Document LKwBdQGVr1QNb368GLkwpZg7q

77 ri EASTERN DIVISION WILLIAM R. GAFFEY, Plaintiff, ) ) ) vs. PETER MONTAGUE, et al Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) _____________________________________________ ) CAUSE No. 91-1938-C-7/JCH "v . DEFENDANTS' NOVEMBER 4, 1993 DISCOVERY REQUEST Defendants Peter Montague and Environmental Research Foundation request that plaintiff William R. Gaffey respond to this discovery request within thirty days as required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This discovery request combines tf requests for admissions, interrogatories, and requests for inspection of documents and other things. * I. DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS Please interpret each of the following discovery requests in accordance with the following special definitions and instruc tions, as supplemented by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Federal Rules of Evidence, and jurisprudence thereunder: 1. "Produce" means to produpe any and all originals and any and all non-identical copies of the same document described in its or their most complete form, including, without o DISCOVERY REQUEST Page 1 limitation, any and all surviving portions thereof, and including any and all annexes, appendices, tabs, exhibits, indexes, cover sheets, transmittal letters, or other documents found attached to or in the same file with the same document or documents, including, without limitation, whenever available the file identification and identification of the system of records in which each document and any and all copies are found. Wherever you are asked to produce affidavits or trial or deposition transcripts, also produce any and all exhibits thereto. 2. The words "document" or "record" shall have the same interpretation as "documents or other things" within the meaning of Fed. R. Civ. P. 34, and shall also include all drafts, alterations, modifications, changes or amendments thereof. 3. The term "person" or "persons" includes not only natural persons, but also all forms or organizations including without limitation unincorporated associations, partnerships, corporations, joint ventures, proprietorships, firms, syndicates, and all subsidiaries, affiliates, divisions, departments, branches or other units thereof. 4. The term "communication" refers to any written or oral transmission of information, belief or opinion, including any correspondence, letters, telegraphs, telexes, notes, memoranda, reports, circulars, press releases, discussions or conversations. DISCOVERY REQUEST Page 2 5. The connectives "and" and "or" shall be construed either disjunctively or conjunctively or both as necessary to bring within the scope of the discovery request all responses that might otherwise be construed to be outside of its scope. 6. This Request is a continuing one. If, after producing the requested documents, you obtain or become aware of any further documents responsive to this Request, you are required to produce to the defendants those additional documents, including documents prepared subsequent to the date of this Request. 7. Where words or terms are not defined, they shall be given their common and accustomed meaning within the context stated. 8. The words "dioxin" or "dioxins" mean congeners, homologues, or isomers of the mono chlorinated classes of dibenzo-p-dioxins or diben^uiurcins. 9. As to any document withheld from production under this document request because of a claim of privilege, identify in your response or concurrently therewith in a separate log: (a) , the title of the document; (b) . the author of the document; (c) . the date of the document; (d) . the general subject matter of the document; (e) . the privilege or privileges claimed; (f) . all facts necessary to establish that the document is in fact privileged; and DISCOVERY REQUEST Page 3 V* (g). whether you will submit each document to the Court for a determination as to the validity of the claim of privilege. 10. The phrase "Zack/Gaffey study" shall encompass not only the final published report of the purported study exhibited hereto as EXHIBIT B , but also all underlying records thereof. 11. The phrase "Zack/Suskind study" shall encompass not only the final published report of the purported study exhibited hereto as EXHIBIT C, but also all underlying records thereof. 12. The phrase "Suskind/Hertzberg study" shall encompass not only the final published report of the purported study exhib ited hereto as EXHIBIT D, but also all underlying records there of . 