Document EqOKeBONv6zNvJJ80RoQw6Ddg

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS BEAUMONT DIVISION CECIL SCOTT, ET AL VS. MONSANTO COMPANY * * * * CIVIL ACTION * NO. B-84-1103-CA * * A******************* SEPTEMBER 2, 1987 VOLUME XIII a********************* BEFORE THE HONORABLE JOE J. FISHER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE, AND A JURY REPORTED BY: C. FRANK MCMILLAN FEDERAL COURT REPORTING CO. P. O. BOX 2664 BEAUMONT, TEXAS 77006 (409) 839-2518 1 APPEARANCES 2 3 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS: 4 MR. DAVID M. LACEY MR. MICHAEL A. POHL 5 MS. SUSAN BAKER GILPIN, POHL & BENNETT 6 1300 POST OAK BOULEVARD HOUSTON, TEXAS 77056 7 MR. THOMAS HENDERSON 8 MR. ANTONIO PYLE HENDERSON & GOLDBERG 9 1030 FIFTH AVENUE PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA 15219 10 MR. BENTON MUSSLEWHITE 11 609 FANNIN, SUITE 517 HOUSTON, TEXAS 77002 12 13 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT: 14 MR. ROBERTA. HALL MR. ROBERTA. JONES 15 MR. JONATHAN SHOEBOTHAM WOODARD, HALL & PRIMM 16 4700 TEXAS COMMERCE TOWER HOUSTON, TEXAS 77002 17 MR. TANNER T. HUNT, JR. 18 MS. CHERYL D. OLESEN MR. WALTER CRAWFORD 19 MR. MARK FREEMAN WELLS, PEYTON, BEARD, GREENBERG, 20 HUNT & CRAWFORD P. O. BOX 3708 21 BEAUMONT, TEXAS 77056 22 ALSO PRESENT: 23 MR. WILLIAM PAPAGEORGE, CORPORATE 24 REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE MONSANTO CHEMICAL COMPANY. 25 K Ja 1 INDEX 2 3 4 WITNESS: DR. PAUL L. WRIGHT 5 SHOWING OF VIDEO DEPOSITION READING FROM VIDEO DEPOSITION 6 7 8 WITNESS: DR. WARD R. RICHTER 9 SHOWING OF VIDEO DEPOSITION READING FROM VIDEO DEPOSITION 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PAGE 1983 1992 PAGE 20 32; 2047 I ------------ ------------------ 197 8 1 of Dr. George J. Levisksas. 2 THE COURT: Who do you have next? 3 MR. JONES: Your Honor, the defendant 4 will make its offer in its case in chief. 5 THE COURT: Thank you. Who do you have 6 next? 7 MR. POHL: With that, Your Honor, at 8 this time we call Dr. Paul L. Wright by 9 video deposition. 10 THE COURT: Do you have additional 11 objections to make or do you make the same 12 objections? 13 MR. JONES: Yes, Your Honor, we do. 14 Yesterday you stated, Your Honor, that 15 if we had additional objections other than 16 those running objections to make them at the 17 appropriate time and this is one of those 18 times, Your Honor. 19 We would object to the testimony of 20 Paul Wright to the extent that he seeks or 21 seeks to invoke his Fifth Amendment rights 22 under the constitution of the United States 23 on the ground that such testimony is 24 irrelevant, it's immaterial, it's 25 inflammatory and its prejudice outweighs its I'irrsr 1 probative value. 2 Monsanto specifically objects for the 3 reason that there is no adverse inference 4 that can be drawn from such invocation of 5 the Fifth Amendment, rights to the Defendant 6 Monsanto. And, therefore, the testimony is 7 irrelevant. 8 No adverse inference can be drawn for a 9 couple of reasons, Your Honor. Number one, 10 the witness was not an employee of Monsanto 11 at the time of the deposition. Monsanto did 12 not control or influence him or could 13 influence him in any way. He was 14 represented by counsel at the deposition. 15 And, in fact, I as counsel for Monsanto 16 Company specifically objected to his taking 17 the Fifth Amendment and requested that he 18 answer the questions. 19 THE COURT: Let's not argue your 20 objections. Just make them. 21 MR. JONES: All right, Your Honor. 22 That's the first objection, Your Honor. 23 The second objection that we have to 24 the testimony is that there is no 25 substantial independent evidence to support 1980 1 the inference which the plaintiffs seek to 2 draw; that being, that the invocation of the 3 Fifth Amendment by Paul Wright, which they 4 are seeking to draw, is not that he may have 5 committed a crime but the fact that Monsanto 6 knew that he committed a crime or alleged or 7 knew of the alleged deficiencies of 1ST. 8 Your Honor, since there is no 9 independent corroborating evidence on that 10 point under the authority of the United 11 States versus James, that testimony should 12 be excluded. 13 But even if they did have corroborating 14 evidence, Your Honor, they have got to also 15 show that the inference that they draw is 16 more probable than any other inference and 17 that they haven't done. 18 We would also object to the testimony 19 on the ground that Paul Wright's knowledge, 20 whatever it may be, cannot be imputed to 21 Monsanto because if, in fact, there were 22 deficiencies at IBT and if, in fact, he knew 23 of those deficiencies , he didn't tell them 24 to Monsanto. And under case law, Your 25 Honor, if an employee acts adverse to the a 1981 1 interest of its employer -2 THE COURT: Let's not argue. 3 MR. JONES: Okay, Your Honor. 4 Your Honor, we'd also in that case, 5 what we would like to do is just refer to 6 the Court the brief that we filed in support 7 of the motion in limine which contains many 8 of these objections. And we would request 9 that the deposition testimony be excluded. 10 MS. BAKER: Could I be heard just for 11 the record? 12 THE COURT: Yes. 13 MS. BAKER: And rely for our part on 14 our briefs filed with the Court and on the 15 fact that a lot of cases represented by 16 United States versus James has been 17 overruled by the United States Supreme 18 Court. Thank you. 19 THE COURT: The Court overrules the 20 additional objections as well as the i 21 original objections and gives counsel a 22 running objection to all of these matters 23 and deny the request. 24 All right. Let's proceed. 25 MR. JONES: Your Honor, may I state one  1982 T 1 additional thing and then we can go on with 2 the deposition. 3 May we request an instruction from the 4 Court to the jury that no adverse inference 5 may be drawn against Monsanto Company as a 6 result of this testimony for the reasons 7 that we stated earlier? 8 MR. POHL: Your Honor, I would like to 9 be heard on that. 10 THE COURT: Yes. 11 MR. POHL: Your Honor, I don't want to 12 engage in argument, but the fact, the 13 evidence already shows from Monsanto's 14 witnesses that Dr. Wright was hired back by 15 Monsanto at Monsanto's request. 16 He came back in a high management 17 position, that after he came back, he 18 continued to coordinate with IBT. We have 19 read to the jury this very morning documents 20 that Paul Wright had knowledge of and even 21 Manual Rhame, one of Monsanto's current 22 employees, testified that he personally told 23 Dr. Wright about these deficiencies that 24 we're going to detail a little bit later in 25 this case. 9 1983 1 THE COURT: All right. The Court will 2 instruct the jury that this testimony is 3 being offered for the purpose of showing the 4 knowledge, if any, on the part of Monsanto. 