Document LKb58NLBnbBbL8OqnaZnkVjbd
T. Marmor
Page 89
. 1 request for the report. Thank you.
2 Q. Did I ask you what your
3 conclusion was in the Celotex case?.
4 A. I think l offered.it. ;
5 Q. . .That's.right,, the trust>rathqr . .
6 than have the plaintiffs attorneys run the
7 company., ,
8 A. That's right.
fT
9 Q' . How long did you do.research in
10 order, ter come up with this conclusion opinion?: .
11 A. .} think something in. the orderof ...
12 four to five months.
13 Q. Was that part-time, full-time?
14 A. ;It:was part-time by me, but it
15 was also full-time with one of my. post-docs .who
16 helped me with -it. And did a lot of collection
17 of materials that ,we discussed..: ,..
18 Q. Did it,take a.four or five-month <T!:: :..<i
19 perrod.of time.for him, this post-doc, to
20 collect.:the material apdi then you studied. it .,
21 and wrote y.our report.orwere.you studying the
22 entire time, the entire, four or,five;mpnths? . ,
23 A.. W.e were doing it together the 24 entire time. What todk the,time.was,to-
25 acquaint,us with this literature. I didn't
Page 91
1 upon what I've done in the management school in
2 evaluating cases.
3 Q.. It had nothing to do with-
4 asbestos?
5 A.; No. 1,'m. just implying that there .>.
6 was a continuation of my relationship, with, the
7 firm.
,
8 Q. I understand. We won't inquire
9 about that.
.,
10 The Celotex case,..how much were .
il you paid?
12 A.. I think the total wag something
13 on the order of $40,000.
14 Q. When you say the total, what do ,,
15 you mean?
v.
... -
16 A. That is, I recall because there -
17 was.not a payment .along.the way, I recall a
18 check for something Iike.:$40,000-times, at.4hat
19 time, it was $300 or $325 per, hour.
20 Q. Your research assistant was paid
21 separately? .
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Do you know how much-the research
24 assistant's bill was? :
-.
25 A. 1think about $18,000.
Page 90
I take me much .time to have a view,about the
2 representatippeof,interest, hut 1 couldn't.
3 apply it unless I acquired the,information .
4 about this particular industry,that 1 didn't,
5 have before,.W:hich is what.I'ye.been valiantly
6 trying to-convey. I don't want to misrepresent
7 what I; knew; when.
8
Q... .(understand. You're not. ,
;
9 : ; ^^W.elJ. this rqpiort inthe CcIo.tex. , , ^; .
10 case, has it been.published anywliere?Zi ,
11 "A.' Novitw.as just.offered to the ;
12 court and became the basis for myse.cond expert
13 witness experience with McCracken-, which-just--
14 ended this last month.
15 Q. Is that the boilermaker case? :
16 A. No, no, the boilermaker case is
17 the.tobacco case..The,new one that Ijust,,
18 ended js,a quite different subject. Ithasto;
19 do with the evaluation of a claim about^a . . .
20 contract .dispute with a camp at Cabrini College
21 in Philadelphia.
22 , . The same sort.of issues, of who ,
23 the representation -of the truth of the matter
24 came up as.well as an evaluation of the,.
25 particular enterprise, and for that I've relied
Page 92
1 Q. When was this? -.
2 A. 1996, February 1996 is when we^I ; . v
3 think, submitted the report.
4
Q. So February of 1996 is when you,;
. '~ .
5 were First acquainted with the general.
6 literature regarding asbestos disease?
7 A. Not in February; By February.. '
8 Q. By February. ..
9 A. By February, I had become much>
10 more acquainted with the literature on;asbestos
11 because of this assignment.
12 Q. And four or five months prior to
13 that you began becoming acquainted?,
14 A. Much more acquainted.' To be
15 fair, I was not completely ignorant of it, but
16 I was not well acquainted with the industry,
17 its characteristics, the nature of the product
18 and the nature of the claims made about
19 specific diseases.
20 Q. The boilermaker case, tell me
21 about your report and how it related to
22 asbestos.
23 A. It relates to asbestos in the
24 following indirect way. The claim made in the
25 boilermaker's case was that American workers
POHLMAN REPORTING COMPANY (314)421-0099
23 (Pages 89 to 92)