Document MGJDgQnxgv1Kd5gXD3E7R5ZkL
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 1
2 UNEDITED, UNCERTIFIED ROUGH
3 DRAFT/REALTIME OUTPUT
4 The information you are viewing is provided by
5 the Reporter as a Litigation Support tool using
6 "Realtime" computer technology. This is a ROUGH
7 DRAFT and by statute, CCP Section 2025.540, it may
8 not be used as a citation in any official capacity
9 or for any official purpose. Please be aware that
10 page and line references in this draft will not
11 coincide with the Official Transcript, per standards
12 set by National Court Reporters Association.
13 Please recognize this draft may contain
14 untranslates, mistranslates, misspelling,
15 unidentified speakers and unedited punctuation which
16 will not appear in the Official Certified
17 Transcript.
18 By ordering, accepting and utilizing this rough
19 draft, you agree:
20 1. To also purchase the "Official" (certified)
21 version of the Transcript and;
22 2. Not to hold the Reporter or Agency responsible
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 2
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 4
2 for any discrepancies between this draft and the
2 him. I didn't hear his full answer. Can I get it
3 Official Certified Transcript.
3 read back? This is Marisa Chavez.
4 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Good morning. 4 MR. SATTERLEY: He will start over
5 This is the video deposition of Bobby Joe Pigg taken 5 again. We moved the speakerphone closer to Mr.
6 on June 28, 2013 beginning at 10:08:39 in the case 6 Pigg.
7 of Ronald and Joanna Nelson versus Allied Packing & 7 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
8 Supply.
8 Q. Mr. Pigg if you could let me ask the
9
Deposition is being held at the
9 question again so the record is clear.
10 Washington Dulles Merritt in Sterling Virginia. The 10
MS. CHAVEZ: Thank you.
11 court reporter today is Denise Vickery of Aiken
11 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
12 Welch reporting of California. I'm the videographer 12
Q. What is the international Chrysotile
13 Mark Gunther also with Aiken Welch.
13 association?
14
Would the court reporter please
14 A. It's a nonprofit organization of
15 swear the witness.
15 industry organizations primarily the association is
16 Thereupon,
16 made up of national associations from about 20
17 BOBBY JOE PIGG
17 countries. The purpose of the association is to
18 was called for examination, and, after having been 18 promote the safe use of Chrysotile. The
19 duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: 19 international Chrysotile association was
20 EXAMINATION
20 incorporated in the province of Quebec in 1997. Its
21 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
21 head office is in Montreal. Prior to 1997 the
22 Q. Good morning, sir.
22 organization was known as the asbestos international
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 3
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 5
2 A. Good morning.
2 association or AIA. It is located before Montreal
3 Q. Please state your full name.
3 in Paris and before that in London. It was
4 A. Bobby Joe Pigg.
4 organized in about 1975.
5 Q. Mr. Pigg, my name is Joe Satterley and I
5 Q. Okay. I'll be asking some more
6 represent Ron and Joanna Nelson in a case pending in 6 questions about some of those associations, industry
7 Oakland California and we have issued a subpoena to 7 associations and the national associations you
8 gather records and to learn more information about 8 mentioned earlier.
9 an organization is it called the international
9 It's my understanding you've given
10 Chrysotile association.
10 testimony, deposition testimonies in the past
11 And I understand you have been
11 correct?
12 designated to be the person to come talk about the 12
A. Not for ICA no.
13 information and documents responsive to that
13 Q. Okay. But for AIA?
14 subpoena correct?
14 A. Yes.
15 A. Correct.
15 Q. Okay.
16 Q. What is the international Chrysotile
16 A. Or no. When you -- when you -- I've
17 association?
17 never given a deposition for the asbestos
18 A. It's a nonprofit organization that's
18 international association, no. AIA.
19 incorporated in the province of Quebec. It
19 Q. The?
20 originate.
20 A. This is my first deposition.
21
MS. CHAVEZ: I'm sorry you guys
21 Q. Well the AIA the asbestos information
22 but the witness is cutting out. I can barely hear
22 association?
2 (Pages 2 to 5)
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 6
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 8
2 A. Oh, okay.
2 did you say started in '75?
3 Q. Okay.
3 A. Yeah.
4 A. Yes.
4 Q. All right.
5 Q. You have given testimony?
5 A. That's to the best of my recollection
6 A. Yes.
6 about -- about '75.
7 Q. And the reason why I was asking that
7 Q. All right. And you it's my
8 question is because you're generally familiar with
8 understanding that your involvement was with an
9 the deposition process correct?
9 organization called the AIA of North America
10 A. Yes.
10 asbestos information association?
11 Q. All right. Just so that you understand
11 A. Correct.
12 what's going to occur here today is I'm going to ask 12 Q. And what is the asbestos information
13 you a series of questions to get information and
13 association?
14 testimony from you and go over some documents with 14 A. It was an organization of companies that
15 you.
15 were interested in the asbestos issue. I think it
16 If for any reason you need to take a
16 was before I became a member. I think it was
17 break you just let me know and we'll take a break?
17 organized about 19 -- in the early -- early '70s and
18 A. Okay.
18 participated in the rulemaking process for OSHA and
19 Q. Okay?
19 EPA and made comments on the proposed rules that had
20 A. Sure.
20 their beginning in those early years. Today the AIA
21 Q. Also none of my questions are meant to
21 only consists of two members most -- both of those
22 trick you or confuse you at all so if you don't
22 are in Canada. The two mining companies.
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 7
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 9
2 understand any of my questions let me know so I can 2
Q. And who are those members?
3 re-ask the question so I understand we all
3 A. And neither of those mining companies
4 understand you understood what I'm asking about? 4 are producing today. As you probably know.
5 A. Right.
5 Q. Sure.
6 Q. Okay. Just like we had a little
6 A. One is lab Chrysotile.
7 confusion about the AIA?
7 Q. Uh-huh.
8 A. Uh-huh.
8 A. And Thetford mines and the other is mine
9 Q. That you were thinking asbestos
9 Jeffrey in asbestos Quebec.
10 international association?
10 Q. Those are the only two current members
11 A. Right.
11 of the asbestos information association?
12 Q. And I was thinking asbestos information 12 A. Correct.
13 association. Sometimes it takes a little talking
13 Q. North America?
14 back and forth to get on the same page?
14 A. Correct.
15 A. Right.
15 MS. CHAVEZ: And I'm sorry. This
16 Q. Okay. So if I if I make a mistake or
16 is Marisa Chavez. Can I get that answer read back
17 ask a question that you don't understand feel free
17 please.
18 to let me know.
18 MR. SATTERLEY: Sorry.
19 A. Sure.
19 MR. ARTABANE: She wants it read
20 Q. Okay? Now just to get some background 20 back.
21 and sort of some foundational information, you said 21
MS. CHAVEZ: That is Marisa
22 that the AIA asbestos international association was 22 Chavez. Can I get the answer read back please.
3 (Pages 6 to 9)
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 10
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 12
2
MR. SATTERLEY: I'm sorry. We're
2 again so I understand who's disrupting the
3 not going to do this where answers are not read back 3 deposition?
4 and disrupting the deposition repeatedly. 4 MS. SMITH: Well I represent CSK
5
MS. CHAVEZ: Well I didn't hear
5 auto and I believe two other attorneys have
6 the answer and I need it read back. I'm sorry. Or
6 indicated that they wanted that answer read back as
7 you could just tell me the names.
7 well.
8
MR. SATTERLEY: Lab something or
8
MR. SATTERLEY: Okay.
9 another and mine Jeffrey. I don't know who you
9
MS. PRODROMO: This is Karen
10 represent but it wasn't your client. But if you -
10 Prodromo for Georgia-Pacific. I also wanted the
11 you've made a decision not to come here to this
11 answer read back.
12 deposition and participate in person and we've moved 12
MR. SATTERLEY: Okay.
13 the speakerphone very close to the witness but we 13 Georgia-Pacific would like the answer read back.
14 can't have testimony being read back. It disrupts
14 We'll do this we'll do this once and we'll see how
15 the deposition. So I would request that you turn up 15 often this occurs if we have to we can get the court
16 your speakerphone or do something so you can hear. 16 on the phone.
17 #09: I mean.
17 (Requested material read)
18
MS. CHAVEZ: I will do my best.
18
THE WITNESS: It's Thetford. It's
19
#09: The answers are getting cut
19 not Bedford. With a T.
20 out occasionally. I don't think we're being
20 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
21 unreasonable in our request.
21 Q. Sir, do you know a fellow named Bruce
22
MR. SATTERLEY: But I think you
22 Bishop?
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 11
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 13
2 are because it's disrupting the entire deposition.
2 A. I'm sorry.
3 You've made a decision not to participate in person 3
Q. Do you know a fellow named Bruce Bishop?
4 and I don't know if your technology is is set up to 4
A. No.
5 you can.
5 Q. Never met Bruce Bishop?
6
MS. PRODROMO: We have a right to 6
A. No.
7 participate by phone.
7 Q. Do you know a fellow named David
8 MR. SATTERLEY: I know you have a 8 Bernstein?
9 right to participate by phone but you don't have a 9
A. Yes.
10 right to disrupt the deposition.
10 Q. Who is David Bernstein?
11
MS. SMITH: Mr. Satterley do you
11 A. He's a toxicologist in Geneva
12 have a citation to some law or code which says we 12 Switzerland that's done a number of studies on
13 can't have an answer read back upon request?
13 Chrysotile.
14 Stephanie Smith. 15 MR. SATTERLEY: We've turned up
14 Q. Have you had the opportunity to in your 15 work for either the ICA or the AIA of North America
16 the speakerphone. I'm going to proceed through. 16 to personally meet Mr. Bernstein?
17
MS. SMITH: Are you is that a
17 A. I have met him.
18 tacit admission that you don't have any authority. 19 MR. SATTERLEY: Counsel I'm not
18 19
Q. On how many occasions? A. Maybe twice.
20 here to argue with you. Stop interrupting my
20 Q. Okay. Has?
21 deposition. If you have an objection place your 21 A. That I recall twice.
22 objection on the record. And who do you represent 22
Q. Okay. And it's my understanding that
4 (Pages 10 to 13)
Page 14
Page 16
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
2 the ICA has provided fees or funding to Mr.
2 Q. Yeah. Was that before the payments to
3 Bernstein in the past correct?
3 Mr. Bernstein in 2010, 2011, 2012?
4 A. Yes, that's correct.
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And that's occurred over the last few
5 Q. Okay. How long before? Years before?
6 years correct?
6 A. I if I could take a break I can -- I've
7 A. 2010, 2011, 2012.
7 got the study with me.
8 Q. Nothing in 2013?
8 Q. Okay. Well we'll get to that in a
9 A. No.
9 little bit?
10 Q. Okay.
10 A. Okay.
11 A. Because his study was completed and I 11
Q. We'll get to your notes and everything
12 think published in February.
12 else?
13 Q. Now before the ICA the international
13 A. Well, well it was I guess around --
14 Chrysotile association begin making these payments 14 around 2005.
15 to Mr. Bernstein, did you did you know and have
15
Q. Okay.
16 access to the amount of monies that Mr. Bernstein 16
A. Because 2006 somewhere in that area.
17 was paid by Georgia-Pacific?
17 Q. Okay.
18 A. No, not at all.
18 A. But that's I just knew that he was
19 Q. Did Mr. Bernstein share with you how
19 involved in the study that was published in the
20 much money various companies that made asbestos 20 literature.
21 products has paid him in the past?
21 Q. So it would be fair to say that before
22 A. No.
22 the international Chrysotile association began
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 15
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 17
2 Q. Okay. As you sit here today has Mr.
2 paying Mr. Bernstein money in 2010, 2011, 2012, you
3 Bernstein shared with you his involvement in helping 3 and others well just you I guess I should ask about
4 out former manufacturers of asbestos products in the 4 knew that he was involved in doing work for Union
5 past?
5 Carbide?
6 A. No.
6 MR. COOK: Objection. Vague and
7 Q. Same question with regards to Mr.
7 ambiguous misstates testimony.
8 Bernstein's involvement with a company called Union 8 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
9 Carbide.
9 Q. Go ahead.
10 Prior to the international Chrysotile
10 A. I hate to do this but would you repeat.
11 association's payment of monies to Mr. Bernstein, 11 Q. Sure?
12 did you know that he was involved in serving as an 12
A. The question.
13 expert witness for a company called Union Carbide? 13
Q. Sure I'll repeat the question?
14 MR. COOK: Objection.
14 A. Okay.
15
THE WITNESS: I didn't know about
15 Q. And I don't want to misstate anything?
16 he was an expert witness. I knew that about a study 16
A. Yeah.
17 of the mine in California that he had been involved 17
Q. Or anything?
18 with. That's all I know.
18 A. Neither do I. (Laugh).
19 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
19 Q. Exactly so you said the study was done
20 Q. And when did you know about the study of 20 in 2005?
21 the mine in California?
21 A. Well, know didn't I said I think
22 A. When?
22 somewhere in that an area.
5 (Pages 14 to 17)
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 18
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 20
2 Q. Okay.
2 international Chrysotile association?
3 A. I don't know when the study was done.
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. When did you first read the study?
4 Q. And how long have you had that job?
5 A. I haven't read the study I just know the
5 A. Since 1997.
6 study was published. I read this I think I maybe
6 Q. And as the treasurer what is your
7 have read the abstract that's all.
7 function?
8 Q. Okay. And when did you first become
8 A. To pay the authorized bills for the
9 familiar with the abstract?
9 association. Of course in this case for the study
10 A. Again to the best of my recollection
10 they were -- we started ICA in 2010. Before that
11 around 2005.
11 the Chrysotile institute was involved in originating
12 Q. Okay. So if we just do a time issue
12 the study. As you know the invoices are all
13 from 2005 it would be fair to say prior to the
13 addressed to the Chrysotile institute.
14 payment of money to Mr. Bernstein in 2010, 2011,
14 Q. And so I wanted to just understand a
15 2012, you were already aware that he had done some 15 little bit.
16 work for Union Carbide by your familiarity with that 16
What's the difference between the
17 abstract?
17 Chrysotile institute and the international
18 A. Yes, and of course he had I'm sure he's
18 Chrysotile association?
19 involved in other studies as well that are published
19 A. Chrysotile institute was first known as
20 in the literature.
20 the asbestos institute. It's a tripartite
21 Q. And any of those studies have you read
21 organization of government. That is the federal
22 abstracts of any of those other studies back before
22 government, Quebec government of Canada, industry in
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 19
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 21
2 2010?
2 Canada and labor in Canada. The Chrysotile
3 A. I -- in a cursory because as the
3 institute closed or disbanded in March of 2012.
4 treasurer I just -- I'm not involved in and I'm not 4
Q. Do you know why they disbanded or
5 a scientist. I don't understand a lot of the
5 closed?
6 information that are contained in the studies.
6 A. No, I have no official involvement with
7 Q. Okay.
7 the -- with the institute. So I wouldn't want to
8 A. But I do know that to answer your
8 speculate about that.
9 question I think there's also a study that with the 9
Q. Sure. So the you're the treasurer.
10 Caldera mine in California in addition that he did a 10
Who else are the officers of the
11 study for the cane owe bravo mine in Brazil.
11 international Chrysotile association?
12 Q. Uh-huh. Okay. And were those studies 12 A. The current chairman is Jean-Marc
13 that you were just generally familiar with? I'm not 13 J-e-a-n-M-a-r-c Leblond L-e-b-l-o-n-d. The vice
14 asking?
14 chairman is in India. I can't -- I can't recall --
15 A. Yeah.
15 bring up his -- his name. Something close to Shara.
16 Q. Scientific question?
16 S-h-a-r-a but that may not be correct. He's the
17 A. Right.
17 vice chairman. But Mr. Leblond is the chairman and
18
Q. But just generally familiar with before
18 secondary.
19 the 2010 time frame?
19 Q. Any other officers?
20 A. Just generally.
20 A. No, no.
21 Q. Okay. Now you mentioned you're the 21 Q. So just the three of you?
22 treasurer. Are you the treasurer of the
22 A. Yes.
6 (Pages 18 to 21)
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 22
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 24
2 Q. And is your only role as treasurer?
2 and foremost is made up of national asbestos
3 A. Yes, and and director general but my
3 associations and those national associations are in
4 primary role is treasurer and director general is
4 various countries. And the corresponding members
5 collateral just, you know, to fulfill the
5 are small companies not national associations and no
6 requirement of the bylaws.
6 dues are paid. They -- they are users of Chrysotile
7 Q. And how did you become the director
7 but they have the stasis of corresponding members
8 general and the treasurer of the international
8 and are not members of the board of governors and
9 Chrysotile association?
9 have no vote in that regard.
10 A. As what do you mean how did I become? 10 Q. And this process of the associations
11 Q. Did somebody ask you to take this job?
11 whether it be industry associations or individual
12 A. Yes, yeah.
12 smaller companies and being a part of this larger
13 Q. And who was it that asked to you take
13 association?
14 this job?
14 A. Yeah.
15 A. John Duprey who is deceased. He was the 15 Q. Is that a similar process that has
16 chairman. First was the chairman of AIA and then 16 occurred through these various organizations whether
17 subsequently when it became ICA in January of 2005 17 we're talking about the ICA, or the IA -- AIA of
18 Q. And does -- is there meetings where
18 North America and the ICA?
19 you're reappointed or reselected to remain in this
19 A. I think I understand.
20 role as director general and treasurer of this
20 Q. Sure.
21 organization?
21 A. Your question, I mean.
22 A. No, there's no tenure established by the
22 Q. These are sort of industry associations?
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 23
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 25
2 bylaws.
2 A. From the countries.
3 Q. You have this position for as long as
3 Q. Yeah countries?
4 you want to do it and they want to have you?
4 A. Individual countries.
5 A. Well, that's your statement. I
5 Q. And individual companies can also become
6 appreciate that.
6 members?
7 Q. Is that a fair statement?
7 A. No.
8 A. I hope so.
8 Q. They can't?
9 Q. Is it a paid position?
9 A. No.
10 A. Yes.
10 Q. Okay. So, for example, the ICA of North
11 Q. Now the monies that come to the ICA, you
11 America was that did that consist of countries?
12 mentioned earlier that it's a group of national
12 A. No.
13 associations or industry associations?
13 Q. Okay.
14 A. Correct.
14 A. Companies.
15 Q. Tell me the difference between an
15 Q. Oh, those were companies?
16 industry association or a national associations.
16 A. (Nods head).
17 A. Well, all of the members, there are
17 Q. Oh, I see so the AIA of North America
18 regular members and corresponding members. The dues 18 was a company where situations would belong to the
19 are established by the board of governors. Industry
19 association dealing with the rulemaking process,
20 is used, I use it in a generic sense.
20 with OSHA and EPA?
21 Q. Uh-huh.
21 A. Correct.
22 A. The bylaws state that membership first
22 Q. Is that true?
7 (Pages 22 to 25)
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 26
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 28
2 A. True.
2 Q. It doesn't make a very good record?
3 Q. All right. But what you're telling the
3 A. Okay.
4 folks on the jury is the ICA doesn't have individual
4 Q. I apologize I didn't give you that
5 company members but they have national associations? 5 instruction.
6 A. Correct. . There is an exception. If a 6 So with that being said I misspoke. Let
7 country does not have a national association, for
7 me ask the question again.
8 example, Pakistan, there is a company in Karachi
8 A. Thank you.
9 Pakistan that is a corresponding member. It's a
9 Q. The $200,000 is an annual?
10 small relatively small company. So but primarily
10 A. That's -- that's right. That's about
11 the regular members are national associations of
11 what the budget for us has been.
12 various countries.
12 Q. Okay. And that budget would include --
13 Q. I see. So, for example, what I'm trying
13 would that budget include things like payment of
14 to figure out is: As treasurer where the money
14 fees for folks like Mr. Bernstein and other folks?
15 comes from so that it can be spent out by the
15 A. It would.
16 international Chrysotile association?
16 Q. Okay.
17 A. Right.
17 A. And myself as well.
18 Q. Does that come from the national
18 Q. And your -- and your salary whatever you
19 associations?
19 get?
20 A. The regular members pay regular dues
20 A. Yeah.
21 which are established on a regular basis by the
21 Q. I'm not going to invade your privacy?
22 board of governors.
22 A. Okay.
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 27
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 29
2 Q. And how many -- how many members are 2 Q. But so the $200,000 per year covers all
3 there in the international Chrysotile association?
3 the expenses associated with the efforts on behalf
4 A. About 20.
4 of the international Chrysotile association to do
5 Q. And what are the dues?
5 its -- its job?
6 A. Well, they varied with the total --
6 A. It does and in there are cases where if
7 total dues is about $200,000 a year.
7 there to be exceeded there might be a board of
8 Q. For the -- for all 20 companies?
8 governors decision to for special contributions, you
9 A. Uh-huh.
9 know, for any special expenses that might occur but
10 Q. You got to say yes or no. I apologize I 10 normally the budget has been in the most part since
11 for got to tell you?
11 1997 in the area of $200,000.
12 A. The answer is no, they're not companies. 12 Q. Has there been any special contributions
13 Q. I'm sorry let me give you a little bit
13 required of the members with regards to the payments
14 more instructions so the court reporter gets it down 14 of monies to Mr. Bernstein?
15 and so we don't.
15 A. Yes.
16
As you know in the deposition process
16 Q. Okay.
17 your testimony is being taken down by the court 17 A. Yes. Yes.
18 reporter?
18 Q. Okay. So and I guess that's what I'm
19 A. Yeah.
19 trying to figure out.
20 Q. So when you nod the head or shake the 20
Is the payments of money to Mr.
21 head or say uh-huh or huh-uh?
21 Bernstein with regards to the work that he's done on
22 A. (Laugh).
22 this recent publication I think you said February?
8 (Pages 26 to 29)
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 30
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 32
2 A. Uh-huh. Yeah.
2 A. The producers are the miners. That's
3 Q. You said there was a publication was
3 the normal term used.
4 that made out of the general membership dues or was 4
Q. All right. So so if I understand what
5 there special funds gathered for the payment of
5 occurred the international Chrysotile association
6 those fees?
6 requested the producers the mining companies to make
7 A. The money was from the same account.
7 a special contribution to the ICA so that could be
8 Q. I understand that.
8 used to pay the fees of Bernstein with regards to
9 A. Yeah, but the the special contribution
9 this paper?
10 was made in order for that payment to be made. Now 10 A. Correct.
11 as far as the payment by the Chrysotile institute, I
11 Q. Okay. All right. Just a little bit
12 don't have any knowledge of about that because they 12 more background foundational type questions, Mr.
13 have a different -- I'm sure they had a different
13 Pigg.
14 system.
14 Back when you were with the -- are you
15 Q. Sure. So the Chrysotile institute might
15 still with the asbestos information association of
16 -- you're not the treasurer for that organization?
16 North America?
17 A. No.
17 A. Yes, I told you we have just the two
18 Q. So any monies the Chrysotile institute
18 companies. It's basically for paper purposes.
19 might have paid Mr. Bernstein you wouldn't have
19 Q. Sure.
20 personal knowledge of that?
20 A. There are no dues.
21 A. No.
21 Q. Sure. Before -- in your role you
22 Q. Okay. So I'm just talking about the
22 started in that role in the '70s?
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 31
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 33
2 ICA?
2 A. Yes.
3 A. Right.
3 Q. And what year was that?
4 Q. The international Chrysotile
4 A. 1974.
5 association.
5 Q. And before you was there a fellow named
6 The monies that were paid to Mr.
6 was it Roger Mereness?
7 Bernstein for the work that he's done over 2010 to 7 A. Robert.
8 2012 that resulted in that paper that you were
8 Q. Oh, Robert?
9 talking about?
9 A. H. Mereness.
10 A. Uh-huh. Right.
10 Q. Mereness. Okay. Do you know where he
11 Q. Did that money come from general
11 is?
12 membership dues or a special request for members to 12
A. Deceased.
13 contribute?
13 Q. He passed away?
14 A. It was -- it was a special request to
14 A. Yes, I went to his funeral a couple
15 the producers to -- to contribute.
15 years ago.
16 Q. Okay.
16 Q. Okay. In your many years of work on
17 A. Individual -- individual user countries
17 behalf of the asbestos information association of
18 did not contribute.
18 North America, did you become familiar with some of
19 Q. So the producers -- the producers of the 19 the companies that were part of the association?
20 Chrysotile the manufacturers companies; right?
20 A. Well.
21 A. No, they're the miners.
21 MR. COOK: Objection. Relevance.
22 Q. Oh, the miners?
22 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
9 (Pages 30 to 33)
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 34
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 36
2 Q. 3 A. Yes.
2 MR. COOK: Objection. Misstates. 3 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
4 Q. Did you ever meet a fellow named John 4 Q. Now did you mentioned earlier that in
5 Myers?
5 the '70s the AIA of North America was involved in
6 A. Yes.
6 the rulemaking process with regards to OSHA and EPA?