13. The phrase "Nitro worker studies" shall encompass not only the Zack/Gaffey study, the Zack/Suskind study, and the Suskind/Hertzberg study, but also any or all studies, investiga tions, examinations, or other means of acquiring information at any time regarding the health of the same groups of workers discussed in EXHIBITS B through D inclusive or any member or members of those groups or regarding possible association of health effects among those workers with chemicals in their work place. DISCOVERY REQUEST Page 4 REQUESTS TO ADMIT FACTS Defendants Peter Montague and Environmental Research Founda tion request plaintiff William R. Gaffey, within 30 days after service of this request to make the following admissions for the purpose of this action only and subject to all pertinent objec tions to admissibility that may be interposed at the trial: A. That each of the following documents, exhibited with this request, is: [i] authentic under Rule 901 or Rule 902 of the Federal Rules of evidence; [ii] is genuine under Rule 1003 of the Federal Rules of Evidence; and [iii] is not subject to objection as hearsay under Rule 802 of the Federal Rules of Evidence; Exhibit A B C D E F G Description____________________________________________ Rachel's Hazardous Waste News # 171 Zack/Gaffey, "A mortality study of workers employed at the Monsanto Company Plant in Nitro, West Virginia" Zack/Suskind, "The mortality experience of workers exposed to tetrachlorodibenzodioxin in a trichlorophenol process accident" Suskind/Hertzberg, "Human health effects of 2,4,5-T and its toxic contaminants" Monsanto October 9, 1980 press release, "Study fails to link Agent Orange to deaths of industrial workers" Marcie E. Strauss, August 14, 1984 memo to A.M. Ford, D. King, M. Pleska, P. Potterfield, transmitting attached "verbatim and critique of the Zack/Gaffey all plant mortality study" U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Dioxin Study, "Tier 1 and 2 Accomplishments," January 1986. Excerpts, Nitro plant dioxin survey DISCOVERY REQUEST Page 5 H William Gaffey, April 23, 1990 letter to Peter Montague I Peter Montague, April 29, 1990 letter to William Gaffey J Correspondence between David F. Snively (Monsanto) and Carol Van Strum, re: table of Nitro mortality (three letters with attachments) K William Gaffey, May 11, 1990 letter to Peter Montague, with attached testimony of George Roush from Kemner L Monnye R. Gross, July 5, 1990 letter to Peter Montague M Peter Montague, July 18, 1990 letter to Monnye Gross N Monnye R. Gross, July 31, 1990 letter to Peter Montague 0 Peter Montague, August 8, 1990 letter to Monnye R. Gross P James J. Collins, Monsanto Epidemiology Director, June 1, 1990 letter to Marilyn Fingerhut, NIOSH, with attached tables 1 and 4 Q Package of news clips and Monsanto letters to U.S. EPA received by Peter Montague from EPA in response to F0IA request R Marcie Strauss, May 4, 1987 letter to Marilyn Fingerhut, NIOSH, transmitting computer tape That each of the following statements is t r u e j ^ ^ 1. Tnfe^gack/Suskind study included the sat^ment, "An analysis of the chibracne cases and exposjafes not associated with this accident but ratherNtith the nofToal TCP/2,4,5-T production processes will be the subjec^b^of a future paper." 2. Dr. Raymonc^Suskind and otrdjjth Zack intended to produce a paper on "chJkSracne cases and exposuresrlot associated with this acpident but rather with the normal TCP/2,4,5-T production processes.11 DISCOVERY REQUEST Page 6 3. The data collection and analysis were in fact conducted for the^"analysis of the chloracne cases and exposures not associated with this accident but rather with the normal TCP/2,4,5-Typroduction processes"/referred to by Drs. Suskind and Zack. \ / 4. The data collection and analysis were never performed for the "analysis^of the chloracne cases and exposures not associated with thfte accident/ but rather with the normal TCP/2,4,5--T production processes" referred to by Drs. Suskind and Zack. \/ 5. The study published as the Zack/Gaffey study is not the study described in the Zack/Suskind study as an "analysis of the chloracne cases and exposure^ not associated with this accident but rather with the normal TCF/2,4f5-T production processes." 6. The study published as^the Zack/Gaffey study is in fact the study described/ in the Zack/Sxaskind study as an "analysis of the chloracne cases and exposures nbt associated with this accid ent but rather wixh the normal TCP/2 M,5-T production processes." 