Document EqdVLddoKegmbEzg8QVoeMeVb

AUG-11-2003 16=51 LANIER LAW FIRM PC P.01/44 LANIER LAW FIRM --a pi'ojtMQtuittvi'/wmtm -- FAX COVER SHEET PLEASE DELIVER IMMEDIATELY! DATE: August 11,2003 NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER PAGE: 43 IF YOU ARJE NOT RECEIVING A CLEAR COPY OF THIS DOCUMENT OR ARE NOT RECEIVING ALL MATERIALS TRANSMITTED, PLEASE CONTACT US AT (713) 659-5200. TO: Dr. David Egilman FIRM OR COMPANY NAME: TELEPHONE NUMBER: FAX NUMBER: 425-699-7033 (HARD COPY OF THIS TRANSMISSION WILL WILL NOT HE SENT BY REGULAR MAIL) FROM: Jan Manning MESSAGE: Per your request, see attached. FILE NO.: The information contained in this facsimile transmission is attorney privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named herein. Tf you are not intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify us by telephone and return the original message to us via U.S. mail at the address indicated on the letterhead above. MAILING ADDRESS: POST OFFICE BOX 691448 | HOUSTON, TEXAS 77269-1448 6810 FM 1960 WEST | HOUSTON, TEXAS 77069 | 713.669.6200 | FAX 713.659.2204 PUG-11-2003 16=51 LPNIER LAW FIRM PC 8- S- 0 3 ! 10 - i3 PM;The Moore Law Firm P.02/44 ;97S Z 85 2235 # 55/ CAUSE NO. 19785-BH02 KELLY MOORE PAINT COMPANY INC. VS. DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY, et al. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF BRAZORIA COUNTY, TEXAS 23RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO ALLOW PLAINTIFFS EXPERT ACCESS TO THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY'S ASBESTOS DOCUMENT REPOSITORY Defendant, The Dow Chemical Company ("TDCC") respectfully submits this Response to Plaintiffs Motion to Allow Plaintiffs Expert Access to TDCC's Asbestos-Related Document Repository. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT TDCC is not seeking to deny plaintiff access to its asbestos-related document repository (the "Repository"). Indeed, plaintiffs counsel in this action has visited the asbestos Repository in the past, copying numerous pages of documents. Further, as counsel for plaintiff, KellyMoore Paint Company, Inc. ("Kelly-Moorc**) concedes in its motion, counsel for TDCC has been working with plaintiff to arrange another visit to the Repository. TDCC has been flexible and has provided plaintiff with several options regarding the times during which the repository may he visited for the review and inspection of documents that are responsive to discovery requests served by plaintiff. TDCC is, however, wholly opposed to plaintiffs expert: Dr. David Egilman, or anyone associated with Dr. Egilman's office, being allowed access to the Repository. Simply put. Dr. Egilman is far from an objective expert and, in fact, his conduct even exceeds the bounds of The Don* Chemical Company Response To Plaintiff's Motion To Allow Plaintiff's Expert Access To The Dow Chemical Company *s Asbestos Document Repository AUG-11-2003 16:51 LANIER LAN FIRM PC P.03/44 zealous advocacy. Dr. Egilman has a practice of posting on documents regarding the corporate defendants against whom he testifies on his Web site* oftentimes accompanied by prejudicial and inaccurate statements and in direct contravention of court orders. He has* within the past several months, utilized his Web site to engage in a smear campaign against TDCC and its whollyowned subsidiary defendant Union Carbide Corporation ("UCC"). He has posted on his Web site UCC documents which he knew were privileged, even going so far as to expressly label them as such on his website, referring to them as privileged documents." Dr, Egilman does not "play by the rules," and, in fact, he was recently admonished and sanctioned by a court for deliberately violating an order - designed and intended to afford the parties to that action a right to a fair trial - by posting certain material on his Web site. Dr. Egilman in the recent past has blatantly ignored a court order, has displayed on his Web site other parties* documents that he was aware were privileged, has harassed and harangued paralegals and attorneys working on behalf of co-defendant UCC during a prior visit to the rq)ositoryf and has been sanctioned and admonished by a court for the bias, hostility and prejudice be displayed toward a corporate defendant and its defense counsel during trial. Dr. Egilman should not be allowed to utilize TDCC's Repository to advance his personal agenda. BACKGROUND At certain points in time during the mid to late 1960's and 1970's, TDCC supplied materials to plaintiff but was not one of the suppliers of raw asbestos fiber to plaintiff, KellyMoored Even though TDCC never sold asbestos to plaintiff, it is named in this action solely 1 Kclly-Moore, in turn, manufactured various asbestos-containing products and sold them throughout distribution channels it controlled. The Dow Chemical Company Response To Plaintiff's Motion To Allow Plaintiffs Expert Access To The Dow Chemical Company's Asbestos Document -Repository Page 2 AUG-11-2003 16=52 LANIER LAN FIRM PC P.04/44 because UCC became a wholly-owned subsidiary of TDCC in. February 2001, long after the events at issue in this litigation occurred. The asbestos-related documents that are the subject of discovery in this action are housed in a document Repository maintained at TDCC's headquarters in Midland, Michigan. Dr. Egilman's visits to TDCC's subsidiary's asbestos repository demonstrate what this advocate has in store for TDCC. In November 2001, in a separate action pending in this county, counsel for Kdly-Moore in this action, Mark Lanier, visited the repository during a two-day period to inspect and review documents located therein. See Ex. A, Affidavit of Jonathan Glasser, dated August 8, 2003, at ^ 3. Mr. Lanier returned to the repository on another occasion and copied several thousand pages of documents. On his first visit, without any prior notice or approval, Mr. Lanier brought with him to the repository his expert witness, Dr. David Egilman, and a person purported to be Dr. Egilman's assistant. On November 5, 2001, Dr. Egilman's assistant spent the entire day reviewing the documents in the repository. The following morning. Dr. Egilman himself visited the repository and engaged in extremely rude and abusive behavior, including shouting at the paralegals and attorney's representing UCC and demanding to see broad categories of documents which had not been requested in discovery or for which objections had been raised See id, at TJ 5, In fact, many of the documents that were the focus of Dr. Egilman's ire had nothing whatsoever to do with UCC's asbestos business. See id Nonetheless, Dr. Egilman was indignant and complained bitterly about having