Document 9180rRQbO6NEn23vRqVqMmmb6

FILE NAME: General Electric (GE) DATE: 2004 DOC#: GE092 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: Legal - Deposition of Marjorie Drucker Vol III SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ALL COUNTIES WITHIN NEW YORK CITY I n Re: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION C ontinuing V ideotaped D e p o sitio n Under O ral Exam ination o f MARJORIE A. DRUCKER VOLUME I I I PRIORITY-ONE COURT REPORTING SERVICES, 899 Manor Road S t a t e n I s l a n d , New York 10314 (718) 761-0527 INC. Page 473 Page 475 1 Transcript of the continuing videotaped 2 deposition o f MARJORIE A. DRUCKER, called for 3 Oral Examination in the above-captioned matter, 4 said deposition being taken pursuant to the 5 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by and before 6 Victoria Rohl, Court Reporter and Notary Public 7 in and for the State o f New York; taken at the 8 Westin La Paloma Hotel, 2800 East Sunrise, 9 Tucson, Arizona, on August 19,2004, commencing 10 at 10:00 a.m. 11 12 13 14 5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DAVID P. SCHAFFER, ESQ. MALABY, CARLISLE & BRADLEY, LLC 150 Broadway, Suite 600 New York, New York 10038 Appearing telephonically for the Defendant Westinghouse DAN LARSEN, ESQ. SNELL & WILMER, LLP 15 West South Temple, Suite 1200 Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 Appearing for the Defendants Ford and GM 8 ANNA DILONARDO, ESQ. L'ABBATE, BALKAN, COLAVITA & CONTINI, LLP 9 1050 Franklin Avenue Garden City, New York 11530 10 Appearing for the Defendants Peerless, BMCE, Okonite and Lockheed 11 DIANE MILLER, ESQ. 12 MCGUIRE WOODS 1345 Avenue o f the Americas, 7th Floor 1 3 New York, New York I0I05 Appearing telephonically for the Defendants 14 American Standard and ITT 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 474 Page 476 1 APPEARANCES: 2 LARAINE PACHECO, ESQ LAW OFFICE OF LARAINE PACHECO 3 Special Master 374S East Oisson Mountain Place 4 Tucson, Arizona 85718 5 JERRY KRISTAL, ESQ. WEITZ * LUXENBERG 6 210 Lake Drive East Cheny Hill, New Jersey 08002 7 Appearing for the Plaintiff 8 DAVID SPEZIALI, ESQ. SPEZIALI, GREENWALD A HAWKINS 9 1081 Window Road P.O .B ox 1086 1 0 Williamstown, New Jersey 08094 Appearing for the Defendant 11 General Electric 1 2 TIMOTHY KAPSHANDY, ESQ. SIDLEY. AUSTIN, BROWN A WOOD 13 Bank One Plaza 10 Sondi Deaibom Street 14 Chicago, Illinois 91356 Appearing For the Defendant 15 General Electric 1 6 MICHAEL TANENBAUM, ESQ. SEDGWICK, DETERT, MORAN A ARNOLD, LLP 17 Three Gateway, 12th Floor Newark, New Jersey 07102 18 Appearing for die Defendant General Electric 19 BILL SILVERMAN, ESQ. 20 GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 885 Third Avenue 21 New York, New York 10022 Appearing for the Defendant Robert A. Keasbey Company PHILLIP MARRONE, ESQ. LEADER A BERKON, LLP 24 630 Third Avenue, 17th Floor New York, New York 10017 2 5 Appearing for the Defendant 1 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND 2 AGREED by and between the attorneys 3 for the respective parties hereto 4 that filing, sealing and 5 certification o f the within 6 Examination Before Trial be waived; 7 that all objections, except as to 8 form, are reserved to the time of 9 trial. 10 IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND 11 AGREED that the transcript may be 12 signed before a Notary Public with 13 the same force and effect as if 14 signed before a Clerk or Judge o f the 15 Court. 16 IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND 17 AGREED that the within examination 18 may be utilized for all purposes as 19 provided by the CPLR. 20 IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND 21 AGREED that all rights provided to 2 2 all parties by the CPLR shall not be 2 3 deemed waived and the appropriate 2 4 sections o f the CPLR shall be 2 5 controlling with respect thereto.________ 2 (Paqes 473 t o 476) Page 477 Page 479 ; 1 IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND 2 AGREED by and between the attorneys 3 for the respective parties hereto 4 that a copy o f the Examination shall 5 be furnished, without charge, to the 6 attorney representing the witness 7 testifying herein. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 middle o f a third day o f deposition with a 2 deposition notice that may very well not be a 3 proper extension o f the prior two days o f 4 deposition notices we think is unfair and 5 inappropriate. 6 Also I want the record to be clear this 7 witness is being produced as General Electric's f 8 witness with respect to historic and safety 9 issues related to the company's use o f asbestos. \ 10 That's the parameters for which she's been | 11 prepared. f 12 Further, for purposes o f this day o f 13 deposition and the prior two days she's been | 14 prepared to address those issues with the cases 15 pending in New York City as noticed by the Weitz $ 16 firm. She has not been prepared, nor are any o f \ 17 the issues raised today intended to address ! 18 jurisdictions outside o f the cases for which i 19 they were noticed. \ 2 0 The special master is here today to 2 1 assist getting this thing done, again, according | 2 2 to the rules o f New York. And to the extent J 2 3 that anybody were to attempt to use this J 2 4 deposition or transcript for purposes other than | 2 5 which it would be noticed would be unfair. | Page 478 Page 480 l 1 MR. SPEZIALI: Yeah. Just for the 2 record, we are here today on the third day ~ 3 not on the video - we are here today on the 4 third day o f the deposition that was noticed 5 many months ago. General Electric ~ and the 6 video today, for the first time it's being 7 videotaped. 8 We have an objection to the videotape 9 going forward. The Court's ruled that it should 10 be permitted to go forward. We think that it's 11 unfair, frankly, to videotape a portion o f a 12 deposition when the other two days were done. 13 There were other logistics problems and 14 issues with this particular notice. I think 15 when one goes back and looks at the day-one 1 6 notice, they will find that the day-one notice 17 as to the cases that were involved is different 18 than the day-two notice as to what cases were 19 involved, which is different as to the day-three 2 0 notice which cases were involved. 21 So this witness has been prepared as 2 2 best as we could in terms o f addressing the 2 3 various issues that we understood were going to 2 4 come up at each event as a notice came out. 2 5 However, to pick up a video deposition in the 1 General Electric would object. It would be an \ 2 attempt to offer testimony or re-testimony in I 3 cases for which General Electric nor the witness 4 has been prepared to address. 5 We have an agreement according to New f 6 York law, particularly the law under the CMO in 7 Manhattan for which the cases were noticed that 3 8 we're going to preserve all objections except as l 9 to form. Again, that's a very specific rule | 1 0 under which these cases were noticed. | 11 If somebody were to attempt to read | 12 this transcript in jurisdictions outside o f | 13 which they were noticed, again, it would be \ 14 inherently unfair, General Electric would j 1 5 object, and we would have taken far different s 16 positions on evidential issues in terms o f ! 17 preparation o f the witness than we have for 18 purposes o f the cases as they were noticed. | 19 And I think that's it for now. I'm j 2 0 sure we'll have some more things. \ 21 MR. KRISTAL: I'm sure you will. Let 22 me try to address a couple o f those things. 2 3 Just --the record will, o f course, 2 4 speak for itself, but initially the first day o f 2 5 deposition which was June 3rd, 2004, Ms. Drucker 3 (Paqes 477 t o 480) Page 481 Page 483 1 had only been designated as an expert in certain 2 Weitz & Luxenberg cases. So that deposition 3 proceeded along those lines. 4 Subsequent to that, we had sent out a 5 deposition notice which is part o f the record, 6 it is Drucker Exhibit 9 from the last day or 7 half day o f deposition, where we had requested 8 GE, pursuant to the CMO and the CPLR, to 9 designate the person most knowledgeable 10 regarding General Electric's historical 11 knowledge o f the hazards o f exposure to 12 asbestos, and General Electric's historical use 13 o f asbestos. 14 That person was - Ms. Drucker was 15 designated as that person. So the first day o f 16 deposition was taken as an expert. The second 17 day was combined as an expert and a GE 18 spokesperson, and for most o f that deposition it 19 was in Ms. Drucker's capacity as the GE 2 0 spokesperson, so that would explain why there 21 were different notices that went out because the 2 2 second dep notice was for the in extremis cases 23 on the notice as opposed to the specific cases 2 4 which Ms. Drucker had been designated as an 2 5 expert and for the first day o f deposition. 1 although I understand that was modified at the 2 last deposition to exclude certain products for 3 which GE has other designees. Is that fair to 4 say? 5 MR. SPEZIALI; She's our --she's being 6 produced as a second portion with respect to 7 health and safety issues. She has -- 8 MR. KRISTAL; Just back up. I don't 9 understand what that is because we haven't asked 10 for that. We haven't asked for her to be 11 designated ~ 12 MR. SPEZIALI: Because your notice, 13 unfortunately as we made very, very clear at the 14 last deposition in innumerable places, is not 15 just one person. There's just no way to do 16 that. You have the names, Jerry, of a list of 17 individuals, some o f whom you've actually 18 already taken their deps for in this case -- 19 MR. KRISTAL: I understand that. 20 MR. SPEZIALI: --who have very clear 21 specific knowledge from an engineering sales 22 perspective regarding use o f product, asbestos. 2 3 MR. KRISTAL: 1 said that - 24 MR. SPEZIALI: She's not being 2 5 designated with respect to those products Page 482 Page 484 1 The issue o f the videotaping of 2 depositions arose, was addressed by the special 3 master, and there is a specific procedure in the 4 CMO. If GE had an objection to the special 5 master's ruling, they were entitled to get the 6 ruling in writing. They were entitled to take 7 an appeal to Justice Freedman. So any objection 8 as to the videotaping having been ruled on by 9 the special master before we got here today, 10 it's our position is waived. 11 Ms. Drucker is designated pursuant to 12 the deposition notice that is Drucker Exhibit 9. 13 What you said she's being designated as was 14 slightly different than what the notice is. So 15 I want to make it clear. I'm taking the 16 deposition, unless you tell me otherwise because 17 maybe we're here for no reason, Ms. Drucker has 18 been designated as the person most knowledgeable 19 regarding General Electric's historical 2 0 knowledge o f the hazards o f exposure to 21 asbestos; is that correct? 22 MR. SPEZIALI: So far. Keep going. 2 3 MR. KRISTAL: And she's also been 2 4 designated as the person most knowledgeable as 2 5 General Electric's historical use o f asbestos, 1 because there are other GE designees. 2 MR. KRISTAL: Exactly. 3 MR. SPEZIALI: For example, Mr. Hobson, 4 Mr. Banashevski. 5 MR. KRISTAL: Absolutely. And that's 6 with respect to the second component, General 7 Electric's historical use of asbestos. 8 MR. SPEZIALI: Right. 9 MR. KRISTAL: You threw in something 10 about health and safety. Nobody has asked to 11 take GE's designee on that topic. 12 MR. SPEZIALI: That's fine. 13 MR. KRISTAL: Okay. We're taking her 14 as the designee pursuant to Exhibit 9 with the 15 caveats that you said. Is that fair to say? 16 MR. SPEZIALI: Right, that's fine. 17 MR. KAPSHANDY: And we understand from 18 the ruling from the special master the last time 19 if she's not the designee for that subject, you 2 0 will so state in your --not to continue any 21 questioning. 2 2 MR. KRISTAL: That's why we have the 2 3 special master. 24 MR. KAPSHANDY: Good. 25 MR. KRISTAL: I think you'll find that 4 (Paqes 481 t o 484) Page 485 Page 487 r 1 ninety-nine percent o f my questions are going to 2 relate to the first subject. 3 MR. KAPSHANDY: Good. 4 MR. KRISTAL: Okay. Anybody else want 5 to put anything else on the record? I guess we 6 can go on the video and swear the witness. 7 For the record, the plaintiffs have a 8 stenographer and a videographer here. It's our 9 position that is the official record o f this 10 deposition. General Electric has seen fit to 11 have their own videographer here, and I guess we 1 2 can take whatever position that we want at such 1 3 time as somebody wants to use one or the other 14 video, but I think as the person noticing the 15 deposition, the plaintiffs are the ones who have 16 the official transcript and the official video. 17 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: My name is Mark 18 Gonsalves o f Certified Video Productions, 19 Incorporated. With me is Roy Plisko o f Green 20 Legal Video. Our court reporter is Vicki Rohl 21 representing Priority One Reporting Service, 22 Inc. We're at 3800 East Sunrise Drive, Tucson, 2 3 Arizona to take the deposition o f Maqorie 2 4 Drucker, continuation, volume three. 25 On behalfo f the plaintiffs in the 1 Q. How many employees does Drucker Health j 2 and Safety Management have? ! 3 A. Currently, one. 4 Q. That is you? 1 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Did it have more than one at some point | 7 in time? \ 8 A. Yes. | 9 Q. How long has it been since you've been l 10 the only person in the business? f 11 A. Oh, I'd say about the past three or so f 12 years. 13 Q. And one o f the things that you do in j 14 your capacity as Drucker Health and Safety | 15 Management is assist law firms; is that correct? ! 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. And you do that by providing litigation 18 support and testimony? 1 19 A. Yes. j 2 0 Q. You used to work for General Electric 2 1 for about seven months over thirty years ago? H 22 A. Yes. \ 2 3 Q. And you have not worked for General 2 4 Electric since February o f 1972? 2 5 A. Yes. 1 Page 486 Page 488 ; 1 Supreme Court o f the State o f New York all 2 counties within New York City, case o f in re: 3 New York City Asbestos Litigation. The date is 4 August 19th, and the time is ten twenty-six a.m. 5 The attorneys will now introduce themselves. 6 Plaintiffs first, please. 7 (Whereupon, counsel noted their 8 appearances.) 9 10 MARJORIE A. DRUCKER, Post Office Box 3515, 11 Manhattan Beach, California 90266, after being 12 duly called and sworn, testified as follows: 13 14 EXAMINATION BY MR. KRISTAL: 15 16 Q. Good morning, Ms. Drucker. How are 17 you? 18 A. Good morning, Mr. Kristal. Fine, how 19 are you? 20 Q. Good. Thank you. As you know, I 21 represent individuals that have brought this 22 lawsuit. Thank you for coming again today. You 2 3 have your own consulting business called Drucker 2 4 Health and Safety Management? 25 A. Yes, 1 Q. In the fall o f 2003, you were hired by 2 lawyers representing General Electric to assist 3 them by providing litigation support in asbestos 4 litigation; is that correct? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. And the scope o f the General Electric 7 project since September o f 2003 has been to look 8 at GE and non-GE documents to address GE's 9 knowledge o f the hazards o f asbestos; is that 10 correct? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. And we have in the room probably 13 fourteen, fifteen boxes' worth o f document. 14 Fair to say? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Is it correct that you have worked 17 longer on that litigation project than you 18 actually worked for GE in the early 1970s? 19 A. In terms o f duration in months, yes. 2 0 Q. You have read all the documents that 2 1 are in the fourteen or fifteen boxes spread 2 2 throughout this room? 2 3 A. Yes. 24 Q. Have you taken any notes at all on 2 5 those documents? 5 (Paqes 485 t o 488) Page 489 Page 491 ; 1 A. No. 2 Q. Were you aware that you would be asked 3 questions about those documents? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Did you ever write any sort o f summary 6 o f what either an individual document said or 7 what the universe o f documents say regarding 8 General Electric's knowledge o f the hazards o f 9 asbestos historically? 10 A. No. 11 Q. Did you ever write anything that said 12 this document demonstrates GE knew this about 13 asbestos, or that document indicates GE knew 14 that about asbestos? Anything like that? 15 A. No. 16 Q. Do you know the total number o f 17 documents you've actually reviewed? 18 A. In terms o f documents, there are 19 hundreds. 20 Q. Perhaps thousands even? 21 A. Perhaps thousands, many hundreds. 22 Q. Most o f the documents that you reviewed 23 pursuant to the project that you were hired to 24 do for GE were provided by the GE lawyers? 25 A. Yes, I'd say that's, that's true. 1 THE SPECIAL MASTER: Why do we have to ji 2 go offthe record? 3 MR. SPEZIALI: Well, I don't want her 4 to speak -- how does she know who's the 5 Plaintiffs? 6 THE SPECIAL MASTER: Then she can say I i 7 don't know. She can answer the question. ; 8 MR. SPEZIALI: I don't know that she 9 understood it. She can answer it, though, if -- 10 that's fine. 11 BY MR. KRISTAL: 12 Q. Let me digress for a second. You know, 13 this being the third day of deposition, if you 14 don't understand what I'm asking you, you should 15 tell me that? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Okay. My question is did you ask the 18 General Electric lawyers whether the documents 19 that were designated as Plaintiffdocuments that 20 you reviewed was the universe of Plaintiff 21 documents on the subject of General Electric's 22 historical knowledge of the hazards of asbestos. 23 A. When you're saying Plaintiff documents, 24 I don't know if you mean in a particular case or 25 the universe of all Plaintiff documents, I Page 490 Page 492 ; 1 Q. Did you ask the GE lawyers for any 1 imagine, would be millions. So maybe you could 2 particular documents? 2 whittle it down for me. 3 A. In certain instances, yes. 3 Q. Sure. I'm asking about the --that's a 4 Q. Did you ever ask the GE lawyers to 4 fair comment. Did you ask them whether the 5 provide you with documents that the Plaintiffs 5 Plaintiffs documents were the universe of 6 have put on their exhibit list with respect to 6 Plaintiff's documents that the Weitz & Luxenberg 7 GE's knowledge about the hazards o f asbestos 7 firm has designated as Plaintiff documents with 8 historically? 8 respect to General Electric's historical 9 MR. SPEZIALI: Objection. 9 knowledge of the hazards o f asbestos? 10 THE WITNESS: As part o f the documents 10 A. No. 11 there were some Plaintiff documents in there. 11 Q. How many times have you met with 12 MR. KRISTAL: Okay. Did you ask the GE 12 General Electric lawyers regarding this 13 lawyers where those documents came from? 13 particular project since September of 2003? 14 MR. SPEZIALI: Objection. 14 A. Since September o f2003, I've met maybe 15 THE WITNESS: It was my understanding 15 twice a month, and that would have been over the 16 that in certain instances they came from 16 course of the past eleven months. Sometimes 17 Plaintiff files. 17 less. It's just a range. Say twenty, 18 MR. KRISTAL: In the way that you 18 twenty-two times. 19 answered the question, is it correct that you 19 Q. And you also spoke to current GE 20 never asked the GE lawyers for all o f the 20 employees pursuant to this project? 21 Plaintiff exhibits that related to GE and their 21 A. Yes. 22 knowledge o f asbestos; the hazards o f asbestos 22 Q. And you spoke with former GE employees? 23 historically? 23 A. Yes. 24 MR. SPEZIALI: Objection. We've got to 24 Q. At a deposition in October of 2002 you 25 go o ff the record here. 1 mean -- 25 testified --and I can show you the testimony if 6 (P aq es 489 t o 492) Page 493 Page 495 ; 1 you don't recall -- that approximately fifty 1 discovery deposition, but this witness is not 2 percent o f your income at that time was from 2 within control of the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiff 3 litigation work. Do you recall that? 3 has no idea whether this witness is going to be 4 A. Yes. 4 produced for trial, and therefore, this could 5 Q. Has that percent with respect to 5 end up being trial testimony. Therefore, 6 litigation work gone up since September o f 2003 6 whatever he's asking is totally acceptable. \ 7 when you began this GE project? 7 MR. SPEZIALI: And I understand, but | 8 A. Yes. 8 because it's a discoveiy dep, we're not going to \ 9 Q. What percent o f your income since 9 sit here and do over again, I thought, the two f 10 September o f 2003 to the present, which is 10 days of questions we already had. 1 11 almost a year now, has been litigation work? 11 THE SPECIAL MASTER: No. And I said if 1 12 A. Oh, I'd estimate around eighty, 12 it was already asked, he should move on. It's a I 13 eighty-five percent litigation. 13 totally proper line of questioning. 14 Q. And your current charges are what? 14 MR SPEZIALI: All right. Well, T 15 A. I charge by the hour, I'm sure much the 15 mean, I've kept quiet on a whole series of J 16 same as you do. About two fifty an hour for 16 repetitive --let's see where we are. Let's see J 17 preparation, three hundred an hour for 17 where it goes. 1 18 testimony. 18 MR KRISTAL: What are the pages? a 19 Q. Okay. Move to strike the 19 MR. SPEZIALI: Let's go. | 20 non-responsive portion o f that answer. 20 MR KAPSHANDY: Nine, ten, eleven. You | 21 What is the total number o f hours that 21 asked her about rate, how many hours. 22 you have worked on this project since September 22 MR. KRISTAL: Can you give us a current 23 o f 2003? 23 hour? < 24 MR. SPEZIALI: Again, I'm going to have 24 THE WITNESS: Could I have the whole I 25 an objection that I need to address. 25 question, please? f Page 494 Page 496 ; 1 THE SPECIAL MASTER: What's the 1 MR KRISTAL: Well, I don't see 2 objection? 2 anything in the pages you've indicated in terms < 3 MR. SPEZIALI: This has been covered in 3 of how many hours total. \ 4 the first two days of this deposition. This is 4 THE SPECIAL MASTER: Why draft you just | 5 a discovery deposition of which my understanding 5 ask the question and we can move on. 6 was we werejust going to continue to find out 6 BY MR KRISTAL: 7 information. What I'm hearing here is not a 7 Q. Since September 2003, how many hours 8 discovery deposition, but Mr. Kristal creating a 8 have you worked on the GE project; obviously 9 record for trial. This was not noticed as a 9 approximately? 10 trial -- evidence. This is discovery dep. 10 A. Approximately eight hundred eighty 11 These are repetitive questions. 11 hours. 12 MR KRISTAL: Ifyou could show me 12 Q. And most of that has been at the two 13 where I asked that question, number one, about 13 hundred and fifty dollar rate; some ofthat 14 the total number o f hours, I will reconsider my 14 which would be the deposition has been at the 15 question. And number two, it's now been 15 three hundred dollar rate? 16 updated, so there obviously have been more horns 16 A. Yes. 17 so whatever I ask is old information, so I think 17 Q. As part of your project, you have 18 I'm entitled to ask the questions. 18 determined, have you not, that for many, many 19 MR. KAPSHANDY: I can give you the page 19 decades General Electric had a large medical 20 numbers if you'd like. 20 staffthroughout the country? 21 MR. KRISTAL: Get a ruling, and we can 21 A. Yes, for many decades GE had a large 22 keep moving. 22 health and safety and medical staff, yes. 23 THE SPECIAL MASTER: If it's already 23 Q. And the health and safety staffwould 24 been asked, I don't want to go over it again. 24 also include safety engineers? 25 In terms o f making a record, it may be a 25 A. Yes, historically, yes, they had safety 7 (P ag es 493 t o 496) Page 497 Page 499 1 engineers going way back. 1 literature. 2 Q. And it would also include industrial 2 Q. Okay. And you know, do you not -- 3 hygienists? 3 we'll get to the documents - that beginning in 4 A. That, too, yes, they had industrial 4 1930 a doctor by the name of Dr. Cowle, 5 hygienists going way back. 5 C-O-W-L-E, began collecting literature on 6 Q. And when you say back, you're talking 6 asbestos, correct? Do you recall that? 7 at least the 1920s and 1930s. 7 A. No. 8 A. Yes, I am, to the early 1920s. 8 Q. I'll show you the documents later. 9 Q. And do you understand that you have 9 Another source of information that was available 10 been designated by General Electric as the 10 to General Electric about the hazards of 11 person most knowledgeable regarding General 11 asbestos historically came from publications 12 Electric's historical knowledge o f the hazards 12 that was, was provided to General Electric by 13 o f asbestos? 13 organizations and associations that they were 14 A. Yes. That's a very large subject, and 14 members of. Is that fair to say? 15 with all modesty, I've put in a lot o f work and 15 A. Yes, I would say in general. 16 effort, but yes, I'd say I have a pretty good 16 Q. George Sanford, for example, was a GE 17 handle on that. 17 safety engineer? Do you recall that? 18 Q. The information that you've reviewed 18 A. I recall the name George Sanford. I 19 regarding General Electric's historical 19 don't recall his exact title. 20 knowledge o f the hazards o f asbestos came to 20 Q. Do you recall that he was a former 21 General Electric over the years from a variety 21 president o f an organization known as the 22 o f sources. Is that fair to say? 22 National Safety Council? 23 A. I'm sorry. I don't understand the 23 A. No. 24 question. 24 Q. Dr. Beverly Vosburgh, V-O-S-B-U-R-G-H, 25 Q. Sure. When you were reading documents 25 was involved in an organization called the Page 498 Page 500 1 trying to ascertain what did GE know 1 American Association of Industrial Physicians 2 historically about the hazards o f asbestos, that 2 and Surgeons. Do you recall that? 3 information came from a number of different 3 A. No. 4 sources. 4 Q. Well, Dr. Vosburgh was a physician and 5 A. There are a number o f different sources 5 medical director at GE from the 1920s to the 6 from which these documents came. 6 1950s; is that correct? 7 Q. For example, one source o f information 7 A. Yes. 8 about the hazards o f asbestos was General 8 Q. Is Dr. Vosburgh a man or a woman? Do 9 Electric's own medical and industrial hygiene 9 you know? 10 staff going back to the 1930s? 10 A. Yes, he's a man. 11 A. Yes. 11 Q. Okay. And do you recall that one of 12 Q. And one source o f information was from 12 the publications of the American Association of 13 outside consultants in the area o f industrial 13 Industrial Physicians and Surgeons from which GE 14 hygiene that General Electric hired going back 14 received information about the hazards of 15 to the 1930s? 15 asbestos was a publication called Industrial 16 A. Yes. 16 Medicine? 17 Q. Another source o f information came from 17 MR. SPEZIALI: Objection. 18 various publicly-available medical literature 18 THE WITNESS: Well, I don't know if 19 that GE had available to it. Is that fair to 19 they received that publication. 20 say? 2 0 BY MR. KRISTAL: 21 A. Yes. 21 Q. Well, are you familiar with the 22 Q. Such as the Merewether report in 2 2 publication Industrial Medicine? 23 England from 1930? 23 A. I've heard of it, yes. 24 A. Well, that wasn't found in GE files, 24 Q. And that is the official journal of the 25 but that's --was in the medical and scientific 25 American Association of Industrial Physicians 8 (Pages 497 t o 500) Page 501 Page 503 i 1 and Surgeons, is it not? 1 2 A. I don't know. 2 3 Q. The documents you reviewed as part o f 3 4 your GE project were from the 1920s, 1930s, 4 5 1940s, 1950s up through the 1990s. Is that fair 5 6 to say? 6 7 A. Yes. 7 8 Q. One thing that you did personally was 8 9 you visited the Harvard and Radcliff libraries 9 10 looking for documents relating to consulting 10 11 work that a Dr. Hamilton did with respect to 11 12 issues relating to industrial hygiene including 12 13 the hazards o f asbestos going back to the 1930s? 13 14 A. Yes, going back to the 1920s among many 14 15 other things she did. Broad-based surveys. 15 16 Q. Did you ever visit any public libraries 16 17 searching for information regarding 17 18 organizations that General Electric was a member 18 19 o f that provided GE with publications that 19 20 included information about the hazards of 20 21 asbestos? 21 22 MR. SPEZIALI: Objection. 22 23 THE WITNESS: Is the question public 23 24 libraries? 24 25 BY MR. KRISTAL: 25 Q. And those documents had to do, at least in part, with the hazards o f asbestos? MR. SPEZIALI: Objection. ? THE WITNESS: Well, it depends on the j document. Some there was no mention. Some there was some tangential thing. It would f depend on the document. | MR. KRISTAL: Okay. Let me mark as f Exhibit 29 - this is a document we were looking l at a portion o f last time. As I sit here, I J think I may have brought the wrong copy, but let J me hand you my copy. Ifs entitled Asbestos | Management Training Instructor's Guide. And | ifs from the GE Power Generation Sales and Services Organization, Environmental Health and f Safety. 1 MR. SPEZIALI: Let me, just for the i record, Jerry, if we looked at it last time, ^ then ifs got the prior exhibit number on it. f MR. KRISTAL: I think we only looked at a page or two from it. i MR. SPEZIALI: No, no. The last transcript we had an agreement that the entire ; document would be part o f the exhibit, so lefs l use the prior exhibit number. I don't want to f Page 502 Page 504 | 1 Q. Yes. 1 have this transcript --because there's three 2 A. I went to a library at GE, and I don't 2 transcripts here. It's very importantthat this * 3 know if that's open to the public, but yes, I 3 transcript is correct. | 4 did look there. 4 MR. KRISTAL: Last time it was marked t 5 Q. Other than going to a GE library, did 5 as 28. I have a copy o f Exhibit 28. There are 6 you go and make an independent review of 6 three or four pages. Tim or Mike or somebody 7 publications --historical publications that had 7 had asked me to bring the whole document. I 8 articles about the hazards o f asbestos that were 8 have now brought the whole document. The whole 9 put out by organizations that GE was a member 9 document was not previously marked. 10 of? 10 MR. KAPSHANDY: The court reporter 11 A. Well, I, I did some Internet searches 11 substituted in the complete copy. We sent it to 12 on some general subjects. Whether or not GE was 12 her and she sent it to you. 13 receiving those types o f publications 13 MR. KRISTAL: Do you have a copy of 28? 14 historically, I don't know. I did that 14 MR. KAPSHANDY: I think you have the 15 independently. 15 right document. 16 Q. You did review some documents from the 16 THE SPECIAL MASTER: Lefs call it 17 National Safety Council, correct? 17 Exhibit 28. 18 A. Yes. 18 MR. KAPSHANDY: 28. 19 Q. And you reviewed some documents from 19 MR. KRISTAL: Do you have a copy from 20 something called the Industrial Hygiene 20 last time ofthe 28 from the instructor's guide? 21 Foundation, correct? 21 MR. KAPSHANDY: No, we do not. We have 22 A. Yes. 22 it in the boxes if you want to tell us where it 23 Q. And you reviewed some documents from 23 is. We did not bring the exhibits as you marked 24 the group called the American Ceramic Society? 24 them. 25 A. Yes. 25 BY MR. KRISTAL: 9 (Pages 501 t o 504) Page 505 Page 507 : 1 Q. Exhibit 28, this was one o f the 1 naturally occurring, correct? 2 documents that was provided to you by the 2 A. Yes. 3 General Electric lawyers? 