5 And Monsanto, being a corporation, of 6 course, it acts through agents, servants and 7 employees. And the jury may give such 8 circumstantial weight or value to the 9 evidence as they consider it is entitled to. 10 Now, on the question of knowledge of 11 Monsanto. 12 All right. You may proceed. 13 MR. POHL: We are ready to proceed, 14 Your Honor. 15 THE COURT: All right. 16 17 (WHEREUPON THE FOLLOWING PORTIONS OF THE 18 VIDEO DEPOSITION WERE SHOWN TO THE JURY.) 19 20 Raise your right hand. Do you solemnly 21 swear that the testimony you are about to give 22 will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing 23 but the truth so help you God? 24 A I d o . 25 Q Dr. Wright, my name is Mike Pohl. As you 1984 1 have just heard, I'm one of the attorneys for the 2 plaintiffs; that is, the parties who have brought 3 this civil lawsuit. 4 We are here today to ask you a number of 5 questions. Before we start those questions, let 6 me say first that the plaintiffs are calling you 7 as an adverse witness in that you were employed 8 by both by IBT and Monsanto. 9 Let me begin your deposition by asking you 10 to state for the Court and jury your full name. 11 A I am Paul Lee Wright. 12 Q If at any time during the course of the 13 deposition you d o n 1t understand one of my 14 questions because I speak too softly, because I'm 15 not careful in the way I worded the question, 16 because it is somehow confusing to you or because 17 there is some distraction in the room, I would 18 appreciate your stopping me and asking me to 19 repeat the question or to rephrase the question 20 so that we can be very clear that you understand 21 each and every question. 22 Can we have that agreement? 23 A I will do my best. 24 Q And you'understand, D r . Wright, that this 25 deposition, even though we are here in rather 1985 1 informal proceedings# can be used at the time of 2 trial; that is, we can show this videotape or 3 read the question and answers or any part thereof 4 to the Court and jury? 5 A That1s my understanding . 6 Q And you understand that you have just been 7 sworn by the court reporter? 8 A Yes, I do. 9 Q And you understand that thatmeans that you 10 have been sworn to tell the truth and the whole 11 truth just as if you were sworn on the witness 12 stand in the courtroom before the jury? 13 A I understand that. 14 Q And in response to each of myquestions, I 15 would like you to give me the full and complete 16 and. truthful answer to each question, okay? 17 A All right. 18 Q And in what year did you obtain your Ph.D.? 19 A In 1961. 20 Q When were you first employed by Monsanto? 21 A In 1965. 22 Q When were you first employed by Industrial 23 Biotest Laboratories, Inc.? 24 A In 1971. 25 Q When you were employed by IBT# what was your  19 8 6 1 job title? 2 A I believe it was manager of toxicology. 3 Q And when did your employment with IBT 4 terminate? 5 A In November of 1972. 6 Q Did you then return to employment with 7 Monsanto? 8 A Yes, I did. 9 Q And what was the first day that you 10 recommenced your employment with Monsanto? 11 A I believe it was November 1, 1972. 12 Q What was your job title at Monsanto when you 13 became re-employed by Monsanto? 14 A It, again, was managerof toxicology. 15 Q And you worked here inSt. Louis in the 16 offices of Monsanto? 17 A Y e s , I did. 18 Q You were criminally indicted;is that 19 correct? 20 A That's correct. 21 Q All right. And do you recall when you were 22 indicted? 23 A No, I don't. I believe it was in 1982. 24 Q After the indictment washanded down, you 25 ultimately went through a criminal trial, did you 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 .) 25 i ---------------- -------------------------------------------- 2TTT9" So, in the process of diagnosing a slide, a pathologist is comparing the tissue against pictures that are retained. So, those of us who are good pathologist have very good skills of retaining pictures of what we have seen previously. Q And I think you indicated a moment ago that you could recall at this point rather vividly what you saw under the microscope when you looked at Dr. Kimbrough's slides? A Yes. Q First of all, so the jury will have some understanding of this, in order to make your own independent determination as to whether or not Dr. Kimbrough's slides displayed cancer, what were you looking for in terms of the shape of the cells, the color, or anything else that might appear to the naked eye under the microscope? A There are series of factors that are involved in making that diagnosis. The lesions that were found in the liver were focal areas in which the liver cells were enlarged and some of the liver cells were dividing and producing a nodule or a little focal area of abnormal cells that were surrounded by normal liver tissue. And ~21 na /e  T51T7-- ! 1 not? 2 A Yes, I did. 3 Q And did you have an attorney representing 4 you in that criminal trial? 5 A Yes, I did. 6 Q What was that lawyer's name? 7 A The lead lawyer was M r . James Robertson of 8 the Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering firm. 9 Q How many other attorneys, if any, assisted 10 in your representation during the course of those 11 criminal proceedings? 12 A There were two. 13 Q Were all three of those lawyers with the 14 Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering law firm? 15 A Yes, they were, as far as I know. 16 Q And you understood that law firm to be out 17 of Washington, D.C.? 18 A Yes, it was. 19 Q The criminal trial took place in Chicago, 20 did it not? 21 A Yes, it did. 22 Q Did you also have local attorneys 23 representing you in Chicago? 24 A Well, there was a firm Hapfin & Hapfin and 25 apparently was involved in the firm but they did * -- ------------------------------------------------ 1988 1 not represent me personally, as far as I know. 2 Q How long did the trial -last? 3A I believe about seven months. 4 Q And you were tried along with D r . Keplinger 5 and a man named James Plant? 6 A That's correct. 7 Q And a Dr. Joe Keplinger did not complete the 8 trial because of physical illness; is that 9 correct? 10 A That's correct. 11 Q And so far as you understand, the trial as 12 to Dr. Keplinger has never been completed; is 13 that correct? 14 A I have no knowledge. 15 Q At the conclusion of the trial, were you /^ 16 convicted? 17 A Yes, I was. 18 Q And were you sentenced by the judge? 19 A Yes, I was. 20 Q Did you take an appeal from that conviction? 21 A Yes, I did. 22 Q And was the conviction affirmed? 23 A Yes, it was. 24 Q I want to show you a document which I have 25 obtained from the district courts of Chicago  ----------------------------- - iy By i 1 which is your indictment and ask you first, if 2 you have ever before looked at the grand jury's 3 indictment as it pertains to y o u , have you? 4 5 (Whereupon the video deposition was interrupted.) 