traveled a great distance to attend the document production and, without any basis for doing so, accused UCC's counsel of lying to him and wasting bis time. See idat U 7. Dr. Egilman even threatened to somehow obtain a search warrant to have the entire office building searched for the allegedly The Dow Chemical Company's Response To Plaintiff's Motion To Allow Plaintiffs Expert Access To The Pow Chemical Company's Asbestos Document Repository Page3 AUG-11-2003 16:52 LANIER LAW FIRM PC P.05/44 "missing documents," many of which, Dr. Egilman touted, were already available to be downloaded from his website. See id. Plaintiff indicates that it intends to designate Dr. David Egilman to testify as an expert witness in this case. Dr. Egilman is a frequent and well-paid expert who has testified in over 150 cases, primarily on behalf of various plaintiffs. He is a fixture in many of the asbestos-related cases in which counsel for Kelly-Moore is involved. Dr. Egilman has also been involved as an expert in other lawsuits in which TDCC has been involved TDCC has witnessed first hand Dr. Egilman's improper conduct Kelly-Moore's request that Dr, Egilman be allowed access to TDCC's repository is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to further harass TDCC and should not be countenanced by this Court. Plaintiff is in no way prejudiced as their team had been to the repository on several occasions and TDCC will continue to provide access to counsel. ARGUMENT A. Plaintiff's Expert Witness, Dr* Egilman, Has a History of Being Out of Control and Should Not Be Allowed To Harass TDCC Dr. Egilman is not your ordinary independent and objective expert witness. He is well known for "his zealous antipathy for corporate defendants." High-Tech Hack Attack Case Tests Strength ofLegal Ethics in an Electronic World* Wash. POST, Dec. 16, 2002, at E04. He is an expert, as one judge recently noted, whose behavior goes "far beyond the boundaries of legitimate disagreement as to cast great doubt on his legitimacy and integrity as a witness." See Ex. B, 6/22/01 Findings, Conclusions, and Orders Concerning Sanctions, in Ballinger v. BrushWellman, 96-CV-2532 (Jefferson County, CO). He is an expert who believes that the normal rules of the judicial process do not apply to him. In fact, one court has noted that Dr. Egilman likes to play games, and has described him as "biased," `Vindictive" and "out of control in ways The Dow Chemical Company's Response To Plaintiff's Motion To Allow Plaintiffs Expert Access To TheDow Chemical Company *s Asbestos Document Repository Pago 4 PUG-11-2003 16=52 LPNIER LPU FIRM PC P.06/44 that have a great potential for harming fairness and justice/* Ex. C5 6/18/01 Transcript in Ballinger v. Brush Wellman, IncCase No. 96 CV 2532, at 6-7. Colorado district court Judge Frank Plant recently experienced first-hand Dr, Egihnan's callous disregard for the judicial process when Dr, Egilman "knowingly, deliberately, intentionally and willfully violated" an order issued by Judge Plaut in Ifae Ballinger v. BrushWellman case. Ex B, at I. [6/22/01 Sanctions Order] Concerned with the possibility ofjuror contamination. Judge Plaut issued an order prohibiting everyone involved in the case, including Dr, Egilman, from making extrajudicial statements about the case - including posting information on any Internet websites - in m effort to prevent outside commentary from influencing present or future jurors. Judge Plaut was forced to exclude Dr. Egilman's testimony after Dr. Egilman violated the court's gag order by posting on his website inflammatory material about the trial and judge and threatening to cause a mistrial.2 See Ex. C, at 3, 6. [6/18/01 Transcript]. Some of the offensive content on Dr. Egilman's website included accusations of criminal activity against the defense law firm, references to defendant's long-time medical director being educated in Nazi Germany, and an implication that the judge had been bribed by defense counsel. See Ex. C at 7-8. [6/18/01 Transcript] Judge Plaut called into question Dr. Egilman's credibility as a witness and recognized that, without a doubt. Dr. Egilman's testimony in Brush Wellman was motivated by his bias, hostility and prejudice against the corporate defendant and defense counsel. See Ex. C, at 9,12. [6/18/01 Transcript]. 3 Judge PUut issued a sanctions order prohibiting Dr. Egilman from testifying as a witness in the Judge's courtroom in the future. See Ex. B , at 3 [6/22/01 Order]. The Colorado Court of Appeals vacated the sanctions order, to the extent that it affected Dr. Egilraan's ability to appear before the trial court, on procedural due process grounds. On July 21,2003, the Supreme Court of Colorado denied the Colorado district court's petition and Dr. Egilman's cross-petition for Writ of Certioari. The Dow Chemical Company *& Response To Plaintiffs Motion To Allow Plaintiffs Expert Access To The Dow Chemical Company *s Asbestos Document Repository P<Qgfi S AUG-11-2003 16=52 LANIER LAN FIRM PC P.07/44 Dr. Egilman has not limited his intemperate and irrational tactics to the trial process; such behavior has extended to the discovery arena as well. Indeed!, Dr. Egilman's antics when he invited himself to UCC's repository in the past confirm that the problems outlined by Judge Plant are real. Dr. Egilman threatened* harassed and berated UCC's counsel and paralegal staff members and demanded to see documents, some of which had not been requested, and some of which were completely irrelevant to the asbestos litigation at issue. TDPC has every reason to believe that similar treatment awaits it should Dr. Egilman be permitted access to the Repository. TDCC has serious and legitimate concerns that Dr. Egilman will not abide by any protective order in place in this case, as he has indicated in the recent past that he will not be bound by reasonable limitations imposed in any litigation-related document review. In Burnett v. Alliedsignal, No. 2001-36408, a recent asbestos-related lawsuit in Harris County, Texas involving defendant TDCC, and in which Dr. Egilman served as an expert witness, Dr. Egilman once again sought to gain access to TDCC's repository. However, Dr, Egilman would not agree to sign the protective order in that case, presumably because of the limitations placed on his ability to use documents gathered from the repository, and ultimately decided not to visit the repository at that time. Under Texas law, discoverable information is limited by the legitimate interests of the opposing party to avoid harassment, or disclosure of privileged information. See In re Am. Optical Corp,s 988 S.W.2d 711, 713 (Tex. 1998). Accordingly, the latitude afforded