3 Q. Would you agree that that's something 4 A. I'll take it if you say that it's from 4 that General Electric knew in the 1930s, that 5 these files. It looks like something from 5 asbestos was naturally occurring? 6 there. 6 A. Yes, I think they would have known that 7 Q. Okay. Do you know what year this is 7 it was a naturally-occurring mineral. 8 from? It's undated, but there are references to 8 Q. The next item on the document it says, 9 the early 1990s. Do you have an idea when this 9 quote, three commercial grade forms: 10 document is from? 10 Chrysotile, white; amosite, brown; crocidolite, 11 A. May I look at it? 11 blue. Do you see that? 12 Q. O f course. 12 A. Ido. 13 MR. SPEZIALI: I just have an objection 13 Q. Would you agree that General Electric 14 to this document. I'll leave it at that, I 14 knew that there were three grades o f asbestos, 15 guess. Could I ask for clarification? If I 15 chrysotile, amosite and crocidolite, in the 16 object to a document, should I indicate for the 16 1930s? 17 record and just leave it at that and we'll deal 17 A. I don't know. 18 with it. 18 Q. Do you know when GE first knew that? 19 THE SPECIAL MASTER: Just say you 19 MR. SPEZIALI: Objection. 20 object. 20 THE WITNESS: I don't know when it was 21 MR. KRISTAL: 1 don't think you need to 21 known in general. I do know that back in the 22 make an objection. If you have an objection 22 1930s they would have known about chrysotile. 23 when somebody tries to use this portion o f the 23 BY MR. KRISTAL: 24 transcript, you make an objection. If it's a 24 Q. Okay. If you turn two more pages, the 25 form objection, make it. If it's not, it's 25 document has a section entitled, quote, Steam Page 506 Page 508 1 preserved. 1 and Gas Turbines and Generators, end quote. Do 2 MR. SPEZIALI: Well, I have an 2 you see that? 3 objection to the document, per se. So we'll 3 A. Yes. 4 leave it -- we just said -- 4 Q. And then it has a sentence that reads, 5 THE SPECIAL MASTER: Just say you 5 quote, ACMs are found on some components of 6 object to the document. 6 steam and gas turbines and generators depending 7 MR. SPEZIALI: Right. Okay. 7 on the year o f installation, end quote. Do you 8 THE WITNESS: And the question? 8 see that? 9 BY MR. KRISTAL: 9 A. Yes, I do. 10 Q. Can you tell by looking at some o f the 10 Q. And ACMs means asbestos-containing 11 references approximately when this document is 11 materials? 12 from or at least what year after it is from? 12 A. Yes. 13 A. Yeah. Based on the, the permissible 13 Q. And under that it has steam turbines 14 exposure limits, this document would be from 14 does it not? 15 after 1986. 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Okay. Since I've now found your copy, 16 Q. And it lists pipe connection gaskets, 17 let's trade. 17 correct? 18 A. Thank you. 18 A. Yes, it does. 19 Q. If you turn to the sixth page o f the 19 Q. Control valve gaskets? 20 document, sixth page in. 20 A. Yes. 21 A. Sixth page in starting -- 21 Q. Insulation on outer shell turbine? 22 Q. It's entitled Properties and Uses o f 22 A. Yes. 23 Asbestos. 23 Q. Insulation on associated piping for the 24 A. Yes. 24 turbine? 25 Q. And the document notes that asbestos is 25 A. Yes. 10 (P a g e s 505 t o 508) Page 509 Page 511 s- 1 Q. Insulation on and around boilers. Do 1 quote, it must be in a friable, parentheses, 2 you see that? 2 easy crumbled or pulverized, close parentheses, f 3 A. Yes. 3 state in order to be considered a health hazard. 1 4 Q. Would you degree that General Electric 4 In this state it exists either as visible 5 knew that asbestos-containing materials were 5 airborne or surface dusts mid as invisible 6 found on some components o f steam turbines back 6 airborne fibers. Do you see that? f 7 in the 1930s as we just went over? 7 A. Y es,Ido. f 8 MR. SPEZIALI: Objection. 8 Q. Did you read documents that would 9 THE WITNESS: They - if they knew that 9 inform you that General Electric knew that the j 10 some components could be in the 1930s? I think 1 0 fibers o f asbestos that could be inhaled that 11 that would depend. It would depend on what kind 1 1 could lead to a hazard in the 1930s were very, t 12 o f use, maybe which entity. 12 very small and some o f them invisible fibers? S 13 BY MR. KRISTAL: 13 MR. SPEZIALI: Objection, and move to | 14 Q. What does that mean, which entity? 14 strike the question in the event Plaintiffs do 15 A. Whether it was Navy or non-Navy. I 1 5 not provide evidence during trial that such | 16 think it would depend going all the way back to 1 6 documents exist. 1 17 the 1930s. 17 MR. KRISTAL: I'm going to do that 18 Q. So for some steam turbines GE would 18 today. 5 19 have known back in the '30s that 19 MR. SPEZIALI: Good. I'd like to see | 20 asbestos-containing materials were contained in 2 0 it. i 21 the portions that we read, and for others they 21 THE WITNESS: Could you repeat it, | 22 might not have? 2 2 please? 23 A. Well, for some types, yes, they would 23 BY MR. KRISTAL: 24 have known that it maybe contained. That's one 24 Q. Sure. Would you agree that General l 25 possibility. 2 5 Electric knew historically in the 1930s and '40s | Page 510 Page 512 | 1 Q. If you turn two more pages, it's 1 that the fibers o f asbestos that present the i 2 entitled, quote, Health Hazards o f Asbestos. Do 2 problem were ones that were very small, p 3 you see that? 3 including ones that were not visible to the i 4 A. Yes. 4 naked eye? 5 Q. In the first section it says, quote, 5 A. Not necessarily, no. | 6 when asbestos becomes a health hazard, colon. 6 Q. All right. The next section, quote, 7 Do you see that? 7 How Asbestos Affects the Lungs, end quote. 8 A. Yes. 8 Quote, asbestos, when in a friable state, is 3 9 Q. And it reads, asbestos becomes a health 9 composed o f microscopic fibers that are inhaled ? 10 hazard when it is in a form that can be inhaled, 10 and become affixed in the alveolar sacs, end f 11 end quote. Do you see that? 11 quote. Are you saying you don't recall reading \ 12 A. Y es,Ido. 12 documents --strike that. 3 13 Q. Do you agree General Electric knew that 13 Do you recall reading any documents 14 in file 1930s? 14 that indicated that the dangerous asbestos 15 A. Well, I think that they knew that if it 15 fibers that could cause asbestosis were I 1 6 were inhaled in certain high concentrations for 1 6 microscopic fibers? ; 17 long periods o f time. They would have known 17 A. I'd have to refresh myself with a 18 that in the 1930s. 18 particular document. As I sit here right now, I ; 19 Q. Okay. But GE knew the route o f 19 don't. t 2 0 potential hazard was by inhalation o f asbestos? 20 Q. The next page is a chart entitled, The l 21 A. Yes. They would have known that it was 21 Human Respiratory Tract, and it says, routes o f 2 2 like a dusty lung condition. It was a route -- 22 inhalation and injection o f asbestos fibers and | 23 Q. Okay. 23 the organs they may affect, correct? 24 A. --inhalation. 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. And then the next sentence reads, 25 Q. And it has the various organs o f the 11 (Pages 509 t o 512) Page 513 Page 515 1 respiratory system on it, correct? 1 Q. Third disease, mesothelioma? 2 A. Yes. 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. Could you hold that up to the camera, 4 please? And it has the organs beginning with 3 Q. And then there's a category, the fourth 4 one is other diseases, correct? 5 the main bronchus which is the air tube. 5 A. Yes. 6 Talking about the ones that are kind o f dark 6 Q. It indicates at the beginning o f that 7 gray. Do you see that; the main bronchus? 7 section, quote, asbestos is a slow-acting or 8 A. Yes, I see that. 8 chronic toxin, parentheses, versus fast-acting 9 Q. And that is the main tube that then 9 or acute, close parentheses, with a latency 10 leads to what's called the left and right 10 period o f five to thirty or more years, end 11 bronchus which are the tubes that lead one into 11 quote. Do you see that? 12 the left lung and one into the right lung? 12 A. Yes. 13 A. Yes, according to this diagram. 13 Q. And a toxin is another word for poison? 14 Q. Well, is that a relatively accurate 14 A. In some ways, yeah, you can use them 15 diagram o f the human respiratory system? 15 interchangeably, yes. 16 A. In a simplified -- 16 Q. And you are aware, are you not, that 17 MR. SPEZLALI: Objection. 17 General Electric historically defined chronic 18 THE WITNESS: In a simplified form, 18 poisoning as a type o f disease or illness 19 yes. 19 occurring as a result o f exposure to small 20 BY MR. KRISTAL: 20 amounts o f poisonous materials over a prolonged 21 Q. And then the smaller tubes in the lungs 21 period, months or years? 22 called the bronchial tubes or bronchi according 22 MR. SPEZIALI: Objection. 23 to the diagram, correct? 23 THE WITNESS: I'm not familiar with ; 24 A. Yes. 24 that quote. 25 Q. And at the very end are the little air 25 MR. KRISTAL: Okay. Let me mark Page 514 Page 516 ; 1 sacs called alveola; is that right? 1 Exhibit 29. 2 A. Yes. 2 (Whereupon, Exhibit 29, a document 3 Q. Under the lungs there's a line and 3 entitled, Industrial Hygiene, General Electric 4 there's an arrow indicating that that is the 4 on the front page, copywrited 1956 by the 5 diaphragm. Is that fair to say? 5 General Electric Company, was then received and 6 A. Yes. 6 marked for identification.) 7 Q. And then there are two layers o f pleura 7 BY MR. KRISTAL: 8 that are on the diagram; the parietal pleura 8 Q. This is a document where I'm handing 9 which is up against the chest wall. Do you see 9 you a portion, and we will substitute the entire 10 that? 10 document. It's some two or three inches thick. 11 A. Yes. 11 This is entitled, Industrial Hygiene, General 12 Q. And something called the visceral 12 Electric on the front page. And the second page 13 pleura which surrounds the lungs. Do you see 13 indicates it's copywrited 1956 by the General 14 that? 14 Electric Company; is that correct? 15 A. Y es,Ido. 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. The next page, there's a section in 16 Q. And this is one o f the documents that 17 Exhibit 28 that's entitled, quote, Diseases 17 was provided to you by the General Electric 18 Related to Asbestos, end quote. Do you see 18 lawyer --lawyers? 19 that? 19 A. Yes, it is. 20 A. Yes. 20 Q. And you read this document? 21 Q. And it lists asbestosis as the first 21 A. Yes. 22 disease, does it not? 22 Q. And the first page of text, it 23 A. It does. 23 indicates that the manual contains three 24 Q. Then lung cancer as the second disease? 24 sections, and one of them is a definitional 25 A. Yes. 25 section, correct? TiT- 12 ( P a g e s 513 t o 516) Page 517 Page 519 1 A. Yes. That's what it says, part one, 1 their definition, yes. | 2 definitions. 2 Q. And it says asbestos is a slow-acting 3 Q. Okay. If you could turn to the 3 or chronic toxin versus fast-acting or acute, | 4 definitions section. I think that's the one 4 right? 5 I've copied for you. And it has on the first 5 A. That's what it says, yes. 6 page -- it's entitled Definitions, right? 6 Q. And there's a definition o f acute \ 7 A. It is. 7 poisoning in the 1956 GE document, as well? 1 8 Q. And it says Industrial Hygiene up top, 8 MR. SPEZIALI: Objection. | 9 General Electric, Schenectady Relations and 9 MR. KRISTAL: Is there not? 10 Utilities Department, correct? 10 THE WITNESS: Well, based on what they 1 11 A. Yes. 11 knew at that point. We're talking about a span 12 Q. And it has a definition for, quote, 12 in over thirty years, differences o f what was 13 chronic poisoning, end quote. Do you see that? 13 known and what was not known in a variety of \ 14 A. Yes, it does. 14 different kinds of situations that could be 15 Q. And it says, quote, a type o f disease 15 toxins or poisons. This is just kind o f 16 or illness occurring as a result o f exposure to 16 comparing different types o f technology. 17 small amounts o f poisonous materials over a 17 MR, KRISTAL: Move to strike die 18 prolonged period, months or years, end quote. 18 non-responsive portion o f the question. 19 Do you see that? 19 My question is in Exhibit 29, in the | 20 A. That's what it says, yes. 20 industrial hygiene document from 1956, GE has a f 21 Q. Okay. Now, in Exhibit 28, the 21 definition for acute poisoning and it has a 1 22 instructor's guide, they contrasted a chronic 22 definition for chronic poisoning, correct? 1 23 poison with an acute poison, did they not? 23 MR. KAPSHANDY: Could you tell us the | 24 A. Maybe you could refer that back to me, 24 pages? | 25 please. 25 MR. KRISTAL: The definition page. f Page 518 Page 520 l 1 Q. Sure. It says, quote, asbestos is a 1 MR. SPEZIALI: I know. I'm on the 2 slow-acting or chronic toxin, parentheses, 2 definitions. I don't see it. 3 versus fast-acting or acute. 3 THE SPECIAL MASTER: What page number | 4 MR SPEZIALI: I object. I object to 4 o f the document? | 5 the question, and - 5 MR. KRISTAL: First page - ifs not, 6 THE SPECIAL MASTER: Object. And she 6 it's not numbered. The first page -- \ 7 can answer. 7 MR KAPSHANDY: What's the acute words \ 8 MR. SPEZIALI: It's misleading. 8 chronic you're referring to? 9 THE SPECIAL MASTER: There's no reason 9 MR. KRISTAL: On the same page. 10 to. You object to the question. She can answer 10 MR. KAPSHANDY: Okay. Thank you. 11 the best she can. 11 THE WITNESS: The question? 12 MR. SPEZIALI: But he misstated the 12 BY MR. KRISTAL: 13 document. 13 Q. The question is in Exhibit 29, the 1956 14 THE SPECIAL MASTER: Then that's your 14 General Electric Industrial Hygiene document 1 5 objection. 1 5 they have a definition o f both acute poisoning 16 MR. SPEZIALI: Okay. 16 and chronic poisoning, do they not? 17 BY MR. KRISTAL: 17 A. Sure, as ofwhat was known then. 18 Q. Look at Exhibit 28, the Asbestos 18 Q. Okay. And we've already read the 19 Management Training Instructor's Guide from 19 chronic poisoning definition, and under acute 20 sometime after 1986. Okay. Are you there? 20 poisoning, GE wrote quote, this refers to a 21 A. Yes. 21 condition produced usually by a single or a few 22 Q. All right. And in that document, 22 repeated exposures, end quote. Do you see that? 23 General Electric contrasts chronic toxins with 23 That's what it says, right? 24 acute toxins, right? 24 A. That's what it says, yes. 25 A. Yes, that's as of after 1986, that's 25 Q. Now, the distinction between chronic 13 (P a g e s 517 t o 520) Page 521 Page 523 i 1 and acute with respect to industrial poisons was 1 Exhibit 30 is a section o f a textbook \ 2 a distinction that General Electric knew about 2 that is entitled Industrial Poisons in the 3 in 1925. Would you agree with that? 3 United States that was written by Dr. Alice 4 MR. SPEZIALI: Objection. 4 Hamilton in 1925, correct? 5 THE WITNESS: Well, in terms o f as part 5 THE WITNESS: Yes. Is this the whole 6 of being involved in dose, yes, they understood 6 document? 7 that it was a duration and a concentration form 7 MR. KRISTAL: It's not the whole 8 being dose that could be possibly harmful. 8 textbook because it's thick, and we can 9 That's what they knew. 9 substitute the entire text at some point after 10 M R KRISTAL: Move to strike the answer 10 the questioning. 11 as non-responsive. 11 THE SPECIAL MASTER: The entire - the ; 12 My question is from your review o f the 12 exhibit number shall be the entire textbook. 13 documents provided to you by the General 13 MR. KAPSHANDY: And we have it here. 14 Electric lawyers, or any other document you've 14 THE WITNESS: Could I see it, please? 15 reviewed as part o f the project, you were aware 15 MR. KRISTAL: Sure, if somebody can 16 that General Electric knew that with respect to 16 find it. 17 industrial poisons, there was a distinction 17 MR. KAPSHANDY: Is this something that 18 between chronic poisons and acute poisons as 18 we produced to you? 19 early as 1925? 19 MR. KRISTAL: Yes. This was something 20 MR. SPEZIALI: Objection. Asked and 20 that was produced to us as part of the documents 21 answered in the last answer. 21 that Ms. Drucker had reviewed supplied by you or 22 THE WITNESS: No. 22 that she had obtained at the records site. 23 MR. KRISTAL: We'll mark as Exhibit 23 MR. SPEZIALI: We have it, and it's -- 24 3 0 - 24 MR. KRISTAL: Okay. 25 THE SPECIAL MASTER: At this point the 25 MR. SPEZIALI: Give us a moment. We'll Page 522 Page 524 1 people who are on the telephone have asked that 1 bring it out. 2 the phone be moved closer, so I think this would 2 MR. KRISTAL: While we're trying to get 3 be a good opportunity to do it. 3 the entire text, I want to mark the next 4 MR. KRISTAL: Sure. 4 document and ask you a next question because it 5 MR. KAPSHANDY: Counsel, while we have 5 relates and I think it will move things along. 6 a slight break in the action here, I note that 6 I'mmarking as Exhibit 31 a document that is 7 your Exhibit 28 is thinner than the version that 7 dated July 31st, 1925. 8 was produced to you. I'm sure you have the 8 (Whereupon, Exhibit 31, a document from 9 complete copy here. Ours is much thicker than 9 GE to the MacMillan Company medical department, 10 the one you just marked. 10 65th Avenue, New York, New York ordering twelve : 11 MR KRISTAL: 28 or 29? 11 copies of Industrial Poisons in the United 12 MR. KAPSHANDY: 28. Could I just 12 States by Alice Hamilton and asking MacMillan to 13 verify that you have all the pages because ours 13 send a copy to a number of different General 14 looks a lot thicker than yours? 14 Electric doctors including the president of 15 MR KRISTAL: Verify whatever you want 15 General Electric, was then received and marked 16 to verify. 16 for identification.) 17 MR. KAPSHANDY: I'mjust asking if 17 BY MR. KRISTAL: 18 you're done with it. 18 Q. And this is a document from GE to the 19 MR. KRISTAL: I'm done with it. You 19 MacMillan Company medical department, 65th 20 can compare and contrast. 20 Avenue, New York, New York ordering twelve 21 (Whereupon, Exhibit 30, a section of a 21 copies of Industrial Poisons in the United 22 textbook that is entitled Industrial Poisons in 22 States by Alice Hamilton and asking MacMillan to 23 the United States that was written by Dr. Alice 23 send a copy to a number of different General 24 Hamilton in 1925, was then received and marked 24 Electric doctors including the president of 25 for identification.) 25 General Electric, correct? 14 ( P a g e s 521 t o 524) Page 525 Page 527 j 1 A. Is this also the entire document? 1 Q. Sure. Why don't I do this. Let me ask 1 2 Q. Yes. 2 the question. If, in order to answer the ? 3 A. Thank you. 3 question, you need to look at the whole text - \ 4 Q. Do you see that? 4 THE SPECIAL MASTER: I think that will \ 5 A. I'mjust looking it over. 5 be good. 1 6 Q. Sure. 6 MR. SPEZIALI: Okay. 1 7 A. Okay. And the question? 7 BY MR. KRISTAL: j 8 Q. This is a letter asking the publisher 8 Q. If you look at the very first chapter, j 9 o f the 1925 textbook by Dr. Hamilton, Industrial 9 that's entitled, quote, Introduction to $ 10 Poisons in the United States, to send twelve 10 Industrial Toxicology, end quote. Do you see f 11 copies to different people within the General 11 that? j 12 Electric Corporation in 1925, right? 12 A. Y es,Ido. 13 A. Yes. 13 Q. What's the very first topic in 1925 in | 14 Q. And one o f the people to whom the 14 Dr. Hamilton's textbook? What does it say? 15 textbook was to be sent was Mr. Swope who was 15 A. Well, I don't know if it's the first % 16 the president o f General Electric at that time, 16 topic. What she thinks-- ! 17 correct? 17 Q. Stop then, if you don't know if it's 18 A. Yes. 18 the first topic. This is chapter one, right? :l 19 Q. And you know from your review o f the 19 A. That's--yes. | 20 documents that Dr. Alice Hamilton was acting as 20 Q. That's what you're looking at, correct? 21 a consultant to General Electric at that time 21 A. Yes. | 22 with respect to industrial hygiene and dust 22 Q. And it says Introduction to Industrial l 23 diseases, correct? 23 Toxicology, correct? i 24 A. With respect to --yes, with respect to 24 A. Yes. 1 25 industrial hygiene occupational medicine, yes. 25 Q. And then in italics, there is a heading | Page 526 P age 528 j. 1 Q. Including dust diseases? 1 for the paragraph, that's the very first | 2 A. Sure, including a broad variety o f 2 paragraph o f the book in terms o f the actual f 3 things. 3 text, not including the preface o f the book; is \ 4 Q. So is it fair to say from your review 4 that correct? 5 5 o f these documents that General Electric, in 5 A. Yes, there's paragraph one, yes. 6 1925, had a number o f copies o f Exhibit 30, the 6 Q. Okay. And what is the heading o f 7 text itself? 7 paragraph one? 8 A. Well, I don't know if they were 8 A. It says in italics, Chronic, Not Acute. 9 actually sent. If we assume that they were 9 Q. And that first paragraph, mid if you 10 actually sent, then yes, I would say that they 10 want to take the time to read it obviously, 11 did have copies o f it. 11 draws the distinction back in 1925 between 12 Q. And if they weren't actually sent, 12 industrial poisons that are chronic versus 13 General Electric certainly had that text 13 industrial poisons that are acute; is that 14 available to them. Is that fair to say? 14 correct? 15 A. Well, I'd say it was in the open press 15 A. I'mjust going to look it over. 16 and as part o f the medical and scientific 16 Q. Sure, o f course. 17 literature, yes. 17 A. Thank you. Okay. I read that, thank 18 Q. Written by a person who worked as an 18 you. 19 industrial hygiene consultant to them for over 19 Q. Is that what that paragraph is 20 ten years? 20 discussing, the general concept o f industrial 21 A. Yes, written by Dr. Alice Hamilton. 21 hygiene with respect to industrial poisons and 22 Q. My next question relates to the text, 22 the distinction between chronic versus acute 23 so if you need to have the whole thing we can 23 poisons? 24 wait until we get it 24 A. Sure, based on what was known then. 25 A. Thank you. 25 O. And based on what was known then, 15 ( P a g e s 525 t o 528) Page 529 Page 531 1 there's a distinction between industrial poisons 1 the -- 2 that will affect you fairly quickly and 2 MR. SPEZIALI: Yeah, 1 didn't know. 3 industrial poisons that take repeated small 3 THE SPECIAL MASTER: Off the record, 4 doses over time to create a danger. Is that 4 please. 5 fair to say? 5 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Offthe record. The 6 A. It's really --it depends on what we're 6 time is eleven fifteen a.m. 7 talking about; what type o f material. 7 (Discussion off the record.) 8 Q. Talking about a general principle o f 8 MR. KRISTAL: I've checked the indexes 9 industrial hygiene. And as a general principle 9 that were withthe materials and I misspoke. 10 o f industrial hygiene, it was known in 1925 that 10 The letter -- 11 there's a distinction between industrial poisons 11 THE SPECIAL MASTER: Let's just put 12 that have their effect fairly quickly on someone 12 that--fine. 13 versus industrial poisons that take time and 13 MR. KRISTAL: The letter which is the 14 repeated exposures before somebody feels their 14 July 31st, 1925 document which indicates that GE 15 effects. 15 purchased twelve copies of the 1925 book was 16 MR. SPEZIALI: Objection and move to 16 produced by GE. The text itself was not. 17 strike to the extent that this cannot be proven 17 MR. SPEZIALI: Absolutely. A nd- 18 during the course o f trial by counsel. 18 MR. KRISTAL: At least I have no record 19 THE WITNESS: Sure. Again, we have to 19 of that as we sit here. 2 0 put ourselves back at that point in time based 20 MR. SPEZIALI: Just for formality 21 on what they knew then. So it would depend on 21 purposes only, we would move to strike to the 2 2 the specific material that they're talking 2 2 extent there's any suggestion we produced it, 23 about. Obviously knowledge has progressed 2 3 and to the extent there's any suggestion that 2 4 vastly in eighty years. 2 4 that book has any references to asbestos at all. 25 MR. KRISTAL: The industrial hygiene 25 MR. KRISTAL: That's what Page 530 Page 532 1 principle o f chronic versus acute toxins hasn't 2 changed as a general principle, has it? 3 MR. SPEZIALI: Objection. 4 THE WITNESS: Well, if we're just 5 talking about the strict definitions - 6 MR. KRISTAL: Right. 7 THE WITNESS:Aside from what they may 8 be related to any particular substance or 9 material, sure, chronic and acute, yes, they 10 would have known then. 11 MR. SPEZIALI: Jeny, are you done with 12 that exhibit? 13 MR. KRISTAL: Yeah. 14 MR. SPEZIALI: I have a statement. You 15 had indicated that that exhibit was produced by 16 General Electric to you -- 17 MR. KRISTAL: Uh-huh. 18 MR. SPEZIALI: --as part of the 19 information related to asbestos. We're having a 2 0 hard time with our notes figuring that that came 21 from General Electric. Again, for one reason 2 2 was I don't think that book addresses asbestos 23 at all. Are you sure that came from us? And if 2 4 so, do you have an exhibit number? 25 MR. KRISTAL: Well, can we go off 1 cross-examination is all about, and I wasn't 2 asking about asbestos. 1 was asking about an 3 industrial hygiene principle. 4 MR. SPEZIALI: Okay. Again, to finish, 5 we would move to strike it to the extent there's 6 an implication it was produced by GE because it 7 had a reference to asbestos. 8 MR. KAPSHANDY: That's what you said, 9 Counsel. 10 MR. SPEZIALI: That's what you said. 11 MR. KAPSHANDY: Since we don't have a 12 copy and you're supplementing the record - 13 MR. KRISTAL: A couple of things -- 14 MR. KAPSHANDY: You will be 15 substituting the complete copy. 16 MR. KRISTAL: Yes, I've already said 17 that I would be substituting the complete copy. 18 Just so it's clear, I was not saying that the 19 text said anything about asbestos. I was asking 20 in the line of questioning that had to do with 21 the principle of chronic versus acute. 22 THE SPECIAL MASTER: I think it's 2 3 really clear. Let's go back on the record. 24 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're on the record 2 5 The time is eleven twenty-two a.m. ___________ 16 ( P a a e s 529 t o 532! Page 533 Page 535 1 BY MR. KRISTAL: 1 trial that silicosis was not in the book. 1 2 Q. Ms. Drucker, Exhibit 31, which is the 2 MR. KRISTAL: It's easy to do. We're 3 July 31st, 1925 document which was provided to 3 going to have the whole book and it's not in the 4 you by the General Electric lawyers, references 4 book. 5 the textbook Industrial Poisons in the United 5 MR. SPEZIALI: It's easy to do but not 6 States and we've reached an agreement not on the 6 today which is perhaps -- | 7 video. Let me put that on now that it does not 7 THE SPECIAL MASTER: Let's move on. 1 8 appear General Electric provided you with that 8 (Whereupon, Exhibit 32, a letter dated 9 text which is Exhibit 30. My question to you is 9 May 9th, 1929, was then received and marked for i 1 0 did you request to see that text after reading 1 0 identification.) 1 1 1 the letter which is Exhibit 31? 11 BY MR. KRISTAL: 12 A. I, I don't recall having done so, 12 Q. Exhibit 32 is a letter dated May 9th, 13 although I do recall having seen some portions 13 1929. There is no author, but from the address I 14 o f Dr. Alice Hamilton's first few editions on 14 Hull, H-U-L, House, Chicago, would you agree 15 Industrial Poisons in the United States because 15 that this probably came from Alice Hamilton? 16 I was interested, pardon me, in seeing if she 16 A. Yes, I would. 17 mentioned asbestos, and she did not in about the 17 Q. And the letter is addressed to ; 18 first three editions o f her book. So I do 18 Mr. Eveleth, E-V-E-L-E-T-H, who's the | 19 recall having seen that somewhere and somewhat 19 vice-president of General Electric, correct? 2 0 recently. Where, I don't recall. 20 A. Yes. Can I ask, is this the 21 Q. I move to strike the non-responsive 2 1 document --a document from these files, and may \ 2 2 portion o f that answer. To the extent it is not 2 2 I see it, please? 23 stricken, the disease asbestosis was not named 23 Q. I don't know if somebody is looking for 24 until 1927; is that correct? 24 it. Do you have a copy o f that? 1 25 A. Right. 25 MR. KAPSHANDY: Yes. It's coming. f Page 534 Page 536 \ 1 Q. So a textbook in 1925 would not mention 2 the word asbestosis, correct? 3 A. Right. 4 Q. Okay. And the fact that an industrial 5 poison is not mentioned in Dr. Hamilton's 1925 6 book, does not mean that it was not an 7 industrial poison at the time, correct? 8 A. Right. There may have been other 9 things, right, as I said, it was in the first 1 0 several editions o f her book that it wasn't. 11 Q. Silica was not mentioned in the 1925 1 2 book or in a few o f the other books, right? 13 MR. SPEZIALI: Objection, without a 14 copy o f the book. 15 BY MR. KRISTAL: 16 Q. Do you know what one way or the other? 17 A. I would have to check the book. 18 Q. And it's not mentioned, it doesn't mean 1 9 that industrial hygienists and doctors didn't 2 0 know about the disease silicosis, correct? 21 A. You're kind o f asking me to guess if it 2 2 wasn't mentioned. I don't know. I'd have to 23 look in the book. 24 MR. SPEZIALI: Objection, and move to 2 5 strike counsel's answer unless he can prove at 1 MR. SPEZIALI: Is that the complete 2 document? f 3 MR. KRISTAL: It's three pages and it 4 ends with sincerely yours. 5 THE SPECIAL MASTER: Jerry, do you ? 6 think it would be possible to pull out your next 7 couple o f exhibits so this young man can find 8 them so we have fewer lags? 9 MR. SPEZIALI: Is this what you're 1 0 asking for? 11 THE WITNESS: I just want to make sure. 1 2 Yeah, thanks. Thank you, yes. 13 BY MR. KRISTAL: 14 Q. Yes, it's complete? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. And this is one o f the reports that 17 Dr. Hamilton sent to GE pursuant to her 18 inspections o f a number o f General Electric 19 plants which was part o f her responsibilities as 2 0 a consultant for GE, correct? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. And this document doesn't mention 23 asbestos, but it discusses, in part, silica 24 dust, does it not? 25 A. I would have to take time to read it. 17 ( P a g e s 533 t o 536) Page 537 Page 539 j 1 Would you like me to do that? 1 MR. KRISTAL: Well, certainly General 2 Q. In order to answer the question if you 2 Electric knew that isolating a dusty process 3 have to read any document, you should just take 3 such as created by sandblasting which generated 4 the time and read it. 4 silica dust was one way to control the hazard. 5 A. Thank you. Thank you. And the 5 Is that fair to say? 6 question? 6 MR. SPEZIALI: Same objection. 7 Q. The question is this does not reference 7 THE WITNESS: In, in a given substance. 8 asbestos, this particular document, but it talks 8 Of course, as we know, here we have --it's a 9 about silica dust and the dangers from silica 9 good example. We have an expert going around 10 dust, correct? 10 looking at certain things, making observations. 11 A. Yes, in some places it does. 11 You know, we could talk in the abstract. It 12 Q. And GE knew certainly as o f 1929 that 12 always depends on the particular situation. But 13 silica dust was a mineral dust. Fair to say? 13 yes, screening things off may be a good control 14 A. Yes. 14 in certain circumstances. It would depend. 15 Q. And GE knew that asbestos dust was a 15 MR. KRISTAL: And on page two, 16 mineral dust as o f 1929? 