6 7 THE COURT: Do you need to go into this .8 much detail? 9 10 (Video resumed.) 11 A Yes, I have seen the indictment. I don't 12 know the document you have. 13 14 (Whereupon the video deposition was interrupted.) 15 16 THE COURT: Is it necessary to go into 17 this much detail? 18 MR. MUSSLEWHITE: We can stop, Your 19 Honor -- 20 THE COURT: Can you offer the rest of 21 it by Q&A? 22 MR, MUSSLEWHITE: Just want to go over 23 one question, Your Honor. 24 M R . POHL: If we can have about two 25 more minutes then we are going to offer it ----------------------------- ; ' 1990 1 by Q&A. 1 2 THE COURT: All right. Make it roll 3 then. 4 5 (Video deposition resumed.) 6 Q Let me show this to you and your lawyer. 7 This is a certified copy which we obtained from 8 the United States District, the Northern District 9 of Illinois and pass it to you. Take a moment to 10 look at it and just identify it for the record as 11 to whether or not it's the indictment? 12 Does that appear to be the indictment? 13 A It appears to b e , but I cannot -- am not 14 totally certain that that's the document at this 15 point in time. 16 Q But to the best of your knowledge today, 17 that appears to you to be a true and accurate 18 copy of the indictment that you were faced with? 19 A That is my assumption. 20 Q I want to ask you a few questions, Dr. 21 Wright, about the attorneys' fees associated with 22 your criminal trial -- 23 24 (Whereupon the video deposition was interrupted. ) 25 THE COURT: Let's don't go-back into 9 i TTT9T i 1 that. Let's don't go back into the attorney 2 fees. Just go into details that are just, 3 thread bare, you've just worn it thread 4 bare. Get to the testimony that you want to 5 ask him about concerning his test, I suppose 6 and -- see if you can do that. 7 MR. MUSSLEWHITE: Can you do it to the 8 first question on there -- oka y . 9 10 (Video deposition resumed.) 11 12 Q There was a manager of toxicology for IBT 13 and also there is a manager for toxicology for 14 Monsanto at a later point in time. You knew that 15 the United States Government and possibly others 16 might receive copies of the conclusions of the 17 studies that were being conducted at IBT, on 18 Monsanto's Aroclor products, did you not? 19 A On my attorney's advice, I hereby invoke the 20 right secured to me by the Fifth and Fourteenth 21 Amendments to the U.S . Constitution and 22 respectively refuse to answer that question on 23 the grounds that any information -- 24 25 (Whereupon the video deposition was concluded.) ! I * e ------------------------ ;------------------- 199 2 i 1 THE COURT: What ijs the necessity of 2 offering this? 3 MR- MUSSLEWHITE: Your Honor, there's 4 about only eight questions that we have that 5 go into the -- 6 THE COURT : Well, let's get to the 7 eight questions then. 8 MR. MUSSLEWHITE: We will stop that and 9 read them 10 THE COURT : All ri g h t . 11 MR. POHL : If you will turn to Page 31, 12 line 19, I will ask the question. You can 13 give the answer 14 MR. MUSSLEWHITE: O kay. i 15 16 (Reading from video deposition) 17 Q Dr. Wright, is it true that the result of 18 IBT's high mortality rate in connection with 19 Monsanto's Aroclor study and the practice of 20 substituting animals during the course of such 21 studies cause the toxic effects of Monsanto's 22 Aroclor studies to be seriously understated? 23 A On my attorney's advice, I hereby invoke the 24 rights secured to me by the Fifth and Fourteenth 25 Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and r^r 1 respectfully refuse to answer that question on 2 the grounds that any information I give in 3 response may tend to incriminate me, 4 (End of reading) 5 6 MR. POHL: Page 33, line 12. 7 8 (Reading from video deposition) 9 Q Dr. Wright, is it true that the reports of 10 the conclusions reached in connection with the 11 IBT Aroclor studies were altered several times at 12 Monsanto's request? 13 A On my attorney's advice I hereby invoke the 14 rights secured to me by the Fifth and the -- 15 (End of reading) 16 17 THE COURT: If he is going to invoke 18 the Fifth Amendment, all of these will -- 19 there's no need of offering them. 20 MR. MUSSLEWHITE: Your Honor, our 21 purpose, if I may say so, is to show the 22 questions -- the information we tried to get 23 from this witness and if you will -- I'll -- 24 we'll stop reading the Fifth Amendment and 25 just read the questions. 1"9"9T 1 THE COURT: Did you not get the 2 information from other witnesses? 3 MR. POHL: Your Honor, this is the 4 witness that has the most direct knowledge 5 both from the point of view of IBT and 6 Monsanto. 7 THE COURT: Don't you think the Court 8 knows that? It's absolutely a waste of time 9 to ask a question and then to have him 10 invoke his Fifth Amendment right. That 11 doesn't add anything to the testimony. 12 MR. POHL: We want to show the jury, 13 Your Honor, that we attempted to go to the 14 one person from both Monsanto and IBT who 15 had the most -- 16 THE COURT: The Court is reversing its 17 rulings. We will sustain the defendant' 18 objection and we will grant his request 19 suppress this deposition of Mr . Wr ight1s 20 All right 21 MR. JONES : Your Honor , in light of the 22 Cour t 's recent ruling here, we would request 23 that the jury be instructed to disregard the 24 previous testimony. 25 THE COURT: Yes, the Court will request i * T91T5--- 1 1 the jury to disregard any portion of Mr. 2 Wright's testimony that has been read. All 3 right. 4 MR. POHL: Your Honor, at this time we 5 would -- 6 THE COURT: Do not give it any 7 consideration or affect to Dr. Wright's 8 deposition in regard to your deliberation as 9 a jury in this case. Do not give it any 10 affect or consideration in your rulings. 11 All right. 12 MR. POHL: Your Honor, we would read 13 from the deposition and offer a summary of 14 Dan R. Bishop taken June 29, 1987. And I 15 will read a summary and there are some 16 questions and answers and I would ask M r . 17 Musslewhite to respond to the questions. 18 THE COURT: All right. What witness is 19 this? 20 MR. MUSSLEWHITE: This is the last one 21 that I mentioned to Your Honor of the last 22 witness we have that wa!s Monsanto's -- 23 public relations man. It's a short offer. 24 THE COURT: You may proceed. 25 MR. POHL: Your Honor, in order to show J 2TTZ7 1 you worked with at Monsanto'back in the mid-70's 2 would provide you information that you asked for? 3 A Yes. 4 Q And was there ever an occasion when you went 5 to the technical people at Monsanto and asked 6 them for a question concerning PCBs that they 7 didn't provide you with the information that you 8 asked for? 9 A No, never. 