the parties in the discovery process is not unlimited, and the trial court must make an effort to impose reasonable discovery limits. See In re Alford Chevrolet-Geo, 997 S.W.2d 173, 181 (Tex. 1999). The interests ofjustice require that Dr. Egilman not be allowed to breach the confidentiality of The /tow Chemical Company *s Response To Plaintiffs Motion To AHow Plaintiffs Expert A ccess To The Dow Chemical Company's Asbestos Document Repository Page 6 AUG-11-2003 16=53 LANIER LAN FIRM PC P.08/44 AUG-11-2003 16:53 LANIER LAW FIRM PC P.09/44 documents produced in this litigation and that TDCC should not be subjected to Dr. Egilman's histrionics, verbal invective and harassment. B. Dr. EgUman Should Not Be Allowed to Continue His Sxnear Caropaigu Against TDCC by Posting on His Website Documents Gathered from the Repository In April 2003, counsel for Union Carbide became aware that Dr. Egilman had posted on his internet website numerous Union Carbide documents that were subject to the attorney client and/or work-product privileges. Dr. Egilman, apparently aware of the privileged status of the documents, had posted these documents on his website under the heading "Privileged UCC Documents."3 See Ex, D, Index to Asbestos Documents, at http ://www.egilman.com/ mdex_to_asbcstos _ documents.htm (visited Apr 4, 2003). Counsel for Union Carbide requested that Dr. Egilman immediately delete the privileged documents from his website and return them to Union Carbide, and offered to provide Dr. Egilman with copies of certain documents with the privileged information redacted. Although Dr. Egilman eventually removed the privileged documents from his website, he did not do so without first attempting to make a mockery out of the judicial process. Instead of immediately deleting the privileged documents from his website, from the period April to June 2003, Dr. Egilman engaged in a letter-writing campaign with counsel for Union Carbide. Moreover, under a heading entitled "U.C.C, seeks to hide the truth" Dr. Egilman posted on his website a letter he received from Union Carbide's counsel requesting the removal and return of Union Carbide's privileged documents. Shortly after receipt of that letter, Dr. Egilman also moved the privileged documents at issue to the home page of his website under a heading entitled "See What They Are Trying to Hide Here." 3 A California court has, in fact, ruled that many of the subject documents were inadvertently produced and are indeed privileged. Such privilege issues ore being considered in Texas as well. The Dow Chemical Company *r Response To Plaintiff's Motion To Allow Plaintiff's Expert Access To The Dow Chemical Company ys Asbestos Document Repository Page 7 AUG-11-2003 16=53 LANIER LAW FIRM PC P.10/44 TDCC has a genuine concern that - like he did with the Union Carbide documents - Dr. Egilman will place on his website documents gathered from TDCC's repository if he is allowed free reign to rummage through TDCC*s collection of asbestos-related documents. Dr. Egilman has shown in the past that he will use his website to perpetuate his biases against the corporate defendants against which he testifies. Neither TDCC nor its subsidiary defendant, UCC, have been spared in this regard. Numerous TDCC and UCC documents, oftentimes accompanied by scathing and outlandish commentary, have appeared on Dr. Egilman's website. Examples of such recent postings are attached hereto as Ex. B. Dr. Egilman enjoys playing games and has even admitted to advertising on his web site rewards up to 510,000 to "whistleblowers" turning over documents and information for his use and posting to his web site. See Ex. E, May 19, 2003 Tr. Excerpt in Burnett v. Alliedsignal, No. 2001-36408 (Harris County, Tx.), at 245. He has also offered on his website a 10,000 reward for the receipt of non-asbestos-related Union Carbide documents, and mocked that if he pulled this off, Dow would see to it that he went to jail. See Ex. B [internet postings] Dr. Egilman's antics should not be tolerated in this action. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, TDCC respectfully requests that the Court deny plaintiffs motion in its entirety* The Dow Chemical Company's Response To Plaintiffs Motion To AUow Plaintiffs Expert Access To The Dow Chemical Company 9s Asbestos Document Repository Page 8 AUG-11-2003 16:54 LANIER LAN FIRM PC P.11/44 Dated: August 2003 Respectfully Submitted, THE MOORE LAW FIRM Randy E. Moore/J State Bar No. WH6345Q #7 West Way Court, Suite C Lake Jackson, Texas 77566 Telephone: 979/285-2230 Facsimile: 979/285-2235 Lawrence E. Abbott State Bar Number: 00795846 Deborah D. Kuchler State Bar Number: 24038606 Sarah E. liams State Bar Number: 24038718 R, Bruce Evanick State Bar Number: 24035301 ABBOTT, SIMSES & KUCHLER 400 Lafayette Street, Suite 200 New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 Telephone: (504)568-9393 Facsimile: (504) 524-1933 MAYER, BROWN, ROWE & MAW, LLP 700 Louisiana, Suite 3600 Houston, Texas 77002 Telephone: (713)547-9612 Facsimile: (713)632-1841 Attorneys For Defendant, The Dow Chemical Company The Dow Chemical Company fs Response To Plaintiffs Motion To Allow Plaintiffs Expert Access To The Dow Chemical Company's Asbestos Document Repository Pcge 9 AUG-11-2003 16=54 LANIER LAN FIRM PC P.12/44 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of The Dow Chemical Company's Response To Plaintiffs Motion To Allow Plaintiff's Expert Access To The Dow Chemical Company's Asbestos Document Repository was served via facsimile on August 8,2003, as follows: W. Mark Lanier Patrick N, Haines Eugene R. Egdorf The Lanier Law Firm, PC Counselfor PlaintiffKelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc, Via Facsimile (713) 659-2204 James M. Harris, Jr. Harris, Lively, Duesler & Hatfield, L.L.P. 550 Fannin, Suite 650 Beaumont, Texas 77704-0830 Counselfor Defendant The Flintkote Company Via Facsimile (409) 833-4240 John F. Unger C. Scott Kinzel Royston, Rayzor, Vickery & Williams, LLP Counselfor Defendant Cooper Industries, Ltd. Via Facsimile (713) 225-9945 Harry P. "Hap" Weitzel Mayor, Brown, Rowe & Maw Counselfor Defendant The Dow Chemical Company Via Facsimile (713) 632-1841 John 1L Gilbert Gilbert & Gilbert Counselfor Defendant, Union Carbide Via Facsimile 979/849-7729 Scott D. Lassctter Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP Counselfor Defendant, Union Carbide Via Facsimile 713/224-9511 Lawrence E. Abbott Deborah D. Kuchler Abbott, Simses & Kuchler Counselfor Defendant The Dow Chemical Company Via Facsimile 979/285-2235 The Dow Chemical Company's Response To Plaintiffs Motion To Allow Piaintiffs Expert Access To The Daw Chemical Company's Asbestos Document Repository Page JO PUG-11-2003 16=54 LPNIER LPU FIRM PC P.13/44 EXHIBIT "A" PUG-11-2003 16=54 LPNIER LPU FIRM PC P.14/44 STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK ) ) S3. ) AFFIDAVIT OF JONATHAN GLASSER JONATHAN GLASSER, having been duly sworn, deposes and says: 1. lam an attorney, duly licensed to practice law in the State ofNew York, I have been a member ofthe New York Bar since June. 1988 and have personal knowledge ofthe following facts. 