16 Dr. Hamilton is discussing sandblasting at the 17 A. Yes. 17 Schenectady General Electric plant, is she not? 18 Q. And General Electric knew o f the 18 THE WITNESS: Yes, under Schenectady it 19 disease silicosis which is a disease o f the 19 says, yes, here the sandblasting of refrigerator 20 lungs caused by inhaling silica dust in 1929, 20 cabinets is the most pressing problem. 21 correct? 21 MR. KRISTAL: In general she's 22 A. Yes. 22 discussingn about how to control the hazard from 23 Q. And they had heard o f the disease 23 the silica dust in Schenectady? 24 asbestosis by 1929 being a disease from inhaling 24 MR. SPEZIALI: Objection. 25 asbestos dust? 25 THE WITNESS: Let me read that again Page 538 Page 540 : 1 A. It's not clear to me whether they would 1 specifically with regard to this. Okay. Thank 2 have been aware in 1929. 2 you. I read that. If you could kindly repeat 3 Q. 1930 maybe? 3 the question. 4 A. That's not clear to me. 4 BY MR. KRISTAL: 5 Q. Okay. Both diseases, silicosis and 5 Q. The paragraph is discussing the hazard 6 asbestosis, fall under the umbrella 6 from silica dust at a particular GE plant, 7 pneumoconiosis? 7 right, in general? 8 A. They are, yes. 8 A. Yes, in general, and she mentions other 9 Q. And the general industrial hygiene 9 things, o f course. 10 principles in terms o f how to control the hazard 10 Q. And what she -- one o f the 11 from silica dust also applied to how you would 11 recommendations she has is that with respect to 12 control the hazards from asbestos dust? 12 the sandblasters themselves, that they wear what 13 MR. SPEZIALI: Objection. 13 she calls positive pressure respirators, 14 MR. KRISTAL: The general industrial 14 correct? 15 hygiene principles. 15 A. Yes, she's mentioning positive pressure 16 MR. SPEZIALI: Objection and move to 16 respirators. 17 strike to the extent counsel can't prove that 17 Q. For the sandblasters? 18 at trial with respect to the 1930s and '20s. 18 A. Yes. 19 THE WITNESS: Well, the answer really 19 Q. And what she's saying in the next 20 is yes and no. There are really two different 2 0 sentence after she mentions that is that there 21 types o f dusts, so from an industrial hygiene 21 would still be a hazard to other people working 22 standpoint, I know that there are vastly 22 in that department even if the sandblasters 23 different means o f capture control and other 23 themselves were wearing respirators? 24 related - and certainly a lot o f this 24 MR. SPEZIALI: Objection. 25 information changed over long periods o f time. 25 THE WITNESS: I don't see those 18 ( P a g e s 537 t o 540) Page 541 Page 543 s 1 particular words. Maybe you could tell me what 1 that you're mentioning. | 2 you're looking at. 2 Q. Did you request the treatise itself 3 BY MR. KRISTAL: 3 from the GE lawyers or anybody else? | 4 Q. Sure. It says, quote, I have had a 4 A. Yes. \ 5 sample o f an excellent form o f positive pressure 5 Q. Nobody could provide it to you? 6 respirator sent to Schenectady and believe that 6 A. I was told that they couldn't find it. 7 this should be used by the sandblasters, but it 7 Q. Okay. This also mentions down below I 8 would not be possible to insist on all the men 8 Dr. Vosburgh who was also --we mentioned 9 in that department wearing such a respirator. 9 earlier, but he was operating for GE out o f the 10 They w ill have to be protected by controlling 10 Schenectady area, as well. Is that fair to say? 11 the dust, end quote. Do you see that? 11 A. Yes. : 12 A. Y es,Ido. 12 Q. The next document is a letter dated 13 Q. So your understanding o f those 13 September 8th, 1932. I'm going to mark that as I 14 sentences is the sandblasters themselves might 14 exhibit --I think it's 33; is that correct? \ 15 be protected if they're wearing respirators, but 15 Yes. 16 other people in the department would have to 16 (Whereupon, Exhibit 33, a letter from j 17 have some other protection from the hazard from 17 B. Delack to Mr. Swope, the president o f General \ 18 the silica dust? 18 Electric, was then received and marked for 5 19 A. Well, your second part is not clear; 19 identification.) 5 20 the part that "but other people in the 20 BY MR. KRISTAL: 21 department". She's mentioning other people. I 21 Q. This is a letter from a B. Delack, 22 don't know where they are, but in general, she's 22 D-E-L-A-C-K, to Mr. Swope, the president o f \ 23 saying, right, positive pressure respirators for 23 General Electric. | 24 some, dust control for others. 24 A. Thank you. 25 Q. Right. So that the other men in the 25 Q. You're welcome. f Page 542 Page 544 j 1 department who are not die sandblasters have to 1 2 be protected from the dust in some way? 2 3 A. Okay. 3 4 Q. Well, isn't that what she's saying? 4 5 A. Well, we don't know --Tiljust say in 5 6 general that that appears, yes. 6 7 Q. The document also mentions in the next 7 8 paragraph Dr. Cowle, who we had mentioned, and 8 9 she's an internal doctor who was a consultant on 9 10 dust specifically, correct? 10 11 A. Let me just read that. Yes, she 11 12 mentions a Dr. Cowle. 12 13 Q. And she mentions that Dr. Cowle is 13 14 going to become the consultant on dusts 14 15 internally at GE for the Schenectady plant, and 15 16 she's hoping that Dr. Cowle will do likewise for 16 17 other plants. Fair to say? 17 18 A. In general, yes. 18 19 MR. SPEZIALI: Objection. 19 20 BY MR. KRISTAL: 20 21 Q. And do you recall Dr. Cowle, a couple 21 22 o f years later in 1934, had written a treatise 22 23 regarding asbestos hazards at the Schenectady 23 24 plant? 24 25 A. I had seen references to such an item 25 A. Okay. Again, if I could have this from 1 the files to make sure it's complete. MR. SPEZIALI: Did you say September 8th. MR. KRISTAL: Right, September 8th, 1932. MR KAPSHANDY: We have September 9. MR KRISTAL: Well, it's stamped up top September 9. I don't know if that's when it was received, but the date on the letter, it says Schenectady, September 8th. MR. KAPSHANDY: We have September 9 and 12. MR. KRISTAL: Okay. MR. SPEZIALI: Why don't we just take a lo o k - THE SPECIAL MASTER: Is it a different document that you have? MR. KAPSHANDY: We believe so. THE SPECIAL MASTER: Is there any reason to believe that document is not correct? MR. SPEZIALI: No. Ijust wanted to see it before she's asked questions. THE SPECIAL MASTER: If the document is complete, there's no reason for them to give you 19 (Pages 541 t o 544) Page 545 Page 547 ; 1 another copy. I'm only concerned about 1 latency as a word. 2 incomplete documents coming from the files. 2 Q. That's what they're talking about, 3 Completed documents, Jerry's documents are 3 though, isn't it? Well, let me read the 4 sufficient. 4 paragraph and then we'll discuss it. Quote, 5 MR. KAPSHANDY: Can you tell us where 5 there are quite a number o f our people who have 6 this comes from? I don't believe we've seen it. 6 an incipient silicosis condition, but it is 7 MR. KRISTAL: It's our GE exhibit list. 7 surprising that in some activities it requires 8 GE Exhibit 408. 8 from eight to ten years before this begins to 9 Have you ever seen this before? 9 show much o f any development. In fact, we had 10 THE WITNESS: I'm looking it over. 10 one case where the exposure had been twenty > 11 MR. KRISTAL: Sure, and that would be 11 years or more and the patient was apparently in 12 my first question. In fact, it is my first 12 fairly good health although the lungs were 13 question. 13 practically destroyed. This employee died 14 MR. SPEZIALI: When you say GE exhibit, 14 suddenly, end quote. Do you see that? 15 you mean Plaintiffs GE exhibit. 15 A. Yes. 16 MR. KRISTAL: Plaintiffs General 16 MR. SPEZIALI: I - 17 Electric exhibit list, I have it as 408. 17 MR. KRISTAL: Without mentioning - 18 MR. KAPSHANDY: But it's not something 18 MR. SPEZIALI: For the record, I'm 19 that we provided to you? 19 objecting to this document on relevance grounds. 20 MR. KRISTAL: I don't know if it was 20 If counsel ties it in later - 21 provided - 1don't know. 21 THE SPECIAL MASTER: Just state your 22 MR. KAPSHANDY: We've not seen it 22 objection. Objection. 23 before. That's why I'm asking. 23 MR. KRISTAL: That one would be 24 MR. KRISTAL: Well, you have seen it 24 reserved anyway. 25 before because you have the exhibit list. You 25 THE SPECIAL MASTER: It would be Page 546 Page 54 8 1 may not have provided it to Ms. Drucker. 2 MR. KAPSHANDY: Can you tell us where 3 this comes from? 4 MR. KRISTAL: Probably Dr. Castleman. 5 I would have to research that question, but I 6 would believe it's Dr. Castleman. 7 MR. SPEZIALI: This is not an asbestos 8 document. 9 MR. KRISTAL: Are you ready? 10 THE WITNESS: Yes. 11 BY MR. KRISTAL: 12 Q. Have you ever seen this document 13 before? 14 A. I don't recall it. 15 Q. This mentions that Dr. Cowle has been 16 employed on health hazards before. We've 17 already discussed that, right? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. And it also mentions in the third 20 paragraph down the latency period for the 21 development o f silicosis, does it not? 22 A. I'm checking. 23 Q. Sure. 24 A. Well, she doesn't, or he. I don't know 25 who the author is. They don't mention the word 1 preserved, exactly. 2 BY MR. KRISTAL: 3 Q. Although they don't mention the word 4 latency, that is the concept of latency, 5 correct? 6 A. I don't know from this paragraph. 1 7 don't know what they mean by incipient, so I 8 don't know what they're really discussing here. 9 They use the word incipient silicosis condition. 10 I don't recall having heard that phrase before. 11 Q. Okay. But what they're saying is that 12 for some people it took eight to ten years before 13 they began to show much o f any development, and 14 for other people it took longer, correct? 15 A. It's not clear because I don't know 16 what they're, what they're --when they say 17 incipient silicosis, I don't know what they're 18 talking about. 19 Q. Well, what would you do to find out? 20 A. I don't know. I'd have to give it some 21 thought. 22 Q. Okay. The next document, Exhibit 34, 23 is dated October 10th and 11th, 1929, 24 Schenectady, New York. 25 (Whereupon, Exhibit 34, a document 20 ( P a g e s 545 t o 548) Page 549 Page 551 ; 1 dated October 10th and 11th, 1929, Schenectady, 1 trial. ! 2 New York, was then received and marked for 2 THE WITNESS: Ifs hard to answer. I'd 3 identification.) 3 say maybe, maybe not. It would depend on the f 4 MR. KAPSHANDY: What's the date, Jerry? 4 particular point in time, it would depend on the 5 MR. KRISTAL: October 10 and 11,1929. 5 particular substance, a particular workplace or 6 It's General Electric Exhibit 396 on the 6 location. Those kinds o f things vary. 7 Plaintiffs exhibit list. 7 BY MR. KRISTAL: 1 8 THE WITNESS: Is this the entire 8 Q. Okay. On the sixth page --this is a I 9 document? 9 Dr. Hamilton document, right? It's a report 10 BY MR. KRISTAL: 10 from Dr. Hamilton? Is that your understanding? f 11 Q. I believe so. You can check. 11 A. Yes. It appears to be, yes. 12 A. Thank you. Thank you. That's yours. 12 Q. And again, die sixth page talks about 13 Q. This is the complete document? 13 the risks from silica sand? | 14 A. Yes. 14 A. I'm missing page six actually. I have 15 Q. And it was one that was provided to you 15 a page- - oh, wait. Pardon me. Okay. I have 1 6 by the General Electric lawyers? 1 6 page six. Thank you. \ 17 A. Yes. 17 Q. It discussing, in part, the risk from i 18 Q. Now, this doesn't mention asbestos or 18 silica sand, correct? \ 19 asbestosis either, does it? 19 A. Yeah. It starts out by --yes, she's \ 20 A. Not that --I was just quickly glancing 2 0 discussing silica sand, right. i 2 1 over it I didn't see that mentioned, no. 21 Q. And again, different date, different 22 Q. Did you ask the lawyers why they were 22 context they're talking about people being 23 providing you documents that didn't relate or 23 exposed and at risk from silica sand even though 1 24 didn't specifically say asbestos or asbestosis? 24 they're not doing the sandblasting itself in the f 25 A. Sure. 2 5 first paragraph? Does she not mention that? f Page 550 Page 552 j 1 Q. What did they say? 1 A. Let me just check that. In this | 2 A. Well, I, I had asked for all documents 2 particular situation, yes. 3 related to health and safety aspects of, o f 3 (Whereupon, Exhibit 35, a document 4 asbestos, and as part o f Dr. Hamilton's surveys, 4 dated May 1929 entitled Pittsfield, another 5 I was provided the entire body o f her 5 Alice Hamilton report to General Electric, was 6 information. So this was part o f her survey 6 then received and marked for identification.) 7 and -- 7 MR. KRISTAL: And Exhibit 35 is dated 8 Q. And you would agree that knowledge o f 8 May 29th. I'm sony --strike that. 9 general industrial hygiene principles apply to a 9 May 1929. It's entitled Pittsfield, 10 number o f different industrial poisons, whether 10 and again is that another Alice Hamilton report 1 1 it's silica or asbestos or something else? 11 to General Electric? 12 A. Well, as I said before, from an 12 MR. SPEZIALI: What date is that? 13 industrial hygiene standpoint, different types 13 THE WITNESS: It says May 1929. If I 14 o f particulates have different properties, and 14 couldjust check that. 15 so various measures really depend on the 15 THE SPECIAL MASTER: To speed this up, 1 6 particular substance and conditions in which 16 Jerry, if you can mark the document, say it's a 17 they're found. 17 ten-page document and then the lawyers can check 18 Q. I'm not asking you whether different 18 to see if they have all the pages. 19 substances have different properties. What I'm 19 MR. KRISTAL: That's a great - because 20 asking you about is there are, in the field o f 20 I have -- suggestion because I have a four-page 2 1 industrial hygiene, some general principles that 21 document. 2 2 would apply, for example, to all dust diseases, 22 THE WITNESS: If I couldjust make sure 23 are there not? 23 if it's in these. 24 MR. SPEZIALI: Objection, and move to 24 MR. KRISTAL: It may not have been 25 strike if counsel can't tie it up at the time o f 25 provided to you by the General Electric lawyers. 21 (P a g e s 549 t o 552) Page 553 Page 555 ' 1 MR. KAPSHANDY: That would be helpful 1 a copy o f a copy, many generations, and some of > 2 also -- 2 the letters are missing parts. 3 MR. KRISTAL: I don't know if they were 3 Q. Well, that was true o f a lot o f the 4 or weren't. This is on Plaintiff's exhibit 4 documents that you reviewed, correct? 5 list. It's a General Electric - 5 A. Some o f them. This is a little more 6 MR. KAPSHANDY: We didn't bring those. 6 sketchy in terms o f completeness. 7 It would help us not to waste time looking 7 Q. What word can't you read in the 8 through our files. 8 paragraph I'm talking about? 9 MR. SPEZIALI: We don't have it. 9 MR. SPEZIALI: You're on the first 10 MR. KRISTAL: It's GE Exhibit 386.4. 10 page. 11 Part of the problem, Tim, with your suggestion 11 THE WITNESS: I'mjust looking at the 12 is I don't know - all of these have GE exhibit 12 first page. I'm trying to make them all out. 13 numbers, Plaintiffexhibit numbers, and it does 13 BY MR. KRISTAL: 14 not tell me by what I have in front o f me 14 Q. Yeah. What word can't you read on the 15 whether it was provided by you folks or whether 15 first page? 16 it was provided by other sources. 16 A. I couldn't read it - - 1don't know if I 17 MR. KAPSHANDY: You're more likely to 17 can tell you which word it was, but there are -- 18 know. 18 just some o f the letters appear to be -- 19 THE SPECIAL MASTER: Aren't these Bates 19 Q. Okay. 20 stamped? 20 A. So I'm, I'm trying to do my best to 21 MR. KRISTAL: No. 21 read it. 22 MR. SPEZIALI: The other problem is, I 22 MR. KAPSHANDY: Counsel, while she's 23 mean, documents are being produced every day. 23 reading, can we look at a copy because this 24 We got a new exhibit batch in -- 24 isn't something that we apparently had in our 25 MR. KRISTAL: On both sides. 25 files? Page 554 Page 556 1 THE SPECIAL MASTER: Let's just move 2 on. It's a four-page document. 3 MR. KRISTAL: Four-page document. Does 4 this appear to be another report pursuant to an 5 industrial hygiene inspection of a GE plant? 6 THE WITNESS: I'm looking it over. I 7 don't know. 8 MR. SPEZIALI: Could I see that 9 document for a moment? 10 MR. KRISTAL: Third page o f the 11 document, there's a reference to lead dust and 12 the hazard from lead dust, is there not? It's 13 the second complete paragraph. 14 MR. SPEZIALI: Objection. 15 THE WITNESS: Okay. Again, I don't 16 know who wrote this or where it's from. 17 MR. SPEZIALI: That's all right. Take 18 your time and read it if you want to. 19 THE WITNESS: Okay. I think I'll look 20 it over, and you want me to look specifically at 21 what? 22 BY MR. KRISTAL: 23 Q. Third page, second full paragraph. 24 A. As you can tell, I'm reading this now, 25 some of it is difficult to read. It looks like 1 MR. KRISTAL: Well, just so the record 2 is clear, this was provided to GE as a 3 Plaintiffs exhibit. It's Exhibit Number 386.4. 4 MR. KAPSHANDY: As I said, we didn't 5 bring your exhibit list. We brought things - 6 MR. KRJSTAL: I'mjust responding to 7 the fact that you said you didn't have it in 8 your files. 9 MR. KAPSHANDY: Here today. Right here 10 today. We'd appreciate it if we could look at 11 it while she's looking at it. Thank you. 12 MR. SPEZIALI: While she's looking at 13 it, I object to the use of this document. 14 THE SPECIAL MASTER: Just state you 15 object to the document. That will be enough. 16 MR. SPEZIALI: I understand. 17 THE WITNESS: Okay. Thank you. 18 BY MR. KRISTAL: 19 Q. The paragraph I was referring to on the 20 third page is, in part, referencing a hazard 21 from lead dust, correct? 22 A. Ijust want to make sure you and I are 23 looking at the same page, so maybe you could tell me 24 what paragraph it starts in. Building 25 forty-one? That one? 22 ( P a g e s 553 t o 556) Page 557 Page 559 p 1 Q. Exactly. 1 MR. SPEZIALI: Two-page document. 2 A. Okay. Yes, it's right they're talking 2 MR. KRISTAL: Three pages. I gave you J 3 about litharge, which is lead. 3 one page. i 4 Q. And the last sentence - strike that. 4 MR. SPEZIALI: Did I give you the right | 5 They're talking about dust in the room 5 one? i 6 in general, correct? When the pouring -- quote, 6 THE WITNESS: Yes, you did. I 7 when the pouring goes on, pills escape and roll 7 MR. KRISTAL: We'll substitute the more I 8 over the floor and are trampled to dust and are 8 complete document. 9 tracked over a wide area unquote. Do you see 9 BY MR. KRISTAL: 10 that? 10 Q. And this, to your understanding, is a p 11 A. Y es,Ido. 11 visit by Alice Hamilton to the plant in Chicago 12 Q. And then the last sentence o f that 12 and a report to General Electric, correct? | 13 paragraph reads, quote, both men and women are 13 A. Yes. | 14 working near this department, and although their 14 Q. And the last paragraph refers to a 1 15 employment has nothing to do with lead, they're 15 hazard from the silica dust, not from the silica 16 exposed to lead dust because o f these faulty 16 sand directly itself as in sandblasting, but 17 arrangements, end quote. Do you see that? 17 from manipulation o f a finished product that was i 18 A. I see that sentence, yes. 18 made from sand; is that correct? f 19 Q. So that's an example o f knowledge that 19 A. I'm going to read that. f 20 people who are not working necessarily with the 20 Q. Sure. 5 21 lead pills themselves can be exposed to the dust 21 A. Okay. \ 22 even though they're not working in that 22 MR. KRISTAL: Can I see the second two \ 23 department? 23 pages? Maybe there's something good. | 24 A. Well, I think what she's saying here is 24 THE WITNESS: I don't see what you're I 25 that in this particular instance because o f how 25 referring to. 1 Page 558 Page 560 J 1 it's configured that that is one possibility. 1 BY MR. KRISTAL: 2 Q. Next document, Exhibit 36, is dated 2 Q. Sure. The last paragraph says, quote, i 3 April 20th, 1931. Up top it says General 3 the silica dust occurs in die removal of dried I 4 Electric X-ray Corporation, Chicago. 4 putty by rubbing with sand paper and in sand 5 (Whereupon, Exhibit 36, a document 5 papering fired goods to prepare that for a 6 dated April 20th, 1931, General Electric X-ray 6 second coating, unquote. Do you see that? 7 Corporation, Chicago, was then received and 7 A. Yes. 8 marked for identification.) 8 Q. So they're not talking about 9 MR. KRISTAL: Do you have that? 9 sandblasting now with sand being shot of a, a 10 THE WITNESS: Yes. And is this from 10 sandblast equipment as we saw in some of the 11 these GE documents may I ask? 11 earlier ones, correct? This is not sandblasting 12 MR. KRISTAL: It is a GE document. I 12 they're talking about? 13 don't know if this was provided to you by the 13 A. Right 14 General Electric lawyers or not. This is 14 Q. They're talking about sand papering a 15 Plaintiffs General Electric Number 398. Do you 15 finished good that was made from sand. 16 have that? 16 A. rm just going to reread that. What 17 THE WITNESS: Dated April 20th, 1931. 17 they're saying is that they're talking about 18 I'djust like to see if it was provided to me 18 dust in the removal o f a dried putty. We don't know 19 previously. 19 what the putty is, but -- 20 MR. SPEZIALI: Yes. 20 Q. And in sand papering fired goods to 21 THE WITNESS: Yes. Oh? It's in there? 21 prepare them for a second coating, correct? 22 MR. SPEZIALI: Make sure they're the 22 A. Yes. 23 same. 23 Q. And this is recognizing that there is a 24 MR. KRISTAL: I don't have a second 24 hazard from the sanding of a fired good made 25 page. 25 from sand with respect to silica dust. Is that 23 (Pages 557 t o 560) Page 561 Page 563 ; 1 fair to say? 1 Q. Okay. 2 A. Well, it's fair to say that in this 3 particular instance. Again, she's here, the 2 A. The previous document I'm referring to 3 in which it said that she was a consultant. 4 professional is looking at it, and he or she is 4 Q. This document notes that Dr. Cowle is 5 saying in that instance that's a hazard. 5 collecting literature about asbestos. Fair to 6 Q. So GE was aware in 1931 that with 6 say? 7 respect to silicosis, the hazard was not just 7 A. Yes. 8 from sand from sandblasting. Is that fair to 8 Q. And then it mentions, the next 9 say? 9 sentence, Merewether, the Englishman, has 10 MR. SPEZIALI: Objection. 10 devised a standard o f size and number o f 11 THE WITNESS: Well, I'd say what they 11 particles. Do you see that? 12 were aware o f was that in this particular 12 A. Yes. 13 instance that would be the case. 13 Q. And you were provided by --the 14 MR. KRISTAL: Okay. Next document we 14 Merewether report, were you not, by the General 15 had mentioned very briefly earlier, at least we 15 Electric lawyers? 16 mentioned the subject, and I'm marking it as 16 A. Yes, if we're talking about the 17 Exhibit 37. It's dated March 25th, 1930, 17 Merewether 1930 report, yes. 18 Schenectady, and it is another report by 18 Q. Yes. I'm going to mark that now as 19 Dr. Hamilton. 19 Exhibit 38. 20 (Whereupon, Exhibit 37, a document 20 (Whereupon, Exhibit 38, the Merewether 21 dated March 25th, 1930, Schenectady, another 21 1930 report, was then received and marked for 22 report by Dr. Hamilton, was then received and 22 identification.) 23 marked for identification.) 23 BY MR. KRISTAL: 24 MR. KRISTAL: Is that your 24 Q. I'll hand it to you. I have some 25 understanding o f this? It's Plaintiffs GE 25 questions about that document. Page 562 Page 564 . 1 Exhibit 397. I believe you folks provided that 1 2 to Ms. Drucker. 2 3 THE WITNESS: It's March 25th. I'd 3 4 just like to check make sure it's in the 4 5 documents that I looked at. Thank you. Okay. 5 6 Yes. Thank you. 6 7 BY MR. KRISTAL: 7 8 Q. And this is the document that 8 9 Dr. Hamilton wrote. Is that your understanding? 9 10 A. Yes. 10 11 Q. And in it she notes that Dr. Cowle, the 11 12 other consultant on dust for GE who was a GE 12 13 employee, is collecting literature at that point 13 14 in time about asbestos, correct? 14 15 A. Well, from our previous document it 15 16 appeared that Dr. Cowle was a consultant, not an 16 17 employee o f GE. But it says here that Dr. Cowle 17 18 is collecting literature about asbestos. 18 19 Q. Well, from the other document, 19 20 Dr. Cowle was consulting internally at 20 21 Schenectady, correct? Strike that question. 21 22 Do you know one way or the other 22 23 whether Dr. Cowle was a GE employee or not? 23 24 A. Other than what we saw in the document, 24 25 no. 25 A. Okay. Thank you. Q. You have read this document before, I take it. A. Yes. Q. And General --strike that. Dr. Merewether was a medical inspector of factories in Britain, correct? A. Yes. Q. And there was a factory inspection department in England that would go around --it was a governmental agency that would inspect various factories. Fair to say? A. I don't know. Q. Well, you know that General Electric was aware that in England there was a factory inspection department from your review of documents, do you not? MR. SPEZIALI: Objection. THE WITNESS: No. MR. KRISTAL: Let me mark as Exhibit 39 and then we'll come back to the Merewether report. (Whereupon, Exhibit 39, a document dated June 7th 1926, and it is from Alice Hamilton to Gerard Swope, president of General 24 ( P a g e s 561 t o 564) Page 565 1 Electric Company, was then received and marked 1 2 for identification.) 2 3 BY MR. KRISTAL: 3 4 Q. This document is dated June 7th, 1926, 4 5 and it is from Alice Hamilton to Gerard Swope, 5 6 president o f General Electric Company. It's 6 7 Plaintiffs GE Exhibit 384. 7 8 A. If we could just check, that's June 8 9 7th, 1926. June 7th, 1926. Thank you. 9 10 Q. And in the first paragraph Dr. Hamilton 10 11 is telling Mr. Swope about some problems that 11 12 she found in the Pittsfield GE plant, correct? 12 13 A. I'm just looking at that. She 13 14 discusses, yes, something with reference to 14 15 Pittsfield. 15 16 Q. Well, she's saying that the conditions 16 17 were pretty bad when she went there. And the 17 18 point o f me showing you this document is that 18 1 9 she tells Dr. Swope that she had told somebody 19 2 0 else that it would be, quote, closed at short 2 0 21 notice in England by the factoiy inspection 21 2 2 department, end quote. 22 23 A. I'mjust reading that. Right, she's 2 3 2 4 discussing a particular situation, and she does 24 2 5 say, right, I told Mr. Insol (sic) it would be 25 Page 566 1 closed at short notice in England by the factory 1 2 inspection department. That's what she says. 2 3 Q. Right. So certainly as o f 1926 3 4 Mr. Swope, die president o f GE, was aware that 4 5 in England there was a factory inspection 5 6 department? 6 7 A. Well -- 7 8 Q. Assuming he reads the letters that are 8 9 sent to him, right? 9 10 A. Yes. I think that in this particular 10 11 instance this would have been --this type o f 11 12 potential exposure would have been brought to 12 13 his attention. 13 14 Q. I'm not talking about the type o f 14 15 potential exposure in Pittsfield that's being 15 16 discussed here. What led me to show you this 16 17 document is the fact that I was asking you 17 18 whether General Electric was aware that there 18 19 was a factory inspection department in England. 19 2 0 And you would agree having read that that as o f 20 21 1926 General Electric was aware o f that? 21 22 A. Yes, from this, and again, focused on 22 2 3 this particular situation, yes. 2 3 24 Q. What do you mean focused on this 2 4 2 5 particular situation? I'm talking about the 25 Page 567 ? general knowledge of GE about this factory \ inspection department. A. Okay. Q. And she's making a comment that the 5 Pittsfield plant would have been closed if it was in England by the factory inspection * department, is she not? | A. Right, but she's referencing this particular situation. She's not talking about \ the universe o f what there may be. So the | reader could conceivably take this to mean that in a particular instance where this type of | hazard was present, that there may be a factoiy S inspection department for that. I don't know if 1 somebody could walk away from this thinking that | there's a factoiy inspection department that ; would do everything. I don't take that from ? here. Q. Okay. The Merewether report was written by Dr. Merewether who was the medical inspector o f factories, correct? \ A. Yes. And if I may have a copy, I will | have that in front o f me as we're going along. | Thank you. Q. And the co-author was Mr. Price who was Page 568 f an engineering inspector of factories, correct? i A. That's what it says. And may I ask, is this the foil document from the GE files? Q. It's the entire Merewether report. I'm assuming the General Electric lawyers gave you the whole report. Do you have any reason to doubt that they did? MR. KAPSHANDY: Actually, ours appears to be thicker. That's why we're asking. THE SPECIAL MASTER: Are the pages numbered? MR. SPEZIALI: It's the cover letter. THE WITNESS: Thirty-four. MR. SPEZIALI: I can tell you at first blush the cover letter for the Merewether report is missing from the copy handed to the witness. MR. KRISTAL: Now, this document is the report o f Merewether and Price to Parliament, correct? THE WITNESS: I don't know. MR. SPEZIALI: Again, Jerry, I can show her. It's missing from what you gave her. THE SPECIAL MASTER: Is that the only thing missing, the cover letter? MR. SPEZIALI: Yeah. 25 (Pages 565 t o 568) Page 569 Page 571 ; 1 MR. KRISTAL: If you look at page three 1 deciding whether the supervention of this 2 at the bottom - 2 disease in an asbestos worker was an exceptional 3 MR. SPEZIALI: She can answer the 3 occurrence or evidence o f a grave health risk in 4 question. 4 the industry was apparent and the investigation 5 MR. KRISTAL: She can answer the 5 referred to was undertaken, correct? 6 question. 6 A. Right. And this, o f course, is like 7 THE SPECIAL MASTER: If she knows. 7 the asbestos industry, right. 8 MR. SPEZIALI: Go ahead. I was trying 8 Q. We're going to get there. They also 9 to be helpful. 9 talk about asbestos dust from finished goods 10 THE SPECIAL MASTER: She's testified 10 such as on ships used as insulation, correct? 11 that this came out o f the file. She's seen 11 MR. SPEZIALI: Objection. 12 these documents before. She may know. If she 12 MR. KRISTAL: Do you recall that. 13 doesn't know, she doesn't know. 13 MR. SPEZIALI: Move to strike if 14 BY MR. KRISTAL: 14 counsel can't demonstrate it at trial. 15 Q. Page three. It says, quote, this 15 BY MR. KRISTAL: 16 report was laid before Parliament on the 24th, 16 Q. Do you recall that or not? 17 March 1930 but has not been published as a 17 A. I'd have to look at the document to 18 command paper, end quote. Do you see that? 18 answer that. 19 A. Yes. 19 Q. Sure. Did you read this document 20 Q. And the title o f the report is, quote, 20 closely? 21 Report on Effects o f Asbestos Dust on the Lungs 21 A. I did. 22 and Dust Suppression in the Asbestos Industry, 22 Q. Okay. If you turn to page three -- I'm 23 end quote, correct? 23 sorry, page nine, I apologize. There's a 24 A. Yes. 24 description in 1930 o f the disease asbestosis 25 Q. And in the introductory paragraph, they 25 itself, correct? Page 570 Page 572 1 are noting that it is a report based on 1 A. Can I read it and I'll answer? Let me 2 investigations that were conducted in 1928 and 2 just read it real quickly. 3 1929 following the discovery in February 1928 of 3 Q. You don't have to keep saying that. 4 a case o f non-tubercular fibrosis o f the lungs 4 You can always just take your time and read it. 5 in an asbestos worker. Do you see that? 5 A. I'm trying to be polite. 