10 Q Did you find that the technical people that 11 you worked withconcerning PCBs were cooperative 12 with you? 13 A Yes 14 Q And did you find that the technical people 15 that you worked with at Monsanto back in the 16 mid~70's provided you with accurate info rmation 17 A To my knowledge, yes. 18 (End of reading) 19 20 MR. SHOEBOTHAM: That concludes our 21 offer, Your Honor. 22 THE COURT: All right. What does the 23 plaintiff have next? 24 MR. POHL: Your Honor, at this time we 25 would summarize from the deposition of D r . i i 1 Ward R. Richter, an independent pathologist 2 from the University of Chicago. We would 3 show, approximately, 20 minutes, correct, of 4 his video and then we would conclude with an 5 offer of some question and answers. 6 And I would ask Mr. Musslewhite to read 7 the question and answers if he would take 8 the stand. 9 THE COURT: Is it necessary to make 10 this offer? Is it not repetitious? 11 MR. MUSSLEWHITE: No, sir, it's not, 12 Your Honor. This is not a Monsanto witness. 13 This is a totally independent witness that 14 verified the studies on carcinogens. 15 MR. POHL: This not an employee, Your 16 Honor. 17 THE COURT: You have already offered 18 some four or five doctors. What does this 19 doctor purport to testify to? 20 MR. POHL: This doctor accompanied D r . 21 Levinsksas to Washington, D.C. to look at 22 certain slides of Dr. Kimbrough. He 23 contradicts Dr. Levinsksas' testimony. He 24 says that he personally showed Dr. 25 Levinsksas cancer through the microscope. iii -- ------------------------------------------ 27TTT 1 He testifies that he warned Monsanto 2 about the cancerous nature of the product. 3 He concludes that back then and now it's 4 cancer-causing and so forth. 5 THE COURT: All right. How long will 6 it take to -- 7 MR. POHL: The video offer is 20 8 minutes. I can summarize the first part 9 with his background in two or three minutes 10 and then we would offer -- I have it listed. 11 I don't know how long it would take to read 12 it, but some question and answers from his 13 deposition and we will try to be as brief as 14 possible, Your Honor. 15 THE COURT: All right. Let's proceed. 16 MR. POHL: If you are ready on the 17 video, I will do a short summary to start 18 with -- 19 Ward R. Richter, Ph.D., married, three 20 children; son, Robert; son, David; daughter, 21 Pamela. He is 57 years of age. He is a 22 veterinary pathologist. He has been a 23 professor at the University of Chicago and 24 other places. 25 He is in charge of all toxicology for 4 -------------------------------------------- j $ n i 1 Chevron Company. He has received quite a 2 number of awards. He has published quite a 3 number of papers. We won't detail what any 4 of them are. He is familiar with the proper 5 procedures for running a toxicology test 6 such as that that was conducted on the 7 Aroclor product for Monsanto at IBT. 8 He looked at the slides at IBT on the 9 Monsanto test and studied them. He also 10 looked at Dr. Kimbrough's slides and studied 11 them. 12 If we could start the video. 13 14 15 (WHEREUPON THE FOLLOWING PORTIONS OF THE 16 VIDEO DEPOSITION WERE SHOWN TO THE JURY.) 17 Q You traveled to Washington, D.C. to look at 18 D r . Renate Kimbrough's liver slides. Had you 19 already looked at certain slides prepared by IBT 20 in connection with its Aroclor studies? 21 A I believe I, to the best of my knowledge, I 22 had looked at a study of IBT slides on Aroclor in 23 the 19 -- about 1971. 24 Q Why was it that IBT and Dr. Levinsksas 25 wanted you to review Dr. Kimbrough's slides? 3 Ttm n 1 What were they concerned about? 2 A The results of the two studies were 3 different in that Dr. Kimbrough's study 4 demonstrated a large number of animals that had 5 liver tumors, both benign tumors and malignant 6 tumors and the IBT results were less severe than 7 that. 8 Q And by "malignant liver tumors," do you mean 9 cancerous? 10 A Yes, carcinomas. 11 Q Carcinomas. And so that the jury will 12 understand, when you talk about carcinomas, that 13 means the same thing as cancer, doesn't it? 14 A Yes. 15 Q Who was it that was concerned about D r . 16 Kimbrough's finding of cancer in the livers of 17 the rats to whom she had fed Aroclor products? 18 A I d o n 't have direct knowledge of who all was 19 concerned. Dr. Levinsksas was concerned. That's 20 the reason I was asked to go look at the sli des . 21 Q Did he indicate to you any expectations that 22 he had with regard to either your or Dr. Gordon's 23 review of Dr. Kimbrough's slides? 24 A At that time during our discussions on the 25 way to Washington, he was making the assumption  urn i 1 that Dr. Kimbrough's examinations were not valid. 2 And in fairness, I had the same impression. 3 I did not know Dr. Kimbrough very well at the 4 time and she was not trained directly as a 5 veterinary pathologist and both of us had some 6 doubts as to whether she had made a qualified 7 analysis of the slides. 8 Q And, so, when you went to Washington, D.C. 9 to review D r . Kimbrough 's slides, you and Dr . 10 Levinsksas at least had some doubt as to the 11 validity of her findings? 12 A That's correct. 13 Q And your mind at the time was that more 14 likely than not she possibly overstated the 15 adverse reaction of rodents to the Aroclor 16 products? 17 A That's correct. 18 Q In summary then,what was your mind set, D r . / 19 Richter, at the time that you and D r . Levinsksas 20 were traveling to Washington, D.C. to review Dr. 21 Kimbrough's slides? 22 A I expected to find that she had overstated 23 the case and that I would disagree with at least 24 a number of her diagnoses.. 25 Q Where physically didyou go to commence your % . 1 review of D r . Kimbrough 1s slides? 2 A It was on the campus of the National Cancer 3 Insitute. 4 Q And that's in Washington, D.C.? 5 A Yes. 6 Q And you went to whose office? 7 A D r . Squire's laboratory. 8 A That's Dr. Robert Squire? 9 A Yes. 10 Q The gentleman you described earlier? 11 A Yes. 12 Q Dr. Squire was physically present there? 13 A That1s correct. 14 Q And tell us how the room and slides were 15 arranged that you and the others could conduct 16 your review? 17 A They have a microscope out for us with a 18 table that we could sit down at and the slides 19 were in slide boxes out in order on a laboratory 20 bench such that they could quickly find specific 21 animals and specific slides for us to look at. 22 Q Did they in any way try to prevent you from 23 looking at any slides that you wanted to look at? 24 A No. We had access to all of the slides. 25 Q Were Drs. Kimbrough and Squire there when * 2'0"3"6 1 you looked at the slides? 2 A Yes, they were. 3 Q Did you look at every slide, or did you just 4 select random slides that you wanted to review? 