2. 1 have been an associate with the law firm ofKelley, Drye & Warren LLP ("Kelley Drye**), former national coordinating counsel for Union Carbide Corporation, since April 2001. 3. During much of that time, Kelley Drye housed the Union Carbide asbestos-related document repository that was made available for inspection and review by plaintiffs' counsel (the '"repository"). On November 5th and 6th, 2001, plaintiff' counsel, Mark Lanier, in Charles R. Latham,, et al. vs. Garlock. Inc..et al- Cause No. 15137*BH01 (23rt Jud. Dist. Ct,, Brazoria Co., TX), visited Kelley Drye to review documents in the repository. To my surprise, without any notice or prior approval, plaintiffs' counsel brought along one of their expert witnesses, Dr. David figilman, and someone who was represented to be his assistant 4. On November 5, Dr. Egilman's assistant spent the entire day looking through the repository documents. On the morning ofNovember 6, Dr. Egilroan himself attended and conducted himselfin an extremely rude and abusive manna' to both paralegals and lawyers at our firm. 5. Plaintiffs in the Brazoria County litigation had requested numerous categories of documents in discovery for which Union Carbide had objected, inter alia, on the grounds of DOCSNYl 473409.1 PUG-11-2003 16=55 LPNIER LPW FIRM PC P.15/44 relevance, overbreadth, and undue burden. Dr. Bgilman proceeded ito shout at Kelley Drye's paralegals, and at me, demanding to see broad categories ofUnion Carbide documents which had not been requested in discovery or for which objections had been raised. The documents which were the focus ofDr. Bgilman's ire had nothing whatsoever to do with Union Carbide's Calidria asbestos business. 6. Dr. Egilxnan complained bitterly that he had traveled, a great distance to attend the document production and accused Kelley Drye of lying to him and wasting his time. He even threatened to somehow obtain a search warrant to have the entire office building searched for the allegedly missing documents, many ofwhich. Dr. Bgilman volunteered, were already available to be downloaded from his website. 7. Dr. Egilman reviewed documents until 12:30 p.m. and his assistant stayed ibr the rest of the day. GLASSER STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK ) ) ss. ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 8th day ofAvgust, 2003 by Jonathan Glasser WITNESS my hand and official seal. My commission expires: [SEAL] DOCSNY! ;97J409.) Notary Public, State of New York 2 No. 01SC476103S Qualified in New York County Commission Expires 7/ 31/ 2006 AUG-11-2003 16=55 LANIER LAN FIRM PC P.16/44 EXHIBIT "B" LANIER LAN FIRM PC P.17/44 DISTRICT COURT, JEFFERSON COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO Case No. ^6CV2532ff Division 5 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT (Excerpt) MICHAEL D, BALLINGER, at al, Plaintiffs, vs. BRUSH WELLMAN, INC., an Ohio corporation. Defendant. This matter came on for Trial on Monday, June 18, 2001, before the HONORABLE FRANK FLADT, Judge of the District Court, and a Jury of sir. APPEARANCES FOR THE PLAINTIFFS; Steve Jensen, Esq. A1 Stewart, Esq. Alicia Butler, Esq, Janes Heckbert, Esq, FOR THE DEFENDANTS BRUSH WELLMAN: Sydney McDole, Esq.. Roy Atwood, Esq. Robert Faxon, Esq, Jeff Joyce, Esq. KIMBERLY R. WALLINS, RPR, CRR (303) 271-6151 AUG-11-2003 16:55 LANIER LAN FIRM PC P.18/44 t, '' - 2 1 ****** 2 PROCEEDINGS 3 THE COURTS Thank you. On March 22nd* this 4 court reviewed certain material that had appeared on 5 the wed site of Dr- David Egilman, one of plaintiffs' 6 endorsed expert witnesses- At that hearing, there was 1 no dispute that the information provided had indeed 8 appeared on Dr. Egilman's web site. 9 The Court expressed concern that if such 10 information were to come to the attention of jurors 11 during the trial, it would likely jeopardize the 12 parties' right to a fair trial. 13 At the conclusion of the May 22nd hearing, and 14 in its :later written order signed May 30th, this Court 15 entered certain orders including, but not limited to, 16 the followings Prohibiting the attorneys and their 17 witnesses from making extrajudicial statements 18 concerning this case that can reasonably be expected to 19 be publicly disseminated by the media and that have a 20 substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing the 21 parties8 right to a fair trial; prohibiting them, that 22 is the attorneys and their witnesses, from publishing 23 any statements on internet web sites over which they 24 have control concerning the trial proceedings, 25 concerning any opposing party or any opposing parties' KIMBERLY R. WALLINE, RPR, CRR (303) 271-6151 PUG-11-2003 16=55 LPNIER LPU FIRM PC P.19/44 3 1 counsel? or concerning any witnesses or evidence in 2 this case. And in this regard, the Court finds that it 3 is, particularly given the context in which this issue 4 was addressed, clear beyond question to the Court and 5 should have been clear beyond question to counsel, that 6 that included the postings of Dr. Egilman about which 7 we are concerned here this morning; and, lastly, B prohibiting the attorneys and their witnesses from 9 making any extrajudicial statements on matters that 10 have been excluded in limine or at trial on internet 11 web sites over which they have control? or, and I 12 underline or, that reasonably can be expected to be 13 publicly disseminated by the media and that have a 14 substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing the 15 parties right to a fair trial# 16 Dr. Egilman had actual knowledge of the 17 Court*s order, which after this I will sinply refer to 18 as the order? and received a copy of it well before 19 trial began on June the 4th, After being advised of 20 the order. Dr. Egilman knowingly, deliberately, 21 intentionally, and willfully violated that order# 22 As soon as the Court learned that Dr, Egilman 23 may have violated the order, it made inquiry Of the 24 jurors in open Court to learn whether any of them were 25 aware of any web site postings concerning the case. KIMBERLY R. WALLINE, RPR, CRR {303) 271-6151 LANIER LAN FIRM PC P.20/44 Each juror individually replied in the negative0 While these juror responses were