6 A. Yes. 6 Q. No, no, I understand, but you don't 7 Q. And you were aware that this 7 need to say that. Anytime you need to answer a 8 investigation was conducted to see whether or 8 question and you need to read something to 9 not there was a grave health risk or whether 9 answer it, feel free to do that. 10 this was an isolated incidence, correct? 10 A. Thank you. Okay. I read the first-- 11 A. Well, I think it was just an 11 they're talking about a general --under 12 investigation conducted to follow up. Of 12 asbestosis, the pulmonary fibrosis o f asbestos 13 course, this relates to factoiy conditions, but 13 workers, right, they discuss it, that it's a 14 in those circumstances, sure. 14 fibrosis o f the lungs that occurs. 15 Q. Okay. I move to strike the 15 Q. Right. And what they say is, quote, it 16 non-responsive portion o f that answer. 16 is helpful to visualize fibrosis o f the lungs as 17 The case that they're talking about 17 it occurs in asbestos workers as the slow growth 18 from February 1928 is what was called Seiler's 18 o f fibrous tissue, parentheses, scar tissue, 19 case, S-E-I-L-E-R-'-S, correct? 19 close parentheses, between the air cells o f the 20 A. Yes, that's what it says. 20 lung where the inhaled dust comes to rest. 21 Q. And the last paragraph o f the 21 While new fibrous tissue is being laid down like 22 introduction says, quote, when therefore 22 a spider's web, that deposited earlier gradually 23 investigation o f Seiler's case showed that other 23 contracts. This fibrous tissue is not only 24 industrial and infective causes o f fibrosis 24 useless as a substitute for the air cells, but 25 could be definitely excluded, the necessity o f 25 with continued inhalation o f the causative dust, 26 Paoes 569 t o 572) Page 573 P age 575 : 1 by its invasion o f the new territory and 1 A. Yes. } 2 consolidation o f that already occupied, it 2 Q. On page eleven I want to discuss what 3 gradually and literally strangles the essential 3 the report says about the hazards o f asbestos ; 4 tissues o f the lungs, end quote. Do you see 4 from people who were not necessarily working 5 that? 5 directly with asbestos or in the most dusty 6 A. Yes, you read that correctly. 6 processes. Okay. On page eleven, there's a f 7 Q. And therefore, asbestosis, it was known 7 section that's entitled, quote, effect o f work 8 at that time, was a fairly serious disease? 8 in different processes, end quote. I'm going to 9 A. Well, the way it's described, sure. 9 ask you about the first paragraph. 10 And o f course, taking that in context with the 10 A. The first paragraph starting on effect f 11 whole paper, you're talking about massive 11 o f work? i 12 amounts o f dust when they're talking about this 12 Q. Yes. ! 13 type of condition. 13 A. Okay. I'll read it. Okay. Thank you. 14 Q. Right. The disease- - 1move to strike 14 Q. What this is saying is that people who 15 the non-responsive portions o f that answer. 15 are doing different jobs in the same vicinity | 16 It is reported here in 1930 that 16 will be influencing the dust exposure that they \ 17 asbestosis can kill somebody, correct? 17 each have. Is that fair to say? 18 A. I'm looking. It doesn't say that 18 MR. SPEZIALI: Objection to the 19 literally. 19 question. | 20 Q. I'll show you where it says it later, 20 THE WITNESS: No. That's not the way I 21 but looking at this particular paragraph here, 21 read it 22 it's understood that the disease asbestosis is a 22 BY MR. KRISTAL: 23 scarring o f the lung tissue that eventually 23 Q. Okay. Well, let me read the paragraph. 1 24 prevents a person from breathing properly. 24 Quote, there are insuperable difficulties in i 25 MR. SPEZIALI: Objection. Asked and 25 ascertaining trustworthy figures o f the precise ! Page 574 Page 576 | 1 answered. 1 incidents of fibrosis amongst workers in j 2 THE WITNESS: I'm not a doctor or 2 particular asbestos processes. This is the l 3 toxicologist, but I'd say in general I know that 3 result of the common practices within the 4 it's a fibrosis condition o f the lungs. 4 industry of housing many processes in one room 5 BY MR. KRISTAL: 5 and of workers transferring from one process to 6 Q. And on page fifteen, there's a section 6 another. These two factors, the influence o f 7 entitled Disablement Produced By the Asbestos 7 dust from neighboring processes and prior work 8 Fibrosis. 8 in other asbestos processes, operate to obscure 9 A. Page fifteen. 9 the effects due to work in any one process, end 10 Q. There's a section about two-thirds o f 10 quote. Do you see that? 11 the way down. Do you see that section? 11 A. Yes. 12 A. Ido. 12 Q. So what they're saying here is that an 13 Q. I'm going to ask you about the second 13 individual's dust exposure is influenced, in 14 paragraph which is one sentence. 14 part, by dust coming from neighboring processes? 15 A. Okay. 15 A. That's not the way I read it. 16 Q. And the sentence reads, quote, there is 16 Q. That's what it says. 17 no doubt but that fibrosis o f the type produced 17 A. That's not what it says to me. 18 by asbestos can, o f itself lead to complete 18 Q. Well, what does it say to you with 19 disablement and to a fatal termination, and this 19 respect to the influence o f dust from 20 in the absence o f a supra-added tuberculous 20 neighboring processes? 21 infection, end quote. Do you see that? 21 A. Well, it's --it appears that here what 22 A. Ido. 22 they were trying to do was they were trying to 23 Q. So it was certainly known in 1930 that 23 separate out by different categories of what 24 asbestosis could lead to complete disablement 24 people were doing what their exposures were to 25 and to death. 25 determine what relevant exposures were in a 27 (Pages 573 t o 576) Page 577 1 particular process. 1 2 Bear in mind, these are all extremely 2 3 dusty processes at this point in time. That's 3 4 what he's studying, massive exposures. What 4 5 he's trying to do is separate out, say, I'll 5 6 take it literally, the crushing people from the 6 7 carding people from the spinning people, so 7 8 forth, and insulating, weaving, miscellaneous, 8 9 to separate them out to get a handle on what 9 10 could their exposure be and then study what 10 11 could be the effect. That's what this is saying 11 12 to me. 12 13 Q. And what he's saying is --they're 13 14 saying is that you cannot get a clear, accurate 14 15 picture o f the dust being generated by one 15 16 process because the dust counts are being 16 17 influenced by the dust that's coming from the 17 18 other neighboring processes. Isn't that what 18 19 he's saying? 19 20 MR. SPEZIALI: Objection, objection. 20 21 THE WITNESS: Let me just read 21 22 something again, please. That's not the way I 22 23 read it. I don't know how else to answer it. 23 24 BY MR. KRISTAL: 24 25 Q. I'll show you more. 25 Page 578 1 A. Thank you. 1 2 Q. What he did was he ranked the different 2 3 jobs that were being done that were generating 3 4 asbestos dust and gave the least number one and 4 5 then the other processes were compared to that 5 6 number one. Is that fair to say generally? 6 7 A. Well, you're making a big 7 8 generalization. Let's look at different parts. 8 9 You can point things out to me and I could 9 10 answer. 10 11 Q. Sure. If you look at page twelve, 11 12 relative dust in the various asbestos processes. 12 13 Do you see that? 13 14 A. Yes. 14 15 Q. And there's a chart on page twelve, 15 16 right, table five? 16 17 A. Right. 17 18 Q. And there are different jobs that are 18 19 being done, correct? 19 20 A. Yes, there are, he's breaking it out by 20 21 different processes in the factory. 21 22 Q. And then spinning, braiding, plating 22 23 without local exhaust ventilation was assigned 23 24 the number one in terms o f dustiness, correct? 24 25 A. I'm just checking. I'm going to, I'm 25 Page 579 going to have to check the numbers in the relative scale. Q. Well, it says it on the page there. If you look three paragraphs above table five, it says, quote, the figures in table five which were calculated from some fifty determinations give a rough idea o f the general dustiness of the processes concerned and also o f the effect o f localized exhaust ventilation and damping in reducing the concentrations o f dust in some of them. The counts in other processes are expressed proportionately to the spinning, plating and braiding group taken as unity, end quote. Right? A. Where were you reading that from? Could you show me? Q. Sure. A. Thank you. Q. The figures in table five. A. Thank you. Okay. Q. So what he's saying there --what they are saying there, is that spinning, plating and braiding group were assigned unity or number one, correct? A. Uh-huh, yes. Page 580 . Q. Okay. And all the other processes were given relative dustiness numbers compared to number one, correct? A. Yes. Q. And that's demonstrated in table five, right, the relative dustiness numbers? A. Yeah. And to fully answer that, I don't know how much more we're going to go into . this. I'd really have to study it and refresh myself on this. Q. Okay. Well, just look at page thirteen. A. Okay. Q. The third full paragraph, quote, relative to the comparative numbers for the other different processes, the figure of one for spinning, plating and braiding is probably rather too high owing to contamination by dust from neighboring and more dusty processes, end quote. Do you see that? A. Yes. Q. So what they're saying, Merewether and Price, 1930, is that one group of people who are doing spinning, plating and braiding are being --strike that. 28 ( P a g e s 577 t o 580) Page 581 1 Their dust exposures are higher than 1 2 their own work due to contamination from, as he 2 3 says, neighboring and more dusty processes, 3 4 correct? 4 5 A. Yes. 5 6 MR. SPEZIALI: Objection. 6 7 THE WITNESS: That's what it says here. 7 8 And o f course, he's talking about this factoiy 8 9 setting. 9 10 MR. KRISTAL: Move to strike the 10 11 non-responsive portion o f that 11 12 Now, he also knew that because there 12 13 were some people working in the same room at 13 14 lower dusty jobs, their risk was greater due to 14 15 the contamination from the dust coming from 15 16 other jobs, correct? 16 17 MR. SPEZIALI: Objection. 17 18 THE WITNESS: Well, could you repeat 18 19 that? That was a little distracting. I'm 19 20 sorry. 20 21 MR. KRISTAL: Sure. Merewether and 21 22 Price also said in 1930 that the risk to the 22 23 people who were in the less dusty work was 23 24 greater due to dust coming from the more dusty 24 25 work in the same vicinity? 25 Page 582 1 MR. SPEZIALI: Objection. 1 2 MR. KRISTAL: Right? 2 3 THE WITNESS: I don't know if they used 3 4 that terminology. 4 5 BY MR. KRISTAL: 5 6 Q. Okay. Look at page twenty. There's a 6 7 section entitled separation ofprocesses. 7 8 A. Yes. 8 9 Q. And it says, quote, in many works 9 10 several processes are carried on in the same 10 11 room. In the absence of effective means of 11 12 preventing escape of dust into the air, many 12 13 workers are subjected to a risk from which they 13 14 would otherwise be immune or to a greater risk 14 15 than that arising from their own work, end 15 16 quote. Do you see that? 16 17 A. Yes. 17 18 Q. So Merewether and Price are 18 19 acknowledging that there are some people who may 19 20 not have any risk who are being exposed to a 20 21 risk from the dust from other processes, 21 22 correct? 22 23 A. Right. They're saying that some people 23 24 are subject to greater risk from other 24 25 processes. 25 Page 583 : Q. Okay. | MR. KRISTAL: Why don't we go off the video record so we can change tape. THE SPECIAL MASTER: Okay. O ff THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This is the } conclusion o f tape number one o f the continuing 1 deposition, volume three o f Matjorie Drucker. O ff the record. The time is twelve twenty-seven j p.m. (Whereupon, a recess was then taken.) MR. KRISTAL: I would just ask if this 1 is something that relates to a document question, that we have Ms. Drucker step out o f I die room. MR. SPEZIALI: Sure. One second. This 1 w ill take two minutes, because I don't want to be -- The reason I want to make sure this record is absolutely clear is because I think, I think it's, it's, ifs being unfair at this \ point, and I have an objection. f This witness was produced with respect to health and safety issues relevant to General Electric's historical use o f asbestos. Thafs not what's happening here. What the Plaintiffs Page 584 \ are attempting to do is create a fantasy record that they want to show around the country, as well as in New York, to hy to make this witness } look bad. ; For example, we're sitting here hearing about documents about lead paint, silica, things that have nothing to do with asbestos, and, and in there subtly suggestions so therefore, it must have something to do with asbestos. Now, the witness sits here and the witness says, well, wait a minute, let me reread this document. And she sits here and she looks at it, and perhaps it doesn't look good on camera that she has to read it or not read it but it has no relevance. MR. KRISTAL: We can go off the record if you want. MR. SPEZIALI: Excuse me, excuse me. Let me finish. Let's take it a step further. Now we've sat here for twenty plus minutes with the Merewether report from 1930. She's not a state-of-the-art witness, and he's gone through subtle pages, subtle paragraphs about a report, number one, that arises out o f asbestos textile factories in England, number one; number two, 29 (Pages 581 t o 584) Page 585 Page 587 1 that she would have no expectation, no matter 1 that down. 2 how far you would stretch the definition o f what 2 MR. KRISTAL: She's designated as 3 this witness is all about, nobody in their right 3 GE's spokesperson, as the person most 4 mind -- fair-minded mind would suggest that she 4 knowledgeable about GE's historical knowledge 5 would have come here today prepared to discuss 5 about the hazards of asbestos. 6 the Merewether report, or that it would have had 6 I don't think we need to argue. I 7 anything to do with her role in these cases at 7 think we're wasting time, but I don't want my 8 all. 8 silence to mean I agree with anything you say. 9 And yet we sit here and we're creating 9 Other than the fact that a GE consultant from 10 a video record that ajury is going to watch as 10 the document we saw is collecting the asbestos 11 she thumbs through this report trying to figure 11 literature, the witness agreed that the sources 12 out why in the world she's even being asked 12 of information to GE about the hazards came from 13 about it and to put her and shed her in a bad 13 published literature, and that the same document 14 light. It's just not fair. 14 mentioned Merewether. Other than that, the 15 THE SPECIAL MASTER: And your -- this 15 Merewether report is not relevant. Obviously 16 is a discoveiy deposition, and your remedies are 16 I'm being facetious in case the record doesn't 17 as follows. Make your objection. You get it 17 read that way, but you have this objection - 18 stricken by the judge. You wait until Jerry is 18 THE SPECIAL MASTER: No. I think what 19 done, and you ask your own set of questions to 19 he's saying is this is not the right witness. 20 make your point perfectly clear, or you do it at 20 MR. KRISTAL: I disagree. 21 trial. 21 THE SPECIAL MASTER: I'm not saying I'm 22 Relevance is not really an objection 22 in agreement. I don't think he's saying the 23 during a discovery deposition, and I don't think 23 report is not relevant. I think what he's 24 that Jerry is asking anything that's so far 24 saying is that this would not be the witness to 25 afield that he should be precluded from asking 25 whom the questions should be interposed. I Page 586 Page 588 1 it. These are the questions that he has chosen 1 don't know who the right witness is. 2 to ask. 2 But again, if you're concerned that she 3 Maybe he's doing you a big favor by 3 has a lack of familiarity with it because she 4 asking questions that, as you argue, aren't 4 didn't expect to be asked about it, there are 5 truly relevant to GE's knowledge of asbestos 5 several ways you can remedy that. Was it in the 6 hazards. That I don't know. I don't know where 6 boxes that she looked at? 7 it's all going to go, but he's permitted to ask 7 MR. KRISTAL: Yes, she said that. 8 these questions, and you have forums in which 8 THE SPECIAL MASTER: Then she can be 9 you can interpose your objection. 9 asked about it. 10 MR. SPEZIALI: I understand. And by 10 MR. KAPSHANDY: The question is is this ' 11 the way, and I would concede that the Merewether 1 1 the representative of the GE Company. He's 12 report is relevant, but with the proper witness. 12 asking a whole host o f questions that involve 13 This is more than a relevance issue. This is 13 her personal knowledge of what she did. And 14 improper notice. 14 obviously, we had an understanding before that 15 This was a witness who came as a 15 when he's asking stuff that appears to be 16 30(b)(6) witness, not as a state-of-the-art 1 6 somewhat ambiguous, did you read this, where did : 17 witness. She's not here as our state-of-the-art 17 you get this, that's not the question to the GE 18 expert with respect to historic literature 18 Company. That's for the witness in particular. 19 including, obviously, the Merewether report. 19 Then we start blending into questions 20 THE SPECIAL MASTER: Is she not 20 about expertise and when somebody should have 21 designated for the knowledge of hazards and the, 2 1 known something. She's not an expert on state 22 and the -- based on the use and exposure of 22 of the art. Her responsibilities are what the 23 asbestos? 23 GE Company knew and when it knew it. If he 24 MR. SPEZIALI: No, she is not. 24 wants to ask her, do you believe that GE had 25 THE SPECIAL MASTER: Excuse me. I took 25 access to the Merewether report, fine, but if he 30 ( P a g e s 585 t o 588) Page 593 Page 595 ? 1 THE SPECIAL MASTER: It's preserved. 1 before the Court if she testifies. And I assume | 2 MR. KRISTAL: I f - 2 you're going to bring her in to testify. So ! 3 THE SPECIAL MASTER: If the objections 3 that's cured right there. 4 4 are sustained - 4 MR. KRISTAL: I would ask that you not 5 MR. KRISTAL: She's not going to look 5 make a ruling on that because ifs not before 1 6 bad. 6 you, and I think there are lots of arguments 7 THE SPECIAL MASTER: -nothing is 7 that this deposition is usable, whether they | 8 going to get in. 8 bring her in or don't bring her in. I 9 MR. KRISTAL: I think she's looking 9 THE SPECIAL MASTER Under what rule? i 10 fine. 10 MR. KRISTAL: The statement of a party. | 11 MR. KAPSHANDY: We're objecting to him 11 MR. SPEZIALI: See, thats my problem. i 12 putting something in front of her that she's 12 He wants to say that's a statement of a party 13 never seen before and try to make her look bad. 13 without proper, fair notice, and he's turning 14 She's never seen some of that before. The 14 her into a state-of-the-art expert. It is not a t 15 sixteen box equals --there's things on silica 15 statement. 16 and lead that she's never seen before. 16 THE SPECIAL MASTER: She is produced, 1 17 MR KRISTAL: That's not true that 17 she is produced as -- ( 18 she's never seen it. You guys sent her the 18 MR KRISTAL: The GE designee. I've 19 Merewether report, right? 19 never heard of a non-employee designee, but this 20 MR. KAPSHANDY: Yes. 20 is GE talking. 21 MR. KRISTAL: And she said the scope of 21 THE SPECIAL MASTER: She's being 22 her project was to read GE and non-GE documents. 22 produced as - 1think you have an argument to | 23 MR. KAPSHANDY: Has GE provided that 23 the judge. Essentially you don't get - you : 24 and did GE have it, and the answer is yes. And 24 normally don't get a - and I can't make this 25 she's looked at the Merewether report. Let's 25 ruling. I'm not the trialjudge, and this is an f Page 594 Page 596 i 1 move on. As we sit here now, you have no clue 1 admissibility issue, but you normally do not get 2 whether she deemed that to be relevant to the 2 to use a deposition of anybody if they're i 3 universe o f information. Instead we're going 3 available except for impeachment. I don't see ) 4 through page after page after page so you can 4 how this would be any different. J 5 taint this record. I made my position. 5 Jerry can make whatever arguments he 6 M R KRISTAL: You can sit down and we 6 wants, but it would be highly unusual, and that 7 can move on. 7 would be whether the president of GE were 8 THE SPECIAL MASTER: I think what 8 deposed. It would make no difference. S ol 9 you're trying to do is --I don't think that you 9 don't see how this is any different. And he'd \ 10 can control what documents he uses. I think 10 have to have a really good argument for doing 11 that documents that are on his exhibit list are 11 that since this is a discovery deposition. ? 12 fair game. It may not have been what you 12 The whole purpose of it --ifs not as l 13 expected, it may not have been what you prepared 13 if Joe Blow, the president of GE, or she made 14 the witness to answer, but I don't think he's 14 statements as a representative of GE in other 15 doing anything that's inappropriate within the 15 contexts. Obviously those statements would come j- 16 scope of the discovery deposition. 16 in, but it would seem to me that the testimony 17 And I do think that you will - first 17 at a deposition would only come in if the 18 of all, this deposition may never be used if you 18 witness were unavailable or for impeachment. I 19 produce her for trial. It could only be used to 19 don't see your great fear of that. 20 impeach, and I don't see anything, in my humble 20 MR SPEZIALI: Ijust have one thing. 21 opinion, that she said that would later be 21 Ijust ask --I know we're absolutely in 22 impeachable. 22 agreement on it, but believe it or not I've seen 23 I mean, yes, I agree that she seems to 23 this happen in otherjurisdictions. 24 be unfamiliar with some of the documents and 24 It's my understanding that when I 25 you've explained that, but that never gets 25 object on the record and even if Jerry were to 32 (Pages 593 t o 596) Page 597 Page 599 ; 1 object on the record, that everybody anticipates 1 happening further then, is that by counsel being 2 the actual objections of counsel will be edited 2 permitted to show documents which, which we 3 out o fthe final video. 3 believe fall outside the realm of proper use, 4 THE SPECIAL MASTER: No, they shouldn't 4 relevance issues, improper notice issues, you 5 be. 5 name it, okay, and forcing me to object ad 6 MR. SPEZIALI: You said should or 6 nauseam on this tape, it forces me to - sheds a 7 should not? 7 bad light on me in the eyes of the jury. 8 THE SPECIAL MASTER: Should not. The 8 THE SPECIAL MASTER: You can certainly 9 objections -- 9 make --you can make that argument to the judge, 10 MR. SPEZIALI: Not that it will be 10 and if, if, if --what - if that's what 11 sustained. There's a reason that we're not 11 happens, and I can also talk to the judge if it 12 going offthe record, but when I object, if I'm 12 becomes necessary, all right, I think it's 13 overruled, I'm overruled, but the actual 13 premature. You need to make your objections to 14 objection would not be heard by the jury. 14 preserve them, and we can decide later whether 15 MR. KRISTAL: Why are you raising these 15 or not the jury needs to hear all of them. 16 things? It's going to be decided -- 16 MR. KRISTAL: But that was my point 17 THE SPECIAL MASTER: The trial judge is 17 initially. I am saying on the record, Dave does 18 going to decide --the trial judge will decide 18 not need to make the objections to preserve them 19 how this tape and transcript are used. In other 19 except as to form. The only thing that you need 20 words, let's say there's a fight over two pages 20 to say is objection, form. If you have any 21 of testimony and some of the objected questions 21 other objection, they're preserved. So if your 22 get in. It's up to the trialjudge to 22 concern is that you're looking bad on the tape 23 determine, not me -- 23 because the objections might be placed, you're 24 MR. SPEZIALI: I understand. 24 doing that to yourself. 25 THE SPECIAL MASTER: - whether the 25 THE SPECIAL MASTER: I don't think you Page 598 Page 600 1 jury hears the objection overruled or whether 1 objected too much anyway. I've been at 2 it's just uninterrupted testimony. That's not 2 depositions where --I'm sure other people have, 3 my decision. 3 too -- where the word objection is the most 4 MR. SPEZIALI: Ijust thought that's 4 frequently used word in the index. I don't 5 the way we were proceeding. 5 think you've over objected. 6 THE SPECIAL MASTER: It's on the tape, 6 However, you don't have to do anything 7 and it's in the transcript. They're not going 7 but say objection to form. Everything else is 8 to be edited out for purposes, I assume, o f what 8 preserved, but I think we can revisit this 9 is going to be provided at the end o f the 9 later, and if there's prejudice, it's an 10 deposition. 10 argument that can be made, and I will support 11 But in terms o f a particular trial, you 11 you on it with whoever the judge is. So I think 12 argue -- if you're going to argue certain 12 you're worried about that unnecessarily. Let's 13 portions o f this deposition should not be in, 13 keep going. It's seven minutes to lunchtime. 14 you don't like - a question is improper, 14 Jerry, you almost done? 15 improperly phrased, you want the question out 15 MR. KRISTAL: Almost done with the 16 and therefore the answer out. If the judge 16 morning session. 17 says, no, the question is good, it's up to the 17 (Discussion off the record.) 18 judge to determine whether or not your objection 18 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This is the 19 to the question is heard by the jury. 19 beginning of tape number two of the continuing 20 MR. SPEZIALI: Then I have another 20 deposition, volume three of Maijorie Drucker. 21 problem. I'm sorry. I apologize. 21 On the record. The time is eleven fifty-five 22 THE SPECIAL MASTER: How could I 22 p.m. 23 determine that? 23 THE SPECIAL MASTER: No, it's twelve 24 MR. SPEZIALI: Then - - 1thought that 24 fifty-five, p.m. 25 was our understanding. Well, then what's 25 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Pardon me. Twelve 33 (P a g e s 597 t o 600) Page 601 Page 603 t 1 fifty-five. 2 BY MR. KRISTAL: 3 Q. Ms. Drucker, with respect to Exhibit 4 38, the Merewether and Price report on page 5 fifteen, they're discussing two concepts, the 6 concentration o f dust and the length o f exposure 7 as factors in producing asbestosis. So they're 8 not-- 9 A. Could you direct me to where you're 10 reading? 11 Q. Sure. The paragraph starts to sum up. 12 It's the second full paragraph on page fifteen. 13 A. Okay. I'll read that. Okay. Thank 14 you. 15 Q. And it reads, quote, to sum up, 16 therefore, it appears probable that 17 concentration o f dust and length o f exposure as 18 factors in the production o f fibrosis are 19 interdependent with certain limits. While it 20 seems necessary for the production o f 21 generalized fibrosis o f the lungs that a 22 definite minimal quantity o f dust must be 23 inhaled, the lower the concentration o f dust in 24 the air breathed, the longer the lapse o f time 25 before die fibrosis is fully developed, and 1 fourth paragraph down a discussion o f | 2 respirators, is there not; use the respirators? | 3 A. Yes. i 4 Q. And what Merewether and Price are ? 5 noting in that paragraph is the microscopic size 6 o f asbestos dust, are they not? 7 A. I'm going to read that. I 8 MR. SPEZIALI: Are you talking about | 9 the paragraph that says the protection afforded? i 10 MR. KRISTAL: Yes. \ 11 MR. SPEZIALI: Okay. 12 THE WITNESS: Okay. Yes, I'm sorry. 13 The question? 1 14 MR. KRISTAL: Well, they're noting that 15 asbestos dust floating in the air, most o f it, 16 the majority, they say, is on the order o f two 17 microns and under, many being only half a * 18 micron, right? 1 19 MR. SPEZIALI: Objection. 20 THE WITNESS: And o f course, they're 21 talking about that to put it in perspective with 22 what was known at the time with the limits o f 23 their microscopes and so forth. That's what it 24 says here. 25 BY MR. KRISTAL: f Page 602 Page 604 f 1 within a certain limit, the higher concentration 1 Q. Right. And a micron, and it's noted 2 o f dust, the sooner the fibrosis becomes fully 2 here, is one twenty-five thousandths o f an inch, i 3 developed and the more intense the involvement 3 Well, they say half a micron is one fifty 4 o f the lung tissue, end quote. Do you see that? 4 thousandths o f an inch? 5 A. Yes. 5 A. That's what it says. 6 Q. And that's involved with the concept o f 6 Q. And that's true today as well as it was 7 dose and latency, is it not? 7 in 1930? 8 A. At the time that would be some 8 A. I'm assuming it was. I'm usually--1 9 discussion o f concept o f dose, yeah; dose, I'd 9 usually use it that it's a millionth of a meter. 10 say. 10 Q. Right. A millionth o f a meter is a 11 Q. And latency in that it takes a while 11 micron, right? 12 for the chronic poisoning that was mentioned in 12 A. Right. 13 the first document we looked at today? 13 Q. And if we were just to put it in 14 A. Well, still they're talking about the 14 inches, it's about one twenty-five thousandths 15 time and the concentration, so to me it's both 15 o f an inch? 16 dose; that they're talking about dose. 16 A. Okay. 17 Q. Okay. What they're saying is it takes 17 Q. Is that correct? 18 time to develop; the disease asbestosis takes 18 A. I'll take - - 1haven't done the 19 time to develop? 19 conversion, so I'll just assume this is correct. 20 A. Right. That's implicit in that they're 20 Q. Okay. Merewether, in 1930, is saying 21 saying it takes time. 21 half a micron is one fifty thousandths o f an 22 Q. Okay. And on page seventeen, there's a 22 inch, right? 23 discussion o f preventive measures. 23 A. Sure. 24 A. Okay. 24 Q. Which simple math means a full micron 25 Q. And there's one, two, three --die 25 is one twenty-five thousandths o f an inch? 34 ( P a g e s 601 t o 604) Page 605 1 MR. SPEZIALI: I'll go with you on it, 1 2 Jerry. 2 3 MR. KRISTAL: Okay. 3 4 THE WITNESS: Fine. 4 5 BY MR. KRISTAL: 5 6 Q. All right. Now, there's a part two 6 7 which begins on page eighteen? 7 8 A. Yes. 8 9 Q. And it's entitled, quote, Processes 9 10 Giving Rise to Dust and Methods For Its 10 11 Suppression, end quote. That's the title o f the 11 12 second part, correct? 12 13 A. Yes. 13 14 Q. And they're talking here not only about 14 15 factory work, but they're talking about the use 15 16 o f insulation products in the field. 16 17 MR. SPEZIALI: Objection. 17 18 BY MR. KRISTAL: 18 19 Q. Let me read the first and last 19 20 paragraph and see if we can move this along. 20 21 The first paragraph says, quote, the asbestos 21 22 industry has developed greatly in recent years 22 23 and continues to expand rapidly mainly because 23 24 o f the demands o f the motor, electrical, 24 25 engineering and building industries and o f the 25 Page 606 1 increasing attention now paid to the insulation 1 2 o f steam plants to promote iuel economy, end 2 3 quote. Right? 3 4 A. Right. 4 5 Q. So they're talking about the asbestos 5 6 industry expanding to include insulation 6 7 materials, use in motor cars, electrical 7 8 engineering and buildings. 8 9 A. Well, the general use, yes. 9 10 Q. And then Merewether and Price list a 10 11 variety o f asbestos-containing products that 11 12 goes on the bottom o f eighteen and all o f 12 13 nineteen including insulation materials, brake 13 14 and clutch linings, a whole host o f materials 14 15 that had asbestos in them, correct, asbestos 15 16 mill board? 