5 A We did do two things as best as I can 6 recall. I looked at all of the slides that were 7 diagnosed as carcinoma, and I believe that was 26 8 animals. I looked at representative samples of 9 neoplastic nodules and I looked at representative 10 samples of lesser degrees of toxicity that were 11 selected by Dr. Squire and Dr. Kimbrough to show 12 us as examples. And then I randomly selected 13 other animals to look at that were not selected 14 by them. And I don't remember how many animals I 15 looked at totally. 16 Q Were you satisfied that your examination of 17 the Kimbrough slides were complete and thorough? 18 A Yes. It was thorough in -- it was complete 19 in relationship to the animals that had a 20 diagnosis of carcinoma. 21 Q Did either Dr. Kimbrough or D r . Squire try 22 to suggest to you the results that you should 23 find upon your review of their slides? 24 A No. We had a preliminary discussion of the 25 terminology that they were using in diagnosng the T0T7 1 tumors and some preliminary discussions of what 2 criteria we each used for our diagnostic terms. 3 And there was a difference in diagnostic terms 4 between the two groups. 5 Q Whose terminology was more conservative: 6 yours or that of D r . Kimbrough and Dr . Squire? 7 A The terminology wasn't more or less 8 conservative. The terminology was -- I was using '9 what had been the standard classical terminology 10 until that time; and at that period of time, D r . 11 Squire was evolving and ultimately published a 12 new set of diagnostic terms to use for rat liver 13 tumors that subsequently was adopted by most 14 pathologists. 15 Q In addition to your looking at all of the 16 slides you just told the Court and jury about, 17 did Dr. Gordon look at some or all of those same 18 slides? 19 A He -- to the best of my recollection, he 20 looked at every slide that I looked at. 21 Q Did D r . Levinsksas look at any of the 22 slides? 23 A He looked at a few, while Dr. Levinsksas is 24 not a pathologist but Dr,. Gordon and I selected 25 slides that illustrated various points,  -------- --------------------------------------------- 2UT8 1 particularly the slides of tumors that we felt 2 were carcinomas and showed Dr. Levinsksas the 3 structures that we were referring to and the 4 reasons why we were calling them carcinomas. 5Q Can you remember in your mind. Doctor, what 6 you saw under the microscope when you looked Dr. 7 Kimbrough's slides? 8 A Yes. It stands out rather vividly. 9 Pathologists -- 10 Q Well, let me stop you there. 11 As part of your training as a pathologist 12 and part of your professional development, have 13 you been required to develop a skill for 14 recalling what you have seen in potentially 15 different studies? 16 A Yes. That's what I was really going to do 17 as a preliminary statement to the answer to that. 18 Pathologists, when they are diagnosing 19 tissues and tumors, are looking at slides of 20 cells, whether it's liver or muscle or whatever? 21 and we are looking at the structure and the shape 22 and the color and arrangement of those cells in 23 comparing that to normals and in comparing that 24 to everything else that we had seen and learned 25 in our career. 21)39 1 S o , in the process of diagnosing a slide, a 2 pathologist is comparing the tissue against 3 pictures that are retained. S o , those of us who 4 are good pathologist have very good skills of 5 retaining pictures of what we have seen 6 previously. 7 Q And I think you indicated a moment ago that 8 you could recall at this point rather vividly 9 what you saw under the microscope when you looked 10 at D r . Kimbrough's slides? 11 A Y e s . 12 Q First of all, so the jury will have some 13 understanding of this, in order to make your own 14 independent determination as to whether or not 15 D r . Kimbrough 1s slides displayed cancer, what 16 were you looking for in terms of the shape of the 17 cells, the color, or anything else that might 18 appear to the naked eye under the microscope? 19 A There are series of factors that are 20 involved in making that diagnosis. The lesions 21 that were found in the liver were focal areas in 22 which the liver cells were enlarged and some of 23 the liver cells were dividing and producing a 24 nodule or a little focal area of abnormal cells 25 that were surrounded by normal liver tissue. And i ------------------------------------------------- 2U'4' 1 depending on the severity of the lesion, this 2 might be a small focus with just a few abnormal 3 cells or a large focus with a lot of abnormal 4 cells. 5 Benign tumors are (inaudible) like that that 6 are large and they compress the surrounding liver 7 tissue and the cells within that focus are fairly 8 uniform in their structure and shape even though 9 they are abnormal. 10 Carcinomas are characterized by the fact 11 that there is a great deal of variation in those 12 cells, both in their size and their color, in 13 their shape and their arrangement. This is 14 because they are losing some of the controls that 15 control their growth patterns, and they are able 16 to grow more freely. And so, it gives them the 17 characteristic to spread throughout the body. 18 S o , when you are looking to make a diagnosis 19 of carcinoma, you are looking for variations in 20 cell size and shape and variations in cell size 21 and color. There are other characteristics where 22 inside of a benign tumor is a small focus of 23 malignant cells that may develop that are very 24 small and very dark blue indicating that they 25 have developed a difficult series of growth 2U4r 1 characteristics. 2 The carcinomas, as they become more severe, 3 will loss all organizational structure to them; 4 and that's sort of a simplistic review of what 5 you look for to make a determination of 6 carcinoma. But there are a series of factors 7 that are present to make that decision. 8 Q And Dr. Richter, did you have an 9 understanding of whether or not Dr. Kimbrough's 10 test animals had been fed the same Monsanto 11 Aroclor product as the IBT test animals? 12 A I have no direct knowledge of it but I 13 was -- the information that I was presented with 14 indicated that. 15 Q In connection with your review, you were 16 presented with information which would lead you 17 to conclude that both the IBT and the Kimbrough 18 test animals were fed the same Monsanto Aroclor 19 product? 20 A Yes. 21 Q Dr. Richter, when you reviewed the slides of 22 Dr. Renate Kimbrough,did youfind cancer? 23 A Yes, I did. 24 Q You are convinced of thattoday? 25 A Yes, I am. 275T7 I i 1 Q And did you communicate that to Dr. 2 Levinsksas at the time? 3 A Yes, I did. 4 Q And did D r . Gordon look at those same 5 slides? 