reassuring to the court, it is not possible to be certain that no juror saw any of the offending web site postings either before or after the court's questioning of the jurors on this issue. There is also no way to know whether the testimony of other witnesses in the case may have been affected by violation of the order. The Court notes tbaf a witness exclusion order had been entered in this case specifically to avoid the risk of the testimony of witnesses being contaminated by statements made by other witnesses, While we can never know whether any actual , prejudice has occurred as a result of Dr* Egilman's violations of the order, it's clear that the risk of such prejudice did and does, in fact, exist. Dr. Egilman's hostile, inflammatory and intemperate statements were well-known to all counsel before this trial began. Plaintiffs1 counsel, nonetheless, elected to call Dr. Egilman as a witness at trial. and x observed to counsel the other day that, at least in my view, a responsible lawyer and/or law firm knowing of such inflammatory and intemperate public statements on the part of someone they had been KIMBERLY R. HALLINE, RPR, CRR (303) 271-6151 AUG-11-2003 16:56 LANIER LAN FIRM PC P.21/44 1 considering to offer as an expert witness would 2 immediately reassess that decision. Not only did that 3 not happen here, hut plaintiffs* counsel persisted in A trying to justify the behavior of Dr* Egilman. 5 His demeanor at the time of his deposition is 6 only one of several exanplea of what should have made 7 it very clear to plaintiffs' counsel that they were B dealing with somebody who was out of control and who 3 harbored great animosity toward the individual 10 defendant in this case as well as the law firm 11 defending that defendant. 12 Plaintiffs' counsel nonetheless elected to 13 call Dr- Egilman as a witness at trial, and defense 14 counsel elected not to cross-examine him on his prior 15 statements because of the declared intention of 16 plaintiffs' counsel to then question Dr. Egilman on 17 redirect examination about his motivations for making 18 such statements. 19 There's always room for legitimate 20 disagreement between witnesses in a lawsuit, in fact, 21 sorting out such disagreements is a large part of what 22 any lawsuit is all about. However, Dr. Egilman03 23 scurrilous and inflammatory statements posted on his 24 web site, in clear violation of this Court's order, go Z5 far beyond the bounds of legitimate disagreement and KIMBERLY R. WALLINE, RPR, CRR (303) 271-6151 5 AUG-11-2003 16=56 LANIER LAW FIRM PC P.22/44 a- s-03; 10'13PM;Tne Moore Law Firm 1 cast great doubt on hio legitimacy and integrity as a 2 witness, 3 At the time the Court was thinking about this 4 matter over the weekend, it was unaware of more recent 5 developments which make it clear that, over this 6 weekend, Dr. Egilman has threatened to cause a mistrial 7 in this case, and, as a matter of fact, has threatened 8 to sue plaintiffs' counsel. The Court rejects the 9 suggestion of plaintiffs' counsel that this kind of 10 wild, irrational behavior on the part of Dr. Egilman 11 was something they could not have anticipated. It's 12 certainly crystal clear to the Court and has been, at 13 least since March when the issue of Dr. Egilman'a 14 behavior at his deposition' arose, that he is indeed, 15 and haa been, out of control in ways that have great 16 potential for harming fairness and justice in this case 17 and indeed go to the very heart of the system of 18 justice. 19 As I stated last week and have stated for over 20 four decades in this profession, which I cherish, a 21 lawsuit is a contest but it's not a game. And 22 Dr. Egilman haa been playing games, and to a lesser 23 extent, so as plaintiffs' counsel, by not only putting 24 up with Dr, Egilman but persisting in offering him. as 25 an expert in this ease when they knew, as well as KIMBERLY R. WALLINE, RPR. CRR (303) 271-6151 S LANIER LAU FIRM PC P.23/44 anyone, and certainly all of us knew, that Dr. Egiiman was anything put objective. He was hostile, biased, vindictive, both against the individual corporate defendant and against defense counsel. It simply will not due for plaintiffs* counsel to then come in here and say, well, this was Dr. Egiiman. It wasn't us, and we were, in the words of the old movie Casablanca, "Shocked, shocked,m to learn just how irrational and intemperate Dr. Egiiman could be. The Court doesn't want to -- well, I think the Court wants to give some specifics about the intenperate postings on Dr. Egiiman's web site. These are from defense Exhibits 2000 and 2001. "Hey, Judge, why not sanction Baron fi Budd, they gave me the ideaGive 'em credit. If I could only break into the Jones Day site, would the judge sanction them? Dr do lawyers who perform criminal acts get a free pass in Colorado? Maybe Jones Day placed that comment on my site. They have control of my site." apparently the same day an e-mail from ms,, Butler to Dr* Egiiman: "They bit. Copy of your new page-showed up in court just now, Alicia Butler." Next Egiiman posting the Court will refer to, which covers about a third of the page and is in bold KIMBERLY R, WALLINE, RPR, CRR (303) 271-6151 AUG-11-2003 16:57 LANIER LAN FIRM PC P.24/44 8 1 face, "New formerly secret-Jones Day Urt, criminal 2 activity, it's here for all to see." 3 next quote, "Jones Day witness Repsher 4 slanders Dr. Newman." 5 "The rules don't apply to Jones Day." 6 He posts four quotes from Brush spokesman 7 respectively dated November 18th, 1957 > May 21st, 1947; 8 March 1st, 1948; May 24th, 1991; and a portion of the 9 book by Dr. Breuss of Brush, 10 From Exhibit -- pardon me. Defendants' Exhibit 11 2000, "Colorado judge in Jones Day pocket: what did it 12 cost?" 13 "The rules don't apply to Jones Day." 14 "Brush medical directors-felony? Fraud? And 15 more than 90 percent of the members of Otto Preuss's 16 graduation class were members of the Nazi Party or Nazi 17 Party affiliates." 18 That's probably enough to give the flavor, but 19 there's much more Of the same. 20 Dr. Egilman's scurrilous and inflammatory 21 statements posted on his web site, in violation at the 22 order, go far beyond the boundaries of legitimate 23 disagreement and cast great doubt on his legitimacy and 24 integrity as a witness. The jury has already been 25 instructed in this case that part of what they are to KIMBERLY R. HALLXNE, RPR, CRR (303) 271-6151 AUG-11-2003 16=57 LANIER LAN FIRM PC _ P.25/44 9 1 consider in determining the credibility of a witness 2 are that witness's motives, bias and prejudices. 