16 17 A. Right. 17 18 Q. And then the last paragraph --I'm 18 19 sorry. 19 20 A. And I don't know exactly what they're 20 21 referring to when they say, in his listing, o f 21 22 see insulation materials and articles, but 22 23 that's what the wording is. 23 24 Q. The last paragraph after they list all 24 25 o f the various asbestos-containing materials 25 Page 607 . says, quote, apart from manufacture, certain work is carried on in premises subject to the Factory and Workshops Acts as well as in other premises which involves use or manipulation of ; asbestos or products containing it. The insulating o f boilers, pipes, engines and parts o f ships is the most important. Much o f this work is done on board ship by contractors who employ a considerable outdoor staff, unquote. Do you see that? A. Yes. Q. So in the section on processes giving rise to dust, which is the second part, Merewether is not just talking about work in the : factory, but talking about work on board ships as one o f the examples that he gives with asbestos insulation material? A. Yes. Q. Now, on page eighteen, Merewether has references, references that Merewether and Price use. Do you see that? A. Yes. Q. And there's some twelve different articles or publications that Merewether referenced in his report, correct? Page 608 A. Yes. Q. Is there any reason to believe that any one o f those twelve would not have been available to Dr. Cowle while she was doing her literature search on asbestos? A. I don't know. Q. Well, most o f these -- almost all o f them are from public medical journals, right; the British Medical Journal, Journal Tubercle, Journal o f Pathology and Bacteriology. Do you : see that? A. Ido. Q. Those were publicly available in libraries, were they not? A. No, they're in Britain. I don't know what would be available here. That's why I said I don't know. Q. And the Merewether report itself was publicly available, was it not? A. Yes, as far as I know. Q. Okay. MR. KRISTAL: Can we go off the video record for a second? THE SPECIAL MASTER: Off, please. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: O ff the record. 35 (Paqes 605 t o 608) Page 609 Page 611 1 THE SPECIAL MASTER: Offthe video. 1 2 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is one o 2 3 five p.m. 3 4 MR. KRISTAL: We can go offthe other 4 5 record, too. 5 6 (Whereupon, a recess was then taken.) 6 7 (Whereupon, Exhibit 40, a document 7 8 dated September 24th, 1929, General Electric 8 9 Company, Bridgeport, Connecticut, an Alice 9 10 Hamilton report to General Electric pursuant to 10 11 her review o f some of the GE facilities with 11 12 respect to industrial hygiene, was then received 12 13 and marked for identification.) 13 14 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: On the record. The 14 15 time is two sixteen p.m. 15 16 BY MR. KRISTAL: 16 17 Q. Ms. Drucker, with respect to Exhibit 17 18 38, the Merewether report, Ijust wanted to show 18 19 you one thing if you need to refresh your 19 20 recollection. Was one of Merewether and Price's 20 21 recommendations in 1930 to wet down 21 22 asbestos-containing materials to reduce the 22 23 dust? 23 24 A. HI just take a look at that. 24 25 Q. It's the top. 25 Page 610 25C. In the absence o f looking at all the other documents, I don't know. \ Q. And what Dr. Hamilton is discussing with respect to asbestos in Exhibit 40 is the braiding o f wire using asbestos. Is that fair to say? i A. Yes. I Q. And what she mentions is that in that particular GE factory, there was no dust from that process because the bobbins o f asbestos are wetted down and are always damp. Is that fair to say? A. Yes. She says they're wetted and 1 they're always damp, right. i Q. Would it be fair to say then that by September o f 1929, General Electric was aware that one method to control asbestos dust was to wet down the asbestos? A. Yeah, like the rest o f the industry, sure. 1 Q. Move to strike the non-responsive f portion o f that statement. Have you reviewed other companies' documents and information related to their historical aspects --their historical knowledge f Page 612 \ 1 A. Thank you. Yes, they say substitution 1 o f the hazards o f asbestos? 2 o f wet methods for dry. 2 A. Well, over the course o f my career, I 3 Q. I've marked as Exhibit 40 the document 3 reviewed a lot o f documents. Some may have 4 that's in front of you which is dated September 4 been --I haven't served as an historical 5 24th, 1929. Up top it says, General Electric 5 witness before, but over the course I've seen so 6 Company, Bridgeport, Connecticut. And it's 6 many documents, ifs possible. 7 addressed to a number o f different people. Is 7 Q. Well, you've never conducted the type 8 this an Alice Hamilton report to General 8 o f project for any other company as you have l 9 Electric pursuant to her review of some o f the 9 with respect to General Electric in the last 10 GE facilities with respect to industrial 10 year, have you? ! 11 hygiene? 11 A. No. . 12 A. It's - yes, it's not signed, but it 12 Q. So you've not done an organized 13 looks like one, and it looks like her 13 investigation into the subject o f any other 14 handwriting, yes. 14 company's knowledge o f the hazards o f asbestos J 15 Q. Right. On the last page, page nine, 15 historically? 16 there's some handwritten information which would 16 A. Right. | 17 appear to be her handwriting? 17 (Whereupon, Exhibit 41, a document 18 A. Yes. 18 dated January 8th, 1933, a letter from 19 Q. Now, is this the first report by 19 Dr. Hamilton to the president o f General 20 Dr. Hamilton that you saw in terms of date where 20 Electric, Mr. Swope, was then received and 21 she mentions asbestos specifically? 21 marked for identification.) 22 A. I'll take a second to look at this. 22 BY MR. KRISTAL: 23 Q. Yeah. It's mentioned on page seven, 23 Q. Exhibit 41 is dated January 8th, 1933. 24 paragraph 25C. 24 It's a letter from Dr. Hamilton to the president 25 A. I see where it's mentioned in paragraph 25 o f General Electric, Mr. Swope. Do you see 36 (Pages 609 t o 612) Page 613 Page 615 j 1 that? 1 consulting with General Electric because o f the 2 A. Yes. 2 Depression, does she not? 3 Q. And you've reviewed this before, have 3 A. She does say that, right; we felt that 4 you not? 4 our services were not necessary because o f the 5 A. Yes. 5 Depression, yes. 6 Q. And in this letter Dr. Hamilton is 6 Q. But now she's revisiting the question 7 conveying to Mr. Swope that she had been talking 7 o f asbestos at General Electric, and she's 8 with a Dr. Philip Drinker about the problem of 8 mentioning the fact that she believes that needs 9 asbestos dust in four of the General Electric 9 to be attended to now. Fair to say? 10 plants; is that correct? 10 A. I'mjust going to read that. 11 A. Yes. 11 Q. Sure. 12 Q. And she mentions the fact that she 12 A. Right. She says it's come into 13 would like to hold off her comments to him about 13 prominence because of the combination o f not 14 that problem until she attends a conference of 14 very scrupulous lawyers and doctors, yes. 15 physicians that was called by Dr. Vosburgh in 15 Q. Well, to be complete, what she's saying 16 Schenectady which was scheduled for later in 16 is she's asking Dr. Swope to have her get back 17 January o f 1933? 17 on track investigating asbestos at General 18 MR. KAPSHANDY: Excuse me, Jerry. 18 Electric because o f the rise of lawsuits against 19 What's the date o f that? 19 certain companies alleging injury from asbestos 20 MR. KRISTAL: January 8th, 1933. 20 in 1933? 21 THE WITNESS: Yes. What she says is in 21 MR. SPEZIAL1: Objection. 22 view of the fact that I'm going to be attending 22 MR. KRISTAL: Isn't that what she says? 23 a conference called by Dr. Vosburgh in 23 MR. SPEZIAL1: Objection. 24 Schenectady on the 25th and 26th o f this month, 24 THE WITNESS: Okay. That was a little 25 right. 25 distracting. I'm sorry. Could you give me the Page 614 Page 616 1 MR. KRISTAL: And that conference in 2 Schenectady that Dr. Vosburgh called involved a 3 Dr. Gardner from Saranac, New York who 4 Ms. Hamilton calls one of the foremost experts 5 on dust diseases, correct? 6 TOE WITNESS: Yes. 7 MR. KRISTAL: Next document 42. 8 (Whereupon, Exhibit 42, a document 9 dated December 14th o f 1933, a letter from 10 Dr. Hamilton to Mr. Swope, the president o f 11 General Electric, was then received and marked 12 for identification.) 13 BY MR. KRISTAL: 14 Q. It's from December 14th o f 1933. So 15 it's about a year after the last document we 16 saw. And this is another letter from 17 Dr. Hamilton to Mr. Swope, the president of 18 General Electric, in part, at least beginning 19 with the second paragraph, discussing asbestos 20 with respect to General Electric. Is that fair 21 to say? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. And what she's mentioning to Dr. Swope 24 is that for the past two years she and 25 Dr. Drinker had cut back their work in terms o f 1 question, please? 2 BY MR. KRISTAL: 3 Q. Sure. Dr. Hamilton is saying in 4 December o f 1933 to the president o f General 5 Electric that she believes GE should now hire 6 her as a consultant to start dealing with 7 asbestos because there were a number o f civil 8 suits against certain companies which were 9 alleging injury from asbestos. 10 A. Yes, she said --right, and I said 11 before, she's saying that because it's a 12 combination o f not very scrupulous lawyers and 13 doctors. So she thought it would be good to 14 revisit the subject again for alleged injury 15 from asbestos. 16 Q. Right. I move to strike the 17 non-responsive portion o f that answer. 18 She also goes on to say that she 19 believed that despite her characterization o f 20 the lawyers and doctors involved, that many o f 21 them were quite justified, right; many o f the 22 lawsuits were quite justified. 23 A. Where do you see that? 24 Q. This is a question - strike that. 25 The Johns-Manville Company and the 37 ( P a g e s 613 t o 616) Page 617 Page 619 1 Multibestos Company have had a great deal o f 1 would be prepared in defense. Doesn't she say 2 trouble from such claims, many o f them I believe 2 that? ? 3 quite justified, but not all, end quote. Do you 3 A. She does. 4 see that? 4 MR. KRISTAL: Next document is December i 5 A. Y es,Ido. 5 19th, 1933. j 6 Q. So she's expressing her opinion to 6 (Whereupon, Exhibit 43, a document 7 Mr. Swope in 1933 that many o f the lawsuits 7 dated December 19th, 1933, Mr. Swope's response 8 alleging injury from asbestos were quite 8 to Dr. Hamilton, was then received and marked 9 justified, not all o f them? 9 for identification.) 10 A. That's what she says, right. 10 BY MR KRISTAL: 11 Q. And what she's saying is that she's 11 Q. Let me show it to you. And that's just 12 suggesting that GE deal with the asbestos dust 12 five days after the last letter, and this is 13 situation in the plants where it arises so that 13 Mr. Swope's response to Dr. Hamilton, correct? ? 14 they would be able to be prepared in case there 14 A. m just check that. It appears to 15 are lawsuits brought against General Electric 15 be. He's thanking her for her letter of 16 alleging asbestos diseases, right? 16 December 14th which is the last one we just went 17 MR. SPEZIALI: Objection. 17 over. 18 THE WITNESS: Well, taking her body of 18 Q. And he notes that he spoke to the 19 work into its entirety, which I bring to this, 19 vice-president in charge of manufacturing at 20 sure, she mentions lawsuits. But her whole 20 General Electric, and that Mr. Burroughs, the 21 thrust o f working with General Electric was to 21 vice-president, thought the suggestion was good 22 prevent health and safety problems. So her, her 22 and that GE was going to retain Alice Hamilton | 23 qualities, I think, are more in tune with 23 again as a consultant. Right? 24 helping people stay healthy on the job. 24 A. Yes. 25 BY MR. KRISTAL: 25 Q. And he mentions that GE is using | Page 618 Page 620 \ 1 Q. Move to strike the non-responsive 1 asbestos not only at Bridgeport and York, which \ 2 portion o f that answer. 2 were in Dr. Hamilton's letter, but also at ; 3 Let me read the last paragraph. Quote, 3 Schenectady, and he says to some extent at 4 now you have asbestos dust in Bridgeport and in 4 Meriden, correct? 5 York, end quote. Do you see that first 5 A. Yes. 6 sentence? 6 Q. So this letter is authorizing 7 A. Yes. 7 Dr. Hamilton now to start getting back involved 8 Q. And Bridgeport and York were two 8 with General Electric and focusing on asbestos 9 General Electric factories in which asbestos was 9 disease? 10 being used at that time, correct? 10 A. Right, among other things. 11 A. Yes. 11 Q. Among other things, but this letter is 12 Q. And then she goes on to say, quote, I 12 dealing specifically with authorizing them to 13 think you told me that the York plant was 13 get involved with respect to asbestos? 14 destined to be closed in the near future. Still, 14 A. Yes. 15 that would not prevent the bringing o f suits. I 15 MR. KRISTAL: Exhibit 44 is dated 16 think die only safe thing to do is to have the 16 Januaiy26th, 1934. 17 situation looked over by Philip Drinker and dust 17 (Whereupon, Exhibit 44, a document 18 counts made so that if suits develop, you will 18 dated January 26th, 1934, was then received and 19 be prepared in advance, end quote. Do you see 19 marked for identification.) 20 that? 20 MR. KRISTAL: So this is a little over 21 A. Yes. 21 a month after Mr. Swope wrote Dr. Hamilton to 22 Q. So Dr. Hamilton is expressing to the 22 say come back on board; is that correct? 23 president o f General Electric that she believes 23 THE WITNESS: I'mjust checking the 24 the safe thing to do is to have asbestos dust 24 dates. 25 counts made so that if lawsuits develop, GE 25 M R KRISTAL: Sure. 38 ( P a g e s 617 t o 620) Page 621 1 THE WITNESS: It's hard to read the 1 2 date on Exhibit 44, and it looks like it's 1930 2 3 something. I would assume. 3 4 MR.KRISTAL: I think there was a 4 5 stipulation it's '34. At some other point in 5 6 time we agreed to that. 6 7 MR. KAPSHANDY: I didn't. 7 8 MR. SPEZIALI: I was going to say I was 8 9 wondering where you were getting the '34 from, 9 10 Jerry. 10 11 BY MR. KRISTAL: 11 12 Q. Whatever the date, this is a report 12 13 from Dr. Hamilton to General Electric and it 13 14 focuses, in part, on asbestos, correct? 14 15 A. Well, it's not signed. It appears to 15 16 be from the handwriting. 16 17 Q. The handwriting up top looks like 17 18 Dr. Hamilton's handwriting, correct? 18 19 A. It appears that way. 19 20 Q. And it starts, quote, well --and this 20 21 was one o f the documents supplied to you by the 21 22 General Electric lawyers, right? 22 23 A. Yes. 23 24 Q. All right. And quote, asbestos is used 24 25 in the West Philadelphia plant, end quote. So 25 Page 622 1 that's another General Electric plant that was 1 2 using asbestos in the 1930s. 2 3 A. Yes. 3 4 Q. Okay. Quote, Dr. Minor says that he 4 5 discovered a case o f asbestosis and removed the 5 6 man and that now the one working wears a 6 7 positive pressure air helmet, end quote. Do you 7 8 see that? 8 9 A. Ido. 9 10 Q. So what they're saying here is that the 10 11 GE doctor, Dr. Minor, in the West Philadelphia 11 12 plant had discovered one o f the men had 12 13 asbestosis, took him off the job, and the one 13 14 that was now doing thatjob was wearing a 14 15 positive pressure air helmet, right? 15 16 A. Yes. 16 17 Q. And that is the same type of air helmet 17 18 that we saw earlier that was recommended by 18 19 Dr. Hamilton with respect to protecting the 19 20 sandblasters? 20 21 A. Not necessarily. 21 22 Q. Well, they were both talking about 22 23 positive pressure masks; something similar 23 24 anyway, if not the exact same? 24 25 A. Again, technology is different 25 Page 623 . depending on what you're protecting against. ; There are various types of positive pressure air helmets. She's using a general term here. Q. And a positive pressure air helmet is different than just a simple face mask that one might visualize as a surgical mask, correct? A. Sure. If you're talking about positive pressure meaning supplying air from outside, yes, it's different from what we think of as a dust mask type o f thing. Q. And she uses the term positive pressure air helmet, correct? A. That's her wording, yes. Q. And your understanding from her wording back in the 1930s was that this was a helmet from which there was air coming in from the outside so that the man who was wearing it was not breathing any air except what was coming in through the hose, correct? A. In general, yes, that would have been the technology. Q. So GE knew at that point in time one of the ways to protect someone from the risk of an asbestos disease from asbestos dust was to wear that type o f positive pressure air helmet? Page 624 A. Well, again, in this particular situation you --again, it's always up to the health and safety professional's expertise. This is what she deemed necessary there in that instance. Q. And GE was aware of this, right? It was their plant? A. It is a GE plant, sure. Q. She then goes on to talk about three men who were spinning asbestos in Schenectady, and there's an exhaust at the point of dust formation. Do you see that? A. Yes. Q. And that is another industrial hygiene method that was known in the 1930s to reduce the risk o f an asbestos disease, and that is to exhaust the process at the point where the dust is being formed, correct? A. Yes. Q. And that's what's known as local exhaust as opposed to general ventilation? A. Yes, that would be a type of local exhaust ventilation. Q. And then she goes on to mention the other plants in which asbestos is used are 39 (P a g e s 621 t o 624) Page 625 Page 627 t 1 Bridgeport, York and Meriden, and those were the 1 unfair question. Is that -- 2 ones that Dr. -- that Mr. Swope had mentioned in 2 THE SPECIAL MASTER: You made your ? 3 his December 1933 letter, correct? 3 objection. The witness has to answer. 4 A. I'lljust double-check that. Yes. 4 THE WITNESS: Pardon? 5 Q. And apparently Dr. Gardner, who was 5 BY MR. KRISTAL: 6 mentioned earlier as having some expertise in 6 Q. Sure. Did you try to find out what 7 dust from Saranac, was involved because she 7 that term meant if you don't know what it means? 1 8 writes that Dr. Gardner advises taking x-rays; 8 A. No. 9 is that correct? 9 Q. And later on she talks about, in the 10 A. Yes. 10 next paragraph, something called phagocytes, 5 11 Q. And then she writes about the process 11 P-H-A-G-O-C-Y-T-E-S? 12 whereby asbestos dust causes the scarring in the 12 A. Phagocytes, yes. 13 lungs, does she not? 13 Q. You know what phagocytes are, right? 14 A. Well, she writes several things. 14 A. Yes, I know what they are now. I don't 15 Q. Well, the next paragraph after the one 15 know what they knew then, but it's the same 16 that mentions Dr. Gardner advising x-rays says, 1 6 word, yes. 17 quote, the dust collects along the bronchios, 17 Q. Okay. And what they're saying --do 18 B-R-O-N-C-H-I-O-S, in animals, not in the lung 18 you think that somehow the term phagocyte 19 tissue. There is a gradual growth of fibrous 19 changed between the 1930s and now in terms o f ] 20 tissue around them followed by occlusion and 20 the human body's response to foreign matter in 21 collapse, unquote. Do you see that? 2 1 the lungs? 22 A. Ido. 22 A. Oh, in terms o f what was known then and ; 23 Q. And what she's saying there is that the 2 3 now, o f course. Just think about the technology ; 24 asbestos causes scarring in the small airways in 24 with microscopy and things like that. 25 the animals which cause those airways to occlude 2 5 Q. I'm asking you if the term phagocytes Page 626 Page 628 J 1 or close, and then the lung would collapse or 1 means something different now than it did then. 2 that portion o f the lung would collapse? 2 MR. SPEZIALI: Objection. She just -- 3 MR. SPEZIALI: Objection. 3 you just asked and she just answered your 4 BY MR. KRISTAL: 4 question. 5 Q. Is that how you interpret that? 5 BY MR. KRISTAL: 6 A. No. 6 Q. A phagocyte is a scavenger cell, 7 Q. Well, she says there's gradual growth 7 correct? 8 o f fibrous tissue around them. Do you see that? 8 A. From what we know now, yes, it can be a i 9 A. Growth fibrous tissue around them. 9 type o f scavenger cell. 10 Q. And is she talking about the bronchios 10 Q. And a scavenger with respect to ! 11 in there? 11 asbestos and the formation o f scar tissue is a 12 A. And that's something -- she literally 12 scavenger cell that tries to engulfthe asbestos 13 says bronchios, and I don't know what she means 13 fibers, correct? 14 by bronchios. That's different terminology than 14 A. Are you saying from what we know now? 15 we use now. 15 Q. Yes, from what we know now. 16 Q. Now, they're called bronchials with an 16 A. From what we know now, a phagocyte is a 17 L, right? 17 type o f cell that can try and entrap a foreign 18 A. You know, I don't know if it's exactly 18 body, and it could be asbestos. 19 the same thing. All I know is she says 19 Q. Okay. And she writes, Dr. Hamilton, in 20 bronchios. 2 0 this document in the 1930s, whether it's 1934 or 21 Q. In the eight hundred hours you worked 21 some other date, quote, phagocytes with asbestos 22 in trying to determine what GE knew about the 2 2 are crammed full o f dust and hardly move, 23 hazards o f asbestos did you try to find out what 2 3 unquote. Do you see that? 24 that term meant? 24 A. Yes, she says that. 25 MR. SPEZIALI: Objection. That's an 25 Q. Okay. What was your understanding o f 40 (Pages 625 t o 628) Page 629 Page 631 ; 1 what she was talking about? 1 (Whereupon, Exhibit 45, a document 2 A. Well, my understanding is that I 2 January 30th, 1934 from Mr. Carl Obermaier from 3 literally took her explanation of what they knew 3 York, Pennsylvania to Dr. Hamilton, was then 4 then as that's what she was reporting. 4 received and marked for identification.) 5 Q. Okay. And what was your interpretation 5 BY MR. KRISTAL: 6 of what she meant by the word phagocyte? Didn't 6 Q. And it's from Mr. Carl Obermaier, 7 she mean a scavenger cell? 7 O-B-E-R-M-A-I-E-R, from York, Pennsylvania to i 8 A. Well, I don't know if medical 8 Dr. Hamilton. And is it your understanding that 9 terminology has changed over periods of time, 9 Mr. Obermaier was the General Electric plant 10 but I do know is that so many things related to 10 manager of the York, Pennsylvania GE plant? 11 the discernment, seeing something like different 11 A. It has his address on here, and I do 12 cells, phagocytes, may be other things that may 12 recall his having been there. I don't recall 13 have been considered phagocytes in the past. I 13 his exact title. .14 don't know. Again, I was trying to understand 14 Q. Well, in December o f 1933 one o f the 15 this in context as what she said. 15 plants that Dr. Hamilton was going to look at 16 Q. And what did you do to try to 16 was the York, Pennsylvania plant, right? 17 understand that in context? 17 A. Yes. 18 A. I read it. 18 Q. And Mr. Obermaier writes to 19 Q. Right. And then you said you were 19 Dr. Hamilton --strike that. 20 trying to understand it in context. Did you do 20 By the way, this was one of the 21 anything other than reading to try to understand 21 documents also provided to you by the General 22 what that meant? 22 Electric lawyers? 23 A. No. 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. On the next page they mention a mineral 24 Q. And the next to the last paragraph, 25 called Sericite, S-E-R-I-C-I-T-E, do you see 25 quote, this question of asbestos affecting the Page 630 Page 632 1 that, present in granite? 1 health --I'm sorry. It's the first page. I 2 A. Sericite. Yes, I see that. 2 apologize. Quote, this question o f asbestos 3 Q. How did you pronounce it? 3 affecting the health o f our operators has come 4 A. It looks like there's an I --sericite. 4 up previously, and Dr. GH Cowle has written a 5 Pardon me. Sericite. 5 treatise entitled, quote, the hazard o f asbestos 6 Q. Okay. And you k n ow - 6 in the Schenectady plant o f the General Electric 7 A. I didn't have my glasses on. 7 Company, in both quotes. Do you see that? 8 Q. Well, I do which is why I was able to 8 A. Yes. 9 read it. There were some documents you read -- 9 Q. And that's the one that we had 10 I think we'll get to them shortly - where there 10 mentioned earlier? 11 was some discussion about whether sericite could 11 A. We did. 12 cause silicosis. Do you recall those at all? 12 Q. And Dr. Cowle's treatise you've never 13 A. No. 13 seen? 14 Q. Do you recall that in the context o f a 14 A. No. 15 discussion or documents about sericite causing 15 Q. Have you searched for it? 16 silicosis there was discussion about the fine 16 A. Yes. 17 particles or the fine fibers o f asbestos? 17 Q. What did you do to search for that 18 A. Are you referring to a particular 18 treatise? 19 document? 19 A. Well, as I mentioned, I asked the 20 Q. Several. And I'm trying to save some 20 attorneys if they had a copy of it, and I - as 2 1 time. If you don't recall, we'll get to them. 21 I recall, I did a search on the Internet. 22 A. I don't recall them. 22 Q. You did a search on the Internet for a 23 Q. That's fine. 23 1934 treatise on asbestos regarding the 24 MR. KRISTAL: Exhibit 45 is January 24 Schenectady plant that General Electric and the 25 30th, 1934. 25 hazard o f asbestos? 41 ( P a q e s 629 t o 632) Page 633 Page 635 ; 1 A. For that document, yes. 1 Mr. Obermaier was, was not a health and safety 2 Q. How did you do that? 2 professional. He was a production plant 3 A. On my computer. 3 manager. So I don't take his writing here as a 4 Q. Okay. And then what did you do? 4 definitive health and safety type o f conclusion. 5 A. I went to a search engine, and I 5 Q. I didn't ask if you took it as a 6 searched, and I may have gone to die National 6 definitive health and safety conclusion. Would 7 Library o f Medicine and done a search o f 7 you agree that even a plant manager at GE knew f 8 documents there. 8 that breathing asbestos dust could cause 9 Q. Mr. Obermaier also mentions that he's 9 asbestosis in 1934? 10 aware o f a pamphlet put out by the Metropolitan 10 MR. SPEZIALI: Objection. 11 Life Insurance Company entitled, Effects o f the 11 THE WITNESS: Well, I think it's \ 12 Inhalation o f Asbestos Dust Upon the Lungs o f 12 because o f what he --how he describes it, I 13 Asbestos Workers. Do you see that? 13 think he indicates that high levels generally 14 A. Yes. 14 for a long times --long periods o f time could. 15 Q. And he mentions that she can obtain it 15 BY MR. KRISTAL: 16 by writing somewhere, right? 16 Q. Show me where he says that. : 17 A. Yes. 17 A. If we look at that paragraph -- 18 Q. Have you ever seen that document? 18 Q. Correct. 19 A. No. 19 A. --he indicates that the Bridgeport 20 Q. Have you ever asked the General 20 works, the atmospheric conditions are not nearly ; 21 Electric lawyers if they have that document? 21 so good as in York, meaning that to me that 22 A. Yes. 22 there were high concentrations o f what he's 23 Q. And? 23 noticing because he noticed considerable 24 A. I don't believe it's - no, it's not 24 atmospheric contamination. | 25 available. 25 Q. Right. Where is the "long periods o f f Page 634 Page 636 ! 1 Q. The next to the last paragraph o f the 1 time" part o f your answer coming from? 2 letter, Mr. Obermaier writes, quote, to return 2 A. All right. I don't see it here. 3 to asbestosis, may I suggest that you write a 3 Q. Okay. 4 similar letter to the Bridgeport works in which 4 A. But generally that's what was known at 5 the atmospheric conditions are not nearly so 5 the time. 1 6 good as in York. Do you see that? 6 Q. Well, I move to strike the 7 A. Yes. 7 non-responsive portion o f the answer. 8 Q. And that was one o f the other plants o f 8 Exhibit 46 is the next month, February | 9 General Electric that had asbestos that they 9 13th, 1934, and this is a letter from the 10 were using in the plant? 10 manager o f the Bridgeport factory o f General ; 11 A. Right. 11 Electric to Dr. Hamilton, correct? 12 Q. And he writes, quote, in this plant a 12 (Whereupon, Exhibit 46, a February 13 much more inferior asbestos material was used, 13 13th, 1934 letter from the manager o f the 14 and at one o f my visits I noticed a considerable 14 Bridgeport factory o f General Electric to 15 atmospheric contamination, unquote. So does 15 Dr. Hamilton, was then received and marked for I 16 this letter indicate to you that certainly the 16 identification.) 17 plant manager at York was aware that breathing 17 THE WITNESS: Yes. 18 asbestos dust could cause asbestosis? 18 BY MR. KRISTAL: 19 A. Let me take a second to look at that. 19 Q. And he's referencing a January 29th 20 And your question again, please? 20 letter that Dr. Hamilton had written to him 21 Q. The plant manager o f the General 2 1 apparently, correct? 22 Electric plant in York, Pennsylvania in 1934 was 22 A. Looking at that, yes, he's referencing 23 aware that breathing asbestos dust could cause 23 a January 29th letter. 24 asbestosis, correct? 24 Q. And apparently she must have, in the 25 A. The plant manager, if that's what 25 context o f that letter, asked whether or not 42 ( P a g e s 633 t o 636) Page 637 1 they use asbestos and perhaps where it was used 1 2 in that plant given the fact that he writes, we 2 3 have a department where asbestos is used for 3 4 felting this material on wires which was started 4 5 about the middle o f 1932. Do you see that? 5 6 A. Yes. 6 7 Q. And he mentions that because it was in 7 8 the development condition at that time, it was 8 9 run without an exhaust, correct? 9 10 A. Yes, that's what he says. 10 11 Q. And then he says in early 1933 they 11 12 installed an exhaust system, although the 12 13 exhaust system that had been installed was not 13 14 entirely satisfactory, correct? 14 15 A. Yes. 15 16 Q. So what this is indicating at least is 16 17 that Mr. Clark, the GE manager of the Bridgeport 17 18 factory, knew that one method o f reducing 18 19 asbestos dust was to exhaust it? 19 20 A. Yes. 20 21 Q. And he also notes that in the early 21 22 days o f our operation o f this department, which 22 23 would have been some two years before the letter 23 24 is written, there had been some indications o f 24 25 trouble from asbestos dust. Right, one o f the 25 Page 638 1 men? 1 2 A. Just looking. 2 3 MR. SPEZIALI: I'd object to the way 3 4 the question was phrased. 4 5 MR. KRISTAL: Let me reword it. 5 6 Mr. Clark writes to her, quote, it seems to me 6 7 that we had one man in the early days o f our 7 8 operation o f this department who had some 8 9 indications o f trouble from asbestos dust, but I 9 10 do not think it was serious, and the man is no 10 11 longer working for us, end quote. Correct? 11 12 THE WITNESS: You read that, yes. 12 13 MR. KRISTAL: So certainly the manager 13 14 o f the Bridgeport works knew that asbestos dust 14 15 could cause some trouble? 15 16 THE WITNESS: Whatever that was. He 16 17 just said trouble. I don't know what he means 17 18 by trouble o f the dust. 18 19 (Whereupon, Exhibit 47, a document 19 20 dated April 26th, 1934 that relates to the 20 21 mineral sericite with respect to silicosis, was 21 22 then received and marked for identification.) 