7 Q. Who was John Myers?
7 A. Correct.
8 A. John Myers was the chairman of AIANA for 8 Q. What types of activities did asbestos
9 several years. I'm not exactly sure how long.
9 information association do with the rulemaking
10 Q. Was that in the '70s or the '80s?
10 process?
11 A. '80s and -- I'd say the '80s and '90s.
11 A. Well, would work on providing comments
12 Q. Did you personally get to meet Mr.
12 to proposed rulemakings or advanced notice of
13 Myers?
13 proposed rulemakings. That sort of thing.
14 A. Yes.
14 Q. All right. . For example, if the
15 Q. And talk with him?
15 politician -- we're close to DC right now?
16 A. Yes.
16 A. Uh-huh.
17
Q. What company was Mr. Myers working for? 17
Q. We're in Virginia right?
18
MR. COOK: Objection. Vague and
18 A. Right.
19 ambiguous as to the time frame.
19 Q. All right. And you've been in this area
20 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
20 for most of your career?
21 Q. Go ahead, sir.
21 A. Yes.
22 A. He was with KCAC King city asbestos
22 Q. Okay. And roughly what, 30, 40 miles
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 35
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 37
2 corporation.
2 from DC?
3 Q. Okay. Any other companies?
3 A. Something like that.
4 A. Prior to that? I don't think he was a
4 Q. Okay. And so has the AIA had
5 representative. He was with KCAC a long time. I 5 involvement in trying to provide information to
6 guess it was before -- before Union Carbide owned 6 politicians when issues arising about asbestos has
7 the mine. I don't know who was -- who was the 7 come up?
8 entity that purchased the mine.
8 A. No.
9 Q. Uh-huh. And that was going to be my 9
MR. ARTABANE: I'm going to object
10 question.
10 to that it's AIANA.
11 Have you ever heard of a company called 11 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
12 Union Carbide?
12 Q. NA oh, I'm I'm sorry let me ask the
13 A. Yes.
13 question again?
14 Q. And has Union Carbide in the past been a 14 A. Yeah.
15 member company of the asbestos information
15 Q. And let me let me sort of give you also
16 association of North America?
16 some information so we're on the same page.
17 A. They were in the '70s and I think not -- 17
Because you were you were never a part
18 to the best of my knowledge not since the early 18 of the AIA what's called the asbestos international
19 '80s.
19 association yourself; correct?
20 Q. Okay. So in the '70s up to through the 20 A. No, I -- I was a represented AIANA.
21 early '80s?
21 Q. Yeah.
22 A. Yes.
22 A. As the North America being a member.
10 (Pages 34 to 37)
Page 38
Page 40
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
2 Q. Okay.
2 A. I think he was one of the first
3 A. Of AIA.
3 executive directors of AIANA.
4 Q. All right. So let me just I'll refer?
4 Q. Okay. You said you mentioned a few
5 A. I wasn't the only member from AIANA.
5 times about the safe use of Chrysotile.
6 Q. Right.
6 Does that mean the controlled use of
7 A. But at some some point in time I
7 Chrysotile?
8 represented AIANA to AIA.
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Okay. I see what you're saying.
9 Q. Okay. And is that -- is that a
10 A. Okay.
10 situation where the asbestos means that using
11 Q. Okay. So let me ask the question again 11 asbestos so that the hazard to asbestos is
12 after your lawyer correctly pointed out that I
12 minimized?
13 didn't use the correct term.
13 A. Correct.
14 In the 1970s did the AIANA in the work 14 Q. Certainly the safe use of Chrysotile
15 on behalf of their member companies get involved in 15 doesn't mean the uncontrolled use of asbestos;
16 the rulemaking process with regards to various
16 correct?
17 regulators in Washington, DC?
17 A. Correct.
18 A. Yeah, we provided comments to the
18
MR. COOK: Objection. Calls for
19 agencies.
19 expert opinion.
20 Q. Okay. And was that a big part of the
20 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
21 purpose of the AIANA?
21 Q. Correct?
22 A. Well, the other purpose was education
22 A. Correct.
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 39
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 41
2 and training. We provided any studies that were in 2 Q. Okay. The I marked as Exhibit 1 the
3 the public domain to the members. They were
3 notice to take deposition along with the categories
4 published in the literature. We distributed
4 of areas some of the various documents to be
5 information like posters that companies could place
5 produced. Let me just show it to you Mr. Pigg and
6 in the plants. And, you know, if you smoke stop or
6 ask you if you had a chance to review the subpoena
7 don't smoke. Don't dry sweep. Wear respirators
7 and the items to be produced in response to the
8 when necessary. We then we prepared recommended 8 subpoena.
9 work practices for various segments of the industry
9
(Document marked Exhibit 1.)
10 in the '70s by a technical committee in order to
10
MR. ARTABANE: If I'm correct
11 encourage the safe use of asbestos and and how it 11 there were two subpoenas.
12 was to be treated in brake linings or any other
12
THE WITNESS: Right.
13 segments of the of the industry.
13 MR. ARTABANE: One issued to Mr.
14 Q. Did did you ever meet Matthew Swetonic? 14 Pigg personally and one issued to ICA.
15 A. I think I met him one time.
15 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
16 Q. Was he a part of the AIA of North
16 Q. Okay. See if I've got them both there.
17 America?
17 I may have lumped them together. I apologize.
18 A. Before my time. He was in New York but 18 A. (Reviewing document).
19 I -- I think I met him one -- once in 19 -- in the
19
Well yeah, this is this is just the one
20 '70s.
20 to me.
21 Q. What was his job in the New York -- you
21 Q. This?
22 said in New York for?
22 A. To Bob Pigg this is not.
11 (Pages 38 to 41)
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 42
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 44
2 Q. Let me take a look at that one?
2 Q. And have you provided those as well?
3 A. This is not to ICA.
3 A. All of them.
4 Q. Let me take a look at that. Maybe I've 4 Q. Okay. And who did you provide those to?
5 marked it wrong. Let me just correct -- correct the 5
A. To Mr. Artabane and he in turn to you.
6 record here. So this would is to Bob Pigg there.
6 Q. Okay. You're just so the jury is
7 Okay.
7 understanding your attorney is here with you here
8
And so this one Exhibit 1 is to you Bob
8 today?
9 Pigg and had you seen this?
9 A. Yes.
10 A. Yes.
10 Q. And I'm not asking any questions about
11 Q. When you received the subpoena?
11 conversations you had with your attorney but all the
12 A. Yes.
12 documents you've located both individually on behalf
13 Q. And let me then put a sticker on this
13 of the ICA were produced?
14 other one and we'll make this Exhibit 2.
14 A. Yes.
15
(Document marked Exhibit 2.)
15 Q. Okay. Do you happen -- did you happen
16 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
16 to bring those with you today?
17 Q. And so just so the record -- Exhibit 1
17 A. The ones that were provided to you?
18 is the subpoena to you personally correct?
18 Q. Well I do -- I've received some
19 A. Yes.
19 documents. I'm just going to cross reference?
20
Q. And you've seen that in the past right?
20
A. Yeah.
21 A. Yes.
21 Q. To see if what you have is the same
22 Q. Exhibit 2. Take a look at that and tell
22 thing I have. Did you happen to bring the
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 43
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 45
2 me if this is the subpoena you -- you've seen with 2 statements?
3 regards to the international Chrysotile association. 3
A. I have not.
4 A. (Reviewing document).
4 MR. ARTABANE: I'll state for the
5 Yes, it is.
5 record that I have a copy of the documents that I
6 Q. Okay. And have you after you -- and you 6 provided along with a cover letter on behalf of Mr.
7 have been authorized on behalf of the association, 7 Pigg and ICA to you.
8 the international Chrysotile association to be the
8
MR. SATTERLEY: Okay. Well I
9 corporate representative to produce documents in 9 appreciate that counsel. I was just asking Mr.
10 this regard; correct?
10 Pigg.
11 A. Yes.
11 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
12 Q. And to respond to the subpoena?
12 Q. You didn't happen to bring a copy of the
13 A. Yes.
13 documents here with you today?
14 Q. Okay. And you have responded to the 14 A. No.
15 subpoena to provide documents?
15 Q. Okay. So when we go through the
16 A. Yes, I have.
16 documents I may have to spend a little bit more time
17 Q. All right. Did you and I'm going to I
17 just going through and understanding where they came
18 attach and make exhibits in a little bit some of the 18 from?
19 documents that we recently received.
19 A. Sure.
20 You in your individual capacity, did you 20 Q. And how you got them.
21 locate documents that respond to the subpoena? 21
22 A. Yes.
22 MR. ARTABANE:
12 (Pages 42 to 45)
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 46
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 48
2
MR. COOK: If I could interject
2 institute?
3 while we have a moment Exhibit 2 it seems it's
3 A. About.
4 noticed for 1 p.m. for the international Chrysotile
4 Q. And do you know why they changed the
5 institute or international Chrysotile association
5 name?
6 are we doing both depositions at one time.
6 A. Well for one reason of course asbestos
7
MR. SATTERLEY: I would prefer to
7 just a commercial or generic name and by that time
8 do them together and I think counsel.
8 there certainly there was no amphiboles commercially
9
MR. COOK: I'm agreeable I just
9 produced in the world. Primarily it was Crocidolite
10 want to make sure we're not going to go back and 10 and Amosite which came from South Africa and those
11 rehash.
11 mines closed in the early '90s and of course there
12
MR. ARTABANE: That was my
12 were more scientific studies coming on the horizon
13 understanding.
13 which made a distinction between Chrysotile and the
14
MR. SATTERLEY: I think we might
14 amphiboles and in Canada of course only Chrysotile
15 confer prior to this so in the interest of time
15 was produced. That was certainly a part and
16 everybody has agreed we'll do them altogether since 16 possibly the primary reasons that the name was
17 he's the same person for both situations it makes 17 changed to more technically and correctly reflect
18 sense to just is have one deposition.
18 the institute rather than the word asbestos.
19
MR. COOK: I agree it I only raise
19 Q. Were you involved in the decision to
20 it because of the different times on the notices.
20 change the name from asbestos to Chrysotile
21 MR. SATTERLEY: Okay.
21 institute?
22 MR. COOK: Thank you.
22 A. Not at all.
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 47
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 49
2 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
2 Q. Were you at any meetings?
3 Q. All right. The asbestos institute I'm
3 A. No.
4 still struggling with some of these?
4 Q. Okay. Did you have any conversations
5 A. Okay.
5 with the people that made the decision to change the
6 Q. Various names.
6 names?
7 You've indicated the Chrysotile
7 A. No.
8 institute, the asbestos institute and the ICA.
8 Q. Do you know who -- who it was that made
9 Those are three different associations?
9 the decision to change the name? The name wise?
10 A. The asbestos institute became the
10 A. The main one would have been Mr. John
11 Chrysotile institute when it was first organized in
11 Duprey who is now deceased who was the chairman.
12 Montreal with the federal government of Canada the 12
Q. Anybody else by name?
13 provincial government of the Quebec the industry and 13
A. Possibly Mr. Clement Godbout who
14 labor it was the asbestos institute. I think it was
14 subsequently became the chairman of the institute.
15 formed about 1980 maybe 1982, '84 and then
15 Q. He's still living correct?
16 subsequently around 2000 they changed the name to 16
A. Yes.
17 the Chrysotile institute. So that's one entity and
17 Q. Is he -- he's a part of the
18 then the other entity is the asbestos international
18 international Chrysotile association?
19 association which became the international
19 A. No.
20 Chrysotile association in January 2005.
20 Q. He's not?
21 Q. In 2000 you said they changed the name 21 A. He was the chairman.
22 from the asbestos institute to the Chrysotile
22 Q. And?
13 (Pages 46 to 49)
Page 50
Page 52
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
2
A. Mr. Leblond succeeded him in 2011. 2
A. That was one of the places that I met
3 Q. Okay. And so did he resign his
3 him.
4 involvement with the international Chrysotile 4 Q. And you spoke at that conference
5 association?
5 correct?
6 A. No, he didn't. He's just not the
6 A. Yes.
7 chairman.
7 Q. And several people spoke at the
8 Q. Okay.
8 conference correct?
9
A. I think he is a consultant but he's not 9
A. Yes.
10 an officer.
10 Q. And that was -- the name of the
11 Q. Let me ask you if show you Exhibit 3? 11 conference what was it called the international
12
(Document marked Exhibit 3.)
12 conference on Chrysotile?
13
THE WITNESS: Uh-huh.
13 A. I I don't recall the name. It was -- I
14 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
14 honestly don't recall the name of the conference.
15
Q. And ask you is that the person we're 15
Q. Okay.
16 talking about?
16 A. It was in the queen Elizabeth hotel in
17 A. Yes.
17 Montreal.
18 Q. And what's his name again?
18 Q. And at the conference was one of the
19 A. Clement Godbout.
19 purposes of that conference in 2006 to once again to
20 Q. And he was the president of the
20 promote the safe use of Chrysotile asbestos?
21 Chrysotile institute?
21 A. Well, at least to expound on the current
22 A. Yes.
22 literature or studies that or opinions of various
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 51
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 53
2 Q. And for how many years?
2 scientists like I think his name was David
3 A. Approximately approximately eight to 10
3 Paustenbach spoke on brakes.
4 years.
4 Q. Uh-huh.
5 Q. And where is he located now?
5 A. Because he had published a recent study
6 A. In the suburbs of Montreal.
6 on brake linings.
7 Q. And you've personally met with him in
7 Q. Uh-huh.
8 the past?
8 A. There were other scientists there. May
9 A. Yes.
9 Georgia view or some scientist from the northwest.
10 Q. I want to show you Exhibit 4 and ask you 10 Q. Uh-huh. Washington?
11 if you know who's depicted in that photograph?
11 A. Yes.
12
(Document marked Exhibit 4.)
12 Q. Washington state?
13 THE WITNESS: That's David 13 A. Yes.
14 Bernstein.
14 Q. As opposed to DC?
15 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
15 A. Yes, I'm sorry.
16 Q. Okay. And is David Bernstein someone
16 Q. Okay.
17 you mentioned you met him on a couple of occasions? 17
A. I don't remember his exact name but
18 A. Yes.
18 Bernstein.
19 Q. Okay. And did you meet him -- there was 19
Q. And?
20 a conference back in 2006 was there not?
20 Q. Let me go through them?
21 A. Yes.
21 A. Okay.
22 Q. And you?
22 Q. Just so I can set forth a few of the
14 (Pages 50 to 53)
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 54
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 56
2 folks who participated in the Chrysotile conference
2
Q. That is your understanding?
3 I'm going to show you Exhibit 5 and ask you if you
3
A. That's my understanding.
4 know Dr. Hans Weill?
4 Q. Number 6 is a photograph of somebody I
5
(Document marked Exhibit 5. ? .
5 think you mentioned earlier?
6 (.
6 (Document marked Exhibit 6. ? )
7 THE WITNESS: Yes, I do.
7 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
8 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
8 Q. Is that Dennis Paustenbach?
9 Q. And he spoke at the conference correct? 9 A. If you didn't have his name I wouldn't
10 A. Yes, he spoke on the declining use of
10 know because I only met him once but I'll take for
11 mesothelioma may.
11 granted that is him.
12 Q. And with regards?
12 Q. (Laugh).
13 A. The declining amount of mesothelioma in 13
If we go to a website the Chrysotile we
14 the US.
14 typed in Chrysotile institute there's information on
15 Q. Okay. Dr. Weill you know him also back 15 there still today?
16 in the '70s and '80s correct?
16 A. Yes.
17 A. Yes.
17 Q. With pictures right?
18 Q. And how did you know him before?
18 A. Today.
19 A. He spoke at our various conferences. We 19
Q. And the pictures of the various people
20 back in then we would have conference and he would 20 that spoke at this at this conference correct?
21 speak occasionally.
21 A. I -- well I haven't seen it on the
22 Q. Was he a medical consultant for the AIA 22 website but I take your word that it could be there.
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 55
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 57
2 of North America?
2 Q. And?
3 A. For a short time yes.
3 A. But the website is still up.
4 Q. And when was that?
4 Q. Sure?
5 A. My guess would be about '76 to '78.
5 A. And running.
6 Q. Okay.
6 Q. And there's videos there the video
7 A. It was not very long.
7 presentations that were made right?
8 Q. All right. Do you know why he whenever 8 A. I have no knowledge of that. I have
9 he I guess stopped being a consultant for the AIA
9 never gone to the Web.
10 why that occurred?
10 Q. All right.
11 A. To the best of my knowledge it was
11 A. Website to check out the company. Since
12 simply because he wanted to show that his work and 12 I was there for the conference.
13 interest in the studies and whatnot he was involved 13
Q. So you only met Dennis Paustenbach on
14 in from Tulane were were not connected at all with 14 that one occasion?
15 the industry and, I mean, it was his decision to
15 A. Correct.
16 resign his as a consultant.
16 Q. And but you mentioned that he did some
17 Q. Because he wanted to demonstrate that he 17 study with regards to asbestos and brakes?
18 wasn't connected to industry?
18 A. Yes.
19 A. Yes.
19 Q. Okay. And is that the reason why he
20
MR. COOK: Objection. Assumes
20 spoke at that conference?
21 facts calls for speculation outside testimony.
21 A. Yes,.
22 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
22 Q. Exhibit 7 that's a photograph of you
15 (Pages 54 to 57)
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 58
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 60
2 from giving your speech at that conference correct? 2
MR. COOK: Objection. Vague.
3 A. Correct.
3 THE WITNESS: I don't know.
4
(Document marked Exhibit 7.)
4 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
5 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
5 Q. Sure. Sure.
6 Q. And you were identified as the president 6 A. All I can answer is for myself.
7 of the AIA of North America?
7 Q. Sure.
8 A. Correct.
8 A. I have never investigated if I can put
9 Q. Okay. A few other folks here just so
9 that in quotes to find out the qualifications of Dr.
10 that we understand some of the people involved.
10 Hoskins. I can -- I can only speak for myself.
11
(Document marked Exhibit 8.)
11 Q. Sure. And you're speaking for yourself
12 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
12 but you've also been produced to be examined and
13 Q. Who is this person here Exhibit 8?
13 questioned about ICA?
14 A. It says John Hoskins but I have no
14 A. Yes.
15 knowledge of ever ever meeting Dr. Hoskins. I know 15
Q. Okay. And so I guess what I'm trying to
16 he's a toxicologist in the UK.
16 understand on behalf of ICA, are you aware of any
17 Q. Okay. Did so what I here you saying is
17 investigation or research that the ICA did on John
18 you don't have any knowledge of meeting him in the 18 Hoskins to determine his qualifications to look at
19 past?
19 whether people die from breathing Chrysotile?
20 A. No.
20 MR. COOK: Objection. Beyond the
21 Q. Okay.
21 scope of the notice.
22 A. I do not. I mean, I it's possible that
22
THE WITNESS: I would assume that
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 59
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 61
2 I may have.
2 his published studies would make him, you know,
3 Q. Okay.
3 certainly a person that you would want to hear if
4 A. But I have no knowledge of, no.
4 you were talking about Chrysotile because his -- his
5 Q. I take it that you on behalf of the
5 studies certainly promote the safe use.
6 international Chrysotile association never
6 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
7 researched his qualifications, education or
7 Q. Uh-huh.
8 experience in the past; correct?
8 A. Policy that Chrysotile can be used
9 A. No.
9 safely. So.
10 Q. Never had a reason to do so correct?
10 Q. So I understand you're saying because
11 A. No. I know he's published -- published
11 his published studies in the past have promoted the
12 a study on I think on asbestos cement products. I 12 use of of Chrysotile that in your view makes him
13 can't remember the name of the study but I've never 13 qualified to be an author on this paper?
14 researched.
14 MR. COOK: Objection. Misstates
15 Q. Sure.
15 testimony.
16 A. Anything about him no.
16 THE WITNESS: I.
17 Q. I mean, do you know if anybody on behalf 17
MR. COOK: Beyond the scope of the
18 of the international Chrysotile association did
18 notice.
19 research on Mr. Hoskins at any point in time prior
19
THE WITNESS: I -- I can't speak.
20 to the publication this year about Chrysotile you
20 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
21 know the Chrysotile revisited article?
21 Q. Okay.
22 A. Yeah.
22 A. About any of the authors of the paper.
16 (Pages 58 to 61)
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 62
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 64
2 Q. Sure. Including Mr. Bernstein right?
2
THE WITNESS: (Laugh).
3 A. Correct.
3 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
4 Q. Okay.
4 Q. So let's get back on track?
5 A. I mean.
5 A. There you go.
6 Q. And I guess what I'm trying to figure
6 Q. So I guess what I'm trying to figure out
7 out is did --
7 is did somebody on the behalf of the international
8 A. But if you -- may I -- if I may I just
8 Chrysotile association do an independent review to
9 add if you were going to do a study you'd want
9 get an objective set of scientists to look at the
10 people that are familiar with the topic.
10 Chrysotile health issue?
11 Q. Sure.
11 MR. COOK: Objection. Vague.
12 A. That's all I -- just as a layman in
12 Calls for speculation. Beyond the scope of the
13 viewing the situation.
13 notice.
14 Q. Uh-huh.
14 THE WITNESS: As I said earlier
15 A. You would want somebody that would know 15 the initiation of the study was done by the
16 what they were talking about and familiar with the 16 Chrysotile institute.
17 -- with the studies.
17 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
18 Q. Sure. I understand?
18 Q. Okay.
19 A. That's all.
19 A. Not ICA. So I can't answer for them.
20
Q. So did the ICA -- because you've been a
20
Q. So as you sit here today you can't
21 recipient of many e-mails and things from Mr.
21 describe the process by which this research began?
22 Bernstein and other folks related to this study
22 A. No.
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 63
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 65
2 correct?
2 Q. Okay. And I guess the reason why I ask
3 A. Well, not to the study. I mean, on his
3 is: It wasn't a situation where the international
4 -- on payment of the bills.
4 Chrysotile association sent out letters to a bunch
5 Q. Okay.
5 of universities to invite them to submit proposals
6 A. But not -- not -- not a lot of e-mails
6 to the ICA?
7 relayed to the study.
7 MR. COOK: Objection. Asked and
8 Q. Did?
8 answered.
9
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Excuse me
9 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
10 counselor you have five minutes left on the tape. 10
Q. Correct?
11
MR. SATTERLEY: On this shape you 11
A. ICA hasn't done, I mean, what the --
12 got another tape.
12 what the institute did I don't know.
13 MR. COOK:
13 Q. All right. In your review of all the
14
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Oh, yes.
14 documentation for the ICA over the last several
15 MR. SATTERLEY: Okay.
15 years?
16 MR. COOK:
16 A. Yeah.
17 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Nine hours. 17 Q. Have you seen any documentation Mr.
18 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
18 Pigg, that would indicate that someone in creating
19 Q. Okay. You thought you were going to get 19 this publication the Chrysotile?
20 out of here quickly didn't you?
20 A. Revisited.
21
MR. COOK: This wasn't a
21 Q. Revisited publication sent out letters
22 suggestion.
22 to universities around the world soliciting bids or
17 (Pages 62 to 65)
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 66
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 68
2 soliciting research from various universities?
2 institute, did you say they still exist?
3 A. I have no knowledge of anything like
3 A. No, they closed March of 2012.
4 that. 5 Q. All right. In in reviewing looking for
4 Q. And who was the last person that was in 5 charge of the Chrysotile institute?
6 documents both individually on behalf of the ICA
6 A. Mr. Godbout.
7 have you received any grant proposals from anybody? 7
Q. Who?
8 A. No.
8 A. Mr. Godbout.
9 Q. Do you know what a grant proposal is?
9 Q. And he's located you said?
10 A. Basically. I'm not familiar
10 A. In the suburbs of Montreal.
11 specifically with it but.
11 Q. So I have to go to Canada?
12 Q. Sure.
12 A. Yes.
13 A. I...
13 Q. To try to find that out?
14 Q. What's your basic understanding of a
14 A. Yes.
15 grant proposal?
15 Q. Okay. The last before we take a break
16 A. I assume a grant is a -- would be a
16 the last Exhibit, Exhibit 9 is another individual I
17 specified amount of money to do a specified work.
17 got from the conference the 2000?
18 Q. Okay. Sure. So, for example, if the
18
(Document marked Exhibit 9.)
19 government wanted to hire scientists say the United 19 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
20 States government? 21 A. Yeah.
20 Q. Do you know who that is? 21 A. I know the name. I -- I've seen the
22 Q. Wanted to hire scientists to investigate
22 gentleman and I think I heard him speak.
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 67
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 69
2 a certain issue, they could fund that research and 2
Q. Okay.
3 say all right we're going to spend $100,000?