6 A Yes, he did. 7 Q Did he also find cancer? 8 A Yes, he did. 9 Q Did he, in your presence, communicate that 10 to Dr. Levinsksas? 11 A Yes; he did. 12 Q When you left D r . Kimbrough 1s and Dr . 13 Squire's offices, where did you travel? 14 A I traveled back to -- well, to the airport 15 and then flew back to Chicago. 16 Q Did you fly on the plane with D r . 17 Levinsksas? 18 A Yes, I did. 19 Q And did you travel in a car from Dr. 20 Kimbrough1s and D r . Squire's office with Dr. 21 Levinsksas? 22 A Yes, I did. 23 Q Did he act any differently on your return 24 trip from the way he did on the way out? 25 A He was very upset and didn't speak to me for 20-rr 1 the rest of the trip. 2 Q So, the entire time, from the time you left 3 Washington, D .C ., drove by car to the airport and 4 flew to Chicago, Dr. Levinsksas would not speak 5 to you? 6 A That's correct. 7 Q Okay. While you were reviewing the slides 8 at the offices of the National Cancer Insitute, 9 how long did you spend there? 10 A As best as I can recall, it was three to 11 four hours. 12 Q Was that sufficient time in order to conduct 13 a thorough and professional review of Dr. 14 Kimbrough1s slides? 15 A Yes. 16 Q Let me ask you to compare for the Court and 17 jury what you saw when you looked at Dr. 18 Kimbrough's slides and what you saw when you 19 looked at the IBT slides. 20 First, in looking at the IBT slides, did you 21 find lesions in the livers of the animals to whom 22 the Aroclor products had been fed? 23 A Yes, I did find lesions. 24 Q And would you describe the -- how would you 25 describe the toxic effect on the livers of the J 2U4 4 1 animals that you saw? 2 A The changes that were present were toxic 3 injury. There was necrosis and cellular 4 degeneration, along with (inaudible) and 5 hyperplasia. And most of these changes were 6 focal so that the hyperplasia was focal or 7 nodular hyperplasia. And in two of the animals, 8 I diagnosed benign tumor, hepatoma. 9 Q That's in the IBT animals? 10 A Yes. 11 Q When you diagnosed benign tumors and 12 other -- 13 14 (WHEREUPON THE VIDEO DEPOSITION WAS INTERRUPTED) 15 THE COURT: Let's finish the rest of it 16 with Q&A, please. 17 MR. POHL: Your Honor, that is fine. 18 The only point I would make is that shortly 19 in the deposition, he draws a chart. Maybe 20 I can just explain the chart. 21 THE COURT: All right. 22 MR. POHL: He gets up on a board and he 23 draws for the jury a comparison of what IBT 24 found and what Kimbrough found and explains 25 why -- 2 0 4~5 1 THE COURT: We will permit you to show 2 that. 3 MR. POHL: Could you pull out the chart 4 from the back of the original -- 5 THE COURT: We will permit the 6 videotape to show it. 7 MR. POHL: Oh, you will? 8 THE COURT: Yes, if it's eminent. 9 MR. POHL: I can just explain it 10 because it's in a couple of different parts. 11 When he gets up, when he stands up on a 12 board, and it would take a while for him to 13 find it on the video, I'm afraid. We would 14 just be sitting here waiting. 15 THE COURT: All right. 16 MR. POHL: In connection with that, 17 Your Honor, there is a chart which is drawn 18 by the witness in which he shows the effect 19 of the various tests, both by IBT and by D r . 20 Kimbrough. 21 The point which he makes is that in one 22 end of the spectrum the result is what is 23 called normal. At the other end of the 24 spectrum -- at the other end of the spectrum 25 is cancer.  Y T R o --- 1 1 He testifies that he looked at the 2 original IBT slides and the Kimbrough slides 3 and testified that the Kimbrough slides 4 showed cancer. It was at the far extreme of 5 the spectrum. 6 He testified that the original IBT 7 studies, before they were ever even changed 8 by Dr. Levinsksas, purported to state that 9 the results were normal. 10 After D r . Kimbrough came out with the 11 first study, they changed it to fall 12 somewhere in the middle to show slightly 13 tumorigenic. He says that both of those 14 were incorrect. It was always a severe 15 toxic effect, which was in the latter 16 category and that the original 17 characterization of "normal" misstated the 18 results and the subsequent characterization 19 of "slightly tumorigenic" also misstated the 20 results by understating them. 21 We would offer that in evidence and it 22 is marked as Richter Exhibit 1. We will 23 assign it the next number in this trial, 24 which is 3679. 25 Your Honor, we would offer that l 04 i 1 document. 2 THE COURT: All right. 3 MR. POHL: Your Honor, with regard to 4 the deposition, we would offer some question 5 and answers. And I'm just going to flip 6 over some of the pages and not offer it in 7 t order to shorten it. 8 The witness says on Pages 66 and 67 9 that he concurs with the deposition portion 10 of Dr. Roush, a Monsanto employee that was 11 read here in the courtroom the other day 12 where Dr. Roush said that he looked at the 13 IBT slides and when he saw them, they showed 14 severe liver damage. And Dr. Richter says 15 that when he saw the IBT slides, they-also 16 showed severe liver damage. And that is 17 what he draws in approximately the 18 right-hand quadrant of the chart. 19 Dr. Richter goes on to state -- let me , 20 turn to Page 75 and start with line 17, read 21 the question. 22 23 (Reading from video deposition) 24 Q Now, after you reviewed Dr. Kimbrough's 25 slides and told Dr. Levinsksas that you concurred TtTTS---1 1 in her finding of cancer, when did you next meet 2 with any representatives of Monsanto in 3 connection with either the IBT rodent study or 4 the Kimbrough rodent study? 5A I had very little contact with Monsanto 6 after that period of time. But I did have a 7 meeting at some point after Dr. Pour issued his 8 report which was issued in 1975. I had a meeting 9 at IBT with a group of representatives of 10 Monsanto. 11 Q And were these lawyers from Monsanto? 12 A I do not know if they were lawyers. They 13 were not scientists, so -- 14 Q What did you say: you participated in a 15 meeting at the offices of IBT? Was that in 16 Northbrook? 17 A Y e s . 18 Q Who else was in attendance besides you and 19 the representatives of Monsanto? 20 A I can't recall totally everyone that was 21 there but Dr. Calandra was there. Dr. Gordon was 22 there and I believe an IBT attorney was there. 23 Q And how many representatives were present 24 for Monsanto? 25 A As best I can recall, there were four. * TUT? 1 Q Did anyone say anything during the-meeting 2 * that would give you an understanding or an idea 3 of what type of representatives Monsanto had sent 4 to this meeting? 5 (End of reading) 6 7 MR. POHL: Page 77, line 11. 8 M R . MUSSLEWHITE: O h , excuse m e . I 9 didn't know you had skipped. 