3 It's clear to the court that Dr, Egilman'a 4 testimony was motivated by his hostility toward the 5 defendant and the defendants' law firm by his bias 6 against the defendant and the defendants' law firm, and j 7 his prejudice against the defendant and the defendants' 8 law firm. And plaintiffs' counsel, by the device of 9 threatening to ask Dr. Egilman on redirect what his 10 basis was for these scurrilous comments of his# 11 effectively -- and to draw out the trial at great 12 length to allow Dr. Egilman to expound on those points, 13 effectively precluded the defense from revealing his w` 14 bias while he was on the witness stand. . 15 The question, again, becomes one of the 16 appropriate sanction to levy in this case against 17 Dr. Egilman, and, if applicable, plaintiffs' counsel or 18 any of them as individuals. 19 With regard to this case, the Court does not 20 believe that a mistrial is in order. The Court 21 intends, when the jury is brought in this morning, to 22 tell them that as a result of the proceedings we had : 23 here this morning, they are instructed to disregard the 24 testimony of Dr. Egilman, and that all such testimony 25 is stricken. KIMBERLY R. WALLINE, RPR, CRR (303) 271-6151 AUG-11-2003 16:5? LANIER LAN FIRM PC P.26/44 10 1 I'm not going to tell them that plaintiffs 2 have withdrawn Dr. Egilman as a witness because 3 plaintiffs had plenty of chance to do that before this 4 morning# and until they realized just what the results 5 of their faulty judgment were in putting him on in the 6 first place indicated no willingness at all to take 7 such a step. And I fault plaintiffs' counsel for that, $ and I specifically exclude Mr. Gray and Mr. Heckbert 9 from that observation. 10 It should be abundantly clear, but in case it 11 isn't* Dr. Egilman will not be permitted to testify 12 with regard to the cases of any other plaintiffs in13 this case* or in any other case before this Court. 14 Contempt is -- pursuing contempt remedies is, 15 in this court's view, is a useless exercise and will do 16 nothing to forward the interest of justice in this 17 case, and that, after all, is what the Court is 18 concerned with* 19 All of the sanctions which have been mentioned 20 here this morning are sanctions that the Court has 21 considered over the weekend. I am not prepared at this 22 time to decide what to do about sanctions against Baron 23 a Budd or Ms. Butler* I certainly strongly disapprove 24 of their decision to put Dr. Egilman forward in this 25 case and hoped they could get away with it. They KIMBERLY R. WALLINE, R?R, CRR {303? 271-6151 PUG-11-2003 16:58 LPNIER LPU FIRM PC P.27/44 1 haven't gotten away with it, and what else we do about 2 that, I don't know. 3 Vacating this Court's order, admitting any or 4 all of plaintiffsB out-of-state counsel is something 5 the Court is considering, but I don't want to make that 6 decision now because I feel that maybe upon further 7 reflection r'm going to hear an acknowledgement from 8 plaintiffs11 counsel, and Ms. Butler in particular, 9 about the inappropriateness of some of their decisions 10 in this case, and we will revisit that issue later this 11 week* 12 I guess that's all I have to say on that, on 13 the question of counsel. So we will be in recess for 14 10 minutes. By the way, since the Court is keeping 15 time during this trial, the time for dealing with the 16 Egilman issue is assessed to plaintiffs' counsel and 17 the plaintiffs, we'll be in recess for 10 minutes, 16 then we'll bring the jury back in and continue with the 19 trial. 20 MS. McDOLE; Your Honor. 21 THE COURT; Yes. 22 MS. MCDOLE; In terms of the instruction 23 that's going to be given to the jury, would the Court 24 instruct the jury then. Dr. Egilman has been found to 25 be biased and to violate the court order* KIMBERLY R. WALLINE, RER, CRR (303) 271-6151 11 AUG-11-2003 16=58 LANIER LAW FIRM PC P.28/44 12 1 THE COURTS I told you essentially verbatim 2 what I'm going to tell the jury- 3 MSo KcDOUE; Thank you. 4 THE COURT: We*11 recess until 5:50- Make 5 that 5:55. The jury has been told they didnt have to 6 be back here until then. 7 [Whereupon, a recess was had.) 8 THE COURT: We're back on the record in 9 Ballinger et al versus Brush Wellman. 10 ms. McDole, this is a situation in which the 11 Court wants to sign a formal set of findings, 12 > conclusions, and orders, so I'll ask the defense to 13 prepare that, and it shouldn't be any huge problem 14 because I think you're getting daily copy on the 15 1 transcript anyway. 16 MS. McDOLE: Correct. 17 THE COURT; And the one thing I do want to add is after the point where I talk about Dr. Egilman's 19 motives, bias, and prejudice, I want another sentence 20 stating -- because I don't want there to be any 21 question about this Court's view on this matter, 22 another sentence stating, "Dr. Egilman is not a 23 credible witness." 24 (Whereupon, this concludes the excerpt of the 25 trial requested for transcription.) KIMBERLY R. WALLINE, RPft, CRR (303) 271*6151 PUG-11-2003 16:58 LPNIER LPU FIRM PC P.29/44 1 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 2 lff Kimberly R, Walline, a Registered 3 Professional Reporter and Certified Shorthand Reporter 4 for the State of Colorado, do hereby certify that the 5 above and foregoing is a true and accurate transcript 6 of my shorthand notes taken at the tine and place as 7 stated on page 1 hereof. 8 Dated at Golden, Colorado this 9 day of , 2001. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 KIMBERLY R. WALLINE, RPR, CRR (303) 271-6151 13 AUG-11-2003 16=58 LANIER LAN FIRM PC P.30/44 EXHIBIT "C" PUG-11-2003 16:58 > LPNIER LPW FIRM PC P.31/44 district oodsi, jefterson county, COLORADO lOOIAmOradarfiaricMar Golden, CO ' PkWMICHAEL a BALUNGER, erf BRUSH WELLMAN INC, u Ohio twpoftfftOi A COURT USE ONLY & CaseNtnuber! 