3 A. But I don't know him.
4 A. Right.
4 Q. Was he the head of theRussian
5 Q. Or $200,000?
5 occupational health institute?
6 A. Yeah.
6 A. He may be. I don't know.
7
Q. And for and that's going to be a grant
7
Q. Okay. If we went to your -- the website
8 issued to a university?
8 that had the conference on?
9 A. Right.
9 A. Yeah.
10 Q. Okay. Now did the ICA issue any grants 10 Q. The Chrysotile institute and it listed
11 regarding to research to any universities?
11 him you wouldn't have any reason to disagree with
12 A. No.
12 that?
13
Q. Did ICA issue any grants as it relates
13
A. No, I would not.
14 to any scientists?
14 Q. Okay. Let's do this. Let's change the
15 A. No.
15 tape and take a break for five or 10 minutes.
16 Q. One other thing and we'll -- we'll take 16 A. Okay.
17 a break?
17 Q. Okay?
18
A. Now as I said I don't know about the
18
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Going off
19 Chrysotile institute.
19 record at the end of tape 1 disk 1 at 11:08:23.
20 Q. Okay.
20 (Recess taken - 11:07 a.m.
21 A. I'm only speaking for ICA.
21 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Back on record.
22 Q. If I want to go to the Chrysotile
22 Tape disk 2. Of Bobby Joe Pigg.
18 (Pages 66 to 69)
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 70
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 72
2 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
2 Q. Okay. That's what this exhibits says.
3 Q. Mr. Pigg I want to show you Exhibit 10.
3
Have you since this conference in 2006
4 And ask you you mentioned a fellow's name earlier? 4 have you met this fellow?
5 A. That's the name I was trying to recall.
5 A. I saw him one time. There was a meeting
6 Q. Moolgavkar -- Moolgavkar and you said he 6 in Washington that that he spoke.
7 was one of the speakers at the Chrysotile
7 Q. Washington state?
8 conference?
8 A. No, no. Washington, DC.
9 A. Yes, he was.
9 Q. Okay.
10
(Document marked Exhibit 10) (.
10 A. Now he -- I don't know what company he
11 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
11 said he was representing. It -- oh, the meeting was
12 Q. And did you meet him there?
12 about EPA's looking at their risk assessment.
13 A. I remember I sat next to him for dinner. 13 Q. Okay.
14 Q. Okay. And did you become familiar with 14 A. It was done by Dr. Nicholson back in
15 his any of his qualifications?
15 1986.
16 A. No.
16 Q. Uh-huh.
17 Q. For example, is he a medical doctor?
17 A. And the EPA, a part of EPA was thinking
18 A. It says here he's a Ph.D.
18 of reevaluating the risk assessment in order to make
19 Q. Okay.
19 the distinction between fiber types between
20 A. I don't know.
20 Chrysotile and the amphiboles and he was -- he spoke
21 Q. All right. Any of the folks that
21 at this meeting at the I forget the hotel near
22 attended the conference in 2006 did you know if any 22 Dupont Circle.
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 71
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 73
2 of the speakers the people that actually talked, did 3 they ever get involved with like treating or caring
2 Q. Okay. And you were present at that 3 meeting?
4 for somebody suffering from mesothelioma that? 4 A. Yes.
5
MR. COOK: Objection. Calls for
5 Q. Okay. And Nicholson you're talking
6 speculation.
6 about William Nicholson?
7
MR. ARTABANE: If you know.
7 A. Yes.
8
THE WITNESS: I don't know.
8 Q. And in 1986 William Nicholson did a
9 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
9 review of Chrysotile?
10 Q. You don't know?
10 A. Well, no he did -- he did a study.
11 A. No.
11 Q. Uh-huh.
12 Q. Any any of the authors of the people
12 A. For EPA which was published as an EPA
13 that wrote this Chrysotile revisited article in 2013
13 risk assessment.
14 do you know if any of those folks were were treating 14
Q. Sure.
15 or caring for people with people suffering from
15 A. Document.
16 mesothelioma?
16 Q. Which included Chrysotile?
17 A. I don't know.
17 A. Yes.
18
MR. COOK: Objection. Vague and
18 Q. Okay. And was there this meeting was
19 ambiguous.
19 that about -- about nine or 10 years ago?
20 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
20 A. No. It was about three years ago.
21 Q. I'm sorry?
21 Q. Three years ago?
22 A. I don't know.
22 A. Yes.
19 (Pages 70 to 73)
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 74
1
2 Q. And who put this meeting on?
2
3 A. The EPA.
3
4 Q. Okay.
4
5 A. EPA.
5
6 Q. Okay.
6
7 A. And it was a public meeting for.
7
8 Q. At a hotel?
8
9 A. They had a committee that was listening
9
10 of about 30 people from all over. Julian Peto for
10
11 one and about 30 members of this committee that was 11
12 reviewing what had been put together by EPA as a
12
13 proposal to revise or update the risk assessment
13
14 study.
14
15 Q. And were you there as a representative
15
16 of the ICA or the AIA North America?
16
17 A. AIANA. I didn't participate. I was
17
18 just a.
18
19 Q. Sure.
19
20 A. Listener.
20
21 Q. Sure. And also as you said earlier
21
22 you're not a scientist?
22
ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 76
city.
Q. And so how long have you known him?
A. Probably 30 years.
Q. Heck that would put us all the way back
in the '80s.
You knew him back in the '80s?
A. Uh-huh. Yes.
Q. Okay. And has he been a long time
investigator of the Chrysotile issue?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And has he published on the fact
that Chrysotile certain health issues?
A. Well, he's one of the coauthors on the
revisited study and and I'm -- I don't know all of
his background but I'm sure -- I'm sure there are
quite a few studies that he's, you know, been
involved in.
Q. Do you know who selected him to be a
coauthor of this revisited paper?
A. No, I do not.
Q. Do you -- you don't know the process by
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 75
1
2 A. No.
2
3 Q. You have no technical expertise?
3
4 A. No.
4
5 Q. With regards to which fibers could cause
5
6 which disease or anything like that?
6
7 A. No.
7
8 Q. Okay. Let's see what else we have here.
8
9 I have what I marked as Exhibit 11?
9
10
(Document marked Exhibit 11.)
10
11 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
11
12 Q. It's a photograph of an individual do
12
13 you know that person?
13
14 A. Yes, I do.
14
15 Q. And who is that?
15
16 A. That's Dr. Jacques Dunnigan.
16
17 Q. And how do you know that person?
17
18 A. Well, he's he's been a speaker at
18
19 various conferences that I've attended. He used to
19
20 be on the faculty of the University of Sherbrooke
20
21 and he still lives in a suburb of Sherbrooke Canada
21
22 which is between Montreal and Thetford mines Quebec 22
ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 77
which any of the authors were selected?
A. I do not.
Q. How would you -- if you want to find
that out how these people were selected to be
authors of this paper what would you do?
A. Well, I would ask Dr. Bernstein.
Q. Okay.
A. I didn't know who they were until I saw
the study published.
Q. Sure. So as far as you know Bernstein
would be the Bernstein to talk to to find out what
process if any occurred to figure out who could be
the coauthors?
MR. COOK: Objection. Calls for
speculation.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
BY MR. SATTERLEY:
Q. Okay. Have you read the revisited
paper?
A. No. I scanned it.
Q. Okay.
20 (Pages 74 to 77)
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 78
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 80
2 A. I've read the abstract.
2 Dunnigan he's located up in Canada correct?
3 Q. All right. I guess then you couldn't
3 A. Yes.
4 figure out or tell us which of these coauthors
4 Q. Okay. Does he -- does he come down to
5 participated and which sections of the paper or
5 the United States from time to time?
6 anything like that?
6 A. No.
7 A. No.
7 Q. He doesn't?
8 Q. You don't you can't even say whether any 8 A. I don't.
9 of the coauthors did any work?
9 Q. You've always had to go to Canada to
10 A. No, but I -- with their names on it I
10 meet with him or around the world?
11 would assume.
11 A. I don't go up to meet them I just I just
12 Q. Sure. Somebody could?
12 know who he is.
13 A. (Laugh).
13 Q. Sure.
14 Q. Could put their names on it but as far
14 A. And but I haven't -- I haven't seen him
15 as what work was done you don't know correct? 15 in I don't know two or three years.
16 A. I don't. No, I do not.
16 Q. Okay. But all your instances where
17 Q. And all the funding, all the monies that 17 you've interacted with him personally in person
18 were paid were paid directly to Bernstein?
18 would be in Canada?
19 A. No. Some some money was paid to Dr. 19 A. Yes.
20 Dunnigan.
20 Q. Okay.
21 Q. Okay. So when we get down to the
21 A. Pardon?
22 invoices we'll be able to figure out?
22 Q. Do you need to meet?
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 79
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 81
2 A. Yeah.
2 A. Ask me the question again.
3 Q. How much went to Bernstein how much went 3 Q. Sure. I said all the occasions you have
4 to Dunnigan?
4 met with him has it all been up in Canada and I
5 A. I think Dunnigan was in the neighborhood
5 think your counsel indicated?
6 of $35,000 something like that.
6 A. Oh, well he -- he's -- I'm sure he's
7 Q. And how much roughly to Bernstein?
7 been to the States at some point in time and may be
8 A. 200.
8 -- I was trying to think of another conference in
9 Q. 200,000?
9 another place.
10 A. Yes.
10 Q. Yeah and that's -
11 Q. Over the two?
11 A. Most -- most -- most of the meetings
12 A. Three years.
12 have been in Canada.
13 Q. Well when did it begin?
13 Q. Sure. Sure. And I guess what I'm
14 A. For ICA payments began in 2010, 2011,
14 trying to figure out it's not a situation?
15 2012.
15 A. Yeah.
16 Q. Okay. And nothing in 2013?
16 Q. Where he came down he was a part of like
17 A. No.
17 the EPA board?
18 Q. Okay. And that doesn't include any
18 A. Oh, no no no.
19 money that the Chrysotile institute would have paid 19
Q. Or the government OSHA evaluations?
20 him?
20 A. No.
21 A. Correct.
21 Q. Or EPA or anything like that?
22 Q. Okay. We'll set -- by the way this
22 A. No.
21 (Pages 78 to 81)
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 82
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 84
2 Q. Okay. Now with regards from the ICA
2 saying that would be misleading if that did occur
3 standpoint you would agree that it would be improper 3 right?
4 for authors to put their names on the paper if they
4
MR. COOK: Objection. Lacks
5 didn't do any work on it?
5 foundation.
6 MR. COOK: Objection. Lacks 6 THE WITNESS: You're asking me
7 foundation. Calls for speculation. Vague and
7 something that I don't know the answer to.
8 ambiguous.
8 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
9 THE WITNESS:
9 Q. All right.
10 THE WITNESS: Well, I.
10 A. I mean, I don't know that it would
11
MR. ARTABANE: If you know.
11 necessarily be.
12
THE WITNESS: I just I can't
12 Q. Go ahead. I'm sorry.
13 conceive of a reputable scientist not doing the
13 A. I don't know that it would be
14 right thing. At least have some.
14 necessarily misleading. If my counsel Mr. Artabane
15 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
15 asked me my opinion about something on a memorandum
16 Q. Sure.
16 that he's written could I -- could we sign it
17 A. Contribution to the study.
17 jointly. I trust him enough that I'd say yes.
18 Q. Did?
18 Without reading it.
19 A. I just -- I can't conceive that with a
19 Q. Okay.
20 reputation that they have. Some of the -- I don't
20 A. I just use that as an example.
21 know all the coauthors but Dr. Gibbs is a known as 21
Q. Sure. Okay. . So from your perspective
22 an international scientist. I can't conceive of him
22 if you trust somebody, trust somebody else in the --
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 83
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 85
2 not making some contribution to that study.
2 and you know them you feel comfortable putting --
3 Q. You?
3 that it would be okay to put the name on it without
4 A. And putting his name on it.
4 even reading it?
5 Q. You said the right thing.
5 MR. COOK: Objection. Vague and
6 You would agree with me that it wouldn't 6 ambiguous.
7 be the right thing to do from your perspective as 7
MR. ARTABANE: He didn't say that.
8 the treasurer and an officer of the ICA to put your 8
MR. COOK: Lacks foundation.
9 name on a study and actually not contribute to it? 9 Calls for speculation and incomplete hypothetical.
10
MR. COOK: Objection same
10 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
11 objection as before.
11 Q. Is that fair?
12
THE WITNESS: I would not.
12
MR. COOK: Same objection.
13 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
13 THE WITNESS: That's -- the
14 Q. That would be -- that would be wrong? 14 question is I'm going to stop beating my wife, you
15 A. Yes.
15 know. I mean, that's kind of like you're asking me.
16 MR. COOK: Same objection. Calls 16 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
17 for moral judgment.
17 Q. No, I disagree in all due respects.
18 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
18 Let me is ask the question differently?
19 Q. And that would be misleading for folks 19 A. I don't know what you're asking me to
20 if if that occurred would it not be?
20 say.
21 A. But I don't think it did occur.
21 Q. So?
22 Q. I understand your opinion and but I'm 22 A. I mean, I'm not going to say something
22 (Pages 82 to 85)
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 86
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 88
2 that I don't think is true.
2 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
3 Q. So let me break it down this way.
3 Q. Okay.
4 A. Okay.
4 A. I do not know.
5 Q. The ICA international Chrysotile
5 Q. And when we dig into the -- when we dig
6 association to which you're speaking on behalf of? 6 into some of these documents it would be fair to say
7 A. Yes.
7 other than Bernstein and Dunnigan you didn't have
8 Q. Pursuant to the subpoena funded this
8 any interaction with any of these other folks?
9 Chrysotile revisited paper at least in part?
9 A. None.
10 A. Yes.
10 Q. Okay. And you you on behalf of the ICA
11 Q. Because you said 200,000 went to
11 didn't investigate the qualifications of some of
12 Bernstein, 30 some odd thousand went to Dunnigan 12 these folks did you?
13 correct?
13 A. No.
14 A. Yes.
14 MR. ARTABANE: Asked and answered.
15 Q. And there may be more funding from the 15
MR. COOK: Objection. Lacks
16 Chrysotile institute?
16 foundation asked and answered.
17 A. Could be.
17 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
18 Q. Okay. From -- would you be disappointed 18 Q. I want to ask specifically Hesterberg do
19 as the funder of this research to learn, I'm asking 19 you know who Hesterberg is?
20 you hypothetically?
20 MR. COOK: Same objection. Asked
21 A. Yeah.
21 and answered.
22 Q. That not all of these authors
22 THE WITNESS: I didn't know his
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 87
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 89
2 participated in writing?
2 name until I saw it on your letter saying he was
3
MR. COOK: Objection. Incomplete
3 located in Little Rock.
4 hypothetical. Assumes facts. Lacks foundation.
4 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
5 Calls for speculation.
5 Q. Okay.
6
THE WITNESS: Well, if -- the way
6 A. I don't I don't know Dr. Hesterberg.
7 you characterize that you're -- you're placing --
7 Q. And you have no communications back and
8 you're impugning those scientists, their motives
8 forth between the ICA and Hesterberg?
9 aren't you? By asking -- by asking. If I said yes 9
A. No.
10 to your question then I'm saying that their motives 10
Q. And no documentation that would verify
11 should be impugned? I can't say that.
11 that the ICA did a review of who Hesterberg was?
12 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
12 MR. COOK: Objection. Asked and
13 Q. Okay. I understand.
13 answered.
14 So but let me ask -- ask you this.
14
THE WITNESS: No.
15
Do you have any evidence, sir, at all
15
MR. COOK: He already indicated
16 that these, all these one two three four five six,
16 the Chrysotile institute started the study.
17 seven, eight people participated in this revisited
17
MR. SATTERLEY: Counsel that's not
18 paper?
18 proper. Are you pro vice in this case.
19
MR. COOK: Objection. Lacks
19
MR. COOK: I am.
20 foundation.
20 MR. SATTERLEY: Okay. You know
21 THE WITNESS: I have no idea how 21 under California procedure you cannot try to coach
22 -- how that was done.
22 the witness. You can you can.
23 (Pages 86 to 89)
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 90
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 92
2
MR. COOK: I'm not coaching the
2 Q. All right. Do you know who Juan Velasco
3 witness.
3 is?
4
MR. ARTABANE: He's not coaching
4
MR. COOK: Same objection.
5 the witness. The witness already testified.
5
THE WITNESS: No.
6
MR. SATTERLEY: Counsel, counsel.
6 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
7
MR. COOK: He already answered
7 Q. Do you know who Raul Verarri is?
8 your question.
8 A. No.
9
MR. SATTERLEY: I'm directing my
9 Q. Do you know who -- we already went over
10 comments to counsel.
10 Hoskins?
11
If you have an objection to the
11 A. Yes.
12 form of the question or you have a legal objection 12
Q. And you told us about Gibbs earlier Alan
13 state it but don't start making speeches. Okay.
13 Gibbs?
14
MR. COOK: That is hardly a
14 A. I just know I've seen his name but I
15 speech. He's already asked and answered question. 15 never met him.
16 You've already asked it and he answered it multiple 16
Q. All right. The AIA North America
17 times counsel.
17 represented the asbestos industry in North America
18 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
18 for over 35 years correct?
19 Q. Robert Brown. Do you know who he is? 19 A. Correct.
20
MR. COOK: Same objection. Asked 20
Q. And asbestos Chrysotile asbestos has
21 and answered. Outside the witness's personal
21 been used commercially in the United States for a
22 knowledge.
22 hundred years; correct?
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 91
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 93
2
MR. SATTERLEY: Wait a second.
2 A. Close to it. Yes.
3 How that's incredibly improper, sir. How do you
3 Q. Huge quantities of Chrysotile asbestos
4 know it's outside of his knowledge who Robert Brown 4 were used in many products throughout the United
5 is? Because he hasn't answered the question about 5 States correct?
6 Robert Brown and the record will speak for itself
6
MR. COOK: Objection. Vague and
7 because the record -- I have not asked a single
7 ambiguous.
8 question about Robert Brown thus far. So what
8
THE WITNESS: Yes.
9 you're doing counsel is improper and I don't I'm
9 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
10 going to request you stop doing this. Okay.
10 Q. Chrysotile is still used today in the
11
MR. COOK: And I would just note
11 manufacture of several products correct?
12 for the record that you asked him about generally 12 A. Not several, no. In the US? Is that
13 about the authors and how the study was conceived 13 the question?
14 and he indicated it was the Chrysotile institute.
14 Q. No, I didn't ask. I said Chrysotile is
15 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
15 still used today in the manufacture of several
16 Q. Well, stop stop stop. Let me continue
16 products?
17 on?
17 MR. COOK: Vague and ambiguous.
18 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
18 THE WITNESS: All over the world?
19 Q. Do you know who Robert Brown is?
19 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
20 A. No.
20 Q. Sure.
21
MR. COOK: Same objection.
21 A. About 90 to 95 percent in asbestos
22 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
22 cement products.
24 (Pages 90 to 93)
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 94
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 96
2 Q. There's no asbestos ban in the United
2
THE WITNESS: Well, the latest
3 States correct?
3 publication from the US geological survey and my
4 A. That's correct.
4 understanding is to answer your question yes but
5 Q. It is the international Chrysotile
5 apparently there's some production in Argentina of
6 association one of its purposes is to prevent there
6 which I know nothing about but...
7 being a ban on Chrysotile asbestos; correct?
7 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
8 A. That's correct. As long as -- as long
8 Q. Slovenia they don't contribute monies to
9 as it's used safely, yes.
9 the ICA?
10 Q. And when you say used -- as long as it's 10 A. No.
11 used safely what do you mean?
11 Q. And they banned Chrysotile asbestos?
12 A. Well, I mean, we'll make sure that
12
MR. COOK: Objection. Outside the
13 exposures are low.
13 witness's personal knowledge.
14 Q. And when you say exposures are low what 14
THE WITNESS: All those countries
15 do you mean? Below the permissible exposure limit? 15 in the European union have a ban that was effective
16 A. Yes.
16 what, 2005 I think it was.
17 Q. Okay. The currentpermissible exposure 17 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
18 limit?
18 Q. Well they banned it in various -- the
19 A. Yes.
19 bans occurred at various times around the world;
20 Q. Okay. You know thatChrysotile asbestos 20 right?
21 has been banned in numerous countries around the 21
A. Well, European union was one ban and
22 world correct?
22 which became effective I think in 2005. And there's
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
2 A. Yes.
2 an exception for the use of diaphragms for
3 Q. And many of those countries around the 3 Chrysotile.
4 world that have banned Chrysotile asbestos do not 4
5 contribute funds to the ICA?
5
Q. Let me move to strike as nonresponsive. Let me go through a list of countries?
6
MR. COOK: Objection. Relevance.
6 A. Okay.
7
THE WITNESS: They do not.
7 Q. That have banned Chrysotile and see if
8 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
8 you agree with this.
9 Q. Okay. For example?
9 Luxembourg?
10 A. And most of those countries are in the 10 A. The answer is no contribution. No -- no
11 European union.
11 payment. Is that your.
12 Q. Sure.
12 Q. Yes.
13 A. The majority are.
13 A. Your question?
14 Q. So I'm going to go through and ask you 14 Q. Sure?
15 some questions about funding because you are the 15
A. The answer is no.
16 treasurer of this organization?
16 Q. And Greece?
17 A. Okay.
17 MR. COOK: Same objection.
18 Q. Argentina a they don't contribute any
18
THE WITNESS: No.
19 money to the ICA correct?
19 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
20 A. Correct.
20 Q. No contribution to?
21 Q. And they've banned Chrysotile asbestos? 21 A. No.
22
MR. COOK: Objection. Relevance.
22
Q. To ICA?
25 (Pages 94 to 97)
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 98
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 100
2 A. No.
2 is there discussions to try to overturn some of
3 Q. And no no -- and they did ban? 4 A. Yes.
3 these bans? 4 A. Not -- I haven't been there to all of
5 Q. Sweden?
5 them but in general I would say no. I don't think.
6
MR. COOK: Same objection.
6 I mean, once -- once the ban -- I don't know of any
7 THE WITNESS: No contribution, ban 7 country that's ever reversed a ban.
8 yes.
8 Q. Okay. Once the health officials or
9 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
9 whoever makes the determination within the state to
10 Q. Chrysotile is banned.
10 ban the product --
11 Malta?
11 A. Uh-huh.
12
MR. COOK: Same objection.
12 Q. -- the Chrysotile product ICA doesn't
13
THE WITNESS: No contribution
13 try to reverse the ban?
14 banned yes.
14 A. No.
15 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
15 Q. Okay. But you said you don't -- you
16 Q. Iceland?
16 don't travel to the international conferences?
17
MR. COOK: Same objection.
17 A. Not all of them no.
18
THE WITNESS: No contribution
18 Q. Okay. Like in Rio. You didn't go to
19 banned yes.
19 Rio?
20 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
20 A. No.
21 Q. New Zealand?
21 Q. And you didn't go to Dubai?
22
MR. COOK: Same objection.
22 A. Now I did go to Dubai.
Page 99
Page 101
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
2
THE WITNESS: No contribution
2 Q. Okay. Let's continue on with some of
3 banned yes.
3 these countries.
4 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
4 Scotland they banned Chrysotile?
5 Q. South Africa?
5 MR. COOK: Same objection.
6
MR. COOK: Same objection.
6
THE WITNESS: Scotland?
7
THE WITNESS: No contribution
7 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
8 banned yes.
8 Q. Scotland?
9 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
9 A. I never knew Scotland had a ban. The UK
10 Q. Scotland?
10 had a ban.
11 A. However I'm not certain that there's a 11 Q. Okay.
12 total ban in South Africa. Whether they've
12 A. For it which would include Scotland.
13 completely done that. I don't know.
13 Q. They don't contribute?
14 Q. Does the ICA have they met at various 14
15 places around the world for conferences?
15
A. No contribution. Ban yes. Q. Okay. Germany?
16 A. Yes.
16 MR. COOK: Same objection.
17 Q. Like Rio de Janero in Brazil?
17
THE WITNESS: No contribution ban
18 A. Yes.
18 yes.
19 Q. And Dubai in the Middle East?
19 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
20 A. Yes.
20 Q. France?
21 Q. And in the meetings where the
21
MR. COOK: Same objection.
22 international Chrysotile association gets together 22
THE WITNESS: No contribution ban
26 (Pages 98 to 101)
Page 102
Page 104
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
2 yes. 3 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
2 Q. Austria? 3 A. No contribution ban yes.
4 Q. Slovakia? 5 MR. COOK: Same objection.
4 Q. Denmark? 5 A. No contribution ban yes.
6
THE WITNESS: No contribution ban 6
Q. Switzerland?
7 yes.
7 A. No contribution ban yes.
8 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
8 Q. And by the way that's the country that
9 Q. Ireland?
9 this Bernstein fellow lives in right?
10
MR. COOK: Same objection.