22 23 BY MR. KRISTAL: 23 24 Q. Exhibit 47 is April 26th, 1934. And 24 25 this is one o f the documents that relates to 25 Page 639 ; that mineral sericite with respect to silicosis, is it not? A. I'm just going to look this over. Q. And while you're looking it over, for the record, it was written by Dr. Vosburgh and it was sent to Mr. Barringer, Room 142 of building two. And it's on GE letterhead, right? A. Yes. I'mjust looking it over. Q. Sure. A. Okay. Q. And what he's saying is is that there was some disagreement or some discussion about whether or not this mineral sericite is the, quote, all important element in the production o f silicosis, end quote. Correct? A. Yes. He's stating that there's a divergence o f opinion by some authorities, right. Q. And he mentions Dr. Gardner who had been attending that dust conference in Schenectady that was mentioned earlier, correct? A. I don't know if Dr. Gardner did, but it's the same Dr. Gardner name. Q. And Dr. Vosburgh writes, quote, it has been my limited experience that all the workers Page 640 carefully observed who had been exposed to free silicus dust have shown evidence o f silicosis after a sufficient period o f time, end quote. Do you see that? A. Yes. Q. So that would be an example o f that chronic industrial poisoning, that there had to be a sufficient period o f time to pass before silicosis would develop? A. Well, it's very vague here what they are referring to -- Q. All right. A. --as far as sufficient. Q. Well, it certainly would indicate that with respect to silicus dust, that there had to be some period o f time that would have to pass before silicosis would develop. A. Yes, with regard to, right, silicious dust, right, there's a sufficient period of time. Q. Okay. And then Dr. Vosburgh writes to Mr. Barringer, quote, on other hand, none o f the combined silicates produced characteristic silicosis with the exception o f asbestos which is probably structurally similar to sericite, 43 ( P a g e s 637 t o 640) Page 641 Page 643 i 1 end quote. Do you see that? 1 part that the defensive mechanism o f the lung is i 2 A. Yes, I see that sentence. 2 not able to cope with fine fibrous insoluble 3 Q. So -- and Dr. Vosburgh at that point in 3 particles, is he not? 4 time is conflating asbestosis and silicosis. 4 A. That's what he said. 5 Would you agree? 5 Q. And he's saying that one o f those fine 6 A. I don't know what that word means. 6 fibrous insoluble particles that the defensive 7 Q. W ell,he's- 7 mechanisms o f the lung is unable to cope with is | 8 A. Conflating? 8 asbestos? 9 Q. Mixing them up. He's saying - strike 9 MR. SPEZIALI: Objection. 5 10 that. 10 BY MR. KRISTAL: I 11 None o f the combined silicates, and 11 Q. Doesn't he say that? 12 then he says with the exception o f asbestos, 12 A. That's what he writes, yes. 13 right, so he's aware that asbestos is what's 13 Q. Okay. So Dr. Vosburgh was at least 14 called a combined silicate, correct? 14 aware at that period o f time in 1934 that 15 A. What he's calling a combined silicate, 15 asbestos particles could bypass the defensive 16 right. 16 mechanisms o f the lung? 17 Q. Well, asbestos is a combined silicate, 17 A. No. 18 isn't it? 18 Q. Well, doesn't he say that? 19 A. Yeah. It's a type o f silicate, right. 19 A. No. 20 Q. And that was known by Dr. Vosburgh in 20 Q. Let's read the sentence again. For 21 1934? 21 that reason, Dr. Jones's observation appeals to 22 A. Exactly what was known then because o f 22 me in the feet that the defensive mechanism o f 23 the difference in technology I don't know. I'll 23 the lung is unable to cope with fine fibrous 24 just take his words literally that's what he 24 insoluble particles such as asbestos, sericite, 25 said then. That's what he knew then. 25 sillimanite, tremolite, et cetera, may be the I Page 642 Page 644 [ 1 Q. That's what we're talking about. 1 secret o f silicosis. Does he write that? 2 That's what he knew then. Okay. And what he's 2 A. He writes that. i 3 saying is with the exception o f asbestos, none 3 Q. So isn't he saying that he's aware that 4 o f the other combined silicates produced what he 4 fine fibrous insoluble particles such as 5 says characteristic silicosis, correct? 5 asbestos can bypass the defense mechanism o f the ; 6 A. I'mjust looking at that again. That's 6 lung? Isn't that what he says? 7 what he says. 7 A. He doesn't say bypass. 8 Q. And one o f the reasons that he's saying 8 Q. Of course he does. He says the defense 9 that is that the fact that the defensive 9 mechanism o f the lung is unable to cope with 10 mechanism o f the lung is unable to cope with 10 asbestos. 11 fine fibrous soluble particles, correct? 11 A. That's what he says. 12 A. I'lljust go on to read that next 12 Q. Okay. Fair enough. 13 sentence. Okay. And your question again, 13 (Whereupon, Exhibit 48, a document 14 please? 14 dated May 11th, 1934, a letter from Dr. Hamilton 15 Q. What he's writing in that sentence is 15 to President Swope o f the General Electric 16 that he's aware that fine fibrous insoluble 16 Company, was then received and marked for 17 particles can defeat the defense mechanism o f 17 identification.) 18 the lungs. In part, that's what he's saying, 18 (Whereupon, Exhibit 48-A, a retype of 19 right? 19 Exhibit 48, was then received and marked for 20 A. Right. It shows they were all the 20 identification.) 21 same. They didn't know a lot back then. There 21 MR. KRISTAL: I'm going to mark as 22 was a lot o f --they didn't know. There was 22 Exhibit 48 and 48-A two documents. One is dated 23 still a lot o f discussion about what it was, 23 May 11th, 1934. And there are two copies 24 yes. 24 because I got them from different sources. One 25 Q. Well, he's saying in this sentence in 25 was the General Electric lawyers, and it's a 44 ( P a g e s 641 t o 644) Page 645 Page 647 . 1 letter from Dr. Hamilton to President Swope of 1 two different letters. 2 the General Electric Company. 2 MR. KRISTAL: Well, it's the exact same 3 And I'm going to mark as 48-A a 3 letter with the exact same words. 4 typed retype o f the exact same letter that I had 4 MR. SPEZIALI: I think I could explain. 5 done in preparation for this deposition because 5 I think that ~ 6 the original document was a little difficult to 6 MR. KRISTAL: No trick here. I'mjust 7 read. 7 trying to assist. 8 So let me you hand you the retype as 8 MR. SPEZIALI: The confusion is that 9 48-A, and if you want to take a moment or two or 9 the top one appears to have been photocopied 10 as long as you want to make sure that the retype 10 through. 11 o f the original accurately reflects the original 11 MR. KRISTAL: Exactly. 12 itself. 12 MR. SPEZIALI: One o f them is 13 MR. SPEZIALI: I would object. I mean, 13 photocopied through. So you want to work off o f 14 you know, you made your representation, Jerry. 14 the one that's not photocopied? 15 As I said before the record started, a retype is 15 MR. KRISTAL: I want to work o ff either 16 not appropriately attached to this record. It's 16 the original --either one o f the two originals 17 the original document or a copy o f the original. 17 or o ff my retype, whatever it is that 18 MR. KRISTAL: What are you talking 18 Ms. Drucker finds helpful to read it. That's 19 about? If the witness says -- 19 all I'm looking for. 20 MR. KAPSHANDY: It's not our job to 20 MR. SPEZIALI: Let's work off o f this 21 verify your typing, Jerry. 21 original which actually has the sticker marking 22 MR. KRISTAL: Let me ask questions. 22 on it. 23 I'm trying to help. 23 THE WITNESS: Okay. I'll work off this 24 MR. KAPSHANDY: Just don't mark one 24 one. 25 that you've created. 25 BY MR. KRISTAL: Page 646 Page 648 1 MR. KRISTAL: I can mark whatever I 1 Q. Okay. Ifyou need to look off anything 2 want, and I have marked it, and we'll go through 2 else, just let us know you're doing that. 3 the document. 3 A. Okay. It depends on your question. 4 When you got this document, the 4 Q. Of course. 5 original May 11th, 1934 document, did you have a 5 A. Okay. 6 hard time reading it? 6 Q. This letter, in essence, is the summary 7 THE WITNESS: Well, sure. It's got a 7 letter of what Dr. Hamilton had done after 8 lot o f stuff, but it's still readable. 8 getting the okay in December of 1933 to go and 9 MR. KRISTAL: So you were able to read 9 check the various GE plants that had asbestos in 10 it so you don't need the retype. There are two 10 them, is it not? 11 copies, and they're different copies because the 11 A. I'll take a minute to look at it. 12 second page o f the second copy is better than 12 Q. Yes. 13 the second page of the first copy. Do you see 13 A. Thanks. 14 that? It's the exact same letter. 14 MR. KRISTAL: Offthe video record for 15 MR. SPEZIALI: Do you have something I 15 a second. 16 don't have? 16 THE SPECIAL MASTER: Offthe video, 17 MR. KRISTAL: Yes, it's got a better 17 please. 18 copy of the first page. It's the same letter, 18 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Offthe record. The 19 same date, same exact thing, just different 19 time is two fifty-eight p.m. 20 copies, correct? 20 MR. KRISTAL: Would it be okay if we 21 MR. SPEZIALI: I see. 21 took a two-minute break, and Ms. Drucker, you 22 THE WITNESS: They look a little 22 can take a break, as well? 23 different. 23 (Whereupon, a recess was then taken.) 24 MR. SPEZIALI: I think the confusion -- 24 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: On the record. The 25 THE WITNESS: They look, they look like 25 time is three o nine p.m. 45 ( P a g e s 645 t o 648) Page 649 Page 651 . 1 BY MR. KRISTAL: 1 she's recommending, in essence, to GE to find 2 Q. Exhibit 48, the May 11th, 1934 letter 2 out if there were dangerous levels of asbestos 3 from Dr. Hamilton to the president o f General 3 dust is to do some x-ray examinations of the 4 Electric you would agree is a brief summary o f 4 workers there. 5 the work that she had done pursuant to her being 5 A. Right, that's what she says Dr. Gardner 6 hired again as a consultant for General Electric 6 says. 7 to look into asbestos in their plant? 7 Q. And that's what she's recommending to 8 A. Yes. 8 Mr. Swope? 9 Q. And she writes in the second paragraph, 9 A. Yes. 10 quote, at the outset, I assumed that the problem 10 Q. Then she discusses, the next 11 could be attacked in the same way as is the 11 paragraph - 12 problem o f silicon dust; namely, by an 12 MR. KAPSHANDY: Can I see 48-A, please? 13 examination o f the dust content o f the air, end 13 MR. KRISTAL: - the York plant - 14 quote. Do you see that? 14 MR. KAPSHANDY: Thank you. 15 A. Yes. 15 BY MR. KRISTAL: 16 Q. So what Dr. Hamilton is saying here at 16 Q. --specifically, correct? 17 least is that she thought that the problem of 17 A. I missed the first part. 18 asbestos dust could be handled similar to the 18 Q. The next paragraph she's talking about 19 problem o f silica dust which would be by 19 the York General Electric plant, right? 2 0 examining how much dust there is in the air? 20 A. Yes. 21 A. Right, that's what she says. 21 Q. And she mentions that where the 22 Q. And then she says, quote, but a fact 22 asbestos roving in lap form is being done, 23 that there are no data as yet with regard to the 23 there's an exhaust over part of each machine, 24 dangerous quantity o f asbestos dust and the only 24 correct? 25 practical way o f discovering whether the amount 25 A. Yes. Page 650 1 in the air o f any given factory is enough to be 1 2 harmful is to examine men who have been exposed 2 3 especially by means of x-ray pictures of the 3 4 lungs, end quote. 4 5 MR. SPEZIALI: Jerry, you misread that. 5 6 I know you didn't mean to. You missed the 6 7 sentence about Dr. Gardner. You went but a 7 8 fact, and you missed - I'm assuming you wanted 8 9 to read that. 9 10 BY MR. KRISTAL: 10 11 Q. Sure. Quote, at the outset I assume 11 12 that the problem could be attacked in the same 12 13 way as is the problem of silicon dust; namely, 13 14 by an examination of the dust content of the 14 15 air. But a consultation with Dr. LU Gardner of 15 16 Saranac disclosed the fact that there are no 16 17 data as yet with regard to the dangerous 17 18 quantity of asbestos, and the only practical way 18 19 of discovering whether the amount in the air of 19 20 any given factory is enough to be harmful is to 20 21 examine men who have been exposed especially by 21 22 means of x-ray pictures of the lungs, end quote. 22 23 Do you see that? 23 24 A. Yes. 24 25 Q. Okay. She then goes on --so what 25 Page 652 Q. And that would be an example of an attempt at local exhaust to reduce the amount of dust? A. Yes. Q. She notes that that is inadequate, however, and she needs to completely enclose the machines which would prevent the dust from escaping, correct? A. Let me just read that. In that particular instance, yes, she's saying that it may require complete enclosure apparatus. Q. And one of the reasons she's saying you may need to completely enclose the apparatus that's causing the dust is that the asbestos fibers, as she says, are, quote, light and fluffy and not easily sucked in by an exhaust, end quote. Do you see that? A. I'm looking at that. It's a little hard to read this. Q. Do you agree that's what it says? A. That's what I'm looking for. Right, the fibers are light and fluffy, right. Q. And not easily sucked in by an exhaust, end quote, correct? A. Yes. 46 (Pages 649 t o 652) Page 653 1 Q. And that was communicated to Mr. Swope? 1 2 A. Yes. 2 3 Q. Then she mentions taking x-rays o f some 3 4 o f the older employees, right, and mentions 4 5 Mr. Obermaier in that regard? 5 6 A. Yes. 6 7 Q. And she writes to Mr. Swope that 7 8 Mr. Obermaier offered to explain to the four men 8 9 who worked longest in that department, from 9 10 eighteen to twenty-five years, that the company 10 11 wanted to be sure the dust was not harmful and 11 12 so wished to have the oldest employees examined. 12 13 Do you see that? 13 14 MR. SPEZIALI: Objection. 14 15 MR. KRISTAL: What's the objection? 15 16 MR. SPEZIALI: Because it's out o f 16 17 context. You've got to read the sentence before 17 18 that to understand what that sentence you just 18 19 read to her means. 19 20 THE WITNESS: The question? 20 21 BY MR. KRISTAL: 21 22 Q. Did she say that Mr. Obermaier had 22 23 offered to explain to the men who worked longest 23 24 in the department that the company wanted to 24 25 make sure the dust was not harmful, so she 25 Page 654 1 wanted to have the oldest employees examined? 1 2 A. Right. Together with the previous 2 3 sentence to put it in context, right, right. 3 4 Q. What do you mean together with the 4 5 previous sentence? She's saying that they're 5 6 doing --she was initially reluctant because she 6 7 didn't want to alarm the men, right? 7 8 A. That what she said. I was reluctant to 8 9 advise such a procedure if it would mean 9 10 alarming the men and starting rumors o f danger. 10 11 Q. Right. 11 12 A. Right. 12 13 Q. Then Mr. Obermaier suggested examining 13 14 the people that had worked there the longest. 14 15 A. Right. He said it wouldn't spark 15 16 rumors and, right, he said check the people who 16 17 had been there the longest. 17 18 Q. And you would need to examine men who 18 19 have been there for a longer period o f time than 19 20 the latency period for causing asbestos disease, 2 0 21 otherwise you wouldn't detect any disease, 21 22 correct, if it existed? 22 23 A. I don't understand the question. 23 24 Q. Sure. The reason you want to have 24 25 x-ray pictures o f the men who have been working 25 Page 655 there the longest is you want to make sure if you're looking to see whether or not there's a danger that enough time has passed that if the men are going to develop asbestos disease, that it would have a chance to develop. Right? A. Well, I think the way I'd say it is | that if one were x-rayed, it would detect what's there, and if, if it happened to be - Tiljust leave it at that. Q. But if you x-rayed someone who wasn't working there long enough for an asbestos | disease to develop, if they were going to get an asbestos disease, you would have a negative x-ray, right? 1 A. Well, generally considering the dose, } the time, right, you'd look at the people who were there the longest. \ Q. And the reason you're doing that is because o f the latency period o f asbestos disease? A. Yes. ;j Q. Okay. And she specifically says that to Mr. Swope, in essence, in the next paragraph, correct? She then switches from talking about \ York, where Mr. Obermaier was, to the Bridgeport | Page 656 ? plant in the next paragraph, right? A. In the next paragraph, she discusses Bridgeport. j Q. And she writes, quote, in Bridgeport I found a quite different situation, not with regard to dust, for there is much here also, but i with regard to the length o f exposure. The men f have been exposed less than two years; i therefore, nothing would be revealed by an examination o f them, end quote. Correct? 1 A. That's what she wrote. Q. And that was communicated to the president o f General Electric, right? A. Yes. \ Q. So he certainly knew that if you're looking to see whether or not there's a hazard from asbestos dust, that you need to x-ray ? workers who have been there long enough to develop asbestos disease, otherwise, as she writes, there's nothing that would be revealed? \ A. It's a little -- you're taking it a little out o f context. Q. Well, i f - MR. SPEZIALI: Let her answer the question. Go ahead. 47 ( P a g e s 653 t o 656) Page 657 1 THE WITNESS: Well, we're talking about 1 2 people who not necessarily had been there, but 2 3 just people who had been exposed wherever. 3 4 He's --that's what she's discussing, that 4 5 people who had long latency periods, sure, you'd 5 6 look at them. But in terms o f there, at that 6 7 plant, who knows where these people were before. 7 8 I don't -- you're taking it a little out of 8 9 context. 9 10 BY MR. KRISTAL: 10 11 Q. She's saying in Bridgeport it doesn't 11 12 make sense to x-ray the men because they had 12 13 been exposed for less than two years, right? 13 14 A. That's what she says. 14 15 Q. And she says if you x-rayed men who had 15 16 been exposed to asbestos for less than two 16 17 years, nothing would be revealed because there 17 18 isn't a long enough latency period. That's what 18 19 she's talking about, isn't she? 19 20 A. Well, she's saying that nothing would 20 21 be revealed by an examination of them. And I 21 22 can read into it, yes, that it would have to do 22 23 with latency duration. 23 24 Q. Because if you took x-ray pictures of 24 25 men who had only been exposed for two years and 25 Page 658 1 you got a negative x-ray, it wouldn't mean that 1 2 it's a safe situation. You wouldn't know one 2 3 way or the other, right? 3 4 A. Well, are we talking about what they 4 5 knew then from x-rays - 5 6 Q. Yes. 6 7 A. -- versus what we know now. 7 8 Q. Tm talking about then because she's 8 9 writing this then in 1934, right? 9 10 A. Right. 10 11 Q. She's communicating to the president o f 11 12 General Electric that if you want to find out if 12 13 there's a hazard from asbestos dust, you need to 13 14 look at workers who have been there long enough 14 15 to even have a chance o f developing the disease. 15 16 Isn't that, in essence, what she's saying? 16 17 A. Yes. 17 18 Q. And then she mentions again her work in 18 19 Schenectady. She's saying that she kind o f left 19 20 that up to Dr. Vosburgh, correct? 20 21 A. If you're referring to the paragraph 21 22 with the third place in which asbestos is used, 22 23 Schenectady, is already under Dr. Vosburgh's 23 24 supervision. 24 25 Q. And I did not take that up, meaning she 25 Page 659 . didn't inspect Schenectady because Vosburgh was l supervising that plant, right? A. Well, she didn't take something up. So I assume that since she's talking about x-rays, it would have to do with that. That would be up to Dr. Vosburgh. MR. KRISTAL: The next document is ; dated May 15th, 1934. MR. KAPSHANDY: Again, for the record I'd object. Not only have we now heard that this was prepared by counsel, but the fact is it's incomplete, and I think it's highly unusual and inappropriate to put part o f a document in j which purports to be a transcription and call it a retyping o f the original which, by his own admission, is missing some lines. MR. KRISTAL: It's missing a portion of a sentence that we read into the record that I will be happy to handwrite into the document. MR. KAPSHANDY: I think that's highly unusual. I continue to maintain that it's a retype. THE SPECIAL MASTER: Objection is j noted. Let's keep going. MR. KRISTAL: Exhibit 49 is May 15th, Page 660 J 1934, and that's Dr. Swope's letter back to -Mr. Swope's letter back to Dr. Hamilton acknowledging that he had read the prior letter we were just looking at and noting that he was going to pass the information on to the vice-president in charge o f manufacturing for General Electric. (Whereupon, Exhibit 49, a document dated May 15th, 1934, Mr. Swope's letter back to 5 Dr. Hamilton, was then received and marked for 1 identification.) MR. KRISTAL: Correct? THE WITNESS: Yes. MR. KRISTAL: Exhibit 50 is on letterhead that is entitled General Electric X-ray Corporation. (Whereupon, Exhibit 50, a document dated April 1st, 1935 on letterhead that is entitled General Electric X-ray Corporation, was I then received and marked for identification.) MR. KRISTAL: With a GE logo dated April 1st, 1935. MR. SPEZIALI: Could I see that, please? MR. KRISTAL: It's from the 48 ( P a g e s 657 t o 660) Page 661 Page 663 1 Publications Division to the North Carolina 1 complete document? Is there any way we can 2 Industrial Commission in Raleigh, North 2 check on that? It looks like it's part of 3 Carolina. This is Plaintiffs Exhibit GE 138. 3 something. 4 It's been on the GE exhibit list for years. 4 Q. I don't know. We can try to find out. 5 MR. KAPSHANDY: For the record, this is 5 MR. SPEZIALI: For the record, we'll 6 not something that was produced from GE's files. 6 object to the document unless the complete 7 On its face it appears to be in the North 7 document is here, but go ahead. 8 Carolina Department o f Health. 8 BY MR. KRISTAL: 9 MR. KRISTAL: I have no idea where it's 9 Q. I'm going to ask you about the first 10 from. I'm not disagreeing it's GE letterhead, 10 part of the document. And the first section 11 but Dave and I had a stipulation on the record a 11 notes that the word pneumoconiosis comes from 12 long time ago. So whatever the stipulation is. 12 two Greek words meaning lung and dust, correct? 13 MR. KAPSHANDY: Ijust want to be clear 13 A. Yeah. Can you let me look this over a 14 it's not something that was produced by the 14 second more, please? Okay. Yeah, it says that 15 witness or that she's seen before. 15 pneumoconiosis is derived from two Greek words 16 MR. KRISTAL: I don't know that. It's 16 meaning lung and dust. 17 certainly something we gave to the GE lawyers, 17 Q. Then later in the paragraph it says 18 right? It's on our exhibit list. 18 that pneumoconiosis is a general term while 19 MR. SPEZIALI: It's one o f those four 19 there are other terms to identify the type of 20 or five thousand exhibits on your list, you're 20 dust responsible for the disease, correct? 2 1 correct. 21 A. That's what the document says. 22 MR. KRISTAL: There are about five 22 Q. And then it lists a number of diseases, 23 hundred GE exhibits on the GE exhibit list. 23 and the third one down is asbestosis, asbestos 24 MR. SPEZIALI: That is a 24 workers. Do you see that? 25 state-of-the-art article attached. 25 A. Yes, that's what it says. Page 662 Page 664 1 MR. KRISTAL: What? 2 BY MR. KRISTAL: 3 Q. Was this provided to you by the GE 4 lawyers? 5 A. If it was, I don't recall it. 6 Q. Okay. And under the letterhead General 7 Electric X-ray Corporation, it says branch 8 offices in all principle cities, correct? 9 A. That's what it says. 10 Q. And what the letter is saying is that 11 there -- GE X-ray Corporation is sending a 12 letter to the North Carolina Commissioner o f 13 Industrial Commission in an effort to sell them 14 x-ray equipment, correct? 15 A. I'lljust read this. 16 Q. Sure. 17 A. Okay. Yes. I just read the cover 18 letter. 19 Q. And attached to the pamphlet entitled 20 Industrial Aspects o f the Silicosis Problem on 21 the bottom it has GE emblem General Electric 22 X-ray Corporation, and that is referenced in the 23 letter as what is being sent to the commissioner 24 in North Carolina. 25 A. Yes. Do you know if this is the 1 MR. SPEZIALI: Objection. 2 BY MR. KRISTAL: 3 Q. So you would agree that in 1935 the 4 General Electric X-ray Corporation was aware 5 that there was a disease known as asbestosis? 6 A. Well, certainly by that time the 7 industry knew, and I'd say by 1935 the name for 8 the disease asbestosis would have been, as we 9 talked about before, known. 10 Q. Okay. Move to strike the portion of 11 that --I'm asking you General Electric and only 12 about General Electric. Do you agree that 13 General Electric knew that in 1935 there was a 14 disease called asbestosis? 15 A. Yeah, in 1935 GE would have known there 16 was a disease asbestosis. 17 Q. Now, we mentioned other sources of 18 information to General Electric being 19 information provided by organizations that 20 General Electric or employees of General 21 Electric were members of. Do you remember that 22 very early on today? 23 MR. SPEZIALI: Objection. 24 THE WITNESS: That's not quite how we 25 said it before. 49 ( P a g e s 661 t o 664) Page 665 Page 667 1 BY MR. SPEZIALI: 2 Q. Well, would you agree that one source 3 of information for General Electric about die 4 disease asbestosis were publications that were 5 put out by organizations of which GE was a 6 member? 7 A. Say that again. 8 Q. Sure. Let me do it this way. Exhibit 9 51 is something that was provided to you by the 10 General Electric lawyers, is it not, and it's 11 sections o f a 1930 bulletin of the American 12 Ceramic Society. 13 A. And this was in the document materials? 14 I'd like to just -- 15 (Whereupon, Exhibit 51, sections o f a 16 1930 bulletin o f the American Ceramic Society, 17 was then received and marked for 18 identification.) 19 MR. KAPSHANDY: We haven't seen these 20 before. 21 MR. KRISTAL: Well, I need to, first of 22 all, change the sticker. 23 BY MR. KRISTAL: 24 Q. Were you provided by the General 25 Electric lawyers documents that related to the 1 publications of the American Ceramic Society? 2 A. I don't recall. 3 Q. Okay. What was your understanding of 4 the significance o f the American Ceramic Society \ 5 documents that the GE lawyers provided to you? 3 6 MR. SPEZIALI: Objection. S 7 THE WITNESS: Well, you know, it was -- 8 with several of the documents they were relating 1 9 to contacts, what was known at different periods 10 of time. 11 MR. KRISTAL: Okay. So one o f the 12 sources about what was known at different 13 periods o f time for General Electric were 1 14 publications o f organizations that it belonged | 15 to, correct? 16 MR. SPEZIALI: Objection. Asked and i 17 answered many hours ago. j 18 THE WITNESS: Okay. Maybe you can say \ 19 that again. That's a little different than what 20 you asked before. i 21 BY MR. KRISTAL: * 22 Q. Okay. You were looking at the American i 23 Ceramic Society documents to see what 24 information was imparted to General Electric or 25 employees o f General Electric by that group with f Page 666 Page 668 ; 1 American Ceramic Society? 1 respect to the hazards o f asbestos. Is that 3 2 A. Yes, I received some. 2 fair to say? 3 Q. Okay. And did you read those 3 A. No. i 4 documents? 4 Q. You were not? 5 A. Yes, I looked them over. 5 A. I was not what? 6 Q. Did you understand that in the 1930s 6 Q. Did you say no? 7 and 1940s General Electric was a member o f the 7 A. Yes. 8 American Ceramic Society? 8 (Whereupon, the above-requested answer 9 A. Well, I'd know definitively if I looked 9 was then read by the reporter.) ? 10 at the document. I'd say in general I recall 10 BY MR. KRISTAL: 11 that there were some members o f different parts 11 Q. Did you look at those documents for any 12 o f the company that were members at different 12 particular reason? 13 times. 13 A. Sure. 14 Q. Okay. And the American Ceramic Society 14 Q. What was the reason? 15 documents that you had been provided with were 15 A. Well, part o f it was contacts. Part o f 16 various publications o f the American Ceramic 16 it was to see what was --what kind o f 17 Society, correct? 17 technologies were available, what kind o f 3 18 A. Can I see the documents and then - 18 alternative materials may have been available at _ 19 Q. I'm just asking a general question. 19 various periods o f time. 20 A. Sure. And I'd like to see die 20 Q. Alternatives to what? 21 documents, if that's okay. 21 A. Alternatives to asbestos. 22 Q. I'm not talking about a specific 22 Q. And why were you looking for that? 23 document. Do you recall --that's either a yes 23 A. I was looking at that again for 24 or no - that some o f the American Ceramic 24 contacts to see what was known at various 25 Society documents that you saw included 25 periods o f time, which types o f materials were 50 (Pages 665 t o 668) Page 669 Page 671 1 suitable in different situations. 1 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: On the record. The 2 Q. Okay. Let me show you Exhibit 51. I 2 time is three forty-three p.m. 3 don't have the document now as to whether it was 3 BY MR. KRISTAL: 4 provided by the General Electric lawyers or not. 4 Q. While we were off the record, we marked 5 This is volume nine, 1930, a portion o f the 5 three exhibits, Exhibits 51, 52 and 53, that all 6 bulletin o f the American Ceramic Society. 6 relate to the American Ceramic Society. Let me 7 A. Yes. This is a portion o f what was in 7 identify them first. 8 the file, and could I have the whole document, 8 Exhibit 51 is a portion ofthe bulletin 9 please? 9 of the American Ceramic Society from 1930. 10 Q. This is all I have. 10 Exhibit 52 is a portion of the bulletin ofthe 11 MR. SPEZIALI: Do we have that? 11 American Ceramic Society from October 1940. And 12 MR. KAPSHANDY: It's going to take a 12 Exhibit 53 is a portion of the ceramic abstracts 13 while to find it. If you can give us a moment, 13 compiled by the American Ceramic Society, and 14 those are massive amounts o f files. 14 that's from September 1934. Okay. 15 MR. SPEZIALI: Is there a date on that? 15 A. Yes. 16 MR. KRISTAL: 1930. 16 Q. And I think we have an understanding 17 MR. SPEZIALI: Well, give us a second 17 that these three documents have been provided to 18 and we'll pull it. If you don't have a whole 18 you by the General Electric lawyers pursuant to 19 copy, we'll pull it right now. 19 the project that you began in September of 2003, 20 MR. KRISTAL: Right. So this was one 20 correct? 21 o f the documents that you provided to 21 A. Yes. 22 Ms. Drucker. 22 Q. Okay. The first one, Exhibit 51, lists 23 MR. SPEZIALI: We're not sure. We're 23 individual members, does it not? It's got pages 24 checking, and she's asked to look at the whole 24 with listings of various individuals who are 25 document. 25 members of the American Ceramic Society as of Page 670 Page 672 1 MR. KRISTAL: I think this is what you 1 1930. 2 provided her, but well find it. Which list is 2 A. As o f-ju st checking a date here. 3 it on because I was trying to find it? 3 Q. It has different months starting in 4 MR. KAPSHANDY: C-9 and 10. 4 January? 5 MR. KRISTAL: C-9. 5 A. Yeah, as o f 1930, right. 6 THE WITNESS: Should I take a look over 6 Q. For example, on page seventy-seven, 7 there? 7 there's a person down at the bottom, JS Leibson, 8 MR. SPEZIALI: No. There's a lot of 8 L-E-I-B-S-O-N, who's with the General Electric 9 them. 9 Company in Schenectady, the research laboratory. 