7. Monsanto identified Dr. Raymond Suskind, not plaintiff William R. Gaffey, as co- author of theVZack/Gaffey" study in a 1980 press release, EXHIBIT E hereto. \ 8. Judith Zack and Dr. Raymond Suskind conducted and wrote the study published as the Zack/Gaffey study\ 9. Dr.[Raymond Suskind withdrew his name, from what became the Zack/Gaffey study prior to its publication. \ DISCOVERY REQUEST Page 7 10< Plaintiff William R. Gaffey was named as co/author of the Zack/Gaffey study only after Dr. Raymond Suskinra withdrew his name from i t \ / 11. Prior\o his name being substituted/for Dr. Raymond Suskind's as co-author, William R. Gaffey was not involved in the conduct or writing ofNthe study published: as the Zack/Gaffey study, but subsequently Misrepresented/the same study to the scientificcommunityas be\ng the worTc ofJudith Zack and himself. \/ 12. William R. Gaffey actively participated in the design, research, data analysis,writi/ig\ andediting of the Zack/Gaffey study. /\ 13. Plaintiff William R. Gaffey^was aware of the progress of both the Zack/Suskincr and Zack/Gaffey studies from their initial proposal stages through their publication. 14. Plaintiff/william R. Gaffey participated in the study design of both the Zack/Suskind and Zack/Gaffey studies. 15. During the time that the Zack/Gaffey study was being conducted, plaintiff William R. Gaffey's employer \ Monsanto Company, had an incentive to misrepresent the hazards of dioxin in order/to avoid government regulation of its products and to avoid liability in the class action lawsuit brought by \ietnam War veterans who had been exposed to dioxin-contaminated Agent Orange. DISCOVERY REQUEST Page 8 16. By publishing the Zack/Gaffey study, plaintiff William R. Gaffey intended that the readers of that study teport would rely upon the report as a sound scientific investigation of the association of dioxin exposure with human health effects. 17. Members of the scientific community/ government regulators, and\the courts in fact relied upon the Zack/Gaffey study as a sound scientific investigation/of the association of dioxin exposure witnVhuman health effects, giving weight to the hypothesis that dioxin\does not cause/human health effects other than chloracne. \ / 18. At the time the Zack/Ga/fey study was published, plaintiff William R. Gaffey kney that the entire Nitro, West Virginia plant owned by Monsanto had been contaminated as a result of the 1949 reactor vessel explosion in the trichlorophenol manufacturing process. 19. At the time the/Zack/Gaffey study was published, plaintiff William R. Gaffey knew that\there was no scientific basis for excluding any Nitro worker from the study group of workers exposed to dioxin. \ 20. At the time the Zack/Gaffey study was published, plaintiff William h, Gaffey knew that he lkcked sufficient information to represent that Nitro plant workers excluded from the Zack/Gaffey exposed cohort had not in fact, also been exposed to dioxin. DISCOVERY REQUEST Page 9 21. classification of study subjects ential to the validit 22. Miscl femiologic study will bias the 23. The resear ack/Gaffey study lacked both spatial and 'tor classifying workers as exposed or unexposed to 24. The Zack/Gaffey tssified as unexposed workers who had in fact been ex id to dioxin. 25. The results of the Za gaffey study are inconsistent with the results of the NIOSH that encompassed dioxin- exposed workers at the Nitr plant studied by Zack and Gaffey. 26. The misclassi is "unexposed" to dioxin in the Zack/Gy made by its authors in order workers at Monsanto Company's plan from an elevated incidence of/certain certain rare types of gancer 27 lvalid. . The Zack/Gaffey study is fraudulent. XXI. INTERROGATORIES Defendants Peter Montague and Environmental Research Founda tion request plaintiff William R- Gaffey within 30 days after' DISCOVERY REQUEST Page 10 service of this discovery request to respond in writing under [ oath to the following interrogatories: 1. Separately state each fact supporting each contention [i] made in your complaint as amended and [ii] that you intend to make at trial, separately identifying, for each separately stated fact, all evidence tending to establish its accuracy, being specific as to: [a] the author, date, recipientes), title, and all present custodian(s) (including name and address) for each supporting document or other thing; [b] the name and address of each witness to be called at trial to establish the fact; and [c] the name and, if known to