10 A. Yes.
11
THE WITNESS: No contribution ban 11
Q. And so they banned Chrysotile?
12 yes.
12 A. To my knowledge yes.
13 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
13 Q. Have you seen?
14 Q. Portugal?
14 A. Well they're part they're part of the EU
15
MR. COOK: Same objection.
15 aren't they I assume.
16
THE WITNESS: No contribution ban 16
Q. Have you seen the photographs of Mr.
17 yes.
17 Bernstein working with Chrysotile?
18 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
18 A. No.
19 Q. United Arab Emirates? UAE? 20 MR. COOK: Same objection.
19 Q. Any of his animal testing? 20 A. No.
21
THE WITNESS: No. No ban.
21 Q. Cypress they banned Chrysotile correct?
22 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
22 A. To my knowledge yes.
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 103
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 105
2 Q. No ban? 3 A. No ban.
2 Q. And they have not contributed money? 3 A. No contribution no.
4 Q. They didn't ban Chrysotile?
4 Q. Australia?
5 A. No.
5 A. No contribution ban yes.
6 Q. Do they contribute money to the ICA?
6 Q. Saudi Arabia?
7 A. The company does but not the government. 7
A. No contribution ban yes.
8 Q. Okay.
8 Q. Japan?
9 A. We have a member from UAE. Dubai.
9 A. No contribution ban yes.
10 Q. Kuwait?
10 Q. Italy?
11 A. No.
11 A. No contribution ban yes.
12 Q. No ban?
12 Q. Finland?
13 A. No contribution, ban yes.
13 A. No contribution ban yes.
14 Q. Okay. Poland?
14 Q. Chile?
15
MR. COOK: Same objection.
15 A. No contribution ban yes.
16
THE WITNESS: No contribution.
16 Q. Uruguay?
17 Ban yes.
17 A. No contribution ban yes.
18
MR. COOK: Can I have a continuing
18
Q. Wales?
19 objection.
19 A. A part of the U UK.
20 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
20 Q. Any?
21 Q. Yes, you can.
21 A. No contribution ban yes.
22 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
22 Q. And it's all part of the UK. UK banned
27 (Pages 102 to 105)
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED 2 Chrysotile totally right? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Honduras? 5 A. No contribution ban yes. 6 Q. Czech republic? 7 A. No contribution ban yes. 8 Q. Lithuania? 9 A. No contribution ban yes. 10 Q. Latvia? 11 A. No contribution ban yes. 12 Q. Netherlands? 13 A. No contribution ban yes. 14 Q. Astonia? 15 A. No contribution ban yes. 16 Q. Norway? 17 A. No contribution ban yes. 18 Q. Spain? 19 A. No contribution ban yes. 20 Q. Hungary? 21 A. No contribution ban yes. 22 Q. Belgium ?
Page 106
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 108
the ICA's purpose was to try to prevent a ban of
Chrysotile in the United States.
Would that likewise be all of North
America? Mexico? Canada? Or just United States?
A. Well, AIANA represents, I mean, as far
as regionally.
Q. I see?
A. Would include Mexico US and Canada.
AIANA but there's no -- there's no activity at all
anymore by AIANA.
Q. So a few years ago I know that there was
some United States senators that were trying to ban
asbestos totally?
A. Yes.
Q. And was either the AIANA or the ICA
involved when that occurred?
A. The -- not specifically. I was
contacted to ask a recommendation for someone at a
hearing to speak and the two people that -- this was
what? Five years ago, four years ago.
Q. Several years ago?
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 107
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 109
2 A. No contribution ban yes.
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Ireland?
3 Q. Yeah and who did you who did you
4 A. No contribution ban yes.
4 recommend go speak at a hearing?
5 Q. I may have already said Ireland I'm
5 A. The the Professor Wilson from Harvard
6 sorry. Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland. I'm
6 spoke and Dr. Robert Nolan from I think it's
7 making the distinction.
7 Brooklyn college.
8 A. Okay. No contribution ban yes.
8 Q. And why did you recommend Nolan?
9 Q. Okay. And then four of the most
9 A. Because well he's familiar with the
10 industrialized states of the Brazil have also banned 10 literature and I had heard him -- had heard him
11 Chrysotile correct?
11 speak before.
12 A. I don't know. I don't know the answer 12 Q. Where did you hear him speak?
13 to that. They may have. But I'm not familiar with 13
A. I honestly don't remember what. So many
14 that.
14 conferences but I've known Dr. Nolan for a good long
15 Q. Okay. But you have some producers of 15 while. Of course he used to be at mount Sinai I
16 asbestos from Brazil that are part of the -- of the 16 think.
17 international Chrysotile association?
17 Q. What did he do at mount Sinai?
18 A. Only -- only one. There's only one
18 A. I don't know.
19 producer in Brazil.
19 Q. Algeria they banned Chrysotile correct?
20 Q. And who is that?
20 A. I'm not -- I'm not -- off the open of my
21 A. SAMA, S-A-M-A.
21 head I'm not certain about that.
22 Q. Okay. And now you said that a part of 22 Q. Bulgaria they banned Chrysotile?
28 (Pages 106 to 109)
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 110
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 112
2 A. They may have. I don't know.
2 association North America because they participate
3 Q. They don't contribute to the ICA?
3 in rulemaking you would agree that was a lobbying?
4 A. No no. Neither Algeria or Bulgaria.
4
MR. ARTABANE: Objection. He
5 Q. South Korea they banned Chrysotile?
5 never said that. And he's not qualified to make
6 A. Yes, they have banned and no
6 that.
7 contribution.
7 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
8 Q. And Norway?
8 Q. All right.
9 A. They have banned and no contribution.
9
MR. ARTABANE: You're asking for a
10 Q. And Romania?
10 legal conclusion from a witness.
11 A. They have banned and no contribution.
11
MR. SATTERLEY: Counsel don't yell
12 Q. And Turkey?
12 at me.
13 A. I pause because I'm not certain that
13
MR. ARTABANE: I'm not yelling you
14 Turkey has banned. They may have because I don't 14 at you.
15 think they have been accepted in the European union 15 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
16 yet but -- but they may have banned. As far as I 16 Q. The AIANA?
17 know they're not -- they're not using Chrysotile
17
MR. ARTABANE: In fact I virtually
18 anymore but officially I'm not certain that they
18 haven't spoken the entire time.
19 have published a ban.
19 MR. SATTERLEY: Okay I know the
20 Q. Turkey doesn't contribute to the ICA do
20 tone though the AIANAment.
21 they?
21 MR. ARTABANE: That's my normal
22 A. No.
22 tone and I'm not going to apologize for that.
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 111
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 113
2 Q. Okay. Do you know a Mr. Leblond?
2
MR. SATTERLEY: Are you finished?
3 A. Yes.
3 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
4 Q. And is he -- was he vice president of
4 Q. The AI -- sir, Mr. Pigg the AIANA you
5 the lab Chrysotile incorporated?
5 told us earlier participated in the rulemaking
6 A. He was until he retired.
6 process?
7 Q. And he was a director of the Chrysotile 7 A. Uh-huh.
8 institute correct?
8 Q. Correct?
9 A. Correct.
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And you would describe the Chrysotile 10 Q. And by providing regulators and
11 institute as an asbestos lobbying organization;
11 politicians information; right?
12 correct?
12 A. Not politicians but -- I don't -- I
13 A. I don't -- I don't know whether their
13 don't consider responding to a public rulemaking
14 purpose. I've -- I've seen in news articles mention 14 lobbying. I mean, they ask for the public comments.
15 by I think Kathleen Ruff as a lobbying organization 15
Q. Okay.
16 but I don't know. I've never seen their bylaws. I 16
A. And that's what we -- what we did.
17 don't know whether they're that was, you know, a 17
Q. Okay. And you provide information that
18 principal purpose to lobby in the sense that we here 18 certainly would benefit your member companies;
19 in the States, you know, define lobbying.
19 correct?
20
So I'm I'm giving you a partial answer
20 A. Yes.
21 because I don't really know.
21 Q. And your member companies in the '70s
22 Q. The AIANA asbestos information
22 and '80s were companies that were manufacturers,
29 (Pages 110 to 113)
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 114
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 116
2 producers and sellers of asbestos products?
2 identify?
3 A. Correct.
3 (Document marked Exhibit Exhibit
4 Q. And in the '70s the AIA North America
4 12.)
5 didn't limit its membership to only manufacturers of 5 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
6 Chrysotile products correct?
6 Q. Exhibit 12 is a document that's been
7 A. Correct.
7 Bates stamped ICA Pigg 1 through 15. I'm going to
8 Q. Did AIA of North America ever limit
8 hand this to you Mr. Pigg. What is No. 12?
9 their membership only to manufacturers of Chrysotile 9
A. That's the bylaws of ICA.
10 products?
10 Q. And are those documents that you
11 A. No, because of course the amphiboles,
11 gathered in response to the subpoena to the ICA?
12 you know, Chris to light and Amosite their
12 A. Yes.
13 consumption steadily and Chrysotile as well because 13
Q. And those documents were created and
14 of litigation and insurance and as the consumption 14 kept in the normal course of business of the ICA?
15 went down and the last -- the last user of
15 A. Yes.
16 Chrysotile so far as I know would have been in the 16
Q. And those were produced in response to
17 AC pipe industry which terminated about 1991.
17 the subpoena?
18
Q. Move to strike as nonresponsive the last
18
A. Yes.
19 portions of that response.
19 Q. And you verify that Exhibit 12 is a true
20 For example, if a company made products 20 and accurate copy of the -- of the bylaws?
21 in New Jersey and the products happened to include 21
A. Yes.
22 Chris to light and they also make Chrysotile
22 Q. Okay. And what's the date of that --
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 115
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 117
2 products would the AIA North America accept them as 2 that one?
3 members because they make two different asbestos 3
A. December the 3rd, 2012.
4 containing products?
4 Q. Have you -- did you look -- thank you,
5 A. Yes.
5 sir.
6 Q. All right. And you do know that Union
6
Have you looked for bylaws or other
7 Carbide in New Jersey made both Chrysotile and Chris 7 organizational documents of ICA prior to December
8 to light products?
8 2012?
9 MR. COOK: Objection. Lacks 9 A. Have I looked?
10 foundation.
10 Q. Sure.
11
THE WITNESS: I did not know that.
11 A. I don't -- this this was made by -- I
12 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
12 forget the name. Byers Casbring -- Byers Casgrain
13 Q. Have you ever read the paper of Mary
13 law firm in Montreal. That's where all the bylaws
14 Jane teller on the people who died of mesothelioma 14 are kept.
15 from the Union Carbide facility? 16 A. No.
15 Q. Okay. And? 16 A. At the head office.
17 Q. Have you ever talked to Dennis
17 Q. Did you -- did you have to contact
18 Paustenbach about the Union Carbide employees with 18 somebody up in Montreal to get this one?
19 mesothelioma?
19 A. It was -- it was sent to me as the
20 A. No.
20 treasurer.
21 Q. Now let me do this. We're up to number. 21 Q. Okay. In response to the subpoena?
22 I think we're up to number 12. Let me have you
22 A. No.
30 (Pages 114 to 117)
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 118
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 120
2 Q. Oh, you had it in your possession
2 A. That's yes.
3 already?
3 Q. You got to say yes or no so?
4 A. Yes.
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. All right. My question is: This is
5 Q. Okay. Sorry about that and that's
6 December of 2012. This is updated.
6 specifically -- specifically in the the purposes --
7 Were there other bylaws that were 7 purposes of the bylaw right?
8 created back in the few years ago?
8 A. Yes.
9 A. Well, I'm sure -- sure there were, yes.
9 Q. And also it's to prevent the
10 I mean, just they were updated.
10 irresponsible use of Chrysotile?
11
Q. Well when you take a break your attorney 11
A. Yes.
12 is taking a phone call so you need to take a break 12
Q. Okay. And so, for example, preventing
13 for that?
13 Chrysotile from being used that would expose anybody
14 MR. ARTABANE: No.
14 to dusty fibers in the air. That's what ICA's one
15 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
15 of the purposes?
16 Q. Sorry you were saying there's other
16 A. Yeah.
17 there would be other documents?
17 MR. COOK: Objection. Vague and
18 A. I'm sure that the -- that was prepared. 18 ambiguous lacks foundation calls for expert
19 Her name is Susan Harris. Susan Harris.
19 testimony.
20 Q. And where is she located?
20 THE WITNESS: And we provide, you
21 A. In Montreal with the -- she's with the
21 know, information and the Chrysotile institute was
22 law firm of Byers Casgrain.
22 especially active in providing basic engineering
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 119
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 121
2 Q. Have you searched for any additional
2 controls, on the safe use of Chrysotile, a thick,
3 organizational documents other than these bylaws? 3 thick document and so answering your question is,
4 A. No.
4 yes to that's a part of the mission.
5 Q. Do you have any additional
5 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
6 organizational documents?
6 Q. Okay. Move to strike as nonresponsive.
7 A. No.
7 Sir, you're not here for the Chrysotile
8 Q. If you want to find out where other
8 institute correct?
9 organizational documents were, where would you -- 9
A. That's correct.
10 would you go to this lawyer?
10 Q. All right. So I'm talking about the
11 A. To the main office in Montreal, yes.
11 international Chrysotile association?
12 Q. And do you know what the address is on 12 A. Oh, okay.
13 that?
13 Q. One of its purposes is to try to prevent
14 A. 1 place villa Marie.
14 the irresponsible use of Chrysotile?
15 Q. Okay.
15 A. Correct.
16 A. I think we state. It's in the -- what
16 Q. And it would be the ICA's view that if
17 counsel provided you. We gave you the address. 17 Chrysotile was used and created dust visible dust
18 Q. And one of the purposes in the bylaws of 18 into the air that people could see that would be an
19 the ICA is to defend the Chrysotile industry from 19 irresponsible use of Chrysotile?
20 unwarranted attacks?
20 MR. COOK: Objection. Vague and
21 A. Uh-huh.
21 ambiguous. Incomplete hypothetical. Assumes facts.
22 Q. Correct?
22 Lacks foundation and calls for expert testimony.
31 (Pages 118 to 121)
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 122
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 124
2 THE WITNESS:
2 for that. I just don't know.
3 THE WITNESS: Well, you know, there 3 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
4 -- there may be episodic exposures where there's 4 Q. You can't share with the folks on the
5 dust but certainly the ICA through its members and 5 jury, for example, every year we spend $100,000 or
6 distribution of of literature encourages every
6 $200,000 or $10 to try to educate the public that if
7 member to follow permissible exposure limits and to 7 you get in a dusty environment with Chrysotile
8 keep -- keep the exposures low.
8 asbestos it's dangerous?
9 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
9 MR. COOK: Objection same
10 Q. Well let me ask you.
10 objection as before.
11
What is the budget the ICA budget for
11
THE WITNESS: I can't give you an
12 distribution of literature?
12 amount of money. I can say to you that there's been
13 A. We don't have it. There's no budget per 13 a lot of documents and publications distributed from
14 se for that.
14 the office in in Canada. Not -- not by me because
15 Q. Well you're the treasurer right?
15 I'm -- it's just me as the treasurer. But a lot of
16 A. Yes.
16 documents have been distributed from Canada
17 Q. How much money does the ICA spend each 17 promoting the safe use.
18 year to distribute?
18 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
19 A. Oh, most of the.
19 Q. Objection move to strike nonresponsive.
20 Q. Literature let me finish my question,
20
Have you brought with you today or
21 sir.
21 produced in response to the subpoena any documents
22 How much money does the ICA spend each 22 from the ICA regarding its publication safety as it
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 123
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 125
2 year to distribute literature on ensuring that
2 relates to asbestos?
3 there's not irresponsible use of Chrysotile
3 A. You mean have I.
4 asbestos?
4 MR. ARTABANE: Can you direct us
5 A. I can't give you an answer because much
5 to where that was required in your document request
6 of the literature was distributed from the office in
6 or subpoena?
7 Canada rather than from me.
7 MR. SATTERLEY: I will after
8 Q. But you're the treasurer aren't you?
8 lunch. Yeah sure.
9 A. Yes.
9 MR. ARTABANE: Okay. Because I
10 Q. Okay. Is there anybody else that's the
10 don't recall that it was there.
11 treasurer of the ICA other than you?
11 MR. SATTERLEY: Well it says a
12 A. No.
12 category 3.
13 Q. Okay. How much money does the ICA spend 13
Research shall refer to -- I'll do
14 each year to promote safety as it relates to
14 it now instead of after lunch.
15 Chrysotile asbestos?
15 Research shall refer to double any
16
MR. COOK: Objection. Vague and
16 article study or publication which addresses the
17 ambiguous.
17 health and safety issues related to Chrysotile
18
THE WITNESS: I can't give you an
18 asbestos.
19 exact amount. I know that there have been -- there 19
THE WITNESS: I've got a document.
20 have been technical seminars over the years where, 20 Excuse me just.
21 you know, people have spoken but I can't, you know, 21 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
22 I have no way of knowing an amount of money per se 22
Q. Sure. Do you want to go off the record
32 (Pages 122 to 125)
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 126
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 128
2 so you can or you --
2 Q. Okay. People that?
3 A. No.
3 A. Throughout the world.
4 Q. Okay.
4 Q. People that pay the dues?
5 A. I'll get the document for you.
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Sure.
6 Q. Like so if you're a member company?
7 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: You want to 7 A. You get this.
8 stay on video.
8 Q. You get a copy of this?
9 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
9 A. As many -- as many as you wanted.
10 Q. Sure. That would be fine.
10 Q. Okay.
11
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Going off video 11
A. For the -- for, you know, the plants and
12 at 11:59:25.
12 what not. This is on basic dust control and on safe
13
(Recess taken - 11:58 a.m.
13 use of Chrysotile.
14
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Back on record 14
Q. And so -- and I guess these went to the
15 at 12:39. 12 o'clock and 39 seconds.
15 management people in the company?
16 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Are we back on record?
17 Q. Okay. I mean, this wasn't sent out to
18
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are.
18 workers was it?
19 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
19 A. Well, it was with the idea that the
20 Q. All right. You've pulled from your
20 management of course would, you know, use it to
21 briefcase three different things and so the first
21 educate their workers.
22 one is a black book. On the back of it it's got ICA 22
Q. No, objection moves to strike
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 127
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 129
2 international Chrysotile association with a little
2 nonresponsive.
3 symbol above the I. Is that your also trademark?
3
Were these documents sent to workers?
4 A. Yes.
4 A. Not by address. They were sent to -- to
5 Q. And it's got Chrysotile institute with a
5 the companies or the national associations that were
6 triangle above it.
6 members who had companies within their association
7 A. Yes.
7 and they were sent in in volume as many as copies as
8 Q. What does this book represent? Is that
8 they wanted.
9 this thick book?
9 Q. And this is -- these are the Chrysotile
10 A. Well, it's just a compilation of
10 institute though correct?
11 studies.
11 A. That's correct.
12 Q. And is this compilation -- who put
12 Q. But you're saying these documents from
13 together this?
13 the Chrysotile institute was given to ICA and then
14 A. It was in Montreal. It was of the both
14 ICA would then give it to its member companies?
15 studies, you know, that were in the literature and
15 A. That's correct.
16 I'm sure some on the website.
16 Q. Okay. I'd like to mark these as the
17 Q. Okay. And then what else you got there?
17 next exhibits. Let's -- let me borrow the black
18 A. Well, now these are both from the
18 book.
19 Chrysotile institute. Now again I'm, you know, Mr.
19
MR. HARTLEY: That would be part
20 Godbout was the president of the institute and was
20 of it too.
21 chairman of ICA for, you know, at the the same --
21
MR. SATTERLEY: I'll mark that
22 same time and these were distributed to ICA members. 22 separately. So we're up to No. 13. Pigg 13.
33 (Pages 126 to 129)
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 130
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 132
2
(Document marked Exhibit 13.)
2
THE WITNESS: No, for the revisited
3 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
3 study only.
4 Q. This is the studies published on
4 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
5 Chrysotile and it has a Table of Contents in it
5 Q. And so my question is do you know --
6 correct?
6 have you researched how much money was paid for any
7 A. Correct.
7 of these other particular studies?
8 Q. And this was you said put together both
8 A. No.
9 in conjunction with both of these organizations?
9 Q. Okay.
10 A. Right. And it's put together in the
10 A. ICA didn't. I can testify that ICA paid
11 Montreal office.
11 -- did not pay anything.
12 Q. And is this used and sent out to
12 Q. Okay. But, for example, if the
13 customers or member companies?
13 Chrysotile institute paid him or Union Carbide paid
14 A. It has been or, you know, mainly the
14 him or the lawyers paid them?
15 office in Montreal. You know, they get requests,
15 A. I don't know.
16 you know, fairly frequently for information and
16 Q. You don't know.
17 anyone who asks and where this might be responsive, 17
Okay. Just a second.
18 they, you know, are provided with the document.
18
Do you -- because this publication
19 Q. And I see that Bernstein's name is on
19 Exhibit 13 ICA and Chrysotile institute are both on
20 several of these articles correct?
20 this, this was a joint effort?
21 A. Yeah, that's the Caldera study and the
21 A. Yes.
22 Brazil study.
22 Q. Okay. This is an effort to put these
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 131
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 133
2 Q. Well more than that.
2 publications together like this was jointly done?
3 A. And the biopersistence I think three of
3 A. Yes.
4 them.
4 MR. COOK: Objection. Vague.
5 Q. One, two, three. Let me. The first six
5 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
6 studies five of the first six his name is the lead
6 Q. And so would you agree there was --
7 author. Bernstein Bernstein Bernstein Bernstein
7 there was a relationship at least fairly close
8 Bernstein right?
8 relationship between the Chrysotile institute and
9 A. Okay.
9 the ICA?
10 Q. Do you know how much money overall was 10
MR. COOK: Objection. Vague and
11 spent by the Chrysotile various organizations to
11 ambiguous.
12 create these articles?
12 THE WITNESS: There was -- there
13 A. No. It was just the printing of them is
13 was -- I'll put it this way I wouldn't say there's
14 all.
14 any official relationship but certainly the purposes
15 Q. No, I'm talking about the money paid to 15 are similar.
16 these scientists?
16 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
17 A. Oh, none.
17 Q. And the relationship was close enough
18 Q. None.
18 though that the Chrysotile institute would share
19
So is your testimony under oath that
19 information with the ICA?
20 Bernstein didn't get money?
20 A. Yes.
21 MR. COOK: Objection. Outside the 21 Q. And would the Chrysotile institute
22 witness's personal knowledge.
22 charge?
34 (Pages 130 to 133)
Page 134
Page 136
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
2 A. No.
2 brochure like this regarding their Caldera asbestos?
3
Q. It would provide this information free? 3
A. Not to my knowledge.
4 A. Yes.
4 Q. In the 1980s did Union Carbide ever
5 Q. So Exhibit 14, for example?
5 provide the AIA of North America with brochures on
6
(Document marked Exhibit 14.)
6 the safe and responsible use of Caldera asbestos?
7 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
7 A. Not to my knowledge.
8 Q. Is a Chrysotile institute book or
8 Q. Exhibit 15 what is this?
9 pamphlet on the basics of the Chrysotile asbestos 9
(Document marked Exhibit 15.)
10 dust control that the Chrysotile institute would
10
THE WITNESS: Well, that's a
11 give to the ICA?
11 general manual on preventive and control measures
12 A. Yes.
12 which covers a variety of items within the industry
13 Q. Is Exhibit 14 a fair and accurate copy 13 about what regulations are in various countries.
14 of the -- of the safe and responsible use of
14 Dust control processes, fiber monitoring, personal
15 Chrysotile provided by the Chrysotile institute? 15 protective equipment, medical surveillance,
16 MR. COOK: Objection.
16 information and training but it's a, you know, a
17 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
17 manual for specifically to be used by members within
18 Q. That's what it says on it safe and?
18 the -- within the industry.
19
MR. COOK: I was looking at the
19 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
20 top the basis of Chrysotile.
20 Q. And this manual was this a manual that
21 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
21 was received and kept in the ordinary and normal
22 Q. Safe and responsible use does it not say 22 course of business of the ICA?
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 135
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 137
2 that, sir?
2 A. Well, yes, it was, I mean, we received
3 A. That's what it says.
3 it, you know, from the institute but, I mean, I
4 Q. And?
4 pulled it out of a few publications that I had
5 A. That's -- that's -- that is a policy
5 personally to bring with me to show you just an
6 that the institute as well as ICA to promote safe
6 example of what what has been done.
7 and responsible use.
7 Q. And so this was -- on the back it says
8 Q. Sure.
8 the Chrysotile institute correct?
9 A. It's kind of like a byline so to speak.
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And so this would be a fair and accurate 10 Q. And so you'd agree with me would you
11 copy of the Chrysotile institute safe and
11 not, sir, that this is a manual that was kept and
12 responsible use of Chrysotile asbestos?