10 11 (Reading from video deposition) 12 A I got the impression and this is a long time 13 ago so I can't remember all of the details that 14 they were not technical people. They were not 15 scientists or toxicologists. These were either 16 business representatives or attorneys looking at 17 the issue of the various tests that had been 18 done. 19 Q And what was the purpose of this meeting, 20 D r . Richter? 21 A The purpose that I saw, I was not given an 22 exact purpose, it was a confrontational meeting. 23 The group from Monsanto was unhappy with IBT and 24 were challenging the procedures that had gone on. 25 And there was concern over differences in * ----------------------- ----------------- - 2050 j 1 findings from Kimbrough's report and IBT's 2 report. And the meeting was, I assume and got 3 the impression, was called to look at the reasons 4 for these differences. 5 Q So, the meeting concerned the variances 6 between Dr. Kimbrough's findings of cancer and 7 IBT's report; is that correct? 8 A Yes. 9 Q And the representatives of Monsanto appeared 10 to be somewhat confrontational? 11 A Yes. 12 Q What was theirspecific concern? 13 A I am not certain what their specific concern 14 was because the y looked at -- it looked to me as 15 if it was an investigational meeting to find out 16 why there was a difference and they were looking 17 at all the possibilities. 18 Q And did they ask youquestions? 19 A Yes, they did. 20 Q And did you -- and did they ask you whether 21 or not you still agreed with Dr. Kimbrough's 22 findings of cancer? 23 A Yes, they did. 24 Q And did you -- and did they ask you whether 25 or not you thought PCBs were a carcinogen? ----------------------------------------------------------- IT5TT 1 A I d o n 't recall whether they asked it that 2 specifically. \ 3 Q And if they had of asked it, what would you 4 have told them? 5 A I would have told them that I thought it was 6 carcinogenic. , i 7 Q And did they ask you anything else other 8 than questions pertaining to the differences 9 between the IBT Aroclor study and the Kimbrough 10 Aroclor study? 11 A I can't recall the exact questions but there 12 were discussions of various IBT reports and 13 changes that were made in the reports and the 14 language that was in the reports. 15 They asked me if I knew Paul Wright, asked 16 me how much I interacted with him and various 17 probing questions to find out what my involvement 18 in the study was. 19 Q Was there some concern expressed by the 20 business people and/or lawyers for Monsanto about 21 changes that were to be made or had been made in 22 connection with IBT's Aroclor studies? 23 A I don't think concern is a correct word. 24 They were investigating, looking at, gathering 25 facts at what -- what had been done, and the 20 5 2 ! 1 reasons for it. 2 Q This was after D r . Pour had come out with 3 his report wherein he indicated that the IBT 4 studies did not demonstrate carcinogenicity? 5 A Yes. 6 Q And by the time that you had participated in 7 this meeting with four people from Monsanto at 8 IBT1s headquarters, had you had a chance to read 9 Dr. Pour's report? 10 A No. I believe I was shown his report at 11 that meeting. 12 Q And were you asked at that meeting whether 13 you agreed or disagreed with Dr. Pour's report? 14 A I don'tspecifically recall that. 15 Q You have no recollection one way or the 16 other? 17 A I don't have,n o . 18 Q Did they give youa copy of D r . Pou r 's 19 report to take with you when you left the 20 meeting? 21 A As best I can recall, I did not get a copy 22 of it to take with me. 23 Q They just showed you a copy of it and they 24 took it back? 25 A Yes. 20b 3 1 Q How long did the meeting last? 2 A It was three to four hours. 3 (End of reading) 4 5 MR. POHL: I will skip over some of the 6 remainder about that meeting. 7 And in summary, moving forward, the 8 witness testifies that his next meeting with 9 Monsanto occurred in December of 1986 where 10 he was flown to St. Louis, Missouri by 11 Monsanto and he was questioned by attorneys 12 and others from Monsanto, names of all of 13 which he can't remember regarding the IBT 14 studies, changes in the studies and other 15 facts that we talked about in the trial 16 today. 17 The witness also testifies that his 18 signature appeared on the original IBT 19 Aroclor reports, but after the reports were 20 changed the changes were made and a Xerox 21 copy of his signature was used. 22 It is his signature but he was never 23 asked to resign the documents. He doesn't 24 know who used his signature. 25 The witness next talks about errors in f 2054 1 the numbering of the rodents. I asked the 2 witness questions about the mixing of 3 animals, about the substitution of animals 4 and about the letter which has been 5 identified in evidence as 3678 wherein D r . 6 Levinsksas refers to the fact that a number 7 of the animals were used apparently in 8 different study groups. 9 A number of the animals appeared, at 10 one time to be a male and some time later in 11 the test reappeared as a female and things 12 of that nature. 13 The witness testifies in connection 14 with that -- if you would like, I will be 15 happy to read the question and answer. 16 MR. JONES: Your Honor, I believe we 17 are getting in pure argument at this point 18 and I would object to that. 19 MR. POHL: I will be happy to read it. 20 It's not that long. If you will turn, Mr. 21 Musslewhite to Page 103. 22 MR. MUSSLEWHITE: All right. 23 MR. POHL: Line 23. 24 MR. MUSSLEWHITE: All right. 25 7TT55 1 (Reading from video deposition) 2 Q The letter indicates that some of the' 3 animals that were identified as control male rats 4 were also later identified in the Aroclor report 5 as having been test animals ? is that correct? 6 A That is what this states. 7 Q And if you look at the second page, you can 8 see that some of the same animals like Animal 46, 9 47, 48 and several others were shown on the first 10 page to have been male rats, on the second page 11 of the letter to have been female rats; is that 12 correct? 13 A State that again. 14 Q Sure. If you will look on the first page, 15 you will see, for example, it says male rats one 16 and two. 17 A Yes. 18 Q And that, let's focus on the first page 19 first, male rats one and two are first to be 20 shown as a control animal; is that correct? 21 A Yes. 22 Q What is a control animal in regards to a 23 rodent study? 24 A It's an animal that has not been treated 25 with the test compound. i 2056 1 Q Under normal testing procedures are control 2 animals to be comingled with test animals? 