please CWMASPlTOHVISf PCMAOM BVBA IM VOU* SgVcs mo wroaaATtow bsmbib verily. DATS LBPT tA^urr o* Aoe *.5lJZ&L<2- positionI*S HBUO / MCASOM POP TKfttMNATINO, yev.ovNT ,> WAS THIS PERSON'S IACARY ATTACMSO' TBS Cj" WOIA.0 YOU COHStOSR RCEMPUOYING THIS PCRSONt * AdtMAWKS fC--iti# tfHs pjuevina'e altgranUfflirwe, limiy, PePmsfr. wMteSIWr, aart dWww* ~M-- adwplf** >T r--r AUTHORIZATION TO RELEASE CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION form attached. V'tfry 7 SCM 058742 Oon* ty? 00011 HARTOLDMON0037155