12 maintained in the ordinary course of business?
13 A. But that's the primary purpose of it is
13 A. Yes.
14 advising companies etc. on the basics of dust
14 Q. Okay. And what this manual has is it
15 control as a part of the overall policy of promoting 15 has a detailed sections. It's got it sectioned off
16 safe and responsible use of Chrysotile.
16 by like chapters right?
17 Q. Sure. And this would be a true and
17 A. Yes.
18 accurate copy of the document that was created and 18
Q. Chapter 1 is Chrysotile asbestos and
19 sent to ICA correct?
19 health. And it goes through and it has various
20 A. Correct.
20 different handling about waste and about personal
21 Q. And in the 1970s did Union Carbide ever 21 protective?
22 provide the AIA with safe and responsible use
22 A. Yes.
35 (Pages 134 to 137)
Page 138
Page 140
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
2 Q. And monitoring and things of that
2 A. Yes.
3 nature?
3 Q. And do you remember who from the
4 A. Yes.
4 Montreal office?
5 Q. Okay. And I'm not going to go through 5 A. Or either that or the Chrysotile
6 all this obviously?
6 institute. I don't know which one.
7 A. Yeah.
7 Q. You don't which which?
8 Q. I just got it.
8 A. Which sent it to me.
9
But this type of information with this
9 Q. Okay. Because both -- both the
10 manual and the Table of Contents, actually Table of 10 Chrysotile institute and the ICA have offices in
11 Contents has 12 different -- 12 different sections 11 Montreal?
12 on it correct?
12 A. Right.
13 A. Correct.
13 Q. Their headquarters?
14 Q. This type of manual did Union Carbide 14 A. Right.
15 back in the '70s provide a manual like this for the 15
Q. They're both headquartered?
16 AIA of North America?
16 A. Yes, well the institute no longer as I
17 A. No.
17 say closed in March of 2012.
18
MR. COOK: Objection. Lacks
18 Q. But back in 2010 when this was written?
19 foundation assumes facts.
19 A. Yeah.
20 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
20 Q. They both existed in Montreal?
21 Q. What about in the 1980s?
21 A. Correct.
22 A. No.
22 Q. And were they nearby each other?
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 139
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 141
2 Q. 3
MR. COOK: Same objection.
2 A. Same uh-huh. 3 Q. Same building?
4 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
4 A. Same building.
5 Q. This next document is we'll mark this as 5 Q. Same officers?
6 we're up to 16?
6 A. Yes.
7
(Document marked Exhibit 16.)
7 Q. Same directors?
8
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Counsel we have 8
A. No.
9 about five more minutes.
9 Q. Okay. Who was different as far as the
10 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
10 directors are concerned between the ICA and the
11 Q. Okay. And up to 16 and what is this
11 Chrysotile institute?
12 document?
12 A. I don't know who the directors were of
13 A. Well, it was a document that I actually
13 the institute. As I say it was tripartite.
14 received from the Montreal office and I don't know 14 Government, labor, industry and. So I don't know --
15 who among the authors prepared it. I just know I 15 I don't know who -- who comprised their -- their
16 got it from the Montreal and it's about one of the
16 directors.
17 main things is the number -- the appendix is
17 Q. Well is it fair to say that this list
18 interesting in referring to several studies but who 18 was sent to you so that you could share with other
19 -- who -- which one of those authors did it and
19 folks about safety as it relates to Chrysotile
20 distributed it, I don't know.
20 asbestos?
21 Q. All right. You received this when you
21 A. I'd say yes. I mean, in case I've got
22 stay Montreal office you're talking about the ICA? 22 an inquiry but I didn't make any distribution of
36 (Pages 138 to 141)
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 142
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 144
2 that.
2 Q. Oh, you want to keep going?
3 Q. In the 1970s this -- this -- well let me
3 A. Let's keep going.
4 ask it this way.
4 Q. Well any time you need to take a break
5 This said on the safety in the use of
5 you just let me know okay?
6 Chrysotile asbestos?
6 A. Okay. Thank you.
7 A. Uh-huh.
7 Q. I don't want to deprive you of breaks
8 Q. It's dated November 2010 right?
8 that's for sure.
9 A. Right.
9 Exhibit 17?
10 Q. In the '70s did you ever receive any
10
(Document marked Exhibit 17.)
11 memorandums from Union Carbide dealing with safety 11 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
12 and the use of Caldera asbestos?
12 Q. This is Bates numbered ICA 16 through
13
MR. COOK: Objection. Assumes
13 107. Page 16 through 107.
14 facts not in evidence.
14 What is this, sir?
15 THE WITNESS: No, no.
15 A. Those are the records of payment
16 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
16 primarily to Dr. Bernstein and a few to Dr.
17 Q. No. And did you say you worked for -
17 Dunnigan. It's just the record of payment.
18 did you work for Mr. Mereness when he was there with 18
Q. And where where were those Exhibit 17
19 AIA?
19 where were those documents located? Where did you
20 A. Yes.
20 find those at?
21 Q. You were his assistant?
21 A. I had them at my home which is I operate
22 A. Yes.
22 from home. My home office.
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 143
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 145
2 Q. How long were you Mr. Mereness
2 Q. Sure. Did you have them in a file?
3 assistant?
3 A. Yes.
4 A. Four years.
4 Q. Okay. And was the file marked?
5 Q. What four years?
5 A. Yes.
6 A. '74 to '78, 1974 to 1978.
6 Q. In some way?
7 Q. And in the 1980s did you at the AIA of 7
What was what was it marked as?
8 North America receive any information from Union 8
A. Marked risk, risk assessment study.
9 Carbide on the safety as it relates to the use of 9 Q. Okay.
10 Caldera asbestos?
10 A. 2010.
11
MR. COOK: Same objection.
11 Q. All right.
12 THE WITNESS: No.
12 A. And each one for the were all in.
13 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
13 Q. Sure. And so these documents would it
14 Q. Okay. This -- this we'll probably come 14 comprise all the documents that you maintained
15 back to these things.
15 relating to this risk assessment study?
16
Any other anything else you got in your 16
A. Correct.
17 briefcase that's responsive to this subpoena?
17 Q. And this would be all records you have
18 A. No.
18 regarding the payments made for the risk assessment
19 Q. Okay. We're I want to mark these items 19 study?
20 before we take a lunch break. You want to take a 20
A. Yes.
21 lunch break don't you in a little bit?
21 Q. And as I read through these documents
22 A. No.
22 and many points in there they indicate the amounts
37 (Pages 142 to 145)
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 146
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 148
2 that are paid correct?
2 Q. Okay. So just -- that's what I was
3 A. Right.
3 wanting to go through.
4 Q. They were invoices were sent?
4 It looks like on July 8, 2010, 14319.60
5 A. Yes.
5 was paid to Bernstein correct?
6 Q. And payments?
6 Q. Identified as fees correct?
7 A. Yes.
7 A. Correct.
8 Q. Were made?
8 Q. Is this your handwriting?
9 A. Yes.
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Okay. At no part in Exhibit 17 is there 10 Q. Okay. Then on August 18, 2010
11 any reference to grant proposals correct?
11 additional fees were paid to Bernstein in the amount
12 A. Correct.
12 of $19,763.12 correct?
13
Q. At no part of Exhibit 17 is there any -- 13
A. Correct.
14 the word grant?
14 Q. And then the next month on September 14,
15 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Were under a 15 2010 additional fees were paid $11,799.91 to Mr.
16 minute.
16 Bernstein?
17
MR. SATTERLEY: Okay. Let me just 17
A. Correct.
18 finish this question.
18 Q. And then fees were paid on October the
19 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
19 12, 2010 to Mr. Bernstein $11,066.79 correct?
20 Q. The word grant appears nowhere in 20 A. Correct.
21 Exhibit 17?
21 Q. Then the last entry on this first page
22 A. Does not.
22 November 12, 2010 was it's got JD. Is that Jacques
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 147
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 149
2
MR. SATTERLEY: Okay. Let's
2 Dunnigan?
3 change the tapes.
3 A. That's correct.
4
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Okay going off 4
Q. And what else I can't read your
5 record tape 2 disk 2. 12:16:72.
5 handwriting there?
6
(Recess taken - 12:16 p.m.
6 A. Well, it's contacts. I think he had a
7 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Back on record. 7 business account or -- what's the word I'm looking
8 Tape disk No. 3 at 12:28:32.
8 for? An LLC or, you know, for business. It was
9 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
9 called contacts JD.
10 Q. So we were talking about Exhibit 17 and 10 Q. Oh, I see.
11 this is some of the financial payments made to Mr. 11
A. It was just his -- his business
12 Bernstein correct?
12 identifier.
13 A. Correct.
13 Q. Okay. I see and that's $33,850?
14 Q. And so, for example, on the first page 14 A. Correct.
15 Pigg 16 it's got number 16 at the bottom Bates
15 Q. And?
16 number?
16 A. For May through September.
17 A. Right.
17 Q. And what's that say? It just says fees?
18 Q. It's got various payments in 2010 to
18 A. Yes.
19 David Bernstein. Do you see that?
19 Q. F-e-e-s?
20 A. Yes.
20 A. That's fees.
21 Q. And it's?
21 Q. If we go to the second page there it's
22 A. Well, the last one is is to Dunnigan.
22 got actually a copy of the check?
38 (Pages 146 to 149)
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 150
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 152
2 A. Right.
2 Establishment of a preliminary budget.
3 Q. Dated November 12th and that's for
3
Do you see that?
4 contacts JD?
4 A. Yes.
5 A. Correct.
5 Q. Did you ever -- did he ever share that
6 Q. And that's your signature?
6 budget with you?
7 A. Correct.
7 A. No.
8
Q. We go to the next page Pigg 18 this is a 8
Q. Did anybody on behalf of the
9 letter dated September 30, 2010.
9 international Chrysotile association ask to see the
10
Is this a letter or is it an invoice?
10 budget?
11
A. Are you sure we're looking at the same? 11
A. No, not that I know of.
12 Q. Pigg 18. It's got 18 at the bottom.
12 Q. And then it says.
13 A. Yeah, okay.
13 Selection of possible coauthors.
14 Q. Is this an invoice?
14 Do you see that?
15
A. That's an invoice from -- from -- from 15
A. Yes.
16 Dunnigan.
16 Q. And once again did anybody at the
17 Q. And this?
17 international Chrysotile association receive
18 A. From Dr. Dunnigan yeah.
18 information about any possible coauthors?
19
Q. And he's the fellow up in Canada is that 19
A. Not that I'm aware of.
20 correct?
20 Q. It was -- was it the ICA's expectation
21 A. That's correct.
21 that Dunnigan and Bernstein would decide who else to
22 Q. It says for services rendered from May 22 include in the study?
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 151
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 153
2 to September 2010 on the need to revisit the health 2
A. I don't know exactly the answer to that
3 risk of Chrysotile?
3 but I assume that would be the case.
4 A. Yes.
4 Q. Okay. It says next with David excuse me
5 Q. All right. And then he describes what's 5 with D. Bernstein that's David Bernstein correct?
6 being done underneath there; correct?
6 A. Correct.
7 A. Yes.
7 Q. Discussions e-mails and telephone of the
8 Q. First he's got.
8 preliminary outline for the manuscript, writing a
9
Would see Godbout discussions planning
9 several six drafts, exchange of references,
10 for the preparation of a manuscript update and
10 comments, suggestions and corrections, follow-up
11 health risk of Chrysotile asbestos taking stock of
11 with comments from prospective coauthors.
12 the evidence published from the mid-'90s to the
12
Did I read that correctly?
13 present contrasting with the evidence available up 13
A. Yes.
14 to the mid-'90s.
14 Q. And once again you did not receive any
15 You see that?
15 of the e-mails back and forth regarding suggestions
16 A. Uh-huh.
16 or comments or corrections regarding this
17 Q. Is that?
17 manuscript?
18 MR. ARTABANE: Yes.
18 A. Absolutely no. No.
19 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
19 Q. And it says.
20 Q. Did I read that correctly?
20 The final draft will be presented
21 A. Yes.
21 hopefully in early 2010 to select coauthors for
22 Q. Okay. And he says.
22 comments and acceptance of coauthorship.
39 (Pages 150 to 153)
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 154
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 156
2 Do you see that?
2 Q. And?
3 A. Yes.
3 A. I don't know how they do that.
4 Q. So the way I interpret that is that
4 Q. Sure. And you told me already earlier
5 Bernstein and Dunnigan were going to prepare a final 5 and I understand you're not a technical person or a
6 draft on this Chrysotile health risk revisited;
6 scientist; correct?
7 correct?
7 A. Correct.
8 A. Correct.
8 Q. And you haven't read any -- any of these
9 Q. And they were going to take this final
9 papers with any great detail from a scientific
10 draft in early 2010 -- early 2010 and to select
10 perspective?
11 coauthors for comments and acceptance of
11 A. Absolutely not.
12 coauthorship?
12 Q. And you can't vouch for the scientific
13
MR. COOK: Objection. Assumes
13 validity of any of these papers?
14 facts.
14 A. No.
15 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
15 Q. And when I say any of these papers I'm
16 Q. Is that correct?
16 talking about the black book Exhibit 13?
17
MR. COOK: Objection. Assumes
17 A. Correct.
18 facts. Lacks foundation.
18 Q. All right. It's -- it's only the
19 THE WITNESS: Yes.
19 function of the ICA and I guess the Chrysotile
20 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
20 institute to share this information with others?
21 Q. That's what it looks like to you?
21 A. Correct.
22 A. Yes.
22 Q. But you can't vouch for the scientific
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 155
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 157
2 Q. Okay. And so and that is I guess what
2 reliability or credibility of any particular paper?
3 led me to the thoughts that possibly Bernstein and 3
A. No.
4 Dunnigan wrote the paper and then just shared the 4
Q. Okay. And you don't know whether Mr.
5 final paper to these other people.
5 Dunnigan or Mr. Bernstein simply chose to put
6 A. I -- I certainly don't know that that's
6 scientist names on a paper to enhance the scientific
7 the fact.
7 credibility of the paper?
8 Q. Okay. Well as you said earlier, it
8
MR. COOK: Objection. Assumes
9 would be wrong to give the public the impression
9 facts lacks foundation calls for speculation outside
10 that a whole bunch of people wrote this paper when 10 the scope.
11 only in fact two people wrote it?
11 THE WITNESS: I did not know the
12
MR. COOK: Objection. Assumes
12 basis for that.
13 facts. Lacks foundation. Calls for speculation.
13 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
14 Outside the witness's personal knowledge.
14 Q. But if they did that if Bernstein and
15 THE WITNESS: Yeah, I was going to 15 Dunnigan did that they just simply got other names
16 say I don't -- I don't know the answer to that. I
16 as coauthors to enhance the credibility with
17 think that -- I mean, if you probably referred to
17 actually not being involved in the preparation of
18 what I said correctly but I would think that whether 18 the paper that would be wrong?
19 or not this -- this is the standard approach by a
19
MR. COOK: Objection. Asked and
20 scientist in in preparing scientific papers. It may 20 answered same objections as previously stated.
21 or may not be. Since I'm not a scientist.
21
THE WITNESS: Oh, I can't prove it
22 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
22 but I don't believe that happened.
40 (Pages 154 to 157)
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 158
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 160
2 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
2 Q. Yes.
3 Q. Okay.
3 A. Possibly. On occasion but not on a --
4 A. I just don't think.
4 not on a regular basis, no because Bernstein's of
5 Q. Sure. We'd have to -- in order to
5 course were in Swiss francs which, you know, had
6 understand whether that type of shenanigans occurred 6 converted to US dollars and the other conversation
7 we'd have to get to talk to Bernstein or Dunnigan
7 with Dunnigan with the Canadian dollar rising and
8 about that?
8 the US dollar falling about to make sure that the
9 A. Yes.
9 payment, you know, was consistent with what he had
10 Q. Okay. But if it did happen it would be
10 charged but nothing -- I never had a discussion with
11 wrong?
11 either one of them regarding this study except
12
MR. COOK: Objection. Assumes
12 possibly about the amount of the payment to be made.
13 facts lacks foundation calls for speculation outside
13 Q. With regards to this particular invoice
14 the witness's personal judgment and calls for moral 14 when it refers to establishing contacts with other
15 judgment.
15 prospective coauthors worldwide, do you have any
16 MR. ARTABANE: Objection.
16 recollection of talking to these folks about this?
17
THE WITNESS: It would certainly
17 A. No.
18 not be proper.
18 Q.
19 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
19 A. Did not.
20 Q. Okay. So let's then the next part of
20 Q. On behalf of the international
21 No. 18 on September 30, 2010 says.
21 Chrysotile association why were you speaking the ICA
22 With prospective coauthors,
22 willing to pay $230,000 or what did you say francs
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 159
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 161
2 establishment of contacts with different prospective 2 Swiss francs was it 230,000 Swiss francs?
3 coauthors worldwide.
3 A. No no.
4 Do you see that?
4 Q. It was $230,000?
5 A. Yes.
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Do you know why that they wanted
6 Q. All right?
7 worldwide coauthors to look at this final draft?
7 A. US dollars.
8
MR. COOK: Objection. Calls for
8 Q. So why -- speaking on behalf of the ICA
9 speculation.
9 why was -- why was the ICA willing to spend $230,000
10
THE WITNESS: You mean as -- I
10 to recruit worldwide coauthors?
11 would assume that being something that the
11
MR. COOK: Objection. Misstates
12 international Chrysotile association was involved in 12 testimony.
13 and with the membership which is in a good part of 13
MR. ARTABANE: He never said that.
14 the world that they would -- they would want as wide 14 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
15 a base of coauthorship as possible. That's what I 15 Q. Was?
16 would assume.
16 A. I.
17 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
17 Q. Let me ask the question this way.
18 Q. Okay. And when you -- did you have --
18
Was the ICA willing to spend $230,000
19 when you received these invoices from these people, 19 just to Bernstein and Dunnigan or was it your
20 did you have conversations with them from time to 20 expectation or understanding that this $230,000
21 time?
21 would be spent and paid to some of these coauthors?
22 A. With Dunnigan or Bernstein?
22 MR. COOK: Objection. Calls for
41 (Pages 158 to 161)
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 162
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 164
2 speculation.
2 Q. And this is an e-mail that you've
3
THE WITNESS: I never -- I never
3 produced and what does this represent?
4 been a part of or heard any discussion about payment 4
A. Well, that's from Dunnigan at the top.
5 of coauthors.
5 Q. Uh-huh.
6 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
6 A.
7 Q. Well did the ICA -- you as the treasurer
7 Q. And is this relating to the the invoice
8 of the ICA or anybody on the board of the ICA
8 requesting 55,914 Swiss francs?
9 question any of the invoices submitted from
9 A. Of course I can't speak French so I
10 Bernstein or Dunnigan?
10 can't read French so I don't know.
11 A. No, and in fact the I know every --
11 It looks like some a total to date in
12 every invoice I paid I cleared with the chairman in
12 Swiss francs to.
13 Canada.
13 Q. So I guess I'm trying to understand the
14 Q. And when you say cleared with the
14 process?
15 chairman in Canada how did that process work?
15 A. Yeah.
16 A. Usually by phone.
16 Q. When you got a document like this would
17 Q. Call him up?
17 somebody translate it to you so you could understand
18 A. Call him up.
18 how much you were supposed to write a check or
19 Q. And say, hey, I got an invoice?
19 transfer?
20 A. Well, he got the -- he got the same
20 A. Yeah, because that's -- that's not --
21 invoice. If you -- as I said before every invoice
21 that's not an invoice per se. That's -- that is to
22 shows the Chrysotile institute and every invoice
22 the -- to the institute.
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 163
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 165
2 went to Canada to the office there as well as to me 2 Q. The Chrysotile institute?
3 but I never made any payment without the approval 3
A. Yes.
4 granted from the chairman in Canada.
4 Q. Okay.
5 Q. And who and who was that at the time?
5 A. So I've been -- it's more administrative
6 A. At the beginning it was Mr. Godbout.
6 in nature and it looks like -- it appears to me kind
7 Q. Uh-huh.
7 of a review of what the cost would be today but it's
8 A. And then at the last part last two years
8 not an invoice per se.
9 it was Mr. Leblond.
9 Q. Okay. And if if we looked at the
10 Q. At no point in time did the ICA turn
10 numbers it looks like there's 14,500, then 19,800
11 down any of the invoices or say, hey, you billed too 11 and 11,400 and 10,214. It looks like it's broken
12 much money or anything like that?
12 down per month is that correct?
13 A. No. No.
13 A. It looks for those June, July and
14 Q. Okay. Now the next document we go over 14 August.
15 to 19 this appears to be an e-mail?
15 Q. And September?
16
MR. ARTABANE: That's page 19.
16 A. And September yeah.
17 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
17 Q. That comes to 55?
18 Q. Page 19 Exhibit 17 and what I'm going to 18 A. Yeah.
19 be doing for the next series of questions is because 19
Q. 914 Swiss francs.
20 these have been stamped with numbers at the bottom 20
Okay. And then the next page over 20 is
21 referring to the numbers okay?
21 an e-mail from you to Bernstein confirming that
22 A. Okay.
22 there are going to be wire transferred monies to him
42 (Pages 162 to 165)
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 166
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 168
2 on October the 12th at 2010?
2 Q. Rajeem?
3 A. Right.
3 A. She works in the office in the
4 Q. At that time 21014 Swiss francs were 5 wire transferred to him?
4 institute. 5 Q. Up in Montreal?
6 A. Right.
6 A. Correct. . She did -- she did at that
7 Q. Right?
7 time.
8 A. Right.
8 Q. So Rajeem is sending -- sending on to
9 Q. That's the way you had to pay him
9 you?
10 because he's over in Switzerland?
10 A. For payment.
11 A. Correct.
11 Q. For payment?
12 Q. Then we go over to page 21 is that
12 A. Correct.
13 verification?
13 Q. So if I understood how this worked
14 A. Payment.
14 Bernstein would send it to the Chrysotile institute
15 Q. Verification of the wire transfer?
15 and Rajeem or some other person would send it down
16 A. Yes.
16 to you for payment?
17 Q. But it says 11,679?
17 A. And she always -- she would check with
18 A. Uh-huh.
18 Mr. Godbout before she did that.
19 Q. So I guess I'm trying to figure out why 19 Q. Okay. And Godbout at this time in 2010
20 is the amount different? Are there fees associated 20 was with the international Chrysotile association?
21 with that?
21 A. He was the chairman.
22 A. Well, it looks like it was 10,214 two
22 Q. And was he also with the Chrysotile
Page 167
Page 169
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
2 pages down of Swiss francs.
2 institute?
3 Q. Uh-huh. 4 A. So must have converted.
3 A. Yes. 4 Q. And what was his role with the
5 Q. Oh, the conversion?
5 Chrysotile?
6 A. Yeah.
6 A. President.
7 Q. To US dollars?
7 Q. President okay. So he had two hats?
8 A. Yeah.
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. That's what that is?
9 Q. Okay. Now this he -- Bernstein called
10 A. It would be more in US dollars.
10 this invoice for the honorarium and expenses?
11
Q. I see. I apologize. Thank you so much 11
A. Yes.
12 for clarifying that.
12 Q. Do you see that?
13
The next page is page 22 at the bottom. 13
A. Yes.
14 It looks like it's a letter from Bernstein to
14 Q. What is honorarium?
15 Clement?
15 A. Well, it means his -- his labor of the
16 A. Yeah.
16 day.
17 Q. Do you see that? 18 A. Yes.
17 Q. Okay. Just like -- like if you were a 18 plumber and you had to put so many hours into do and
19 Q. Then at the top it says Mr. B. Pigg? 19 fix some pipes and you submitted your invoice that
20 A. Yes.
20 would be?
21 Q. Does it say?
21 A. Your honorarium.
22 A. Rajeem.
22 Q. Your honorarium okay?
43 (Pages 166 to 169)
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 170
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 172
2 A. It's a fancy way of saying.
2 preparation of ICA executive board meeting in
3 Q. Fancy fancy way of saying your hourly
3 Zurich?
4 rate? Right?
4 A. Uh-huh.
5 A. Right. Exactly.
5 Q. Do you see that?
6 Q. Now as we continue on through here, as I 6 A. Yes.
7 read through these Bernstein never referred to his 7
Q. Did you attend the executive board
8 fees or payment of fees as a grant does he?
8 meeting?
9 A. No.
9 A. No.
10 Q. Okay. Let's continue on the next page 10 Q. Do you know who did?
11 23. Is the invoice another invoice. This one is
11 A. No, not off the top of my head I don't
12 dated September the 30th it says for services
12 know. Of course it would be a recorded in the.
13 rendered for September of 2010?