3 A No. 4 Q If you go on across to the right of the 5 first page you see that Dr. Levinsksas is noting 6 that those control animals were later shown to 7 have been test animals in both the one parts per 8 million and 10 parts per million test categories; 9 is that correct? Is it correct? IO A Yes, I can see that. 11 Q And the point that I'm getting to, Dr. 12 Richter, is that if you received a letter on a 13 study which you were supervising and it showed 14 that there was this type of discrepancy with 15 regard to the rodents used in the study, what 16 would that -- what message would that communicate 17 to you? 18 A It would raise concern about the study. 19 There are possible explanations for this, but it 20 would raise enough concern if this were a study 21 that I was supervising to go back in detail to 22 find out if these were typos, what the raw data 23 looked like and whether that supported the 24 findings as presented here. But it would raise 25 concern. 2U 57' 1 Q What kind of concern? Howserious would 2 that concern be? 3 A That's a relative sort of thing, but in my 4 language, a serious concern. 5 Q Would you rely on the results of a test that 6 had such possible errors without first making a 7 thorough and complete investigation? 8 (End of reading) 9 10 MR. POHL: Page 107, line 15. 11 12 (Reading from video deposition) 13 A No. 14 Q Now, you mentioned something earlier in the 15 deposition. I will try to be as brief about this 16 as possible. That you indicated that you and Dr . 17 Squire looked at Dr . Kimbrough 1s liver slides ; is 18 that correct? 19 A Yes. 20 Q And later on that you became aware that Dr. 21 Pour had also looked at those, looked at the IBT 22 liver slides; is that correct? 23 A Yes. 24 Q And thatDr. Pour disagreedwith your 25 interpretation of the Kimbrough slides? i TTToB---- 1 1 A Yes. 2 Q Let merepresent to you thatMonsanto 3 Document 058195 and subsequent pag es, that there 4 is a report by Dr. Pete Pour which refers to his 5 review of the Dr. Renate Kimbrough study on 6 Aroclor products. Okay? 7 A Yes. 8 Q Now, with regard to the findings that were 9 made by you and Dr . Squire on the one hand and 10 the findings that were made by Dr. Pour on the 11 other, let me get you to focus on those for a 12 minute. Okay? 13 (End of reading) 14 15 MR. POHL: 110, line 17. 16 M R . MUSSLEWHITE: O k a y . 17 18 (Reading from video deposition) 19 A Yes. 20 Q Now, and I know that, that you'd want to 21 attempt to be modest in your responsive and I 22 understand that. I'm sorry if I put-you in in an 23 ackward position but I would like to ask you 24 questions which would give the jury an idea of 25 the relative qualifications that you and Dr. * 2059 1 Squire on the one hand to review slides and Dr. 2 Pour on the other. 3 You are familiar with D r . Squire's 4 qualifications, are you not? 5 A Yes, I am. 6 Q And I think you indicated to us earlier in 7 the deposition he was a leading animal 8 pathologist; is that correct? 9 A That's correct. 10 Q Do you consider yourself to be a pathologist 11 of equal standing with D r . Squire? 12 A Yes, I d o . I think my record and experience 13 I have had speak to that. 14 Q So, when IBT and/or Monsanto had several 15 people review the Kimbrough slides including you 16 and D r . Squir.e, would it be fair to say, Doctor, 17 that at least two of the leading animal 18 pathologists reviewed the Kimbrough slides? 19 A I think that would be true, y e s . 20 Q And that would be you and Dr . Squire? 21 A Yes. 22 Q Now, let 's focus on Dr. Pour for just a 23 moment. Are you familiar with the people who are 24 recognized in this country and throughout the 25 world as the leading animal pathologists? ft ~ "' 2060 j 1A I am familiar with most of them. 2 Q Is he one of them? 3A I do not know who Dr. Pour is. I've never 4 met the man and have had no other contact with 5 the name other than this, reports which are on 6 the table. 7 Q And you d o n 11 recognize D r . Pour as being 8 one of the leading animal pathologists such as 9 yourself and Dr. Squire, do you? 10 A No, I don *t . 11 Q Now, you are not being paid for your 12 testimony, are you? 13 A No, I'm not. 14 Q And you are not being paid either by the 15 plaintiffs in this case or by Monsanto for that 16 matter? 17 A No, I'm not. 18 Q And you have made no arrangements with me to 19 compensate you for your time whatsoever, have 20 you? 21 A That's correct, I haven't. 22 Q And the opinions that you have given today 23 and both factually and on matters dealing with 24 your area of expertise have been purely those of 25 your own? o TTToT 1 A Yes. 2 (End of reading) 3 4 THE COURT: You think that is all? 5 MR. POHL : I'm just thumbing through 6 the rest of the pages trying to delete them, 7 Your Honor. 8 MR. POHL: Your Honor, we will pass the 9 witness. 10 THE COURT: All right. Any portion of 11 it? 12 MR. JONES: Very small portion, Your 13 Honor. In fact, Your Honor, it's only one 14 question. 15 Question at Page 134, beginning at line 16 1 2 . 17 18 (Reading from video deposition) 19 Q You wouldn't say that Aroclors or PCBs are 20 carcinogenic in humans or man, would you? 21 A There is no established proof for that. 22 (End of reading) 23 24 MR. JONES: This concludes our offer, 25 Your Honor. -------- ------------------------------------------ 2TT52 | 1 MR. POHL: Your Honor, in response I 2 asked the witness if Aroclors or PCBs were 3 the kind of product that he would want 4 himself, his wife or his children to ever be 5 exposed to and he said he would n o t . 6 MR. JONES: Your Honor, I would object 7 to that argument there. I mea n , he could 8 read the deposition if he wanted t o . 9 MR. POHL: Will be more than happy t o . 10 THE COURT: If this -- if this is a 11 correct statement, the witness made in his 12 deposition, the Court will accept it . 13 M R . POHL: Yes, and M r . Jones was 14 there. 15 THE COURT: If Counsel says it isn't, 16 why you may show in the deposition that it 17 ..is correct. 18 MR. POHL: Can we call our next 19 witness? 20 THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, we 21 are going to stand recess for 15 minutes. 22 It might stretch into 20, but try to be back 23 in 15. 24 25 (WHEREUPON AT 3:00 P.M., COURT WAS IN RECESS f 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 3 OFFICIAL REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 4 5 6 I, FRANK MCMILLAN, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER FOR 7 THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN I 8 DISTRICT OF TEXAS, DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE ABOVE AND 9 FOREGOING PAGES CONSTITUTE A TRUE, CORRECT AND COMPLETE 10 TRANSCRIPT OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE ABOVE STYLED AND 11 NUMBERED CAUSE. 12 WITNESS MY OFFICIAL SIGNATURE IN THE CITY OF L. 13 BEAUMONT, TEXAS, ON THE .DAY OF 14 15 16 17 C. Fr a Nk m Cm ILLa N 18 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 19 EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS | 20 21 22 23 24 25