you, the last known address of all persons with knowledge regarding the same fact. 2. Itemize each element of your claim for damages, separately identifying for each element all proof of causation by each defendant thereof to the exclusion of causation by others who made similar statements regarding the plaintiff, specifically stating all facts comprising your proof of causation and valuation of damages, identifying all supporting documents or other things by the author, date, recipient(s), title, and all present custodian(s) (including name and address) for each supporting document or other thing; [b] the name and address of each witness to be called at trial to establish each separately stated fact; and [c] the name and, if known to you, the last known address of all persons with knowledge regarding the same fact. DISCOVERY REQUEST Page 11 3. As specifically as is reasonably possible, identify each record of the Nitro worker studies that was ever in your possession, custody, or control and is no longer, stating for each such record: [i] so much of its authorship, recipients, date, and contents as is reconstructible from other records or from recollection; [ii] the circumstances under which it left your possession, custody, or control? [iii] whether to your knowledge the record still exists and if so the present custodian; [iv] all custodians of the record at any time including names and addresses thereof? and [v] if destroyed, the date destroyed, the name, title, and employer of the person who destroyed the record, the reasons for doing so? and [vi] specific identification of each document discussing or in any way referring to such destruction. IV. REQUESTS FOR INSPECTION AND COPYING Defendants Peter Montague and Environmental Research Founda tion request plaintiff William R. Gaffey to respond within 30 days from service of this discovery request to the following re quests: A. That plaintiff produce and permit defendants to inspect and to copy each of the following documents or other things: 1. All documents identified in response to Interrogatories 1 through 3 above, as well as those identified in response to any previous interrogatories propounded in this case by defendants. DISCOVERY REQUEST Page 12 2. All records of the Nitro worker studies. 3. All rcords discussing or referring in any way to any or all of the Nitro worker studies. 4. All records discussing or referring in any way to data used in any of the Nitro worker studies that was later found or alleged by anyone to be missing. 5. All documents you, your agents, or attorneys, show, receive from, or review with any and all deponents as part of preparing each such person for testifying, whether the testimony is or was given during a deposition, trial, or written affidavit in this matter, all to be produced at or before the relevant deposition(s). 6. Any and all records in your possession, custody, or control of material prior affidavits, testimonies, or depositions (all including all exhibits) of: (a). Any and all persons listed as potential witnesses, whether fact or expert witnesses, by any party to this litigation; (b) . Any and all persons identified by any party in a discovery response in this litigation as having knowledge of any specified subject; (c) . Any and all persons whose depositions are taken as part of these proceedings; and (d) . Any and all persons whose affidavits are offered by any party as evidence in any phase of these proceedings. DISCOVERY REQUEST Page 13 7. Any and all material records in your possession, 1 custody, or control of prior affidavits, testimonies, or depositions (all including all exhibits) of: (a) . Judith Zack; (b) . Dr. Raymond Suskind? (c) . William R. Gaffey? (d) . Dr. Alistair Hay? (e) . Dr. Ellen Silbergeld; (f) . George Roush; (g) . Mary Gaffey; (h) . Marcie Strauss; and (i) . Jan Yung. 8. The Complaint and all filings produced or prepared by < Monsanto, all exhibits marked for trial (whether or1not they were ! used at trial or merely identified as trial exhibits), all documents provided by Monsanto to the opposing parties, all documents identified by Monsanto as responsive to any discovery request, transcripts of all depositions taken by the plaintiffs, as well as all trial transcripts in the case of James M. Adkins v . Monsanto Company. Civil No. 81-2098 (U.S.D.C. S.D. W.Va) and other cases consolidated therewith. 