13 Q. Minutes?
14 A. Correct.
14 A. Of the minutes that were there and but I
15 Q. Do you see that?
15 don't know who. It would I'm sure it was -- 8
16 A. Yes.
16 September of 2010? It would have been -- it would
17 Q. And he describes once again what he's 17 have been Mr. Godbout as the chairman and the
18 doing for these services and in this one he's doing 18 executive probably six or eight people.
19 a revision of preparation of the fifth and sixth
19 Q. Who else by name if you know?
20 draft reports in coordination with Jacques Dunnigan 20
A. Well, it would be the vice chairman is
21 on the need to revisit the health risk assessment of 21 India.
22 Chrysotile asbestos?
22 Q. India. The person from India?
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 171
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 173
2 A. Uh-huh.
2 A. Yeah, he's the vice chairman.
3 Q. Right?
3 Q. But you don't remember his name?
4 A. Correct.
4 A. Shankar S-h-a-n-k-a-r.
5 Q. He also says revision of a letter
5 Q. Okay.
6 invitation to coauthors and follow-up have you seen 6
A. Shankar. Other people would have been
7 that?
7 Kozlov from Russia. He's the head of the Chrysotile
8 A. Yes.
8 association Russia. Mr. Rela R-e-l-a from Brazil
9 Q. Have you ever seen the letter invitation 9 would have been there. Omarov, Nurlan Omarov from
10 to the coauthors?
10 Kazakhstan and that would be the principal people
11 A. No.
11 that were there.
12 Q. Do you know how I could get a copy of 12 Q. So you would you suggest in order to get
13 that letter invitation to the coauthors?
13 this presentation that Bernstein did and the Zurich
14 A. Only way I know is from Bernstein.
14 meeting that I would have to either go to one of
15 Q. Okay. Or maybe from some of the
15 those people or Mr. Bernstein himself?
16 coauthors?
16 A. My feeling would be there is no, you
17 A. Well, true.
17 know, written presentation. It was probably just an
18 Q. If they -- if it actually went out?
18 oral presentation on the on whatever he presented.
19 A. And I don't know who -- whether it's the 19 I mean, it may have been related to the study. I'm
20 same coauthors in the final study or not. You know, 20 not sure, you know, what he did but my guess would
21 it would be -- I don't know who it would be.
21 be is there is no written presentation and would
22 Q. And then it says presentation of
22 have been using his slides or whatever.
44 (Pages 170 to 173)
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 174
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 176
2 Q. Okay. But you don't know because you
2 in Montreal correct?
3 weren't there?
3 A. Correct.
4 A. No, I wasn't there.
4 Q. And last year the Chrysotile institute
5 Q. Okay. So with regards to the money that 5 dissolved?
6 ICA paid to Bernstein, did anybody within the ICA 6 A. Yeah, and the year before Mr. Godbout
7 all these folks that you describe ever complain
7 had resigned as chairman and Mr. Leblond became the
8 about the cost, the amount of money that was going 8 chairman in 2011 and then they separated the
9 out to Bernstein?
9 offices.
10 A. I never heard, no.
10 Q. So when the Chrysotile institute
11 Q. Was there ever any limit to the amount 11 dissolved last year, where did all the documents or
12 of money that ICA would pay Bernstein for this
12 the corporate documents go?
13 Chrysotile revisited paper?
13 A. For the institute?
14
MR. COOK: Objection. Calls for
14 Q. Sure.
15 speculation.
15 A. I don't know.
16
THE WITNESS: My recollection is
16 Q. There wasn't a successor company?
17 that the chairman Mr. Godbout my best recollection 17 A. No.
18 is that he said that that we want to keep the
18 Q. Created?
19 amount, total amount somewhere around $200,000. 19
A. No.
20 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
20 Q. Who -- if you want to find out where
21 Q. So that was the limit?
21 those documents who would you contact?
22 A. Well, the limit wasn't cast in stone but
22 A. Mr. Godbout. He was the -- he was the
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 175
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 177
2 I did hear -- hear him mention that they and that
2 president.
3 was some time before the completion of the study. 3
Q. And you didn't -- you didn't run any of
4 Q. And we know now that it's about
4 the finances or treasurer of that organization?
5 $230,000. So it went over it went over?
5 A. No.
6 A. Yeah.
6 Q. So you don't know where their assets
7 Q. The tentative suggestion of a
7 went?
8 limitation?
8 A. No.
9 A. Right.
9 Q. Or the money distributed from that?
10 Q. Right?
10 A. No, because the payments were from -
11 A. True.
11 from the federal government and industry.
12 Q. Was there -- but there wasn't any
12 Q. All right. Let's keep going.
13 written down limits like, hey, this is all we're
13
We're going we're up to the next page
14 going to spend on this paper or anything like that? 14 24. What does this page represent?
15 A. No.
15 This looks like a business expense list
16 Q. Was there any other contracts with
16 from Bernstein?
17 Bernstein for this work?
17 A. Yeah, that's when he attended that
18 A. Not that I saw. Now not from me as the 18 meeting in Zurich we were talking about.
19 treasurer. Whether or not an initial one was made 19
Q. Okay. And these are just some of his
20 with the institute at the beginning, I don't know.
20 expenses?
21 Q. Now you said that Chrysotile institute
21 A. Yeah, that's an expense report.
22 and ICA was in the same building, the same location 22
Q. All right. We continue over to the next
45 (Pages 174 to 177)
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 178
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 180
2 page.
2 A. In 2010 it would have been Mr. Godbout.
3 A. That's his flight.
3 Q. The president of?
4 Q. That's his -- so he's providing you some 4 5 of the expenses over the next several pages right? 5
A. Yes. Q. All right. Let's keep?
6 A. Correct. That goes yeah and incidental 6 A. No the chairman.
7 expenses, taxes.
7 Q. Chairman?
8 Q. Over on page 28?
8 A. Of ICA.
9 A. Yes.
9 Q. All right. And then the next page it
10 Q. Pigg 28 this is in September of 2010.
10 looks like a fax cover sheet or transmission
11 The wire transfer of $11,400?
11 verification?
12 A. Right.
12 A. Oh, that's a verification of the fax.
13 Q. Or no Swiss francs Swiss francs. I'm
13 Q. Okay. So you faxed this?
14 sorry.
14 A. I faxed the cover the e-mail to him by
15 And then if we go over to the next page 15 fax.
16 this is your handwriting?
16 Q. Okay. And we can move a few pages
17 A. Yes.
17 forward to 32.
18 Q. David could not get this e-mail through 19 to you' ?
18 19
A. 32? Q. 32 and 33. It appears to be another
20 A. Uh-huh.
20 transfer. This is the wire transfer?
21 Q. And that's your -- that's your signature 21 A. Right.
22 Bob?
22 Q. Of monies right?
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 179
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 181
2 A. Yes.
2 A. Right.
3 Q. And then? 4 A. And I resent it then.
3 Q. And and then we go over to 34 and 4 Bernstein is once again sending a request for his
5 Q. Okay. Resent. Scanned it in and resent 5 fees and expenses to be paid; correct?
6 it in so he would see your handwriting or did you 6
A. Correct.
7 fax it to him?
7 Q. And if we go over to 35 he's got in the
8 A. No, I -- I don't think I faxed it.
8 re line or the invoice number he says "For services
9 Q. And your e-mail identifies the AIABJ 10 Pigg at AOL.com right?
9 rendered for August"; right? 10 A. Right.
11 A. Yeah, that's my e-mail address.
11 Q. And then once again this is ooh revision
12 Q. So you don't have a separate e-mail 12 of the preparation of third and fourth draft reports
13 address for the ICA?
13 in coordination with Mr. Dunnigan on the need to
14 A. No.
14 revisit the health risk of Chrysotile asbestos?
15 Q. You just use the AIA? 16 A. Right. I use the same one.
15 A. Correct. 16 Q. Okay. We continue forward on past some
17 Q. And then you carbon copy
17 wire transfers over to 37.
18 ICA@Chrysotile.com?
18 37 is a confirmation that your wire
19 A. Yeah.
19 transferring 19,800 Swiss francs to Bernstein;
20 Q. You see that?
20 correct?
21 A. That's the institute.
21 A. Correct.
22 Q. And who would receive that e-mail? 22 Q.
46 (Pages 178 to 181)
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 182
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 184
2 A. Which is for July.
2 A. France right.
3 Q. Okay. And so we go over to page 40 and 3 Q. On June the 3rd right?
4 it shows Mr. Bernstein describes his services as the 4
A. Right.
5 first revision of preparation of the second draft
5 Q. And what was Peto's involvement in this
6 reports and coordination with Mr. Dunnigan; correct? 6 paper?
7 A. Correct.
7 A. I have -- I have no idea what -- what
8 Q. And then once again attached thereto is 8 the purpose of the meeting was.
9 41 is the proof of the wire transfer; right?
9 Q. How much -- how much of this 14,500
10 A. Correct.
10 related to a payment of Bernstein simply meeting
11 Q. And we continue on a few pages over. We 11 with Peto?
12 have payments for June of 2010.
12 A. I don't know whether he broke it down or
13
And if we look at number 44 it's got
13 not. It's probably he's talking about his
14 your handwriting on it also. On July 8, 2010 you're 14 honorarium 2800 per day. But I don't know the
15 asking Clement -
15 answer to your question.
16 A. Uh-huh.
16 Q. Who from the ICA supervised this
17 Q. -- about or you're telling him that you
17 project?
18 wire transferred?
18 A. Mr. Godbout.
19 A. Yeah, because.
19 Q. Okay. And do you have any
20 Q. 14,000?
20 documentations regarding to the extent of his
21 A. I already received it from the office
21 supervision of this project?
22 from Rajeem.
22 A. None.
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 183
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 185
2 Q. Already received the invoice?
2 Q. The next page shows the expenses for him
3 A. The -- right in which for payment. As
3 to travel from Geneva to France Leon France correct?
4 you can see at the top.
4 A. Correct.
5 Q. So the monies that you would send out
5 Q. Do you know if Mr. God bee -- is it God
6 were they in an ICA account here in Washington, DC 6 bee?
7 area?
7 A. Godbout.
8 A. Yes.
8 Q. Godbout. Mr. Godbout had lawyers
9 Q. And the money that was used to create
9 involved with regards to the preparation of this
10 that account, did that come from member companies or 10 paper?
11 did that come from the Chrysotile institute?
11 A. No, he had no lawyers involved.
12 A. From member companies.
12 Q. Okay. Do you know that?
13 Q. Okay. Did -- did you ever ask that Dr.
13 A. Yes.
14 Julian Peto be a coauthor of this paper?
14 Q. So, for example?
15 A. I didn't ask anyone to be. I mean.
15 A. I mean, I.
16 Q. Look at 45. The description of services
16 Q. You weren't involved in any?
17 rendered by Bernstein for the period of June of
17 A. No.
18 2010.
18 Q. Private conversations that he had with
19 A. Uh-huh.
19 other people were you?
20 Q. Just had a meeting with Julian Peto?
20 A. No.
21 A. Right.
21 Q. Okay. I mean, your sole role in this
22 Q. Leon I guess it's France?
22 was paying the money correct?
47 (Pages 182 to 185)
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 186
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 188
2 A. Correct.
2 Q. Other than being told, you know,
3 Q. All right. And whether or not Bernstein
3 Bernstein and Dunnigan being told they had the green
4 met probably with lawyers that's something you don't 4 light to do the study, are you aware of any other
5 know?
5 documentation setting forth the scope of the study?
6 A. Well.
6 A. No, no.
7
MR. COOK: Objection. Assumes
7 Q. Hoping that everything goes well. It
8 facts lacks foundation.
8 seems appropriate that you start now to draw a list
9
THE WITNESS: Not for certain.
9 of scientists who could potentially work on this
10 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
10 very important project.
11 Q. Okay. All right. Continue on to 47. 11 Do you see that?
12 47 appears to be an e-mail -
12 A. Yes.
13 A. Uh-huh.
13 Q. After this April 2010 e-mail, were you
14 Q. -- from Bernstein to Dunnigan and then
14 ever provided a list of scientists to work on this
15 Dunnigan or somebody had forwarded it on to you 15 important project?
16 correct?
16 A. No.
17 A. Correct. Uh-huh.
17 Q. Continue over to 49. Looks like it's
18 Q. And is it Louise?
18 the same e-mail. Correct?
19 A. Yes, she's the.
19 A. The same one. Same one.
20 Q. Who? 21 A. Worked in the -- in the Montreal office.
20 Q. And then we go over to 50 and 50 looks 21 like another copy of the invoice for the August
22 Rajeem -- Louise and Rajeem both did. Worked for 22 2010?
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 187
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 189
2 Mr. Godbout.
2 A. Right.
3 Q. And he's reporting Bernstein is
3 Q. Then we go to 51. It's another copy of
4 reporting his in April of 2010 his presentations
4 invoice from July of 2010. Right?
5 that he's given over in Jakarte?
5 A. Correct.
6 A. Indonesia.
6 Q. And then another 52 is another copy of
7 Q. Yeah Indonesia correct?
7 the June invoice?
8 A. Correct.
8 A. Correct.
9 Q. And if we look at the bottom of 47 it
9 Q. And then 53 we come up to 2011 now?
10 looks like it's dated Thursday April 15, 2010 and 10
A. Correct.
11 it's to Bernstein and Dunnigan from if we flip over 11
Q. So we go to the next year; right?
12 to the next page 48 Godbout. Do you see that? 12
A. Correct.
13 A. Yes.
13 Q. And then it sort of has a -- this is
14 Q. And it says.
14 your handwriting again?
15
This will confirm that you have the
15 A. Yes.
16 green light for the above referenced study. After 16
Q. And it sets forth the various amounts
17 review and discussion the action plan that you
17 paid to Mr. Bernstein for his fees?
18 submitted was accepted.
18 A. Correct.
19 Do you see that?
19 Q. And April 1, 2011 your handwriting says.
20 A. Yes.
20 Pub of article.
21 Q. Have you ever seen the action plan? 21
You see that?
22 A. No.
22 A. Yes.
48 (Pages 186 to 189)
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 190
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 192
2 Q. And that's for $1,665? 3 A. Yes.
2 A. Yes. 3 Q. In Dubai?
4 Q. And then on June 8th, 10,778.05 for 5 services?
4 A. Right. 5 Q. Okay. So anyway so they attached the
6 A. Yes.
6 invoice. He attached an invoice for his work in
7 Q. And then on August 16, 2011, 15,412.92? 7 October. October, November of 2011?
8 A. Correct.
8 A. Right. Correct.
9 Q. And then on September 9, 2011,
9 Q. And the invoice included preparation of
10 10,479.04?
10 his slide presentation for the ICA meeting. Do you
11 A. Correct.
11 see that?
12 Q. And then going into January for work
12 A. Yes.
13 that was done in December for services by Mr.
13 Q. So it would indicate at this time at the
14 Bernstein was $6,423.33?
14 ICA meeting he did some type of slide show?
15 A. Correct.
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And then as we go through the next 17 several pages it will be invoices for those 2011
16 Q. Okay. And do you have a copy of that? 17 A. No.
18 work?
18 Q. And do you know where I can get it?
19 A. Uh-huh.
19 A. Only from him because I'm sure there was
20 Q. Right?
20 no -- no copies of it but and I don't know what, you
21 A. Right.
21 know, what he addressed at the -- at the meeting.
22 Q. And I'm going to try to quickly go
22 Q. So and then he also talks about his --
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 191
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 193
2 through some of these?
2 the invoice reflecting work for participation in the
3 A. Okay.
3 meeting on November 28th through December 1st, 2011?
4 Q. Page 55 just talks about revisions of
4 A. Yes, correct.
5 the -- of the manuscript correct?
5 Q. No coauthors names are identified on
6 A. Right.
6 this invoice correct?
7 Q. And that's December of 2011 right? 8 A. Correct.
7 A. Correct. 8 Q. And this is the 14,496.35 Swiss francs
9 Q. And no coauthors are identified there?
9 right?
10 A. Correct.
10 A. Correct.
11 Q. We go over to 56 it's a letter enclosing 11 Q. Continuing over looks like you wire
12 the invoice to Jean-Marc saying.
12 transferred money on September 9, 2011?
13
It was a pleasure seeing you again and
13 A. Yes.
14 working with you at the ICA in Dubai?
14 Q. That's your handwriting there?
15 A. Correct.
15 A. That is.
16
Q. And that was the one you attended right? 16
Q. And we continue over on 59 it's -- it
17 A. 2011? Wait a minute. Let me verify the 17 says some services rendered in August 2011 right?
18 date because -- no. I -- I attended in 2010.
18 A. Correct.
19 Q. In Dubai?
19 Q. And it looks like some further revision
20 A. In Dubai.
20 of text and addressing additional suggested by JD?
21 Q. Okay. So they had two years in a row, 21 A. That would be Dr. Dunnigan.
22 2010 and 2011?
22 Q. Dunnigan made a suggestion?
49 (Pages 190 to 193)
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 194
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 196
2 A. Yes.
2 this paper was published in?
3
Q. And so Dr. Bernstein -- by the way he's 3
A. Published in, no.
4 a Ph.D. right?
4 Q. I mean, the paper was published in
5 A. Dunnigan?
5 critical reviews in toxicology right?
6 Q. No Bernstein?
6 A. Correct.
7 A. Bernstein yes.
7 Q. So was this paper submit to the journal
8
Q. But he's not a medical doctor as far as
8 particle and fiber toxicology sometime in the summer
9 you know?
9 of 2011?
10 A. No, he's not.
10 A. I don't know the answer to that.
11 Q. Okay.
11 Q. Okay. So if this paper was submitted
12 A. He's a toxicologist.
12 multiple papers and rejected, you just don't know
13 Q. A Ph.D. toxicologist?
13 one way or the other?
14 A. Yes.
14 A. I don't know.
15 Q. That Bernstein would put on his -- his 15 Q. Okay. And it says revision of the text
16 services rendered at least his invoice when
16 to address comments from reviewer statements;
17 revisions to text was made right? Said revision of 17 correct?
18 text and addressing additional suggestions -
18 A. Yes.
19 suggested by JD right?
19 Q. And you have not been provided any of
20 A. I'm not sure I understand your question. 20 the commentaries of the reviewer from the journal -
21 Q. He put on his invoice that revisions
21 the journal called journal particle and fiber
22 were suggested by Dunnigan?
22 toxicology?
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 195
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 197
2 A. Oh, yes yes yeah.
2 A. I do not.
3 Q. Okay. But no other authors are
3 Q. Okay. Let's continue on. The next -
4 identified on this?
4 the next page indicates that you wire transferred
5 A. No, no.
5 the money. 30,167.45 Swiss francs?
6
Q. Okay. Now continuing over to the next
6
A. Correct.
7 page it looks like you wire transferred some money 7
Q. And he has it in the services rendered
8 on August 16, 2011?
8 list in addition to that journal particle and fiber
9 A. Correct.
9 toxicology?
10 Q. About 15,000 US dollars?
10 A. Yeah.
11 A. Correct.
11 Q. He also has some information regarding
12 Q. All right. And then we continue on. On 12 conference calls. Do you see that?
13 61 the July 2011?
13 A. Yes.
14 A. Yes.
14 Q. And this there's a meeting, conference
15 Q. There is payment for review of
15 call in preparation for a meeting. Where was that
16 reviewer's comments from the journal particle and 16 meeting located?
17 fiber toxicology. Do you see that?
17 A. Kuala Lumpur.
18 A. Yes.
18 Q. Where is that at?
19 Q. Do you know what the journal particle 19 A. Malaysia.
20 and fiber toxicology is?
20 Q. Okay. And did you attend that meeting?
21 A. I do not.
21 A. No.
22 Q. That wasn't the name of the journal that 22 Q. Do you know why that meeting occurred?
50 (Pages 194 to 197)
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 198
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 200
2 A. If -- I think it was -- it was a public
2 been funded by people that wanted to sell and make
3 forum that was scheduled by the government of
3 money off Chrysotile?
4 Malaysia so he would be making along with other
4
MR. COOK: Objection. Vague and
5 people that I have no idea the total number of
5 ambiguous lacks foundation.
6 people but it was a public forum that was scheduled 6
THE WITNESS: I wasn't at the
7 in Kuala Lumpur where they were having papers
7 meeting but I would think he did not.
8 presented on Chrysotile.
8 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
9 Q. And was he -- do you know whether he
9 Q. Okay. Have you ever been in a situation
10 presented on Chrysotile the Chrysotile revisited in
10 where Bernstein stood up and publicly said, let me
11 June of 2011?
11 tell you folks I've been working and been paid for
12 A. I don't know the answer to that but I
12 my time and my efforts and my energy by
13 wouldn't think so because at that point I think he
13 organizations and companies that want to sell
14 was primarily making presentations on his
14 Chrysotile asbestos?
15 biopersistence study that is included in the
15
MR. COOK: Objection. Assumes
16 document there.
16 facts lacks foundation misleading.
17 Q. Did ICA have a like a blank check that
17
THE WITNESS: Not that I'm aware
18 gives Bernstein payments for any time he went out to 18 of.
19 promote Chrysotile?
19 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
20
MR. COOK: Objection. Vague and
20 Q. I mean, in the 2006 conference that you
21 ambiguous.
21 guys had was that up in Canada?
22 THE WITNESS: No.
22 A. Montreal.
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 199
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 201
2 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
2 Q. Montreal.
3 Q. I mean?
3 Did any of the speakers that presented
4 A. No.
4 on their views on Chrysotile disclose the amounts of
5 Q. So the reason why?
5 monies they've been paid to address the Chrysotile
6 A. No, we would have asked him to go.
6 health issue?
7
Q. Oh, okay. You would have said, hey, go
7
MR. COOK: Objection.
8 out. There's this this meeting in Malaysia it's
8
THE WITNESS: No.
9 going to be discussing Chrysotile would you go there 9
MR. COOK: Lacks foundation calls
10 and speak on our behalf?
10 for speculation.
11 A. Right.
11 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
12 Q. And make a presentation about the safe 12 Q. Let's continue on.
13 use of Chrysotile?
13 The next one we're up to 63 talks about
14 A. We normally wouldn't we wouldn't ask
14 payment. That's an e-mail from you to Bernstein
15 him. We'd just say this is a study, a public forum 15 sending verifying payment of 8700 Swiss francs wire
16 and depending on what the topic, you know, the
16 transfer to his bank?
17 primary subject that they had but he -- he would be 17
A. Uh-huh.
18 left to make his own presentation.
18 Q. Is that correct?
19 Q. Did in any of his presentations that he
19 A. Correct.
20 spoke in any of these places, did he tell the
20 Q. Okay. And then we've got the next page
21 various people that were listening to his
21 is the verification -- actually the actual wire
22 presentation the fact that his work and research had 22 transfer?
51 (Pages 198 to 201)
Page 202
Page 204
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
2 A. Correct.
2 A. I do not.
3 Q. Over on 66 Rajeem is that right?
3 Q. And it says critical review of 12 --
4 A. Rajeem.
4 excuse me -- 4 out of 12 references?
5 Q. Rajeem is sending you the invoice the
5 A. I don't know. I assume it's about some
6 next invoice from Bernstein and a courtesy copy was 6 scientific papers.
7 given to God -- Godbout?
7 Q. Sure. So if this reviewer gave 12
8 A. Correct.
8 references to Mr. Bernstein to review, it's not
9 Q. So if we go over to 68 it's an invoice
9 something you've ever seen?
10 for his work on April and May of 2011?
10 A. Never seen.
11 A. Correct.
11 Q. Okay. Keep going. Next -- next would
12 Q. And it's -- he describes the work that
12 just be an indication that you paid that invoice?
13 he's done is a research in preparation of summary of 13
A. Correct.
14 the origin of 100,000 deaths per year statement. Do 14
Q. Total of $10,770.65?
15 you see that?
15 A. Correct.
16 A. Correct.
16 Q. The next -- next page 79. Is that the
17 Q. And is that -- does that appear in the
17 same page?
18 Chrysotile revisited paper?
18 A. That's the same page as the top one.
19 A. I haven't read it completely myself. I
19 Q. Same as 16 right?
20 don't -- my guess would be probably not because that 20
A. Same as 16.
21 refers to statements that are made by staff people 21
Q. Okay. And then we go over to 80 and
22 from the WHO. World Health Organization.
22 this is an e-mail from you to Bernstein regarding a
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 203
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 205
2 Estimating about a hundred thousand deaths occur 2 wire transfer of a grand total of 33,566.30 Swiss
3 each year.
3 francs?
4 Q. From asbestos?
4 A. Uh-huh.
5 A. From asbestos.
5 Q. Right?
6 Q. Sure.
6 A. Right.
7 A. But there's -- there's -- I mean,
7 Q. You've broken it down because you say
8 certainly there's not unanimous agreement with that 8 that 32,000 relate to recent work and services in
9 -- with those assertions. So that's what that
9 Thailand?
10 refers to.
