Document B8K5vbZQmNnZo2XMGMdpXy9V8

FILE NAME: Johnson & Johnson (JAJ) DATE: 1998 Mar 16 DOC#: JAJ 137 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION: Letter to J&J Lawyers from Mehaffy & Weber RE Coker vs. Bill Thames Pharmacy lncv et al. MEHAFFY & WEBER . A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW ONE ALIEN CENTER w dallas, surre 1200 HOutCiN, ixaS u w TELEPHONE (713) 655-1200 FAX |7l3) 655-0222 2615 CALDER AVENUE PORT OFFtC F BOX 1 BEAUMONT, TEXAS 77704 TELEPHONE HM) 835-OIi FAX (409) 835-3177 [409 835-5729 1006 GREEN AVENUE P 0 BOX 169 QRAriGt, TEXAS r/63Q TELEPHONE (J09> 806*7766 FAX (09)586*7790 March 16, 1998 Re: NO. D-157746; Darlene Coker, and spouse Roy Coker vs. Bill Thames Pharmacy Inc., et al; M&W File No. 3125-11 Mr, John C. O 'Shaughnessy Assistant General Counsel Johnson & Johnson One Johnson & Johnson Plaza New Brunswick, N.J. 08933-7002 Dear Mr. O'Shaughnessy. O n Thursday, March 12, 1998 and Monday March 16, 1998, ! spoks with Dr. Alice Bloundt about the possibility o f retaining her as an expert in the above entitled case. Dr. Bloundt s a geologist and mineralogist who has written extensively on talc and asbestos contamination in commercial talc preparations. Dr. Bloundt was formerly a professor at Rutgers University, but is now employed by Piuess-Staufer industries, inc., a mining concern in Proctor, Vermont. Although Dr. Bloundt seemed less than ecstatic about the idea o f testifying in a legal proceeding, she agreed to consult in the case if we desired her to do so. but stated that in her opinion, commercial talcum powder preparations including Johnson & Johnson Baby Powder contain trace amounts of asbestos. However, Dr. Bloundt said that all powders she tested, including Johnson & Johnson Baby Powder were well below acceptable limits (as defined by OS HA) and that she considered Vermont talc as suuic of the puiesi uric avaiiaoie. in addition, Dr. Bloundt stated that she did not think that whatever amount o f asbestos that might be present in baby powder was harmful, that the concern about talc was blown out of proportion, and that she has a very high opinion of Johnson & Johnson Baby Powder. Although she did not elaborate, Dr. Bloundt asked whether she would be called as a witness regardless of whether she agreed to consult for us. When 1 asked her why she fell that she might be called to testify, she indicated that some of her research or publications while at rviw/imi J&J-0049964 JNJ 000064591 MEHAFFY & WEBER Mr. John O 'Shaughnessy Xm/ _arci1i ioy>' I nr a. g. .e z Rutgers were funded by Johnson & Johnson, We might want to see if Johnson & Johnson has any records relating to funding o f Dr. Bloundl's research. Please feel free to cc.itact me at any time should you have any questions or desire additional information on this matter. Very truly yours, MRJi/jah M. Raymond Hatcher For the Finn MW/1IS815 J&J-0049965 JNJ 000064592 7478 1 MR. KURLAND: Yes. This document, we're not 2 asserting privilege over. We said before that we were 3 checking on that -- I ____ 1 _____ 1 MR. KURLAND: Yes. This document, we're not 2 asserting privilege over. We said before that we were 3 checking on that -- 4 THE COURT: And so -- 5 MR. KURLAND: -- and we checked on it. And we 6 agree that it was privileged at one time, but that's been 7 waived. So we're not asserting any privilege or 8 work-product arguments with regard to that document. 9 MR. BLOCK: And just to be clear, that was -- 0 that's Exhibit 767. 22 believe both of these (indicating) documents are 23 inadmissible. 24 So I'm happy to address the reasons why, one at a 25 time, however the Court would like. ALAN F. BOWIN, CSR, RMR, CRR