9. All records of contamination of Monsanto's Nitro, West I Virginia plant resulting from the reactor vessel explosion in the | trichlorophenol manufacturing process in 1949. | DISCOVERY REQUEST Page 14 10. All/communications among William R. Gaffey, Monsanto, Dr. Michael>Gough, Resources for the Future, King & Spalding (or any of them) discussing or referring in any way to any or all of the Nitro studies. 11. All records discussing or referring in any way to Mon santo's 1980 press release on the Zack/Suskind and Zack/Gaffey studies, EXHIBIT E hereto, including without limitation: (a). All drafts, news clippings, etc. of that press release; (b). All materials assembled for preparation of the press release; 12. All records discussing or referring to any involvement of plaintiff William R. Gaffey in any or all of the Nitro worker studies. 13. All drafts of the Zack/Gaffey study, whether William R. Gaffey is named as author or not. 14. All drafts of protocols, study plans, rationales, and proposals for the Zack/Gaffey study. 15. All records revealing, discussing, or referring in any way to William R. Gaffey's role and/or actions in any or all of the Nitro studies. 16. All communications among Dr. Raymond Suskind, Judith Zack, Gaffey, and Mary Gaffey, or any of them with others, discussing or referring in any way to the study, or underlying research, that was published as the Zack/Gaffey study. DISCOVERY REQUEST Page 15 17. All records discussing or referring in any way to the Zack/Gaffey study. 18. All records discussing or referring in any way to the decision to name William R. Gaffey as co-author of the Zack/Gaffey study instead of Dr. Raymond Suskind. 19. All communications between William R. Gaffey and Marcie Strauss discussing or referring in any way to the Zack/Gaffey study and/or Strauss's project that resulted in her "Verbatim & Critique," EXHIBIT F hereto. 20. All communications between Marcie Strauss and each addressee and recipient of her "Verbatim & Critique" indicated in EXHIBIT F. 21- All drafts of Strauss's "Verbatim & Critique," includ ing all records used in its preparation. 22. All records in Monsanto's possession, custody, or control discussing or referring in any way to Strauss's "Verbatim & Critique." 23. All records discussing or referring in any way to the table and handwritten notes titled, "Table 9 Observed and Ex pected Number of Deaths during 1955-1977 by Cause and 2,4,5-T Exposure Category Showing Proportional Mortality Ratios (PMRs) (Not Including Deaths from TCP Incident)," EXHIBIT J hereto. 24. All records of communications between Monsanto and officials of the National Institute for Occupational Safety & DISCOVERY REQUEST Page 16 Health (hereafter "NIOSH") discussing or referring in any way to the Zack/Gaffey study. 25. All records discussing or referring in any way to EPA dioxin sampling at the Nitro plant. 26. All records discussing or referring in any way to Monsanto destruction of EPA samples from Nitro. 27. All records of communications between Monsanto and EPA discussing or referring in any way to dioxin sampling at Nitro conducted by EPA, Monsanto, or any other entity. 28. All records discussing or referring in any' way to Monsanto sampling and analyses for dioxin at the Nitro plant, including but not limited to sample plans, protocols, sampling records, chain-of-custody records, analytical methodology, raw analytical data, and analytical results. 29. All communications with NIOSH discussing, transmitting or referring in any way to dioxin contamination, sampling, and analyses at the Nitro plant. 30. All communications among Mary Gaffey, William R. Gaffey, Dr. Raymond Suskind, Judith Zack, Marcie Strauss, Jan Yung, George Roush, or any other persons discussing or referring in any way to Nitro worker studies. 31. All records discussing or referring in any way to the decision not to use chloracne as a surrogate for exposure in the Zack/Gaffey study. DISCOVERY REQUEST Page 17 32. All records -- including but not limited to_jdrafts, raw data, protocols, and communications -- discussing or referring in any way to the study described in Zack/Suskind as "an analysis of the chloracne cases and exposures not associated with this accident but rather with the normal TCP/2,4,5-T production processes." 33. All records of communication among Monsanto, William R. Gaffey, NIOSH, or any of them discussing or referring in any way to any of the Nitro worker studies or related studies conducted by NIOSH, including without limitation all records of Monsanto internal communications regarding the NIOSH studies. 