10 A. Right.
11 Q. He says next. He describes once again. 11 Q. What type of work was he doing in
12 Review of the reviewers comments from 12 Thailand?
13 journal particle and fiber toxicology.
13 A. I think there was some kind of a -- I
14 Once again you don't have any knowledge 14 don't know whether it's a public meeting or what by
15 about that journal?
15 the government. Kind of a seminar in Bangkok that
16 A. I do not.
16 he would have gone to like to make a presentation.
17 Q. And he says research and retrieval of
17 Q. So we'll get to it. We'll see an
18 cited references from reviewer statement.
18 invoice later on in this?
19 Do you see that?
19 A. Yeah, right.
20 A. Yes.
20 Q. Okay. Let's keep going then.
21 Q. You don't know anything about that
21
The next is 81. It looks like the -- by
22 either?
22 the way I noticed that the letterhead says
52 (Pages 202 to 205)
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 206
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 208
2 international Chrysotile association ICA and it's?
2 association right?
3 A. (Laugh).
3 A. Correct.
4 Q. Sort of Xed out the asbestos
4 Q. Okay. All right. Let's keep going.
5 international association?
5 Oh, I didn't go through the numbers real
6 A. Yeah.
6 quick. Let's just if you could verify in 2012 it
7 Q. Financial status?
7 looks like, 6,423.33 was paid for services to David
8 A. Right.
8 Bernstein?
9 Q. I mean, why is that?
9 A. Correct.
10 A. Simply because it was old in my files.
10 Q. On February 15th 6,675.68 were paid for
11 I don't have a secondary. It was these blank forms 11 services to David Bernstein?
12 were in the file folder and I just simply ran it
12 A. Correct.
13 through the typewriter and made the change.
13 Q. On April 3rd, 2012, 18,390 were paid to
14 Q. But I assume you must have been the
14 services to David Bernstein?
15 secondary -- the treasurer -- excuse me -- you must 15
A. Correct.
16 have been the treasurer of the AIA?
16 Q. On July 10th 10,630 were paid for
17 A. Correct.
17 services to David Bernstein?
18 Q. That's why you had the sheets?
18 A. Correct.
19
A. Yeah, I was the treasurer from '90 -- of
19
Q. On July 16th 1,708.87 was paid for
20 AIA from '97 to 2005 when the change was made to 20 Dunnigan?
21 ICA.
21 A. To Dr. Dunnigan.
22 Q. All the records the financial records
22 Q. Yeah. And then November 27, 2012,
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 207
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 209
2 and payments that occurred while you were treasurer 2 20,000 dollars was paid to David Bernstein?
3 of the AIA. Do you still maintain those?
3 A. Correct.
4 A. Yes.
4 Q. And then on December 24th the day before
5
MR. COOK: Objection. Misstates
5 Christmas $3,970.40 were paid to David Bernstein?
6 prior testimony. I can tell you why.
6 A. Correct.
7 MR. SATTERLEY: What is it
7 Q. And that's for open access expense?
8 treasurer or secretary.
8 A. Yeah. That has to do with the
9
MR. COOK: You asked AIA. It
9 publication of the -- of the study.
10 should be AIA of the NA.
10 Q. Okay.
11
MR. SATTERLEY: No no no no no
11 A. About critical review.
12 you're wrong. You're wrong.
12 Q. So open access is where the paper could
13 MR. COOK: Okay.
13 be opened to everybody and be more readily available
14 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
14 for scientists to look at?
15 Q. This says on the sheet it says asbestos
15 A. That's my understanding yes.
16 international association right?
16 Q. And so if you pay that extra 3,000 some
17 A. Correct.
17 odd dollars it would allow the paper to potentially
18 Q. Okay. You were the treasurer of the AIA
18 be cited more in the scientific literature?
19 asbestos international association?
19 A. That's my understanding.
20 A. From 1997 to 2005 when the name changed. 20 Q. Let's keep going. 82 is an e-mail from
21 Q. And you still have possession of the
21 you to Bernstein talking about wire transfer of the
22 financial records for the AIA international
22 $33,000?
53 (Pages 206 to 209)
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 210
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 212
2 A. Yes.
2 Q. 20,000 for October and November?
3 Q. And this is for a conference. Where is
3 A. Yeah.
4 this conference? In Geneva?
4 Q. 10,000 for each month?
5 A. Which one are you on?
5 A. Yeah, and now let's for the Kiev -- well
6 Q. I'm sorry. 82.
6 I'm not sure.
7 A. 82. Yeah. Yeah, that was for Kiev 7 I'm not -- I'm not exactly sure where
8 Ukraine.
8 that is without going to the original files.
9 Q. In Russia?
9 Q. Uh-huh.
10 A. No Ukraine.
10 A. It's the best I can do at the moment.
11 Q. Oh, Ukraine?
11 Q. Well why don't we do it this way when
12 A. There was scientific conference that was 12 you go back to the original files and you locate any
13 sponsored by the various the government of Ukraine 13 additional documents relayed to that?
14 and Russia.
14 A. Yeah.
15 Q. So here's where I'm confused.
15 Q. Provide it to your lawyer?
16
It shows November 27th services of
16 A. Yeah.
17 $20,000. That's on the spreadsheet before?
17 Q. And he can send it over the on me okay?
18 A. 11/27.
18 A. What this is the.
19 Q. Okay? On page 81 $20,000 right? If we 19 Q. Pigg 82. 81, 82.
20 go over to that very next page it shows 20,000 for 20
A. Now you want this back right?
21 services rendered but then it's got another
21 Q. Well this is marked as an exhibit to
22 13,636.04. Why isn't that amount on the
22 this deposition?
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 211
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 213
2 spreadsheet?
2 A. Yeah, I know.
3 A. (Reviewing document).
3 Q. So but I guess what I'm requesting if
4 4 you when you go to your original files if you find
5
Now off the top of my head I don't know
5 any additional documents?
6 without going back to the original files.
6 A. Yeah, yeah.
7 Q. Okay. Well as I look through here I
7 Q. Relating to this these conference fees
8 didn't see an invoice for that 13,636.04 for this
8 or invoices just send it to your lawyer and he'll
9 conference to the Ukraine.
9 look at them and decide whether he wants to send
10 A. It doesn't appear on the 2012.
10 them to me.
11 Q. Hang on one second. Hang on one second. 11 A. Because I'm confident that there's an
12 Somebody is on the phone and we're hearing some 12 explanation for it. It probably didn't get included
13 feedback or some noise. Maybe you could put your 13 in here.
14 phone on mute.
14 Q. I'm not accusing you of being a bad
15
MR. SATTERLEY: Thank you.
15 treasurer. (Laugh).
16
THE WITNESS: Now I see -- now a
16 A. All I'm saying is because I kept, you
17 part of that if you look on the -- on the -- okay.
17 know, these were -- there were two -- two actually
18 That sheet next to the bottom 1127, that must be -- 18 set of files for these.
19 I assume that's the 20,000 for October and November. 19
Q. Right.
20 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
20 A. So one was just for the study and the
21 Q. Yep.
21 other was, you know, any other expenses. Anyway
22 A. See.
22 it's 112712 I'll check it.
54 (Pages 210 to 213)
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 214
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 216
2 Q. And then the other file, other expenses 2 Q. And he's got revisions of the manuscript
3 did you produce that to your attorney?
3 on in November of of 2012 correct?
4 A. No. I'm talking about other expenses
4 A. Correct.
5 not -- not -- nothing to do with this study.
5 Q. And nowhere in November of 2012 is there
6 Q. Oh, I see what you're saying?
6 any reference to any coauthors?
7 A. No, so it's.
7 A. No.
8 Q. Okay. Let's keep going?
8 Q. All right. And in October of 2012 it
9 A. So it's 33636.04. Okay. Go ahead.
9 looks like he spent another three and a half --
10 Q. Just to close out that question when you 10 approximately three and a half days?
11 said there's another file relating to other expenses 11
A. Yes.
12 not related to the study are you talking about other 12
Q. Reviewing the manuscript?
13 expenses for, for example, like maybe payments for 13
A. Correct.
14 Mr. Bernstein?
14 Q. And no reference to any coauthors right?
15 A. Travel.
15 A. Correct.
16 Q. Travel expenses?
16 Q. Or discussions with any coauthors or
17 A. Yeah, right. Exactly.
17 anything like that? Correct?
18 Q. Conference expenses. So there may be 18 A. Correct.
19 additional monies paid to Bernstein that's reflected 19
Q. Then we got 85 appears to be an e-mail
20 in some other file?
20 from you to now bell.net. Who is bell?
21 A. Probably not to Bernstein because all of 21 A. That's Godbout.
22 his work has been.
22 Q. Oh, Godbout that's his e-mail?
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 215
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 217
2 Q. Related to the study? 3 A. Yeah.
2 A. Yeah. 3 Q. All right. And then explore net is
4 Q. Related to the study?
4 Jean-Marc Leblond?
5 A. Basically yes.
5 A. Yes, that's it.
6 Q. Okay. All right let's?
6 Q. And you're telling these two folks?
7 A. I'm talking about the general expenses 7 A. Expense so far.
8 for the -- for the association.
8 Q. Expenses right?
9 Q. Let's keep going.
9 A. Correct.
10
So last November let's see we're at 83 10
Q. And it's at that point in time in
11 the fee for Bernstein he's got it broken down to 11 November of 2012 it was 179,307.51?
12 2800 Swiss francs per day?
12 A. Uh-huh. Correct.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. So in order to get? 15 A. Which one are you on.
13 Q. Okay. Coming forward on 86 you've got 14 e-mails from August of 2012 relating to this Roger
15 McClellan do you see that?
16 Q. 83. November just this past November? 16 A. Yes.
17 A. Okay.
17 Q. Do you know who Roger McClellan is?
18 Q. In order to get 10,000 Swiss francs? 18 A. That didn't ring a bell. Until I saw
19 That would be about three and a half days.
19 your letter the same one I was addressee on.
20 A. Yeah.
20 Q. Sure.
21 Q. Of work?
21 A. I didn't know he was the editor.
22 A. Right. Uh-huh.
22 Q. And it appears that this is an e-mail
55 (Pages 214 to 217)
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 218
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 220
2 from Roger McClellan to David Bernstein talking
2 facts lacks foundation.
3 about his or the manuscript is in the hands of
3
THE WITNESS: Not that I'm aware
4 competent reviewers. Do you see that?
4 of.
5 A. Yes.
5 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
6 Q. And do you know who the -- I guess you 6 Q. Did -- is that the in the same one?
7 don't know who the competent reviewers are?
7
MR. HARTLEY: That's your copy you
8 A. No, I do not.
8 gave him the other copy.
9
Q. Okay. And and were you made aware of
9 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
10 that Roger McClellan has served as an expert witness 10
Q. Let's see if we can go back to Exhibit
11 for Union Carbide in the past?
11 19. Show you well first of all do you see Union
12 A. No.
12 Carbide has identified David Bernstein?
13 Q. For example, let me show you these
13 A. Uh-huh.
14 Answers to Interrogatories that Union Carbide swore 14
Q. I'm sorry about that.
15 under oath on in 2012 in Florida and it says right
15
Oh, here we go.
16 here.
16 MR. COOK: Could you just identify
17
Do you have a copy he's got a copy for
17 the date of the Answers to Interrogatories for me.
18 you and we'll mark this as an exhibit. We're up to 18
MR. SATTERLEY: Yes May 9, 2012.
19 -- I think we're up to 18.
19 MR. COOK: Thank you.
20 MR. ARTABANE: It's 19.
20 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
21 MR. SATTERLEY: 19 okay. 21 Q. A little bit over a year ago prior to
22
(Document marked Exhibit 19.)
22 the review of this Roger McClellan fellow?
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 219
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 221
2 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
2 MR. HARTLEY: Just to clarify
3 Q. 19. Exhibit 19. On this page right
3 though as you'll see in the exhibit actually and I
4 here they've told us that they've paid this man
4 just don't want to if Mr. Satterley knew the answers
5 McClellan to serve as an expert witness I think
5 that he's reading from are from the Nicolella case
6 they've got it's right -- oh, it's the next page.
6 which were attached to the answers in the Legault
7 Oh, sorry about that it's the next page right here 7 case which was from 2012. Nicolella was from 2007.
8 Roger McClellan?
8 MR. SATTERLEY: Okay.
9 A. Yeah.
9 MR. HARTLEY: But they were
10 Q. $35,792.55.
10 incorporated according to the answers.
11 A. Hmm.
11 MR. SATTERLEY: Sure.
12 Q. Did you know that?
12 MR. HARTLEY: Just so it's clear.
13 A. Did not know that.
13 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
14 Q.
14 Q. Just so that everybody is on the same
15 MR. COOK: Objection. Relevance. 15 page in 2012 Union Carbide answers Interrogatories
16 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
16 and attached some previous answers from 2007 and
17 Q. Did you was it did Bernstein or Dunnigan 17 they?
18 share with the international Chrysotile association 18
A. What -- what -- I'm not.
19 whether they had friends in or friendly people with 19
Q. Bernstein is right here?
20 particular journals they were going to submit this 20
A. Right here. Is that where you're
21 paper to?
21 reading from.
22
MR. COOK: Objection. Assumes
22 Q. Yeah Bernstein right there?
56 (Pages 218 to 221)
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 222
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 224
2 A. Yeah.
2 companies that paid for this paper publicly
3 Q. It says in 2003 and 2005 respectively
3 disclosed it that would be one way right?
4 Dr. Bernstein and others published two studies
4 A. Yes.
5 concerning the biopersistence of Caldera Chrysotile 5
Q. Okay. And but nowhere just from reading
6 asbestos. Do you see it?
6 the papers themselves it is not readily available
7 A. Yes.
7 who paid for any paper or how much they might have
8 Q. And we talked about that earlier?
8 paid?
9 A. Yes, right.
9 A. Well.
10 Q. You're familiar with that right?
10
MR. COOK: Objection.
11 A. It's in the -- in the book.
11 Argumentative non-relevance.
12 Q. In the black book.
12 THE WITNESS: Well I think I think
13
These studies is disclosed in the paper
13 the Caldera Union Carbide says this was by a grant
14 response by Union Carbide.
14 from Union Carbide. At the bottom.
15 You knew that right?
15 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
16 A. Yes.
16 Q. Sure?
17 Q. The total amount paid to support the
17 A. Of page 1.
18 studies were 400,623.20 would include all costs 18 Q. Sure. Yeah yeah and if you go right
19 associated with the studies.
19 back up here it says in their Answers to
20 Do you see that?
20 Interrogatories who paid for it. It says.
21 A. Yes.
21 The following are amounts paid by the
22 Q. Have you -- in this black book that you 22 law firms of Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe, Mayer
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 223
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 225
2 brought with you today I think I asked you sort of a
2 Brown, Alston & Bird and Willcox and savage. Do you
3 question this way but we know Bernstein's papers in
3 see that?
4 this book right?
4 A. Yes.
5 A. Yes.
5 Q. So it appears if Union Carbide is
6 Q. And we know now if Union Carbide is
6 telling the truth in these sworn Answers to
7 telling the truth that they spent $400,000 on this
7 Interrogatories these law firms various law firms
8 paper?
8 have paid for scientific research correct?
9 A. Yes.
9 MR. COOK: Objection. Document
10
MR. COOK: Objection. Asked and
10 states speaks for itself. Relevance.
11 answered.
11 THE WITNESS: That's what it says.
12 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
12 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
13 Q. I take it you haven't gone through to
13 Q. Okay.
14 figure out how much money each of these papers cost? 14
A. I have no knowledge of anything about
15 A. I have not.
15 that.
16
MR. COOK: Objection. Assumes
16 Q. Well in any of these studies that you've
17 facts incomplete hypothetical.
17 -- that you brought in this black book does it
18 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
18 indicate lawyers were involved?
19 Q. Okay. I'm sorry?
19 A. No.
20 A. There's no way I could do that. I don't
20 Q. In creating this literature?
21 know.
21 A. Not -- not that I'm aware of.
22 Q. The only way to do that, I mean, if the
22 Q. Okay.
57 (Pages 222 to 225)
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 226
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 228
2 A. Don't think so.
2 MR. ARTABANE: Objection.
3 Q. None of these law firms mentioned? 4 A. No.
3 THE WITNESS: The only -- the only 4 thing I can as far as the one done by Bernstein, to
5 Q. In these Interrogatories are mentioned 5 my knowledge there's certainly were no lawyers
6 in any of these studies are they?
6 involved with him.
7 A. No.
7 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
8 MR. COOK: Objection.
8 Q. And we already talked about that
9 Argumentative. Document speaks for itself outside 9 earlier?
10 the witness's personal knowledge calls for
10 A. Okay.
11 speculation.
11 Q. You really don't know because your?
12 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
12 A. No.
13 Q. Have you ever heard of any of these law 13 Q. Sole role is to pay the money?
14 firms?
14 A. Correct.
15 A. No.
15 Q. Okay. We've been going for a little
16 Q. Of Willcox and savage?
16 while. Why don't we take a little bit of a break.
17 A. No.
17 Five minutes?
18 Q. You never heard of them?
18 MR. COOK: Sure.
19 A. No.
19 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Going off
20 Q. Of Alston and Bird? You ever heard of 20 record at 13:47 p.m.
21 them?
21 (Recess taken - 1:39 p.m.
22 A. No.
22 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Back on record.
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 227
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 229
2 Q. Mayer Brown? 3 A. No.
2 Tape disk 4 at 13:56:a 54. 3 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
4 Q. Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe?
4 Q. So Mr. Pigg, we left off talking a
5 A. No.
5 little bit about some of the articles in the
6 Q. So it would be it's a surprise to you it
6 publications that have been paid for by various
7 would be a surprise to you if what they said is the 7 entities.
8 truth that lawyers are actually involved in funding 8
You as the representative of the
9 some of this research?
9 international Chrysotile association told -- told us
10 MR. COOK: Objection.
10 earlier that you have in the past handed out these
11
MR. ARTABANE: Objection not a
11 types of publications to to member companies right?
12 proper question.
12 A. Yes.
13
MR. COOK: The document speaks for 13
Q. And as a person that's handing out these
14 itself.
14 publications, you have never conveyed any
15
THE WITNESS: I'm -- I'm -- I am
15 information to the public about whether any of the
16 not aware that that's been done.
16 papers were financed by any corporations or lawyers,
17 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
17 have you?
18 Q. Sure and that's why I said it would be a 18 19 surprise to you sitting here today in 2013 if some 19 facts.
MR. COOK: Objection. Misstates
20 of these studies lawyers were involved in the
20
THE WITNESS: Not other than the
21 creation of them?
21 ones that state that they were, you know -- that
22
MR. COOK: Same objection.
22 money was supplied by companies as they identify
58 (Pages 226 to 229)
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 230
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 232
2 them.
2 A. None.
3 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
3 Q. 85 is that appears to be just a copy of
4 Q. You certainly don't think -- you as a
4 another e-mail we already talked about?
5 representative of the international Chrysotile
5 A. E-mail.
6 association you don't think lawyers should be hiding 6
Q. Right?
7 their involvements in any studies do you?
7 A. Yeah, the totals totals for the years.
8
MR. COOK: Objection. Assumes
8 Q. And 86 appears to be another e-mail from
9 facts. Lacks foundation argumentative calls for
9 Roger McClellan the to David Bernstein regarding the
10 speculation.
10 manuscript submitted to critical reviews and
11 THE WITNESS: No.
11 toxicology?
12 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
12 A. Correct.
13 Q. Okay. I mean, that would be a wrong
13 Q. 87 appears to be more e-mails between
14 thing to do right?
14 Bernstein and folks at the critical reviews and
15
MR. COOK: Same objection. Calls
15 toxicology?
16 for.
16 A. Correct.
17
THE WITNESS: It would not be
17 Q. How did you get copies of these e-mails
18 proper.
18 because I --
19 MR. COOK: Speculation.
19 A. Well, in fact I just put them in as I
20 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
20 told you earlier in a -- in the file and they were
21 Q. And when you say would not be proper 21 sent to me by I think Louise -- well at the top.
22 what do you mean?
22 Now from Leblond when from which is when he would,
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 231
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 233
2 MR. COOK: Same objection.
2 you know, provided them from him. At the top of
3 THE WITNESS:
3 page 86.
4
THE WITNESS: Well, I think it is
4 Q. Okay. So it's?
5 always -- all of us should always be honest and
5 A. That's how how I would have gotten it.
6 upright and tell the truth.
6 On his e-mail to himself. I mean, one I'm one of
7 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
7 the addressees.
8 Q. Open and upfront about what you're
8 Q. So it appears from these e-mails
9 doing?
9 relating to from McClellan to Bernstein in August of
10 A. Yes.
10 2012 it appears that he had submitted this for
11 Q. Okay. All right. Let's keep rolling.
11 publication for the review sometime in the summer
12 We're almost through Exhibit 17. We have a few more 12 last summer right?
13 invoices to go over.
13 A. It appears that way yes.
14
We're up to 84 and this is 84 once again
14 Q. All right. And if we look at the -- if
15 was looks like Mr. Bernstein spent three and a half
15 we go back to the invoices though in October,
16 days in October of 2012 involving revisions of the
16 November and December there's -- he's charging you
17 manuscript?
17 guys for revisions to the manuscript?
18 A. Uh-huh.
18 A. Uh-huh.
19 Q. Is that correct?
19 Q. Right?
20 A. Correct.
20 A. I have to look specifically at the
21 Q. And no reference to any coauthors at all
21 revisions in October.
22 correct?
22 Q. $10,000?
59 (Pages 230 to 233)
Page 234
Page 236
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
2 A. Yeah.
2 A. I don't remember exactly. I don't
3 Q. For three and a half days? 4 A. Yeah.
3 remember exactly what that. Of course the 4 international agency for research on cancer I'm not
5 Q. And both of those months right? 6 A. Yes.
5 sure what -- what that was about. 6 Q. Okay. The remaining section of the last
7 Q. All right. And so I guess what I'm
7 few pages of this exhibit simply relate to
8 trying to understand is what if anything was wrong 8 additional invoices from Bernstein regarding
9 with the manuscript that required them to be
9 revisions of the manuscript correct?
10 revised?
10 A. Yes.
11 A. I don't know the answer to that.
11 Q. And at no point any other coauthors
12 Q. Was he -- okay.
12 identified on any of these invoices correct?
13
If we go over to 92 it appears to be --
13 A. No, none.
14 A. Uh-huh.
14 Q. And then the last well page 99 is not
15 Q. -- an e-mail from you to Jean-Marc
15 the last page 99 shows payments in 2013 correct?
16 Leblond?
16 A. Correct.
17 A. Yeah, just giving him an update.
17 Q. It says risk study color paper $1255.32?
18 Q. . Monies some of the monies?
18 A. Yes, that was a part of the printing
19 A. Right.
19 with the -- with the critical review.
20 Q. That were paid?
20 Q. You got to pay to have it printed?
21 A. Right.
21 A. I guess so.
22 Q. And then on Exhibit Pigg 93 --
22 Q. Okay. It says risk study reprints?
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 235
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 237
2 A. Uh-huh.
2 A. Uh-huh.
3 Q. -- talks about the Quebec has announced
3 Q. 3,351.60?
4 they're going to loan 58 million dollars to to the
4 A. Yeah, they were reprinted and and
5 Jeffrey mine correct?
5 shipped to the Montreal Canada office.
6 A. Right.
6 Q. And how many copies of that? 300 or
7 Q. Did the Jeffrey mine reopen?
7 something like that?
8 A. No. The election -- the different party
8 A. I don't know. For some reason 200
9 won the premiership. A lady.
9 sticks in my mind.
10 What's wrong with that? 11 Anyway so the loan was canceled.
10 Q. Okay. 11 A. But I could be wrong about that.
12 Q. Oh, after the chain of the political
12 Q. And was that -- the reprints was that so
13 parties?
13 the Chrysotile association could hand out this paper
14 A. Yes.
14 to other folks?
15 Q. Continuing on over on the 95 there's an
15 A. Yes.
16 invoice for 12 -- actually 15,900 francs?
16 Q. And?
17 A. Right.
17 A. I'm sure you have -- you have one of
18 Q. Which equals 18,390 US dollars?
18 these.
19 A. Right.
19 Q. No, I don't that the final publication?
20 Q. And that's for a revision of the
20 A. Yes.
21 manuscript back in February and some review of some 21
Q. Oh, this is. Okay. It's in color can
22 IARC publication?
22 can we mark?
60 (Pages 234 to 237)
Page 238
Page 240
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
2 A. It's what we just paid for.
2 Q. And likewise the word grant, a grant,
3
Q. Okay. . (Laugh). The color print. So
3 there was never a grant issued?
4 we'll mark this as the next exhibit and a what
4 A. Not by ICA no.
5 number are he up to now 20?