96-CV-2532 DiteS Ctn UNDUVGV, CONCLUSIONS. AND ORDERS CONCERNING SANCTIONS AtemUteiis OMtontod erideacacod tb* oral irpnett oftfad pnfiica at iho Mov^sOrte The CourtSod* te Dr. Egftn*i bwroagtoi deteatefr. teatfonDfand wfflfoEy ^IatcdTtoCoijfo3yWPl QtePndrifcitiogCcrtafaEacr^reHda!terrawti. WHoteta ilwayiroom fbr hgtfarto dfovrcoxia*teweta oppanng aq?t'nStmatt, tho mrina *od Iifflmmorfljy rtutamantt posted fry Dr. Egflaaaon hnwb site go ao fir beyond fee bonndi of l^ftigiOdlmgEPcmBislDcatfgrpadoul*[mbafolflBBqrtadi^^ It if efe to te Cont thtfTfe Egstau* testfettapTOtrotated frrAftpaumZ igndaud tyh AUG-11-2003 16:59 LANIER LAW PIRN PC P.32/44 Dr- EftHatt a wrt * aedJhfc wtinofis. Tl Cgwt ftrrfg that Dr, Egflaaa1-* hosfflfiv inflnrrmnwty sod ntffmpmftft `gilfur.ull rad ^iiH piafcitftifc1 iMd couosd couoirf^ bcftrtthis toslbcm, WmwtHffii* coa^iniNttelmpMB^bvTlBstojwSiyDt Wtfbnaim frow&h^Wfnittfl awt f^Ctoj W OlH Pt E^mq il * tlAllHTBl tHgl fttPUt httCtBgtObviflUl to thmtbtflw**w^ot?Jci^ Kota^fa*ll^^sawbm<VI^f>ni^ MhiipMTitti^cnnm^ By Ctl&ffiRi figtfm&MiTtltaw tfcfW'wtBB plaWV ooon^Jo^tewn oi eoMlplic^JttJeqpB^^ latosdt^ ofiUi otbtttaL * TIm CooAi^Bottitoiml^of^Uiitltt1 Doin^i^ovmsl teer tlvrattVittaiD&Bgitart'^^dH'ttt'vbtoiUQawth cite Tb ComWindifc va& otairb oaoft to 3/30/01 Onto ttafc ooncidcad D& EtfxwuC* vttupcvtnmnveb tfa -w imHnwBittfcigroiii^iiMCTLQpriwniaatftQphteatMctfgftfiTiMiofttiyttM* Xfav*Afi . QWHnniwi<oai ficajlriwWy eout^io)fcB^lamaMtiwap^bogim^faicBA ooanpteflQTL TteCmn^thttdMtiOiaiBUDiBC^toAMItepUtfVGDmMlivaato aaa rtfgww wttfi.Dr. BgCuaa fa hfa fryrt vfelnria oftife Caattfr order. It fetbndhv ORDERED te: 3. Tteuctaiaii)rofDr.l&DBibstzlaL 2. Ticjny tf 7*w*nMJfi to dartjcdDr. Efton.'iteifeaoHy fa to cntfeetjv AUG-11-2003 16=59 LANIER LAN FIRM PC P.33/44 3,, Dr, E*ilmasaMlliMtb*permWtot"^wiaf*aajdto^4lftanaof HTalterplaintiffmtits east, or in any otter cut w&feh laterbw tecfonthtoComt RAlEDtte22d^ofJuofi,2002, AUG-11-2003 16=59 LANIER LAN FIRM PC P.34/44 EXHIBIT "D" AUG-11-2003 16=59 LANIER LAN FIRM PC .Index to asbestos documents P.35/44 Page 1 of 5 Tndftit to asbestos documents Asbestos brake consulting infbnnation to appear here soon! Hawks Nest Material Why would someone agree to pay someone 10 Million dollars for consulting if they thought he was "out ofcontrol". New Dow Transcripts Beginning this month David Egiknan will begin publication of "The Whistleblower Health News" a bi-monthlyjournal dedicated to uncovering corporate cover-ups tha t have resulted in worker and public deaths and injuries. Potential sources should contact Dr. Egilman via email or over secure phone lines. No source names will be disclosed. Rewards will be given ranging from I-10 thousand dollars. Subscribe hy emailing Dr- T?pihan Special reward $1000.00 for every new Jones Day violation ofcourt rules or fraud finding. All criminal enterprises must be stopped. Lincoln, Electric Privilege log Appearing Soon: The Lincoln Electric Welding Rod documents. Some of what they want to hide. Lincoln Electric Privilege Log Remember Jones Day is inexpert at committing fraud by passing key documents past a lawyer to avoid production. They violated the crime fraud exception in Beryllium litigation & Tobacco litigation. Why should asbestos litigation be different? Unfortunately there is no three strikes and you're out tor corporate criminals. There is no death penalty for corporations that kill. Unlike citizens who are human beings, corporate felons can continue to obtain government grants after repeat felony convictions. Previous Beryllium Jones Day Fraud Jndicial finding. Ifrevious tobaccq crime fraud finding. The New World isn't even big enough to accommodate all the negligent conduct Jones Day has planned for this world. Click here for article. Lincoln Electric False answers to interrogatories Maybe this is why Jones Day want to silence Dr, Longo. To peipetuatc another fraud? QuestionNumber 7 page 3. Have you conducted any studies concerning the effects of inhalation of asbestos dust or fibers by one using, removing or being exposed to any of the asbestos materials manufactured or distributed by you? In answer to this question, please give the date of your studies, if any, the names of the persons http://www.egilmaiLCOTn/mdcx__to_asbestos_documents.htin 4/3/2003 AUG-11-2003 17:00 LANIER LAN FIRM PC P.36/44 Index to asbestos documents Page 2 of5 conducting the studies and their addresses, what the purposes of studies were, and identify any documents reflecting or related to such studies and/or the purposes/objectives thereof. ANSWER: No. With respect to Lincoln Electric these studies must have been to defend specific lawsuits or there is no privilege. Could someone ask which lawsuits were involved? Georgia Law on Consulting Experts These rules must require that parties disclose the names of and nature of consulting experts otherwise how would a opposing party be able to request a deposition of an opposing expert In addition since Dr. Longo's tests for Lincoln Electric were never published or disclosed and since no other similar tests on Lincoln electric rods have ever been published by anyone else this information (never mind Dr. Longo's relationship) must be disclosed under Georgia law since "itis impracticable for the party seeking discovery to obtain facts or opinions on the same subject by other means" This means that Lincoln Electric's only possible objective in keeping the fact and nature ofDr. Longo's consulting for them secret is the initiation or peipctuation of a fraud on the courts of America. Well it is no longer secret http:7Avww.egiiinan.coni/index_to_asbestos_documejit5.btm 4/3/2003 AUG-11-2003 17=00 LANIER LAN FIRM PC Jndex to asbestos documents P.37/44 Page 3 of5 VERDICT-47 MILLION PLUS RECKLESSNESS FINDING IN NY CITY ASBESTOS CASE 3-26^03 ON CONED AND LXLCO Jones Day strikes again: attacks another expert Tell me it isn't so Jim. UCC lied about asbestos disease at their mine. GM A Christmas Present For GM - Another Lost Document Lanza worked for GM-1931 Chrysler Rula_-199J5 There are no cases which discuss whether or not reading the deposition transcript is considered "attending" (which Webster's defines as "To be present at:"). There are no rules which bar reading the deposition transcript or a draft after it has been typed. There is no minimum waiting tunc to read a deposition transcript after it has been typed in any form (internet, paper, digital). Those individuals who participate will not be able to ask questions or make objections or in any other way be noticeable at the deposition. They will therefore "not be present". Like the tree falling in the woods where on one can hear sound, they will not make any noise. The lost Chrysler tS Another lost study Chrysler Chemical Division. Trenton. Ml 84-0262-1734, Friction Division Products. Trenton. NJ http://www.egilraan.com/mdex_to_asbestos_documcnta.htm 4/3/2003 AUG-11-2003 17:00 LANIER LAN FIRM PC Index to asbestos documents P.38/44 Page 4 of 5 You can always find them here. Qh yes Chrysler sold raw asbestos fiber too. They generally forget this when they answer interrogatory questions; note the finesse in answer. 