10 THE SPECIAL MASTER: Do you want to go 10 He's a member. 11 off the video? 11 A. Okay. Let me see. Yes, right. 12 MR. KRISTAL: Sure. 12 JS Leibson, Schenectady, right. 13 THE SPECIAL MASTER: Let's go off the 13 Q. And then page one twenty-five of 14 video, please. 14 Exhibit 51 at the bottom there's a gentleman 15 THEVIDEOGRAPHER: Offthe record. The 15 named Jerald Reinker, R-E-I-N-K-E-R, who's with 16 time is three thirty-three p.m. 16 the General Electric Company in Cleveland? 17 (Whereupon, a recess was then taken.) 17 A. Yes, that's right. 18 (Whereupon, Exhibit 52, a portion of 18 Q. Page one ninety-two, there's a -- it's 19 the bulletin of the American Ceramic Society 19 entitled Committee Appointments For Divisions of 20 from October 1940, was then received and marked 20 the American Ceramic Society, and there's a 21 for identification.) 21 person J -- I'm sorry, CD Spencer of the General 22 (Whereupon, Exhibit 53, a portion of 22 Electric Company also from Cleveland who's on 23 the ceramic abstracts compiled by the American 23 the glass committee o f the American Ceramic 24 Ceramic Society from September 1934, was then 24 Society in 1930, right? 25 received and marked for identification.) 25 A. Tm checking, right. CD Spencer. 51 ( P a g e s 669 t o 672) Page 673 Page 675 | 1 Q. The next page there's on the White 1 well, strike that. 2 Wears Committee o f the American Ceramic Society, 2 What you have here, the ceramic 3 Mr. Navies, N-A-V-I-E-S, of the General Electric 3 abstract that you read, were summaries o f 4 Company research lab in Schenectady, correct? 4 various articles and book reviews of different 5 A. Yes. 5 topics. Is that fair to say? 6 Q. Page two thirty-nine also lists 6 A. If I can look it over. 7 Mr. Navies as being on the committee on data. 7 Q. Sure. | 8 A. Just checking. 8 A. Thanks. 9 Q. It's in the middle of the page kind o f 9 MR. SPEZIALI: Can I ask what was the i 10 maybe three-quarters of the way down. 10 year? 1 11 A. You're on page two thirty-nine? 11 MR. KRISTAL: 1934. 12 Q. Right. Just above where it says 12 MR. SPEZIALI: '34. I had'44. It's \ 13 committee on geology. 13 '34 14 A. Oh. Right. Mr. Navies, right, General 14 MR. KRISTAL: It's'34. 15 Electric. I see that. 15 MR. SPEZIALI: That's Exhibit 53. 16 Q. So as o f 1930 there were at least 16 MR. KRISTAL: Yeah. 17 however many people we mentioned that were 17 MR. SPEZIALI: Okay. 18 employees of General Electric who were members 18 THE WITNESS: Okay. And the question? X 19 of the American Ceramic Society? 19 BY MR. KRISTAL: 20 MR. SPEZIALI: Objection. 20 Q. Talking generally about the what's 21 MR. KRISTAL: That's what the document 21 called ceramic abstracts, those are summaries o f I 22 indicates? 22 various articles, book reviews, patents, those | 23 MR. SPEZIALI: There's four. You said 23 kinds o f things. If you look at the first two ; 24 how many you mentioned. There's four. 24 pages. 25 MR. KRISTAL: However many there were. 25 A. Right. It looks like it's summaries o f \ Page 674 Page 676 { 1 I didn't count. Four? 1 2 MR. SPEZIALI: Four. 2 3 BY MR. KRISTAL: 3 4 Q. Okay. 4 5 A. Those people apparently were members, 5 6 right. 6 7 Q. Okay. And if you look at Exhibit 52, 7 8 which is the October 1940 bulletin o f the 8 9 American Ceramic Society, if you look two pages 9 10 from the back, it notes that General Electric is 10 11 a corporate member o f the American Ceramic 11 12 Society as o f that date, does it not? 12 13 A . Oh, right, two pages from the back. 13 14 Q. It says up top, roster of paid 14 15 corporation members. Then it's in alphabetical 15 16 order, and then it says General Electric 16 17 Company, lamp department, Pitney Glass Works, 17 18 Cleveland, Ohio? 18 19 A. Right. Lamp department, yes. 19 20 Q. And then the next document 53, is 20 21 ceramic abstracts. And this was as well 21 22 provided to you by the attorneys for General 22 23 Electric. 23 24 A. Yes. 24 25 0 - And it lists on the second page -- 25 patents. Q. The second page has an article on silicosis? r A. It has a book review, right. Q. And then there's a book review, correct? A. There is one, right, on the second page. Q. Okay. And these ceramic abstracts were sent to members ofthe American Ceramic Society? Is that your understanding? A. I don't know. Q. Did you ask anybody? A. No. Q. Okay. The second page under book review, it's a review of a book called Pneumoconiosis, parentheses, Silicosis, close parentheses, Bibliography and Laws. Do you see that? A. Yes,Ido. Q. And it was published by Industrial Medicine, Inc. Do you see that? A. Right. Q. And Industrial Medicine, Inc. was a publishing house that, in part, was responsible 52 ( P a g e s 673 t o 676) Page 677 Page 679 ; 1 for publishing the journal Industrial Medicine? 1 MR, KAPSHANDY: I thought we had the -- ; 2 Are you aware o f that? 2 just so the record, is clear, and I don't think 3 A. No. 3 you're misrepresenting, these come from GE's 4 Q. And the book review notes that the 4 files. These come from Plaintiffs exhibit 5 Pneumoconiosis Silicosis, Bibliographies and 5 lists, and she was provided them for review. 6 Laws is, quote, an exhaustive compilation of 6 That's why they're being brought. 7 references to the pneumoconiosis, parentheses, 7 BY MR. KRISTAL: 8 silicosis, close parentheses and the literature 8 Q. Okay. 9 of the world. This book contains every 9 A. Okay. So as I said, some of the pages 10 available reference from the first published -- 10 appear to be missing. 11 I won't read the name -- in 1556 (sic) to the 11 Q. Well, did you read this when you got 12 last published articles in 1933. Do you see 12 it? 13 that? 13 A. I looked it over. 14 A. Where are you reading that? 14 Q. Okay. Did you ask the GE lawyers to 15 Q. In the book review. 15 see a full copy of the bibliography from 1934 on 16 A. Okay. Just give me a second. 16 pneumoconiosis? 17 Q. Sure. 17 A. No. 18 A. That's what it says. 18 Q. They do have, the pages that are here, 19 Q. And the last sentence o f the book 19 different years starting in 1872 and different 20 review says, quote, industrial executives, 20 categories and various pages have the category, 21 industrial boards, state commissioners, state 21 amongst other categories, for asbestosis, 22 commissions, engineers and research workers will 22 correct? 23 find this book indispensable, unquote. Do you 23 A. Say that again. I was looking at the 24 see that? 24 document. Please. 25 A. That's what it says. 25 Q. It's a list of references by year and Page 678 Page 680 : 1 Q. And then the next number o f pages or 1 by subject matter, correct? 2 pages from the book that was reviewed in the 2 A. It's a list o f something, and it has -- 3 ceramic abstracts o f 1934, is it not? 3 Q. It says references up top? 4 A. Let me just check. 4 A. It does. Thank you. 5 Q. Same title, same authors, same 5 Q. Okay. So you'd agree it's a list o f 6 publisher, same date. 6 references by year by subject matter. 7 A. Just checking. It appears to be. 7 A. Incomplete as it is, yes, that's what 8 Q. And what it does is it has references 8 it appears. It's got references by years. 9 by year and by various topics, and it starts out 9 Q. And the pages-- 10 in 1872 to 1873, and it goes up through the year 10 A. We don't have the background 11 1933. 11 explanation o f the title, what that means, but 12 A. I'm just checking. 12 yes, that's what it looks like. 13 Q. Sure. 13 Q. And for example, where it says 14 A. Thanks. You don't have a whole set. 14 references years 1872 to 1873, it has the word 15 This thing starts -- 15 asbestosis, correct? 16 Q. That's right. We have selected pages, 16 A. Right, it does. It has an entry for 17 and it appears the GE lawyers provided you with 17 asbestosis. 18 the pages that had the references to asbestosis 18 Q. And it's an article entitled Asbestosis 19 throughout the different years. 19 in Asbestos Workers, Professional Asbestosis. 20 A. I don't know. 20 The actual date o f the article appears to be 21 MR. KAPSHANDY: These came from the 21 1931, does it not? Page number 1931. It's from 22 Plaintiffs exhibit list. That's what she was 22 1872 to 1874. 23 provided. 23 A. Well I don't know --I think it's in 24 MR. KRISTAL: Well, you provided that 24 another language. It looks like it's in German 25 document from some other -- 25 or something. It's in another language. So 53 ( P a g e s 677 t o 680) Page 681 Page 683 ; 1 it-- 1 references years 1881 to 1882. There's a 2 Q. The name o f the bulletin - the journal 2 section on asbestosis, and it has a German 3 is in another language. Is th a t- 3 article that appears to have actually been 4 A. Right. 4 published in 1882, correct? 5 Q. The title that's here in front o f us 5 A. I can't read German, and I don't know ; 6 that we can read is in English, right? 6 what that says. I don't know what the article \ 7 A. Right, this title is in English. 7 title says. 8 Q. Right. 8 Q. The category says asbestosis in 9 MR. SPEZIALI: Could I see this? I'm 9 English, correct? 10 not trying to be obstructing here but - 1mean, 10 A. That's English, right. 11 I have an objection. 11 Q. And then it has the name o f the author, 12 MR. KRISTAL: Fine. Just say objection 12 Feuerstack, F-E-U-E-R-S-T-A-C-K; is that 13 and we'll move on. We'll deal with an objection 13 correct? ? 14 whenever it comes up. 14 A. I assume that's the author. } 15 MR. SPEZIALI: I won't say anything 15 Q. And then it has a title in a foreign 16 other than -- 16 language, correct? j 17 MR. KRISTAL: I don't want you to make 17 A. Right. 1 18 a speaking objection. If you have an objection 18 Q. And then it has 1882 after it. 19 to the document, just say that. 19 A. Right, whatever. I have no idea what | 20 THE SPECIAL MASTER: That's all you 20 that title says. ? 21 need to do, David, is preserve. 21 Q. Did you ask anybody? 22 MR. SPEZIALI: The document is not 22 A. No. 23 accurate. There's something wrong here. 23 Q. Next page, 1884 to 1885 there's a \ 24 THE SPECIAL MASTER: Then that's your 24 section that says asbestosis, correct, in 25 objection. That's fine. 25 English? ! Page 682 Page 684 J 1 MR. SPEZIALI: On its face we could all 2 agree on it. Go ahead. I'll deal with it on 3 cross-examination. 4 MR. KRISTAL: With that particular 5 entry --I was trying to get into that and -- 6 MR. SPEZIALI: Go ahead. Maybe that's 7 where you're going. There's clearly something 8 wrong with it, but go ahead. Maybe I'm 9 misunderstanding. 10 BY MR. KRISTAL: 11 Q. As I'm interpreting that entry for 1872 12 is that the article was published in 1931 but it 13 references 1872 to 1874. Is that your 14 interpretation? 15 A. It makes no sense. It has the years 16 1872 to '73, right, and then in the article 17 itself, it does appear to be - 18 Q. 1931. 19 A. --from 1931. 20 Q. Whether it's 1931 or 1872 to 1873, it's 21 a reference on asbestosis that's in the 22 published literature, correct? 23 A. It's a reference in, yes, this 24 document. 25 O. Right. And then the next page 1 A. Wait a minute. What page are you on? 2 Q. Next page, under the section that says 3 asbestosis. It's an article by an author named 4 Terrell, T-E-R-R-E-L-L? 5 A. Oh, if I can just look that one over. 6 If you're looking at the entry number two 7 fifty-four, there's an article by Terrell. 8 Again, it's in a foreign language. 9 Q. Well, that appears to be French, 10 correct? 11 A. It appears to be French. 12 Q. And it's under a section in English in 13 the 1934 book that's entitled asbestosis, 14 correct? 15 MR. SPEZIALI: Objection. 16 BY MR. KRISTAL: 17 Q. Isn't it? 18 A. It's under -- I'm sorry. Well, the 19 general category? Sure. 20 Q. And feat's dated 1885, that article? 21 A. That article on whatever it says, 22 right, appears to be 1885. 23 Q. And then fee next page references year 24 1906. There's a category that says asbestosis, 25 and there's an article by Auribault listed, 54 ( P a g e s 681 t o 684) Page 685 1 A-U-R-I-B-A-U-L-T, in French from 1906, correct? 1 2 A. Again, in another language, right, and 2 3 yes, there's something under that category 3 4 asbestosis. I don't know what the article says, 4 5 what it's called. It's in another language. 5 6 MR. SPEZIALI: Same objection. 6 7 MR. KRISTAL: Did you ask to see that 7 8 article? 8 9 MR. SPEZIALI: I can stipulate we 9 10 didn't find it. 10 11 THE WITNESS: No. 11 12 MR. KRISTAL: You didn't find the 12 13 Auribault article? 13 14 MR. SPEZIALI: In French, no. 14 15 MR. KRISTAL: Well, if there was an 15 16 English translation of it. 16 17 MR. SPEZIALI: With the word asbestosis 17 18 in 1904? I don't think so. 18 19 MR. KRISTAL: Under asbestosis 1908, 19 20 the next page, there's an article by Scarpa, 20 21 S-C-A-R-P-A, correct, in Italian? 21 22 MR. SPEZIALI: Same objection. 22 23 THE WITNESS: Right. 23 24 MR. KRISTAL: Next page, 190 - 24 25 THE WITNESS: Again, in 1908 the word 25 Page 686 1 asbestosis hadn't been coined yet. 1 2 BY MR. KRISTAL: 2 3 Q. Do you understand that in 1934 the word 3 4 asbestosis had been coined, correct? 4 5 A . In 1934 -- it was coined in 19 -- 5 6 Q. '27? 6 7 A. '27. 7 8 Q. So the authors o f this book have broken 8 9 down references by subject titles, and those 9 10 authors have entitled that section asbestosis, 10 11 and they're listing references in the published 11 12 literature under that subject, correct? 12 13 A. W ell- 13 14 MR. SPEZIALI: Wait, wait, wait. 14 15 Objection and move to strike the question unless 15 16 counsel at the time of trial can show that 16 17 statement to be true, namely with the entire 17 18 document. 18 19 BY MR. KRISTAL: 19 20 Q. Did you read the book review? 20 21 A. The book review that we talked about 21 22 before? 22 23 Q. Yes. 23 24 A. Yes. The book review was a very brief 24 25 summary. 25 Page 687 , Q. And the book review says, quote, an exhaustive compilation o f the references to the pneumoconiosis, parentheses, silicosis, close parentheses, in the literature of the world, correct? A. Well, I'mjust --that's what they say they did, right. Q. Okay. A. They're trying to sell their book. Q. That's what --this is not written by the authors, is it? The review? A. It looks like it was written by somebody named Henry Smith. Q. The book review was written by Henry Smith, right? A. It appears that way. Q. Okay. And the book itself was written by a Dr. Davis, professor o f surgery, University o f Chicago, right? A. Where are you looking? Q. At the cover o f the book. A. The cover o f the book. Q. Right. A. Right. Q. And it was written also co-authored by Page 688 Ms. Salmonsen, S-A-L-M-O-N-S-E-N, who's a medical records librarian in Chicago? A. That's what it says. Q. And a Joseph Earlywine who's an attorney at law in Chicago, correct? A. That's what it says, right. Q. And the forward was written by a Dr. Count, professor and chair o f the department o f pathology at the University o f Chicago, right? A. Yes. Q. And if you go back to the book review, the book has two sections. The first, the bibliography, is followed by subject index. A. Where are you looking? Q. The middle o f the book review. A. Okay. Q. The book has two sections. The first, the bibliography, is followed by subject index, author index, a reference year index and an index o f reference headings, unquote. Do you see that? A. Right. Q. And that's the section we're looking at, correct, the references? 55 ( P a g e s 685 t o 688) Page 689 Page 691 j 1 A. Yeah, which makes no sense. 1 A. There's an article, right, in which | 2 Q. You think this makes no sense? 2 it's entitled --that's not die title o f the ? 3 A. Well, we're talking about that and 3 article. Ifs under that heading Asbestosis -- 4 you're talking about -- 4 Q. Next page-- 5 Q. I'mjust asking you if you think it 5 A. - - which he hadn't coined yet. 6 makes no sense. 6 Q. Next page, 1927 section on asbestosis 7 A. I said aspects o f it, yes, don't make 7 has eight articles, correct, including the one f 8 sense. I said that before. 8 where Cook coins the term asbestosis, right? 9 Q. Who did you ask to explain it to you 9 A. Okay. Are you looking on page one f 10 when you read it if it didn't make sense to you? 10 forty-six? j 11 A. I didn't. 11 Q. And one forty-seven. Right, for the \ 12 Q. Okay. If you turn to the upper 12 year 1927 there are eight articles under the 1 13 right-hand --left-hand comer, page sixty-six, 13 heading asbestosis. 1 14 references for the year 1911. 14 A. I'mjust looking at it. \ 15 A. Okay. 15 Q. Right? 16 Q. Section entitled Asbestosis, correct? 16 A. There were eight articles, yes. 17 A. Right. 17 Q. And the second one is the Cook article 18 Q. And there's an article from 1921, 18 from 1927 entitled Asbestosis, right? } 19 right, from Canada, The Effect o f Asbestos Dust 19 A. It's entitled Asbestosis. 20 on Workers Health in Asbestos Mines and 20 Q. And that's the article which coined the 21 Factories, correct? 2 1 term, right? 22 A. That's what it says. 22 A. I'd have to check that. 23 Q. Next page, Asbestosis on the right-hand 23 Q. The title is Asbestosis o f the article. ; 24 side. In the middle o f the page there's an 24 Ifs from 1927 by Cook. 25 article by Fahr, F-A-H-R, from 1914 from 25 A. Right. Page 690 Page 692 1 Homberg, correct? 1 Q. Do you think there's some question as 2 A. It's in German, and it says Homberg 2 to whether that's the article? 3 from 1914. Yes. 3 A. Well, in that article he used that 4 Q. Okay. And next page, Asbestosis 4 term. Whether that was the article where it was 5 left-hand side, 1923, an article from South 5 coined, I don't know. 6 Africa, right? 6 Q. Okay. And the last entry for 1927 is 7 A. Yes. 1923? Is that what you said? 7 entitled Pneumoconiosis Caused By Asbestos Dust 8 Q. Yes. 8 published in JAMA, right, J-A-M-A, 1927? 9 A. Yes. 9 A. Yes, ifs published in JAMA 1927. 10 Q. Next page, 1924 Asbestosis, the article 10 Q. And JAMA is the Journal o f the American 1 1 by Cook. That's the person who coined the term 11 Medical Association, correct? 12 three years later, correct? 12 A. ft is. 13 A. And we're looking at entry ten 13 Q. And any physician in the United States 14 ninety-four? 14 who's a member o f the American Medical 15 Q. Yes. 15 Association gets the Journal o f the American 16 A. Right, and he coined the term, right, 16 Medical Association sent to them? 17 in 1927. 17 A. Not all. 18 Q. And the 1924 article that he wrote in 18 Q. Do you know that for a fact? Doesn't 19 the British Medical Journal is entitled Fibrosis 19 it come with the membership? 20 o f the Lungs Due to the Inhalation o f Asbestos 20 A. With the membership with what? 2 1 Dust, unquote, right? 22 A. That's what it says here. 21 Q. The membership in foe American Medical 22 Association comes with a subscription to the 23 Q. Okay. And then the next page, another 23 Journal o f the American Medical Association? 24 article by Cook, 1926, under the subject 24 A. Yes, yes. 25 asbestosis, correct? 25 Q. Next page, 1928, there are six articles 56 (Pages 689 t o 692) Page 693 Page 695 % 1 under the heading Asbestosis, correct? 1 MR. SPEZIALI: Objection. 2 A. Yes. 2 THE WITNESS: If you're asking me did 3 Q. And one o f them is what was referred to 3 she take her job seriously as a health 4 in the Merewether report that we looked at in 4 professional, I'm sure she did. 5 Seiler's case, the 1928 case, the third one 5 MR. KRISTAL: Do you think that for 6 down? 6 some reason she wouldn't do a thorough ] 7 A. There's an article by Seiler. I don't 7 literature search on asbestos or is there 8 know if that's the case that was referred to. 8 anything that you've read that would indicate 9 Q. And it's titled, A Case o f 9 that? 10 Pneumoconiosis As a Result o f the Inhalation of 10 MR. SPEZIALI: Objection. Germany, 11 Asbestos Dust from 1928, correct? 11 Italy, France? 12 A. That's what it says. 12 THE SPECIAL MASTER: Make your 13 Q. And Merewether referenced the 1928 13 objection. Make the objection. He can ask the 14 Seiler's case which was a case o f pneumoconiosis 14 question. 15 caused by asbestos dust, right? 15 MR. SPEZIALI: That's ridiculous. 16 A. I'd have to check it, but I do recall 16 THE WITNESS: Okay. The question? 17 her mentioning the name Seiler. 17 MR. KRISTAL: Is there anything you 18 Q. Next page, 1929, there are nine 18 read that would indicate she would have done 1 9 articles listed under the heading asbestosis. 19 less than a good job in searching the literature 20 A. Checking. Right, there are nine 20 on asbestos? 2 1 articles listed. 21 MR. SPEZIALI: Same objection. 22 Q. 1930 under Asbestosis there are 22 THE WITNESS: Well, o f course what, 2 3 twenty-three articles listed including the 23 what was available and accessible at that point 24 Merewether report that we reviewed which is 24 in time was very, very different than what is -- 2 5 number seventeen forty-five? 25 what we have and take so, so for a fact now, how ; Page 694 Page 696 1 A. Which page are you on? 1 easily accessible articles are. I don't know 2 Q. One eighty-two, one eighty-three and 2 what she had available to her. It was certainly 3 one eighty-four. 3 very early in the game. And as you can see a 4 A. Okay. And you said how many? 4 lot of the studies were done outside the 5 Q. Twenty-three. 5 country. 6 A. Okay. I'll check. There are 6 MR. KRISTAL: Well, certainly 7 twenty-three. Not all are in English. 7 Dr. Hamilton, for example, was aware of the 8 Q. And it includes number seventeen 8 Merewether study in 1930, right? She mentioned 9 forty-five which is the 1930 Merewether report 9 that in the same letter where it indicated 10 which is Exhibit 38 o f this deposition? 10 Dr. Cowle was doing a literature search, 11 A. Yes. 11 correct? 12 Q. So when Dr. Cowle in 1930 started her 12 MR. SPEZIALI: Objection. 13 literature review o f articles on asbestos, fair 13 THE WITNESS: I don't know. 14 to say the articles that we've been looking at 14 MR. SPEZIALI: Go ahead. 15 would have been available to her? 15 THE WITNESS: I don't know that in 16 MR. SPEZIALI: Objection. 1 6 particular, but I would say that Dr. Hamilton 17 THE WITNESS: All the articles? 17 would have been aware in 1930 of the Merewether 18 Probably not, no. 18 study. 19 MR. KRISTAL: Many o f the articles? 19 BY MR. KRISTAL: 20 THE WITNESS: It depends. They 20 Q. Next page is the year 1931, and there 2 1 certainly didn't have the kind o f system that we 21 are thirty articles listed under the subject 22 have now for accessing literature and medical 22 Asbestosis, correct? 2 3 articles, and it was very different. 23 A. What page are you on? 24 MR. KRISTAL: Well, do you think 24 Q. Starting on two o eight, two o nine, 25 Dr. Cowle took her job seriously? 25 two ten. 57 ( P a g e s 693 t o 696) Page 697 Page 699 i 1 A. Okay. And you're saying there were how 1 MR. KRISTAL: I don't know if she's f 2 many? Thirty-nine? 2 reviewed it or not reviewed it. 3 Q. Thirty. 3 MR. KAPSHANDY: She's reviewed 4 A. Thirty? And again many, it appears, 4 everything in the box. 5 right, that there were many not in English. 5 MR. KRISTAL: I don't know if this was | 6 Q. Well, Ijust did a quick count and got 6 or wasn't. : 7 twenty-four in English out o f the thirty, right? 7 M R KAPSHANDY: Somewhere else. 8 A. Do you want me to recount that? lean . 8 MR. KRISTAL: If you're saying that, 9 Q. You said many are not in English. 9 I'll take your representation. I don't know one 1 10 A. Right. Six are not in English. 10 way or the other. It's on the exhibit list as 'i 11 Q. In 1932 there are fourteen articles 11 520. I 12 under the heading Asbestosis? 12 MR. SPEZIALI: I'll object to the 13 A. How many you said? 13 document. 1 14 Q. Fourteen. 14 M R KRISTAL: Okay. ' 15 A. Twelve? 15 BY MR. KRISTAL: 1 16 Q. Twelve, fourteen. I'll take twelve. 16 Q. This document on the second page -- 17 There are two on the next page, also. 17 well, first o f all, there are letters addressed 18 A. Two on what page? 18 to a nurse at the health center, General 19 Q. On the next page from 1933. If it's 19 Electric Company in Lowell, Massachusetts. 1 20 twelve instead o f fourteen, that's fine. 20 A. Yeah. If you want me to look it over 21 A. That's fine. 21 for a second. 22 Q. 1933 there were two more listed under 22 Q. Sure. Take your time. 23 Asbestosis, correct, and the next page under 23 A. Thank you. Okay. \ 24 1933 there are five more? 24 Q. And it references a health center -- GE 1 25 A. I don't know where you're looking on 25 health center in Lowell, Massachusetts. Do you i Page 698 Page 700 | 1 the last two things. 1 see that? That's what it's addressed to? 2 Q. The last two pages, page two 2 A. Right. 3 fifty-four, left-hand side, there are two from 3 Q. Did any o f the GE employees or former | 4 1933, and the page before that, two fifty-three, 4 GE employees discuss the GE health center in 5 there are five. 5 Lowell, Massachusetts? 6 A. Two fifty-three. Yeah. And they're 6 MR. SPEZIALI: Objection. 7 listed under the heading of Asbestosis. They're 7 THE WITNESS: Did they --who, who are 8 not apparently all dealing with asbestosis. 8 you talking about discuss what? 9 (Whereupon, Exhibit 54, a letter, 9 BY MR. KRISTAL: 10 January 12th, 1951 from a Sarah Almeida, RN, 10 Q. Any o f the GE employees or former GE 11 consultant in industrial nursing to a Shirley RN 11 employees who you interviewed for this project 12 McLaughlin, M-C-L-A-U-G-H-L-I-N, health center, 12 for the General Electric lawyers. 13 General Electric Company, Lowell, Massachusetts, 13 A. Okay. Did any o f the people I 14 was then received and marked for 14 contacted reference in particular the health 15 identification.) 15 center in Lowell? 16 MR. KRISTAL: Let me hand you Exhibit 16 Q. Yes. 17 54. This is a letter, January 12th, 1951 from a 17 A. Not that I recall. 18 Sarah Almeida, RN, consultant in industrial 18 Q. Have you ever heard o f that health 19 nursing to a Shirley RN McLaughlin, 19 center in Lowell? 20 M-C-L-A-U-G-H-L-I-N, health center, General 20 A. Other than seeing what's on this 21 Electric Company, Lowell, Massachusetts. This 21 document, no. 22 is GE - Plaintiffs GE Exhibit 520. 22 Q. When you worked for GE you don't recall 23 MR. KAPSHANDY: Again, you're not 23 the health center being in Lowell, 24 representing it's something that she reviewed. 24 Massachusetts? 25 It came from GE's files. 25 A. No. That wasn't one of my plants. 58 ( P a g e s 697 t o 700) Page 701 1 Q. Okay. That doesn't mean you weren't i 2 aware o f it. Were you aware o f it or weren't 2 3 you aware o f it in the early 1970s when you 3 4 worked for GE? 4 5 A. Well, to me the health center is like 5 6 she was in the medical department at the plant. 6 7 Q. And there was a GE plant that you're 7 8 aware o f in Lowell, Massachusetts, right? 8 9 A. Yes. 9 10 Q. And the second page references texts 10 11 recommended on toxicology for your reference 11 12 library. Do you see that? 12 13 A. Yes. 13 14 Q. And the second one is entitled 14 15 industrial toxicology, second edition, by Alice 15 16 Hamilton and Harriet Hardy. You've reviewed 16 17 that text, have you not? 17 18 A. I have, yes. 18 19 Q. Okay. And that was published in 1949, 19 20 correct? 20 21 A. I'd have to look at it. I haven't seen 21 22 it for some time. 22 23 Q. All right. We'll look at it later. 23 24 And then it references -- the exhibit 24 25 references, further down, articles appearing in 25 Page 702 1 the journal Industrial Medicine. Do you see 1 2 that? 2 3 A. And you're looking where? 3 4 Q. Your inquiring on renal colic and back 4 5 strain is treated rather well in an article 5 6 entitled Trauma and Arthritis, an Analysis of 6 7 162 Cases By Dr. Ernest Wolff, General Motors 7 8 Corporation, Cleveland, Ohio which appears in 8 9 Industrial Medicine, February 1948. Do you see 9 10 that? 10 11 A. Yes. 11 12 MR. SPEZIALI: Objection. 12 13 BY MR. KRISTAL: 13 14 Q. And then the next paragraph says if 14 15 you -- because they referenced a January 1949 15 16 copy o f the Industrial Medicine journal. The 16 17 next paragraph says, quote, if you care to 17 18 obtain the January 1949 issue o f Industrial 18 19 Medicine, it probably can be had by sending 19 20 seventy-five cents to the Industrial Medicine 20 21 Publishing Company with the address in Chicago, 21 22 Illinois, correct? 22 23 A. That's what this says. 23 24 Q. And that was the same publishing 24 25 company that published that bibliography that we 25 Page 703 just went through at length? MR. SPEZIALI: Objection. THE WITNESS: I don't know. MR. KRISTAL: Next document is Exhibit 55. (Whereupon, Exhibit 55, a Journal of Industrial Medicine from April 1942, was then received and marked for identification.) MR. KRISTAL: And it is a Journal of Industrial Medicine from April 1942. I'll show it to you and ask you if you've seen this before. And it is on Plaintiffs state-of-the-art exhibit list 335. THE WITNESS: And is this a document that was in these -- in this set? Do you know? MR. KRISTAL: I don't know. I know this is a copy from our exhibit list. Why don't we go o ff the video record. THE SPECIAL MASTER: G ooff. THEVIDEOGRAPHER: This is the conclusion o f tape number two o f the continuing deposition, volume three o f Maijorie Drucker. O ff the record. The time is four twenty-one p.m. (Whereupon, a recess was then taken.) Page 704 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This is the beginning o f tape number three o f the continuing deposition, volume three o f Marjorie Drucker. On the record. The time is four thirty-one p.m.1 MR. KRISTAL: We were discussing Exhibit 55, the April 1942 copy o f Industrial Medicine, and on the second page -- MR. KAPSHANDY: Actually, Counsel, 1 ; don't know if we were discussing it. We were going to check, and I wanted to confirm on the record that is not something that either comes from GE or has been provided to the witness before. MR. KRISTAL: If you say so. I know it's on our exhibit list, SOA 335. And it notes that the Industrial Medicine is the official publication o f the American Association o f Industrial Physicians and Surgeons, does it not. THE WITNESS: I'mjust looking. MR. SPEZIALI: You may be turning the page. I think you're reading from the next page, right? MR. KRISTAL: Yes. THE WITNESS: Industrial Medicine -- 59 ( P a g e s 701 t o 704) Page 705 Page 707 1 American -- right, Industrial Physicians and 2 Surgeons. That's what it says. 3 BY MR. KRISTAL: 4 Q. And if you look in the right-hand 5 column, it lists the committees o f the American 6 Association o f Industrial Physicians and 7 Surgeons, does it not? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. And B L - - Dr. BL Vosburgh is the chair 10 o f the membership committee, correct? 11 A. Yes, Dr. Vosburgh is there. 12 Q. And Dr. Vosburgh is also on the 13 committee further down on the medical records 14 and procedures, correct? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. And it just so happens that GE X-ray 17 Corporation had an ad in this journal, right? 18 It lists under advertisers General Electric 19 X-ray Corporation? 20 A . Oh, let me look at that. Right. It 21 says it did. I don't see it here. 22 Q. Right. We have an article from the 23 journal. We don't have the complete journal. 2 4 MR. SPEZIALI: Is this the complete 2 5 journal? _____________________ 1 MR. KRISTAL: Absolutely. Falling 2 asleep. 3 BY MR. KRISTAL: 4 Q. And the article is entitled, the third 5 page o f Exhibit 55, The Occupational Disease 6 Hazard by Warren A. Cook. That's the one 7 referenced in the table o f contents page, 8 correct? 