34. All records of communications between or among Monsanto and any or all of the other companies whose present and former workers exposed to dioxin were or are still being studied by NIOSH. 35. All documents discussing or referring in any way to allegations of fraud or scientific inadequacy in any or all of the Nitro worker studies. 36. All records discussing or referring in any way to the presentation of the Zack/Gaffey study at the 1981 International Dioxin Symposium, including any copies of materials presented. 37. All records of communications with the U.S. Air Force or members, employees, or contractors thereof discussing or referring in any way to the Nitro studies. DISCOVERY REQUEST Page 18 38. All communications between Monsanto and the U.S. EPA discussing or referring in any way to the Nitro worker studies. 39. All communications among Monsanto, Dr. Raymond Suskind, the American Medical Association or any member thereof, or any of them discussing or referring in any way to the Nitro studies. 40. All records discussing or referring in any way to efforts by Dr. Raymond Suskind or Monsanto, or any of Monsanto's officers, staff, employees, agents, or contractors, to influence the position of the American Medical Association (or of any body affiliated therewith) on the hazards of dioxin. 41. All records discussing or referring in any way to the study described in the Zack/Suskind study as "An analysis of the chloracne cases and exposures not associated with this accident but rather with the normal TCP/2,4,5-T production processes." 42. All records discussing or referring in any way to the decision not to publish the study described in the Zack/Suskind study as "an analysis of the chloracne cases and exposures not associated with this accident but with the normal TCP/2,4,5-T production processes." 43. All communications between or among William R. Gaffey, Judith Zack, Dr. Raymond Suskind, and any Monsanto personnel including Mary Gaffey discussing or referring in any way to authorship of the Zack/Gaffey study. DISCOVERY REQUEST Page 19 44. Copies of all protocols, study plans, study proposals, research materials, and drafts of the Zack/Suskind and Zack/Gaffey studies. 45. All protocols, study plans, study proposals, research materials, and drafts of all other Nitro worker studies, whether or not such studies were completed or published- 46. All records discussing or referring in any way to William R. Gaffey's demand for retraction from Peter Montague. 47. All records discussing or referring in any way to actual or contemplated demands for retractions by Monsanto or any author of any of the Nitro worker studies, addressed to authors/writers, publications, or media other than defendants Peter tyontague and Environmental Research Foundation, whether or not such demands were actually made. 48. All records discussing or referring in any way to allegations of fraud or scientific inadequacy made by any person or organization attributed to any or all of the authors of the Nitro worker studies. ------------ 49. All recprds-^iscussing or referring in any way to any retraction^made by any person or organization referred to in the request immediately preceding. 50. Copies ^ retractions^printed or broadcast. 51. Copies of all published papers authored or co-authored by William R. Gaffey. DISCOVERY REQUEST Page 20 52. Copies of all unpublished papers (reports, summaries surveys, etc.) rtl/wwiasing nr rrfprrinq- nnY w a y -to dioxin-"5"^--- authored or co-authored by William R. Gaffey. 53. William R. Gaffey's most current curriculum vitae. 54. Mary Gaffey's most current curriculum vitae. 55. All records (including audio or video recordings, press clippings, personal communications, etc.) discussing or referring in any way both to William R. Gaffey's character or integrity and to the article by Peter Montague ii " Waste News # 171. 56. All letters of commendation or other documents lauding A the work of William R. Gaffey regarding any of the Nitro worker studies. 57. William R. Gaffey's Monsanto Company personnel file and/or any documents known to have been placed in it at any time that are no longer in that file. 58. William R. Gaffey's income tax returns and financial statements for the five calendar years preceding institution of this action, as well as all similar records prepared subsequent to the filing of this lawsuit. 59. Any and all copies, drafts, etc. of the "retraction and clarification" prepared by plaintiff William R. Gaffey but never provided, as referenced in EXHIBIT M hereto. 