27. GM the buyer was a little more forthright. Of course Chrysler went to the 7th Saranac conference. Chrysler made the brake pads for Bendix* do you think they are liable for Bendix exposures after Bendix id fraudulently conveyed to Federal Mogul? Al remember the "Asbestos worker magazines hurt both the plaintiffs and the defendants because they undermine the SOA defense?" Science Jjlpfeflitfeed International harvester At tout service International Harvester and Brake company discoveryLook at all the organizations they forgot they had joined. Their president even chaired many safety and disease committees. Ford Ford undercnatinp study: Ifthey studied itr did they sell or manufacture it? Why did Ford put asbestos in its air cnnditinning ducts? GM On California Interrogatories GM admits.it used CredttoJtta Can you represent Cain & Abel? If so can you maintain that Cain's sealed documents (from say the SF coverage litigation) can be hidden from Abel? * UCC/Dovf UCC warnings policy for their own workers * UCC promote asbestos paper for cigarettes * "Privileged UCC documents'" * Dow * Ubx Report * USX Donora Video * USX Powerpoint Union Carbide (Now DOW) winner of First Place award In domestic category for murdering the largest number of workers in a single industrial disaster - Hawk's Nest Disaster about 1500 mostly African American tunnel drillers http*7/www.cgilman.com/mdex_eo_asbestos^documents.htm 4/3/2003 PUG-11-2003 17=00 LPNIER LAW FIRM PC Jndex to asbestos documents P.39/44 Page 5 of 5 and Winner of first place award international division for murdering the largest number of workers in a non-US plant - Bhopal Get there asbestos documents here: (Shissh in another abuse of the legal system they claim these documents which were never on any privilege log and which they produced during discovery are privileged. They apparently site the legal theory that documents that reveal immoral, illegal and inhuman conduct that a corporation intentionally injured and killed workers with their products to make money must be privileged so that the victims can suffer without redress and profits can continue to flow endlessly.) What they don't want you to see must be valuable. Email me to sign up for password access or a set of CD ROMs. For people with passwords * Some lawyers lie. Here is Robert Thackstoris reviewed by tha Dallas Appellate Court * National Safety Counsel Key articles * USX Report Canadian Treroollte Story; Is It Fraud or Is Incompetent Science? * Insurance responsibility for the asbestos defense fraud. new IHF duty documents * German compensation statutes http^/www.egilman.com/index_to_asbestos_documentsJitm 4/3/2003 PUG-11-2003 17=00 LPNIER LAW FIRM PC P.40/44 DOW LOST DOCUMENTS PROGRAM Also I will pay $10,000 for (he trial transcript of the Hawk's Nest Trial in West Virginia In 1953. This Is not a joke. Union Carbide's (now DOW) lawyer's in that case have this but do not produce it In litigation because it is "the law linn's1' not UC's. If I pulled this, I would go to jail - Dow would see to it But as George Carlin says, "Republican's are against street crime as long as the street is not named Wall Street." INFLUENCE OVER Lost CMA asbestos documents DOW also forgets it used OTTO AMBROS as a consultant OTTO had a small legal problem; he was convicted of mass murder & slavery at the Nuremberg trials- Thus by law it was illegal for him to travel to this country. (After WWH it was illegal for pre1945 Nazi war criminals and post 1945 Communists to travel to the US. Dow used its power to get OTTO into this country. (In the interests of full disclosure, it is my official position that corporations should not rdy on the advice of convicted war criminals on matters that relate to health & safety.) By the way DOW reopened the Nazi chemical plant at Auschwitz, the site of OTTO's crimes, in the mid'nlneties. Dow Hidden^cumentPnugaia DOW Nazi consultant Otto Ambros Found Documents Tom of Dow tivfM-rafr http://www.egilman.coin/dowjost_docunients_program.htm 4/17/2003 PUG-11-2003 17=01 LPNIER LPW FIRM PC P.41/44 EXHIBIT "E" PUG-11-2003 17=01 LPNIER LAW FIRM PC P.42/44 5-13-03,txt 1 1 APPELLATE NO. 2 REPORTER'S RECORD VOLUME 1 OF 1 VOLUME 3 TRIAL COURT CAUSE NO. 2001-36408 4 SAM P, BURNETT, ET AL. IN THE DISTRICT COURT 5 vs. HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS 6 ALLIEDSIGNAL, INC., ET AL, 7 269Th judicial district 8 9 10 REPORTER'S RECORD 11 12 13 Or the 19th day of May, 2003, the following 14 proceedings came on to be held in the above-entitled 15 and numbered cause before the Honorable Min T, 16 Wooldridge, judge Presiding, held in Houston, Harris 17 County., Texas > 18 Proceedings reported by computerized stenotype 19 machine. 20 21 22 23 24 25 LORETTA KGRZEB OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 269TH DISTRICT COURT o. 2 Page 1 PUG-11-2003 17=01 LPNIER LAW FIRM PC P.43/44 5-19-03.txt 2 Q- Have you ever published any papers on the 3 issue of why contract workers like Mr. Tipip aren't 4 included in this type of study that was dene by Dow? 5 A. Ves. 6 Q- And have you concluded that there is a 7 reason that contract workers like Mr. Tipp were not ft included in that type study? 9 A- yes. 10 Q. And what is that conclusion? 11 A. It's all about the money with respect to 12 product sales. 13 .mr Blackwell: Thank you, Dr. 14 Egilman. i'll pass the witness at this time. 15 the court: cross? 16 mr. SIMSES: Yes, Your Honor. 17 CROSS-EXAMINATION 18 Q (BY MR. SIMSES) Good afternoon. 19 Mr, Egil man, Dr. Egilman, you and I have never met 20 before? have we? 21 A, Don't recall. 22 Q* Don't recall. 23 in regards to your opinions, you've 24 never done an investigation and personally went to 25 the Freeport facility; have you? LORETTA kORZEB OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER district court d 224 1 A* I've never been at the facility, on the 2 premises of the facility. 3 Q. And you haven't actually gone and spoken to Page 209 AUG-11-2003 17=01 LANIER LAW FIRM PC P.44/44 5-19-03.txt 12 the court: overruled. 13 overruled. Go ahead. Ask your 14 question* let's move on. 15 q. Cby mr. simses) oid your web site not have 16 on it before you took it down before the deposition 17 an advertisement that you were going to give -- first 18 of all. that you were going to set up a publication 19 called the whistleblower's Health News? 20 a. correct. 21 Q. And that you were looking for sources and 22 that you were going to give rewards up to one to 23 $10,0007 24 A, Correct. And,, by the way, I forgot, just 25 to correct my last answer, i did get documents that LORETTA KORZEB OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 269TH DISTRICT COURT D 245 1 i9ve relied on In this case through that process as 2 well. 3 Q. And then you had a special reward of a 4 thousand dollars for any new Jones Day violation of 5 the court rules of fraud finding. 6 you're asking for people to give you 7 money they heard of something about a law firm? 8 a. No. I'm asking for them to give me 9 Information. 10 Q, Right. You're paying 'em information Csic) 11 about a law firm and you're paying up to a thousand 12 dollars for that? 13 a. That's correct. Page 229 TOTAL P.44