9 A. That's the title, yes. 10 Q. And the article begins, quote, more 11 extensive and reliable information is constantly 12becoming available concerning the amounts o f 13 industrial materials which cause injury to 14 health and those which may be considered 15 innocuous. In order to apply this knowledge on 16 the toxic amounts o f these materials, it is 17 necessary to have means o f determining whether 18 or not the exposure is in -- within these 19 limits. Do you see that? 20 A. That's what it says. 21 Q. Okay. And if you turn to the next 2 2 page, there's a section o f the article entitled 2 3 Criteria For Evaluation o f Dust Hazards, 2 4 correct? 25 A. That's a heading, right. Page 706 Page 708 1 MR. KRISTAL: The complete journal 2 appears to be some two hundred pages. This is 3 an article from the journal. 4 MR. SPEZIALI: I object to the 5 document. 6 M R KRISTAL: Okay. On the first page 7 under die table o f contents, it has industrial 8 hygiene section, and it has an article, the next 9 to last one entitled Occupational Disease Hazard 10 by Warren A. Cook. Do you see that? 11 THE WITNESS: I do see that on here. 12 MR. KRISTAL: And if you turn to third 13 page o f Exhibit 55 -- 14 MR. SPEZIALI: Wait a minute. Is that 15 the third page o f the exhibit or the third page 16 in the journal? 17 M R KRISTAL: Ijust said the third 18 page o f Exhibit 55. It's page one hundred 19 ninety-two o f the journal. 20 MR. SPEZIALI: This is the hundred and 21 ninety-second. 22 M R KRISTAL: The one right after one 2 3 ninety-one and right before one ninety-three. 24 MR. SPEZIALI: Right. It's certainly 25 far enough in that we -- 1 M R SPEZIALI: Page one ninety-three 2 we're looking at now? 3 MR. KRISTAL: I think --it's hard to 4 read. 5 THE WITNESS: It says one ninety-one. 6 MR. SPEZIALI: We went backwards. 7 THE WITNESS: We are going backwards 8 M R KRISTAL: I think it's one 9 ninety-three or one ninety-four. Do you see 10 that up top? Let's see what the next page is. 11 Next page is one ninety-five, so that's one 12 ninety-four. 13 M R SPEZIALI: So we missed one 14 ninety-three. 15 MR. KRISTAL: Yeah. 16 BY MR. KRISTAL: 17 Q. Page one ninety-four, Criteria For 18 Evaluation o f Dust Hazards. Do you see that? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. And first paragraph says, quote, in the 21 first place, two quick -- 22 A. Is there --pardon me. Is there a page 2 3 number on the, on the first -- 24 Q. No. I don't see it? 25 ______ M R SPEZIALI: I thought you said it 60 ( P a g e s 705 t o 708) Page 709 Page 711 | 1 was one ninety-two. 1 specifically discuss asbestos dust and an 2 THE WITNESS: I don't see a page 2 evaluation o f that exposure, correct? 3 number. I don't know if this is from the same 3 A. I have to look at that, please. 4 article. 4 Q. Sure. 5 MR. KRISTAL: Okay. There's an article 5 A. I read that paragraph. 6 by Warren Cook that begins on page one 6 Q. Okay. So those two paragraphs are 7 ninety-two, correct, according to the table of 7 talking about asbestos dust in particular, 8 contents, correct? 8 correct? 9 THE WITNESS: I don't have that right 9 A. 1didn't read the second one. Okay. 10 in front of me right this second. 10 Thank you. 11 MR. KRISTAL: It's really not rocket 11 Q. And you're aware that General Electric 12 science. 12 knew o f the five million particles per cubic 13 MR. SPEZIALI: I know. I'mjust trying 13 foot o f air standard for asbestos dust in 1942, 14 to find it. Wait a minute. There's one. 14 correct? 15 MR. KRISTAL: One ninety-two, 15 MR. SPEZIALI: Objection. 16 Occupational Disease Hazard, Warren A. Cook, 16 THE WITNESS: Well, the five million 17 subtitle is Evaluation in the Field. The 17 particles per cubic foot came out as a MAC in 18 article we're looking at is entitled, The 18 1946, but as part o f Dreessen that was 19 Occupational Disease Hazard, Evaluation in the 19 considered safe from 1938. 20 Field by Warren A. Cook. 20 BY MR. KRISTAL: 21 MR. SPEZIALI: Got it. 21 Q. Well, it wasn't considered a fine line 22 MR. KRISTAL: All right. 22 between safe and unsafe, correct? 23 MR. KAPSHANDY: We appear to be missing 23 A. It wasn't --it --could you flesh out 24 a page. 24 the question a little, please? 25 MR. SPEZIALI: All right. So now we're 25 Q. Sure. In 1938 Dreessen came out with a Page 710 Page 712 1 on one ninety-four. 1 2 THE WITNESS: So we're on one 2 3 ninety-four. 3 4 BY MR. KRISTAL: 4 5 Q. Criteria for evaluation of dust 5 6 hazards. 6 7 A. I'mjust checking. 7 8 Q. The next article starts at one 8 9 ninety-seven, right? 9 10 A. Right. 10 11 Q. So one ninety-four is part of the 11 12 article that begins on one ninety-two? 12 13 A. It appears that way, yes. Yes. 13 14 Q. Under that heading, Criteria For 14 15 Evaluation o f Dust Hazards, the article says, 15 16 quote, in the first place, two quick snap 16 17 judgments should be guarded against. If an 17 18 unjustified okay is given, the health o f the 18 19 worker may be jeopardized. If a condemnation, 19 20 then money may be spent unnecessarily, to say 20 21 nothing of developing a lack of confidence of 21 22 management in yourjudgment, end quote. Do you 22 23 see that? 23 24 A. I see the words are there. 24 25 Q. And then the next two paragraphs 25 study that looked at the amount o f dust in the air, and that's where the five million particles per cubic foot o f air o f asbestos dust as a MAC, a maximum allowable concentration, came from, ; correct? A. Right. That's a level that he said was safe. Q. Well, regardless o f what he said, GE was aware o f that. Fair to say? A. In 1938, yeah, I think GE would have been aware o f a major study like that. Q. And the two paragraphs from Exhibit 55 in the Cook article are discussing the five million particles per cubic foot o f air o f asbestos dust, are they not? A. He mentions five million particles per cubic foot o f dust, right. Q. Well, that's what the discussion in the two paragraphs is about, isn't it? A. Well, it's part o f it. He covers a few things here. Q. All right. Let's read it. Quote, in the case o f the asbestos dust condition, our evaluation of the exposure should be based on the knowledge that the present toxic limit for 61 ( P a g e s 709 t o 712) Page 713 Page 715 1 asbestos is five million particles o f dust per 1 Q. So again, he's referring to the five 2 cubic foot o f air, end quote. Do you see that? 2 million particles per cubic foot o f air as being 3 A. Yes. 3 so low, right? 4 Q. And then he writes, quote, this is a 4 A. That's - those are his words, right. 5 very small concentration, so small, in fact, 5 Q. Then the last sentence o f that 6 that the condition may look good even to a 6 paragraph says, quote, this is especially 7 critical eye and still present an exposure 7 important where the injurious condition is not 8 greater than this low limit, end quote. Do you 8 immediately evident but requires years to 9 see that? 9 develop as in the case o f asbestosis and 10 A. Yes, he wrote that. 10 silicosis, end quote. Correct? 11 Q. So that was certainly known in that 11 A. Let me just read that paragraph again. 12 period o f time that five million particles per 12 You're reading the words correctly but --okay, 13 cubic foot o f air o f microscopic particles is a 13 go ahead. 14 small amount, right? That's what it says there? 14 Q. My turn? 15 It's a very small concentration? 15 A. Your turn. 16 A. You said it was known. No. 16 Q. That's what that last sentence o f that 17 Q. Well, Dr. Cook is publishing in the 17 paragraph regarding asbestos dust says, correct? 18 Journal o f Industrial Medicine, which is the 18 A. That's what it says. 19 official publication o f the American Association 19 Q. And then again that is contrasting the 20 o f Industrial Physicians and Surgeons o f which 20 chronic versus the acute nature o f asbestosis? 21 Dr. Vosburgh is on two committees and the chair 21 MR. SPEZIALI: Objection. 22 o f one. He published that, correct? 22 BY MR. KRISTAL: 23 A. Dr. Cook, yes, was published in this 23 Q. Correct? 24 journal article. 24 A. That what? What are you referring to 25 Q. And he said that the five million 25 when you say that is contrasting? Page 714 Page 716 1 particles per cubic foot o f air o f asbestos dust 1 Q. In this sentence he's saying that it's 2 was a very small concentration, correct? 2 especially important to actually measure the 3 A. That's what he says. 3 dust where the injurious condition is not 4 Q. Okay. And then he goes on to say, 4 immediately evident. That's one o f the things 5 quote, some indication o f the amount o f dust 5 he says, correct? 6 present in the air may be obtained by noting the 6 A. I'm just reading it. 7 layer o f dust on nearby settling places after 7 Q. Sure. 8 learning how long a time has elapsed since they 8 A. Okay. And another-- 9 were last cleaned. If only a thin layer o f dust 9 Q. And immediately evident means the same 10 has accumulated over six months or a year and 10 as an acute injury, correct, where something -- 11 there are no visible puffs o f dust escaping from 11 you get exposed and you suffer the injury 12 the operation, it is probable that the condition 12 immediately? 13 is satisfactoiy, end quote. Do you see that? 13 A. Well, certainly that's what immediate 14 A. I see he wrote that. 14 means. Immediate. But okay. 15 Q. And that was conveyed at that time in 15 Q. And that would be an acute toxin, 16 this journal? 16 something that caused an injury immediately, 17 A. That's what he wrote. 17 correct? 18 Q. And then he goes on to say, quote, in 18 A. It would depend on the material. 19 the case o f asbestos dust, however, and this 19 Q. Well, if a material caused an injury 20 holds with even more certainty for dusts high in 20 immediately, that would be an acute toxin, 21 free silica content, the toxic limit is so low 21 correct? 22 that the only safe procedure is to have recourse 22 A. In broad terms it would be a type o f 23 to actual dust determinations, end quote. Do 23 acute toxin. 24 you see that? 24 Q. So what Cook is saying in this 1942 25 A. That's what he writes. 25 article is that it's especially important to n a /? \ Page 717 Page 719 1; 1 have actual dust determinations where the i unusual in the way he describes certain things 2 injurious condition is not immediately evident 2 here. f 3 but requires years to develop as in the case o f 3 Q. You're here as a historian, correct? 4 asbestosis and silicosis. That's what he's 4 MR. SPEZIALI: Objection. 5 saying, correct? 5 BY MR. KRISTAL: 6 A. I'mjust rereading it. Yes, he says 6 Q. With respect to GE's historical 7 it's important to have the right dust 7 knowledge o f the hazards o f asbestos, correct? 1 8 concentrations in those circumstances. That's 8 A. Yes. f 9 what he writes. 9 Q. So you're looking at what was written 10 Q. And a condition that requires years to 10 back then so you can have an understanding of 11 develop, as in the case o f asbestosis, is a 11 what was understood back then, correct? 12 chronic condition, correct, as opposed to the 12 A. Well, one o f the things, yes, sure. 13 immediately evident condition? 13 Q. So you keep throwing in the words high f 14 A. Well, as we said before, it relates to 14 dose, but he's talking about five million 15 dose, meaning the length and the concentration 15 particles as being a very small concentration, 16 o f exposure. Those together make the dose. 16 correct? | 17 Q. And that's a chronic condition that's 17 A. Those are his words. 18 being described there, asbestosis, right? 18 Q. Okay. 19 A. Where do you see those words? I don't 19 A. Right. And I'm trying to put it in 20 see that here. 20 context about what was known then. 21 Q. I don't see those words either which is 21 Q. Now, I want to talk about -- you 22 why I'm asking your understanding. Cook is 22 mentioned that the MACs, M-A-C-s, at five f 23 contrasting a substance that has an immediate 23 million particles per cubic foot o f air as being f 24 effect with those that take a long time to 24 a safe dose. Is that what you said, it was 25 develop, is he not? 25 safe; called it safe? i Page 718 Page 720 | 1 A. Sure. And he's relating it to 1 A. Well, according to studies that were | 2 concentration, as well. 2 done at the time such as Dreessen, Fleischer, 3 Q. That's right. And the diseases that 3 Drinker and many others, in fact, up to OSHA 4 take a long time to develop are known as chronic 4 that level was considered a level by which if | 5 as opposed to acute, correct? 5 you maintain dust conditions below it, people j 6 A. Right. Diseases that take a long time 6 wouldn't get sick. 1 7 to develop are chronic. 7 Q. Okay. Let's look at Exhibit 29 to see 8 Q. And asbestosis was a chronic disease. 8 what General Electric said about MACs back in 9 That was known in 1942, right? 9 1955. Let me hand you the portion on MACs. And | 10 A. 1942 what was known was that it was 10 could you read the third paragraph? First of | 11 related to dose meaning chronic, long term 11 all, that is from the General Electric * 12 related to high exposure. That's what was known 12 Industrial Hygiene Book -- 13 in 1942. 13 A. Okay. 14 Q. You keep saying high exposure, but he's 14 Q. - you were provided by the General f 15 saying that the five million particles --he 15 Electric lawyers, right? And in this section ; 16 calls it a very small concentration, right? He 16 that talks about maximum allowable j 17 calls it so low, right? So you're calling it 17 concentrations, and thafs dated 1955, correct? i 18 high. 18 A. If I could just look at the whole book \ 19 A. Well, notwithstanding --I'msaying 19 for a second. { 20 high. Notwithstanding this, after this --the 20 MR. KAPSHANDY: What page is it, | 21 ACGIH came out with the MAC four or five million 21 Counsel? 22 particles per cubic foot. I'm just trying to -- 22 MR. KRISTAL: It's the book on MACs. 2 23 I haven't seen this before. I'm trying to 23 MR. KAPSHANDY: It doesn't- 24 understand what he wrote. He's not an 24 MR. KRISTAL: It's on process 25 industrial hygienist, and his writing is, is 25 information. It's not the section on material 63 ( P a g e s 717 t o 720) Page 721 Page 723 1 information, Dave. Three sections. The first 2 is definitions, then come material information, 3 then it says up top process information, and 4 it's alphabetical, so it's under M. 5 MR. SPEZIALI: What page do you want to 6 go to? 7 MR. KR1STAL: The first page, maximum 8 allowable concentrations. 9 MR. SPEZIALI: Okay. You mentioned 10 that okay. The problem is it was all a 11 multitude o f --just give me a minute to locate 12 which section it is. Oh, I think I found it. 13 Just make sure. All right. I think I have it. 14 Go ahead. 15 THE WITNESS: Okay. Thank you. 16 BY MR. KRISTAL: 17 Q. And the third paragraph that GE 18 wrote --their industrial hygienist wrote is 19 that a maximum allowable concentration is not a 2 0 hard and fast line between safe and unsafe, 21 right? 22 A. I'mjust going to read the paragraphs 23 before that. You jumped to the third. I'm 2 4 going to read the first two. 25 Q. Go ahead. 1 similar materials. Frequently, however, even 2 the best available information is not very good, 3 and the value assigned represents little more 4 than intelligent guess. For this reason, the 5 maximum allowable concentration cannot be 6 considered a hard and fast line between danger 7 and safety. It is meant only as a guide for use 8 by industrial physicians, industrial hygienists 9 and others actively engaged in control o f 10 industrial exposure, end quote. Do you see 11 those paragraphs? 12 MR. SPEZIALI: It goes on. Should I 13 read the rest? 14 MR. KRISTAL: No. 15 MR. SPEZIALI: You don't want to read 16 the rest? 17 MR. KRISTAL: No, I don't want to read 18 the rest. You can read the rest if you want on 19 your time. 2 0 MR. SPEZIALI: I absolutely do want to. 21 MR. KRISTAL: Good. 22 BY MR. KRISTAL: 23 Q. And that's what the GE industrial 2 4 hygiene folks said in 1955, correct, what I just 2 5 read? Page 722 Page 724 1 A. Thanks. Okay. I read the third. 1 A. Right. You're reading part o f it. 2 Thank you. 2 Q. O f course. We would be here for weeks 3 Q. The third paragraph says, the maximum 3 if we read the whole document, is that what 4 allowable concentrations are not hard and fast 4 they said in that document, the part I read? 5 rules between safe and unsafe. Why don't you 5 A. You read it correctly. 6 read the paragraph on the record. Read the 6 Q. Thank you. Now, you're aware that GE 7 third paragraph. 7 knew that the five million particles per cubic 8 A. Okay. Thank you. 8 foot o f air was total dust that was measured, 9 MR. KAPSHANDY: Objection. 9 not all asbestos dust, correct? 10 MR. KRISTAL: Go ahead. Let me read it 10 MR. SPEZIALI: Objection. 11 because there's an objection. 11 BY MR. KRISTAL: 12 MR. SPEZIALI: The objection is that 12 Q. I'm not asking you about what your 13 she should read the whole thing in context. 13 opinion is. I'm asking about what your 14 It's not reading one paragraph out o f an entire 14 understanding o f what GE's knowledge about that 15 page o f information. 15 was. 16 MR. KRISTAL: Not a problem. First 16 A. Well, I'm aware that there was a 17 paragraph, die maximum allowable concentration 17 divergence in the literature, and that there 18 o f a material, sometimes called threshold limit, 18 were different studies that looked at asbestos 19 is the highest centration o f the material in the 19 as it - in itself; for example, Fleischer, 20 air to which a person can be exposed for an 20 Drinker and other studies that were taken. So I 21 eight-hour workday without danger o f injury to 21 think that given different circumstances and 22 health. The values assigned to various 22 having been looked at in different studies, 2 3 materials are based on the best information 2 3 there were divergences o f opinion. 2 4 available from human or animal experimentation, 2 4 Q. Do you know General Electric's belief, 2 5 from industrial experience or from analogy to 25 and whether General Electric's belief was that 64 ( P a a e s 721 t o 7241 Page 725 Page 727 b 1 it included a count o f asbestos and non-asbestos 2 materials, the five million particles? 3 MR- SPEZIALI: Objection. 4 THE WITNESS: Well, I think, you know, 5 looking at different points in time, certainly 6 there are prescribed methods after OSHA that 7 looked at certain fiber dimensions, and before 8 that I'd say the studies -- there was a 9 divergence and -- 10 BY MR. KRISTAL: 11 Q. OSHA was after 1971, correct? 12 A. Right. 13 Q. And the five million particles per 14 cubic foot o f air had nothing to do with OSHA, 15 correct? 16 A. The five million particles per cubic 17 foot, right, went right up to OSHA when it came 18 out with the first standard. 19 Q. So the five million particles per cubic 20 foot o f air was all pre-1971, correct? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. Now, you were sent by the General 23 Electric lawyers certain answers to 24 interrogatories o f the General Electric Company 25 in asbestos litigation, were you not? i Dallas, Texas with respect to the case that that 2 was served in, nor the CMOs in Texas, nor what 1 3 the answer to interrogatory rules are. So all I 4 can do is object, and we can explore it at a f 5 later date. And I would move to strike the \ 6 document to the extent it's not appropriately | 7 used at this deposition. I 8 MR. KRISTAL: That's also on our | 9 Plaintiffs exhibit list in New York as GE 163. 10 MR. SPEZIALI: That would be another | 11 reason to strike it. \ 12 MR. KRISTAL: Ifyoutum to | 13 interrogatory number fifty-seven and | 14 fifty-eight. | 15 MR. SPEZIALI: Let me find it for you. 16 THE WITNESS: Thank you. J 17 MR. SPEZIALI: Fifty-seven and f 18 fifty-eight. i 19 MR. KRISTAL: Uh-huh. 20 BY MR. KRISTAL: 21 Q. Now, your understanding of 22 interrogatories is that in this case the 1 23 Plaintiffs asked certain questions o f the | 24 General Electric Company, and then the General 1 25 Electric Company answers those questions. Is \ Page 726 Page 728 | 1 A. Yes. 1 that generally your understanding o f how it 2 Q. Okay. Were you sent- - and I'll mark 2 works? i 3 this Exhibit 57. 3 A. Yes. I'm not a lawyer, but that's 4 (Whereupon, Exhibit 56, a document 4 generally what I understand. | 5 entitled Defendant General Electric Company's 5 Q. Would you play one on T.V.? No, I'm 6 Supplemental Answers and Objections to 6 kidding. Interrogatory number fifty-seven asks 7 Plaintiffs Master Interrogatories and Requests 7 about the threshold limit values or maximum 1 8 For Production in a case From Dallas, Texas, 8 allowable concentrations o f both asbestos dust ? 9 served April 4th, 2003, was then received and 9 and total dust, does it not? 10 marked for identification.) 10 A. I'm reading that. Yes, that's what it \ 11 MR. KRISTAL: This is Plaintiffs 11 says, as to either the threshold limit values or i 12 Exhibit GE 163, and I'm going to have to make 12 maximum allowable concentrations o f both 13 another copy because this is my only copy. 13 asbestos and total dust provided by the American 1 14 MR. SPEZIALI: Did I miss 56 or did you 14 Conference o f Governmental Industrial 15 miss 56? That's 55. I just don't want to have 15 Hygienists. 16 a gap in the record. 16 Q. And it asks the year in which a ; 17 MR. KRISTAL: I made a mistake. It's 17 defendant was first advised o f such limits or 18 56, and let me hand you a copy. This is 18 concentrations, the name o f the employer or 19 entitled Defendant General Electric Company's 19 official o f the company receiving such advice, 20 Supplemental Answers and Objections to 20 and how the defendant receives such notice of 21 Plaintiffs Master Interrogatories and Requests 21 such limits or concentrations, correct? 22 For Production in a case From Dallas, Texas, and 22 A. Right. 23 it was served April 4th, 2003. 23 Q. And then there's an objection by GE, 24 MR. SPEZIALI: For the record, I'll 24 and then it says, the second sentence, quote, 25 object. I don't know what the rules are in 25 subject to and without waiving any objections, 65 ( P a g e s 725 t o 728) Page 729 Page 731 ;; 1 GE states that it became aware of TLVs at the i understood that the units o f measure prior to 2 time they were promulgated by the American 2 the 1970s measured asbestos-containing dust in 3 Conference of Governmental and Industrial 3 millions o f particles per cubic foot without 4 Hygienists. That's their answer. Do you see 4 distinguishing non-asbestos-containing 5 that? 5 particles? Does it say that? 6 A. Yes. 6 THE WITNESS: It does. 7 Q. Then the next question is interrogatory 7 MR. KRISTAL: And is your J 8 number fifty-eight, quote, were the threshold 8 interpretation o f that that GE understood that ; 9 limit values or maximum allowable concentrations 9 the five million particles was a count o f both 10 inquired about in interrogatory number 10 asbestos fibers and non-asbestos-containing 11 fifty-seven for total dust and not asbestos dust 11 particles? 12 alone, end quote. Do you see that question? 12 MR. SPEZIALI: Objection. 13 A. Yes. 13 THE WITNESS: I think because o f the 14 Q. And that's where we were just 14 available technology and how the samples were 15 discussing before you saw this document, 15 taken, yes, it was a measure o f total dust. 16 correct? 16 MR. KRISTAL: Okay. So whatever 17 A. Yes. 17 controversy you say may have existed, this 18 Q. And this is General Electric's answer: 18 represents GE's understanding, does it not? 19 Quote, GE understood that the units of measure 19 MR. SPEZIALI: Objection. s 20 prior to the 1970s, parentheses, when electron 20 THE WITNESS: I'm not a lawyer, and it 21 microscopy began to provide a means for specific 21 looks like in a particular instance --I can't 22 counting o f fibers - o f asbestos fibers, close 22 speak for everything. I'm just looking at this \ 23 parentheses, measured asbestos-containing dust 23 document. 24 in millions o f particle per cubic foot without 24 MR. KRISTAL: But it was your task to 25 distinguishing non-asbestos-containing 2 5 find out what GE knew about the hazards o f S Page 730 Page 732 s 1 particles, end quote. Do you see that? 1 asbestos historically, correct? \ 2 A. Yes. 2 THE WITNESS: Yes. I 3 Q. So GE understood historically that 3 MR. KRISTAL: Wouldn't you like to have i 4 prior to the 1970s the five million particles 4 seen these two questions and answers? i 5 per cubic foot o f air was a count o f the total 5 MR. SPEZIALI: Objection. 6 dust including asbestos fibers and non-asbestos 6 THE WITNESS: Wouldn't I have liked to? j 7 particles? 7 MR. KRISTAL: Yes. 8 MR. SPEZIAL1: Objection. 8 MR. KAPSHANDY: Who says she hasn't 5 9 MR. KRISTAL: That's what it says, 9 seen them? 1 10 doesn't it? 10 BY MR. KRISTAL: 11 MR. SPEZIALI: Objection. 11 Q. Fine. Have you seen that question and 12 THE SPECIAL MASTER: You made your 12 answer before; those two questions and answers? l 13 objection. Now he's asking. He can ask the 13 A. Yes. 14 question. 14 Q. You had? 15 MR. SPEZIALI: And I move to strike the 15 A. I have. 16 question in the event counsel can't prove the 16 Q. So why when I asked you the question 17 statement at the time o f trial. 17 about whether it was total dust orjust asbestos 18 THE SPECIAL MASTER: Then she can 18 dust did you say that there was some sort of 19 answer. 19 controversy? 20 MR. KRISTAL: It's GE's statement. 20 MR. SPEZIALI: Objection. You're being 21 MR. SPEZIALI: No, it's not. That's 21 argumentative with the witness. 22 not what it says. You said that's what it says. 22 MR. KRISTAL: Just say objection. 23 It's not what it says. It absolutely doesn't 23 THE SPECIAL MASTER: Just say 24 say that. 24 objection. The only thing we do here is say 25 MR. KRISTAL: Does it say that GE 25 objection. Keep going. 66 (Pages 729 t o 732) I I controversy, but because of the measuring techniques at the time, yes, it would have been 3 for total dust. 4 MR. KRISTAL: Okay. And GE understood 5 5 that, right? 6 7 MR. SPEZIALI: Objection. 7 8 BY MR. KRISTAL: 8 9 Q. Historically? 9 .0 A. Well -- .1 Q. That's what it says, does it not? 10 .2 A. Let me just read that. 11 .3 MR. KAPSHANDY: For the record, 12 .4 Counsel, you covered this at length at page 13 14 .5 twenty at the last deposition. So I would 15 .6 object to this being asked and answered -- 16 .7 THE SPECIAL MASTER: I'm going to guess 17 .8 this is the last question. Am I right? 18 .9 THE WITNESS: Could I have the question 19 !0 again? 20 1 MR. KRISTAL: And I said and GE 21 >2 understood that? 22 13 MR. SPEZIALI: What is that? 23 >4 MR. KRISTAL: That it was total dust. 24 25 MR. SPEZIALI: Objection. 25 Page 734 1 THE WITNESS: Because of the 1 2 technology, I'd say yes, but I still have -- 2 3 notwithstanding my prior comments. 3 4 MR. KRISTAL: Let me mark as Exhibit 4 5 57- 5 6 THE SPECIAL MASTER: I'mjust letting 6 7 you know, Jerry, it's a little after five. I 7 8 just want to keep you apprised o f the time. 8 9 MR. KRISTAL: I lost track. Why don't 9 10 we stop for the day. Why don't we pick up 10 11 11 tomorrow at nine. 12 12 THE SPECIAL MASTER: Off the record. 13 13 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This is the 14 14 conclusion o f tape number three and volume three 15 15 of the continuing deposition of Marjorie 16 16 Drucker. O ff the record. The time is five o 17 17 three p.m. 18 ***** 19 19 20 20 21 21 22 22 23 23 24 24 25 25 the foregoing pages, and \>ith (he eveepuon o< the changes on the errata sheet, that they are a true and accurate transcript o f the testimony given by me in the above-entitled action on August 19,2004. MARJORIE A. DRUCKER Sworn to before me this day of ,2004. Notary Public STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF ERIE) Page 736 I, VICTORIA ROHL, a Notary Public in and for the State ofNew York, County of Erie, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that the Examination Before Trial of MARJORIE A. DRUCKER, was taken down by me in a verbatim manner by means of Machine Shorthand on August 19,2004, that the proceedings were taken to be used in the above-entitled action. I further CERTIFY that the above-described transcript constitutes a true, accurate and complete transcript ofthe testimony. VICTORIA ROHL Notary Public 67 ( P a g e s 733 t o 736) EXHIBIT INDEX EXHIBITS: PAGE: 29, a document entitled. Industrial Hygiene, 516 General Electric on the front page, copywrited 1956 by the General Electric 6 Company 7 30, a section of a textbook that is entitled 522 8 Industrial Poisons in die United States that was written by Dr. Alice Hamilton in 1925 9 31, a document from GE to die MacMillan 524 Company medical department, 65th Avenue, New 10 York, New York ordering twelve copies o f Industrial Poisons in th e United States by 11 Alice Hamilton and asking MacMillan to send a copy to a number o f diffrent General 12 Electric doctors including the president of General Electric 13 14 32, a letter dated May 9th, 1929 535 33, a letter from B. Delack to Mr. Swope, the 543 1 5 president o f General Electric 1 6 34, a document dated October 10th and 11th, 54S 1929, Schenectady, New York 17 35, a document dated May 1929 entitled 552 18 Pittsfield, another Alice Hamilton report to General Electric 19 20 36, a document dated April 20th, 1931, General Electric X-ray Corporation, Chicago 558 21 37, a document dated March 25th, 1930, 561 Schenectady, another report by Dr. Hamilton 22 38, the Merewether 1930 report 563 23 39, a document dated June 7th 1926, and it is 564 24 from Alice Hamilton to Gerard Swope, president of General Electric Company 25 1 EXHIBITS (CONT.) 2 3 40, a document dated September 24th, 1929, 609 General Electric Company, Bridgeport, 4 Connecticut, an Alice Hamilton report to General Electric pursuant to her review o f 5 some o f the GE facilities with respect to industrial hygiene 6 41, a document dated January 8th, 1933, a 612 7 letter from Dr. Hamilton to the president o f 8 General Electric, Mr. Swope 42, a document dated December 14th o f 1933, a 614 9 letter from Dr. Hamilton to Mr. Swope, the president of General Electric 10 43, a doormen! dated December 19th, 1933, 11 Mr. Swope's response to Dr. Hamilton 12 44, a document dated January 26th, 1934 619 620 1 3 45, a document January 30th, 1934 from 631 Mr. C ad Obermaier from York, Pennsylvania to 14 Dr. Hamilton 1 5 46, a February 13th, 1934 letter from the 636 manager of the Bridgeport factory o f Genera) 1 6 Electric to Dr. Hamilton 1 7 47, a document dated April 26th, 1934 that 638 relates to the mineral sericite with respect 1 8 to silicosis 1 9 48, a document dated M ay 11th, 1934, a letter 644 from Dr. Hamilton to President Swope o f the 20 General Electric Company 21 48-A, a retype o f Exhibit 48 644 22 49, a document dated M ay 15th, 1934, 660 M r. Swope's letter back to Dr. Hamilton 23 50, a document dated April 1st, 1935 on 2 4 letterhead that is entitled General Electric 660 X-ray Corporation 25 EXHIBITS (COOT.) 51, sections o f a 1930 bulletin o f the 665 American Ceramic Society 52, a portion o f the bulletin o f the American 670 Ceramic Society from October 1940 53, a portion o f the ceramic abstracts 670 compiled by the American Ceramic Society from September 1934 54, a letter, January 12th, 1951 from a Sarah 698 Alameda, RN, consultant in industrial nursing to a Shirley RN McLaughlin, M-C-L-A-U-G-H-L-I-N, health center, General 10 Electric Company, Lowell, Massachusetts 11 55, a Journal o f Industrial M edicine from 703 April 1942 12 56, a document entitled Defendant General 726 13 Electric Company's Supplemental Answers and Objections to Plaintiffs Master 14 Interrogatories and Requests For Production in a case From Dallas, Texas, served April 15 4th, 2003 16 n 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 68 ( P a g e s 737 t o 739)