60. All records of communications between George Roush and plaintiff William R. Gaffey referred to in EXHIBIT K hereto. DISCOVERY REQUEST Page 21 61. Any and all records of the Strauss memo, EXHIBIT F hereto. 62. All Monsanto records discussing or referring to the Strauss memo, EXHIBIT F hereto. 63. All records of communications between George Roush and cUuplaintiff William R. Gaffey discussing or referring in any way to the Kemner case, to the Sturgeon, Missouri spill of orthochlorophenol, or to the Nitro worker cases consolidat^twith Adkins f supra. lt***- 64. All reisetds of communications between Monsanto of ficials-'dr agents nnd fpa rrffiH fiT-s discussing or referring i any way to Dr. Cate Jenkins7 allegations of falsification dt ioxin health studies performed f ^ ^ l S n ^ n t o Company. 65. All records discussing or referring in any way to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's criminal investigation of Monsanto's failure to report dioxin contamination of its products and allegations of fraud or scientific inadequacy in the Nitro worker studies, including without limitation any records provided to EPA for that investigation. 66. All communications between Monsanto and NIOSH regarding the Nitro worker studies and NIOSH7s own investigation of dioxin- exposed workers, including without limitation those referred to in EXHIBIT P hereto. 67. All records discussing or referring in any way to NIOSH7s investigation of dioxin-exposed workers. DISCOVERY REQUEST Page 22 68. All records cited on the tables attached to the Collins letter, EXHIBIT P hereto, as well as a complete copy of the Collins letter with all tables and attachments. 69. All peer reviews of the Nitro worker studies. 70. All internal (Monsanto or Kettering) reviews or comments on the Nitro worker studies at any stage of their conduct. 71. All attachments and materials, -Mdradtriy fiF$BEous=tiaegef that accompanied the Strauss June 4, 1987 letter to Dr. Marilyn Fingerhut, EXHIBIT R hereto. 72. All records referenced in but not attached to the Strauss June 4, 1987 letter to Dr. Marilyn Fingerhut, EXHIBIT R hereto. 73. A copy of the same document(s) used as Plaintiff's EXHIBIT 62 In the Boqgess litigation,1 (July, 1954 Suskind, et al Toxicological Report). 74. A copy of the same document(s) used as Plaintiff's EXHIBIT 338 in the Boagess litigation, supra (toxicological tests). 75. A copy of the same document(s) used as Plaintiff's EXHIBIT 59 in the Boqgess litigation, supra (Suskind discussion of human experiments). 1 Boqgess v. Monsanto Company,. Civil No's. 81-2098-265, et seq. (U.S.D.C. S.D. W.Va.) (case consolidated with Adkins. supra. DISCOVERY REQUEST Page 23 meetings: with Von Oettel August 4, 1960; 4/21/60 Emmett Kelly memo to Suskind re: meeting with Von Oettel; 5/2/60 Suskind memo to Emmett Kelly re: meeting with Von Oettel; 6/30/60 Von Oettel letter to Suskind; 7/13/60 Suskind letter to Von Oettel). 89. Copies of the same document(s) used as Defendant's EXHIBIT 396 in the Boqqess litigation, supra (Roush 12/24/76 letter to Suskind re: conduct of follow-up studies at Nitro; Suskind to Roush 6/9/78 letter defining 37 "heavily involved" workers). 90. Any and all records discussing or referring in any way to the need for conducting any of the Nitro worker studies prior to their completion. 91. Any and all Monsanto internal investigations (including consultant reports) into or studies of whether any or all of the Nitro worker studies are [i] scientifically valid or [ii] fraudulent. DISCOVERY REQUEST Page 24 <b Af' j^fs / ^^ B. That plaintiff allow the requested inspection and copying to take place at the offices of Evans; & Dixon commencing at the hour of 9:00 a.m. on or before December 4, 1993. DATED: November 4, 1993 Respectfully submitted, EVANS & DIXON By---------------------------JOHN . MICHENER EVANS & DIXON 1200 Saint Louis Place 200 North Broadway St. Louis, Missouri, 63102 Tlphon: (314) 621-7755 Gerald Ortbals Mary Ann L. Wymore GREENSFELDER, HEMKER & GALE 1800 Equitable Building 10 South Broadway St. Louis, MO 63102 Tlphon: (314) 241-9090 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS c : \ u sa rs\ ia a e \ n o n ta g iia \ d 4 .a tq 0 0 1 . wp5 DISCOVERY REQUEST Page 25 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing was on this day mailed to attorneys for Plaintiff, Richard A. Wunderlich and Daniel D. Zequra, 8182 Maryland Avenue, Suite 400, Clayton, Missouri 63105. Dated November 4, 1993 c:\usera\ac\Bontague\caption DISCOVERY REQUEST Page 26