5 Q. Okay. And I take it you have no
6 MR. ARTABANE: 20.
6 knowledge whether the other part where it says in
7
MR. SATTERLEY: Yep 20.
7 cooperation with the Canadian Chrysotile association
8
(Document marked Exhibit 20.)
8 you don't have knowledge of that?
9 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
9 A. I don't, no. Whether they had a grant I
10 Q. And let me just verify so the record is 10 don't know.
11 complete. Exhibit 20 would be the final published 11
Q. Let me if I could borrow that?
12 version of the paper that we've been talking a lot 12
A. But we didn't.
13 about today?
13 Q.
14 A. Exactly yes.
14 A. (Handing).
15 Q. And this is the lead author is
15 Q. Sure we'll set this right in here.
16 identified as Bernstein correct?
16 So it says it also identifies Bernstein
17 A. Yes.
17 and Gibbs have served as an expert witness in
18 Q. And this has got nice pretty colored
18 litigation in the past?
19 graphs in it right?
19 A. I think that's what it says yeah.
20 A. Yes.
20 Q. And it says Dunnigan has also served as
21 Q. Okay. I did want to ask you about the 21 an expert witness in Canada on health effects of
22 declaration of interest?
22 Chrysotile?
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 239
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 241
2 A. Uh-huh.
2 A. You know, I'm -- that's -- again that's
3 Q. On page 177 of this at the bottom?
3 news to me. In fact I'm not -- I'm not even aware
4 A. Uh-huh.
4 there's been any asbestos litigation as such in
5 Q. Have you seen that?
5 Canada. Now Dunnigan has I'm sure spoken, you know,
6 A. Yes.
6 in meetings just like you had for the 2006 meeting.
7 Q. You see at the bottom that Bernstein
7 Q. It says he served as expert witness on
8 reports that the funds from this comes from a grant 8 health effects involving the Quebec workers'
9 of the international Chrysotile association?
9 compensation board of Quebec?
10 MR. ARTABANE:
10 A. Yeah, I don't know anything about that.
11
MR. COOK: Objection. Misstates
11 It may be true. I just don't know.
12 evidence document speaks for itself.
12 Q. All right. Once again has this -- that
13 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
13 is the ICA just taken these reprints and passed them
14 Q. Well what does it say?
14 out to people?
15 A. It says supported by a grant from the
15 A. Not -- not to the public. So far as I
16 international Chrysotile association Washington, DC 16 know. Of course I haven't made any distribution but
17 which, you know, there's no such entity in
17 as far as I know they were distributed to the
18 Washington, DC. I -- I have no explanation why. 18 membership and what the membership may have
19 Q. You have no explanation why he would -- 19 distributed, you know, I have no way of knowing.
20 he would identify the international Chrysotile
20 Q. This on Pigg 103 says 6,000 Swiss francs
21 association as in Washington, DC?
21 for the preparation of a CD, a PDFs of the reference
22 A. No.
22 included in the Chrysotile health risk revisited for
61 (Pages 238 to 241)
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 242
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 244
2 the Roderdam convention for distribution by the ICA. 2 This would be some of the minutes of the ICA
3 A. Uh-huh.
3 meetings that occurred over last few years; correct?
4 Q. What is that?
4 A. Since 2000 and, you know, every time
5 A. Well, the Roderdam convention, you know, 5 that the revisit study was mentioned yes.
6 was held last month the last part of May and and I'm 6
Q. Okay. And so the earliest would be what
7 not exactly sure. I think Mr. Leblond and the
7 year 2011?
8 purpose the interest had to do with whether or not 8
A. Probably was. Probably the early.
9 Chrysotile would be added to the prior informed
9 Q. And it indicates where these meetings
10 consent the PIK list they call it.
10 occurred whether it be London or Brazil?
11 Q. So the Roderdam convention occurred in? 11 A. Correct.
12 A. Geneva.
12 Q. And nowhere in any of these minutes of
13 Q. In what month? January? 14 A. May.
13 this meeting do anybody on behalf of the ICA 14 describe work that Bernstein is going to be doing as
15 Q. Oh, just last month? 16 A. Last month.
15 a grant? 16 A. No.
17 Q. Okay. And so -- so 6,000 Swiss francs
17 Q. And just so the jury understand the full
18 was spent to prepare CDs with the references listed 18 understanding or has at least a full understanding
19 in this Chrysotile revisited so they could be passed 19 of some of who is involved on 108 the April 17th
20 out at this convention right?
20 meeting in London we've got Mr. Leblond there
21 A. If that's -- if that's what he says. I
21 correct?
22 assume it's true. But I don't know that for a fact. 22
A. Right.
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 243
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 245
2 I was not there.
2 Q. We've got somebody from Kazakhstan.
3 Q. But you paid -- you paid for -- let me
3 Kakistan? How do you say that?
4 just show that to you?
4 A. Kazakhstan.
5 A. Yeah.
5 Q. Kazakhstan right?
6 Q. That's 103?
6 A. Correct.
7 A. Yeah.
7 Q. You know that person?
8 Q. You paid for that right?
8 A. Yes. I've met him yes, I know.
9 A. Yes.
9 Q. And somebody from Russia?
10 Q. You wire transferred money for Bernstein 10 A. Right.
11 for that?
11 Q. Are either of those two individuals
12 A. Yeah.
12 involved in mining asbestos?
13 Q. That thing? 14 A. Yeah.
13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Which one?
15 Q. Okay.
15 A. Kazakhstan and Russia.
16 A. So.
16 Q. Oh, so both of those individuals?
17 Q. Okay.
17 A. Yes.
18 A. And he probably did.
18 Q. Okay. And then you got somebody from
19 Q. Okay. But we're up to 21.
19 Zimbabwe?
20
(Document marked Exhibit 21.)
20 A. Yes.
21 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
21 Q. That's a little bit north of South
22 Q. This is bears Pigg 108 through Pigg 127. 22 Africa?
62 (Pages 242 to 245)
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 246
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 248
2 A. North.
2 Q. That's Shankar you were telling us
3 Q. And this individual SMM holdings
3 about?
4 involved in mining asbestos?
4 A. Yes, he's the vice chairman.
5 A. Correct.
5 Q. If we go over to 111 it shows the
6 Q. Okay. And then we have a whole bunch of 6 meeting in Rio de Janero correct?
7 people in attendance there?
7 A. Correct. Last December.
8 A. Correct.
8 Q. And like we already said once again many
9 Q. From several different countries?
9 of these folks are involved in mining asbestos?
10 A. Yes.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. If you could just go through and
11 Q. At these meetings of the ICA do they
12 identify which of these individuals are involved in
12 invite outside scientists to come speak?
13 mining asbestos.
13 A. Occasionally. Not regularly but
14 A. Okay. The second one Roberto Frantonio 14 occasionally yes.
15 is from the mine in Brazil.
15 Q. For example, has Bernstein been present
16 Q. Uh-huh.
16 at ICA meetings?
17 A. Nurlan Omarov Kazakhstan. And Taq
17 A. He has been yes.
18 Maroratov from Kazakhstan. Reminic from Russia and 18
Q. Let me ask you if if the ICA has ever
19 John Jerry from Russia. They're -- they're involved
19 invited I'm just going to throw out some names.
20 in mining.
20 Joseph LaDue?
21 Q. And what's what's the united minerals
21 A. No.
22 company?
22 Q. Do you know who he is?
Page 247
Page 249
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
2 A. Well, that's just the name of the
2 A. I've seen the name. I think he's
3 marketed company in Kazakhstan.
3 published a paper.
4 Q. And that indicates on this one that you 4 Q. They've never invited him to come speak
5 weren't present?
5 to the ICA?
6 A. Correct.
6 A. No.
7 Q. And several other folks from Mexico and 7 Q. Has has the ICA ever invited Dr. Arthur
8 Brazil and India wasn't present?
8 Frank to come present?
9 A. Correct.
9 A. No.
10 Q. Is the person for the Mexico is that a 10 Q. Do you know who Dr. Arthur Frank is?
11 somebody involved in mining?
11 A. Know the name.
12 A. No.
12 Q. What about Dr. Phillip Landrigan?
13 Q. Asbestos?
13 A. No.
14 A. No, they don't mine asbestos in Mexico. 14 Q. Dr. Richard Lemen?
15 They're users primary.
15 A. No.
16 Q. Are they users of the asbestos in 17 Mexico?
16 Q. Dr. Daniel Teitelbaum? 17 A. No.
18 A. Yeah.
18 Q. Dr. Colin Soskolne?
19 Q. What about India?
19 A. No.
20 A. Same thing.
20 Q. Dr. Barry Castleman?
21 Q. They're users of asbestos?
21 A. No.
22 A. Yes.
22 Q. Has the ICA ever invited any individuals
63 (Pages 246 to 249)
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 250
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 252
2 that have mesothelioma to any of these meetings? 2
A. But they're -- I mean, there is.
3 A. Not to my knowledge, no.
3 MR. ARTABANE: I'm going to object
4
Q. Have you ever personally met somebody
4 to that and state for the record that you're not
5 with mesothelioma?
5 entitled to any discussions in these minutes about
6 A. Not to my knowledge, no.
6 subject matters that you did not request and the
7 Q. Have you ever attended a trial involving
7 documents are totally responsive to your request.
8 asbestos manufacturer or producer and what they've 8
MR. SATTERLEY: Okay. I
9 done what they knew historically?
9 understand you. Let me ask the question.
10 A. No.
10 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
11 Q. Now I see that some of these minutes
11 Q. Do you know -- you're the keeper of
12 meetings appear to be just a little small section on 12 these minutes correct?
13 a big page.
13 MR. ARTABANE: No.
14
Did you white out or black out some of
14
THE WITNESS: No.
15 the?
15 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
16
MR. ARTABANE: I'll answer that.
16 Q. You kept you got these records?
17 Your request was for only those minutes that related 17
A. These were approved from Montreal.
18 to the publication and so you were provided only 18 Q. Okay. And do you have do you maintain
19 with the minutes that related to the publication.
19 copies of them yourself?
20 MR. SATTERLEY: I understand well 20 A. No.
21 let me just tell you. The minutes that relate to
21 Q. You had to get these from Montreal?
22 the publication were just the redaction was there a 22
A. That's right.
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 251
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 253
2 privilege log or something that's been prepared? 2
Q. Okay. And when you got them from
3
MR. ARTABANE: It's not required.
3 Montreal though they weren't redacted were they?
4 The response was the documents you got are fully 4
A. No.
5 responsive to your request.
5 Q. Okay. That was done with your
6 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
6 assistance of your counsel?
7
Q. If you could, sir, on the December 5th
7
A. Yes.
8 meeting, 111. Are you on 111 right now?
8 Q. Okay. And my question is: Is there any
9 A. Yes.
9 private anything you consider private or secret that
10 Q. You flip over to the next page you see 10 occurs at these ICA meetings?
11 at the bottom it says page 4?
11 A. No, I don't consider them secret except
12 A. Yes.
12 it's official business about financial reports are
13 Q. Okay. So it looks like we went from the 13 given, various countries will review the status of
14 first page and there's page 2, page 3 and most of 14 asbestos regulations in their country. Just just as
15 page 4 is gone?
15 an example. But there's nothing -- nothing sacred
16 A. Yes.
16 per se but it's official business.
17 Q. Okay. You told us earlier that it's
17 Q. Did you personally verify what was on
18 important from your perspective to be honest and 18 page 2, 3 and page 4?
19 open and upfront correct?
19 A. Yes.
20 A. Well, in in general yes.
20 Q. Okay. And is it your testimony nothing
21 Q. Sure. I mean, the ICA isn't embarrassed 21 on page 2, 3 or 4 related to any funding of any
22 about anything?
22 studies?
64 (Pages 250 to 253)
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 254
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 256
2 A. That's my testimony.
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Okay.
3 Q. And do they accurately state the
4 A. They do not.
4 business that was occurring at these meetings at or
5 Q. Okay. But -- but as far as you know the
5 about the time they occurred?
6 ICA doesn't have a policy or procedure to prevent
6 A. Yes.
7 people from getting copies of the their minutes of
7 Q. If we go over to 118 that shows the
8 their meetings correct?
8 November 29th meeting in?
9
MR. ARTABANE: Objection. That's
9 A. Correct.
10 a legal question. You're entitled to what you asked 10
Q. Dubai correct?
11 for and that's what you were provided.
11 A. Correct.
12
MR. SATTERLEY: No no I'm asking
12 Q. And you weren't present at that meeting?
13 about policies and procedures that's not a legal
13 A. I was not.
14 question.
14 Q. Once again many of the mining of
15 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
15 asbestos was present at this meeting?
16 Q. Does ICA have a policy and procedure
16 A. Yeah, Brazil, Kazakhstan, Russia.
17 that says we need to keep our minutes of our meeting 17
Q. It says on page 119.
18 secret?
18 The risk assessment's evaluation?
19 A. We do not have a policy that describes
19 A. Yes.
20 that what we have is secret but we do distribute the 20
Q. And it talks about Bernstein's
21 minutes to the members but we don't distribute them 21 presentation?
22 to the news media.
22 A. Yes.
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 255
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 257
2 Q. Sure.
2 Q. And it said.
3 A. As any organization wouldn't do.
3 The final report will be published and
4 Q. Oh, you're not a nonprofit right?
4 ICA members will then be in a position to forward
5 A. Yes.
5 this positive information to the respective
6 Q. And you get nonprofit status through 6 competent authorities and Chrysotile producing and
7 government?
7 using countries?
8 A. Through the province of Quebec.
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Okay. Is the ICA organized in the
9 Q. So in essence what the ICA was doing was
10 United States at all?
10 having Bernstein create this literature so that ICA
11 A. No.
11 could take this literature and use it to its
12 Q. And do the province of Quebec as a
12 advantage to give to authorities and Chrysotile
13 nonprofit association is it your understanding that 13 producing and using countries?
14 you get the benefits of being a nonprofit?
14
MR. ARTABANE: Objection. No
15
MR. ARTABANE: Objection that
15 foundation.
16 calls for a legal conclusion.
16 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
17 THE WITNESS: I don't know the 17 Q. Isn't that true?
18 answer to that.
18 A. Well, of course at that point of course
19 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
19 it was -- it hadn't been published but I think the
20 Q. Just verify for me that all of the pages 20 purpose was just to add it to the growing amount of
21 were retrieved actually kept and retrieved in the 21 studies that were being published on Chrysotile and
22 ordinary course of business of the ICA?
22 to provide competent authorities with with the
65 (Pages 254 to 257)
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 258
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 260
2 latest study that I think there what he cites 175 2 Q. All right. And so how was it that in
3 references in the revisited study.
3 2011 before the paper was even prepared and
4 Q. I guess what I'm struggling with -- well 4 finalized that the ICA would know that it would be
5 move to strike as nonresponsive.
5 scientifically acceptable for publication?
6
Let me what I'm struggling with here it
6
MR. COOK: Objection. Lacks
7 says.
7 foundation. Assumes facts outside the witnesses
8 The final report will be published.
8 personal knowledge.
9 And this is in 2011 right?
9 THE WITNESS: I don't think they
10 A. Uh-huh.
10 would knew for a fact. It was hopeful.
11 Q. November of 2011?
11 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
12 A. Yeah.
12 Q. Oh, that's okay. That explains it.
13 Q. How did the ICA know that it would be 13
At this point in 2011 ICA was hopeful
14 scientifically acceptable this Bernstein paper in
14 that it would be published?
15 2011 to be published in 2013? How did they know 15
A. Well, just in part of it would be based
16 that?
16 on those number 13 studies that are there that were
17 A. They didn't know it.
17 positive in the sense that they said at low
18 Q. Well it says it will be published right?
18 exposures to Chrysotile there's no detectible health
19 A. Well, it will be published regardless.
19 risk.
20 Q. Okay.
20 Q. Objection move to strike nonresponsive.
21 A. In.
21 So in 2011 ICA was hopeful that
22 Q. What do you mean by that?
22 Bernstein's paper would be published so that the ICA
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 259
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 261
2 A. Well, Bernstein would publish the study 2 could then provide this paper to the competent
3 in whatever scientific journal accepted it to be
3 authorities so that Chrysotile could still be
4 studied.
4 produced and used in these countries correct?
5 Q. Wherever he could find a place to
5 A. Yes.
6 publish it?
6 Q. Is that true?
7
MR. COOK: Objection. Assumes
7 A. Yes.
8 facts calls for speculation.
8 Q. Okay. We are up to we'll set that
9
THE WITNESS: I don't know about
9 exhibit to the side. 22?
10 what he could find. Of course that's up to him.
10
(Document marked Exhibit 22.)
11 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
11 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
12 Q. Well?
12 Q. What is reflected -- this is Bates
13 A. But whatever he -- whatever he published 13 number 128 through 280.
14 would be distributed.
14 What is this exhibit? What is this?
15 Q. Well it says.
15 A. This is the publication revisited
16
The final report will be published and
16 online.
17 ICA members will then be in a position to forward 17
Q. Well this has got a bunch of e-mails is
18 this positive information to the respective
18 what -- so I assume that this comes from your files;
19 competent authorities in Chrysotile producing and 19 right?
20 using countries.
20 A. Yes. In fact you probably printed it
21 Right I read that correctly?
21 out. Yeah.
22 A. (Nods head).
22 Q. These are e-mails back and forth between
66 (Pages 258 to 261)
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 262
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 264
2 Leblond and Bernstein and Clement and you Mr. Pigg? 2 budgeted.
3 A. Oh, yeah uh-huh.
3 Do you see that?
4 Q. Right. These are going back?
4 A. Yes.
5 A. Right.
5 Q. So what I'm trying to figure out is,
6 Q. And does this represent e-mails back and
6 when it says budgeted, where is the budget?
7 forth relating to this Chrysotile paper?
7 A. There is no budget. Again I think that
8 A. Yes.
8 it was probably -- my guess would be that
9 Q. Over the last?
9 Mr. Godbout had advised Dr. Bernstein that the
10 A. It was -- I had one general file. If it
10 amount of money that we were going to spend on this
11 didn't pertain to payment of an invoice that I just
11 study is probably not going to exceed $200,000.
12 file whatever it was in the -- in this one general
12 Q. So but I guess what I'm confused in when
13 file. That's where this came from.
13 Bernstein says it took more than four times the time
14 Q. And all of these e-mails reflected on
14 that we had budgeted however my commitment to an
15 this exhibit are e-mails that were created by and
15 excellent paper was complete.
16 from you and other people associated with ICA?
16
Do you know what he's referring to?
17 A. Yes.
17 A. No, do not.
18 Q. As well as Mr. Bernstein?
18 Q. I mean, if the paper cost over 230
19 A. Yes.
19 thousand or $230,000 this would seem to indicate
20 Q. Okay. And then included in this is a
20 that the original budget was 50 or $60,000?
21 prepublication copy not for distribution?
21 A. I don't.
22 A. Correct.
22 MR. ARTABANE: No.
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 263
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 265
2 Q. Of this paper?
2 THE WITNESS: I don't think that's
3 A. I think that came out in January or
3 what he's -- I don't think that's what he's
4 something like that.
4 referring to.
5 Q. If you go over to 247. . 247 is an
5 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
6 e-mail from Bernstein to you Mr. Leblond? Correct? 6
Q. It says?
7 A. Yes.
7 A. He's talking about the last revision.
8 Q. And it's?
8 Q. It says.
9 A. Prepublication.
9 The editor of the journal was very
10 Q. It's the pre -- it's the transfer or
10 exigent due to the controversial topic and had sent
11 actually e-mails saying that the paper had been? 11 it for review three times to nine different
12 A. Accepted.
12 scientists.
13 Q. Accepted?
13 Do you see that?
14 Q. It says in the second paragraph down. 14 A. Yes.
15
As proposed by Clement I am sending you 15
Q. Do you know who any of those scientists
16 as well as my additional invoice for partial
16 are?
17 compensation of additional work on this paper. I 17
A. No idea.
18 greatly appreciate this.
18 Q. While this has been a lengthy process
19 Do you see that?
19 the resulting following manuscript is in my opinion
20 A. Yes.
20 an excellent review.
21 Q. As I mentioned to him the last revision 21
Bernstein's comment upon himself?
22 took more than four times the time that we had 22 A. Yes.
67 (Pages 262 to 265)
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 266
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 268
2 Q. So let's set that exhibit to the side.
2 confidential and private communications which should
3 I want to ask you.
3 not be released to any other party. The release of
4
In February of this year did you receive
4 such communications could do irreparable harm to the
5 a letter from my law partner Mr. Kazan requesting
5 peer review process of CRT and moreover my
6 that you maintain all documentary evidence relating 6 precedence to the scientific review presence of all
7 to this publication?
7 scientific journals. If any of the recipients of
8 A. Yes.
8 the letter from Mr. Kazan should receive any
9 Q. I'm handing you Exhibits 281 through 283 9 additional communication from Mr. Kazan please
10 and ask you is this the copy of the letter?
10 forward copies to Bridget Sheppard informa London
11
(Document marked Exhibit 23.)
11 and me and do not take any action until directed by
12
THE WITNESS: Yes, and when I
12 formal legal counsel.
13 received it I shared it with counsel. He advised me 13
Did he give this to you?
14 to make a memorandum for the record, place it in my 14
A. I think it came from Bernstein but I've
15 file to say that no destruction of files will be
15 ignored it.
16 done.
16 Q. And what do you mean by that?
17 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
17 A. That I don't know any of those people.
18 Q. Okay.
18 I never corresponded or contacted Mr. McClellan or
19 A. And I did.
19 the lady that's mentioned.
20 Q. Super. And is that the memorandum
20 Q. Okay.
21 attached as the last page of that document?
21 A. Okay.
22 A. I didn't know it was there.
22 Q. Okay. Let me ask you some other
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 267
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 269
2 Q. The letter is the first two pages and
2 questions about abandoning asbestos global.
3 then there's a third page to that.
3 You're aware that there are many
4 A. No.
4 scientists around the world that have asked for a
5 Q. Oh, what's that third page?
5 global ban on asbestos correct?
6 A. It's McClellan's e-mail.
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Oh, okay. . So McClellan's e-mail
7
MR. COOK: Can I have a continuing
8 regarding the letter from Steven Kazan?
8 objection on the questions on the banning of
9 A. Yes.
9 asbestos.
10 Q. It says from Roger McClellan to Bridget
10
MR. ARTABANE: Yeah and let me
11 Sheppard.
11 just say for the record. This is beyond the scope
12
Do you know who Bridget Sheppard is?
12 of the items that Exhibits 1 to Mr. Pigg and Exhibit
13 A. No.
13 2 to ICA either list in terms of subject matter area
14 Q. It says.
14 or list in terms of designations by ICA of Mr. Pigg
15 I have received the attached letter
15 as its representative.
16 today. Please forward a copy to the appropriate
16 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
17 legal counsel at informa. In my opinion any
17 Q. Let me ask you a few questions about
18 communication between the author and the editor such 18 this.
19 as exercise such as I exercise as editor of critical
19
MR. ARTABANE: So I'll have a
20 reviews in toxicology or a member of the editorial
20 continuing objection to this entire line of
21 advisory board of CRT and reviewers of the
21 questioning.
22 manuscripts submitted to CRT are privileged
22
MR. SATTERLEY: I understand. I
68 (Pages 266 to 269)
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 270
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 272
2 understand.
2 Q. Like the Roderdam convention or anything
3 MR. COOK: Join.
3 like that?
4 MR. SATTERLEY: 24.
4 A. No.
5
(Document marked Exhibit 24.)
5 Q. Have they presented any of these
6
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Excuse me
6 publications to Mr. Bernstein?
7 counsel may I change a battery.
7 A. Not to my knowledge no.
8 MR. SATTERLEY: Yes.
8 Q. Did -- have you seen any evidence that
9
THE VIDEOGRAPHER: On his
9 ICA told Mr. Bernstein at any point in time in the
10 microphone go off for a second. Going off the
10 two to three-year period when they were funding this
11 record at 14:38:02.
11 article, we want you to include all publications
12 (Recess taken - 2:37 p.m. 12 even publications that would suggest that asbestos
13 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Back on record 13 should be totally banned?
14 at 14:32:32 still on tape 4.
14 A. I don't think there were -- there were
15
(Document marked Exhibit 24.)
15 any directions either plus or con to Dr. Bernstein,
16 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
16 no.
17 Q. I marked as Exhibit 24 a paper called a 17 Q. At no point in time was there a
18 case for a global ban on asbestos and it's written 18 direction to Mr. Bernstein that, we want you to give
19 by several scientists and it's published in
19 an objective scientific analysis?
20 environmental health perspectives in 2010?
20 A. Not that I was a party of and heard no.
21 A. Right.
21 Q. Okay. Set this exhibit to the side.
22 Q. Have you read that in the past?
22 Exhibit 25 is a statement in response to
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 271
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 273
2 A. I've seen it.
2 the asbestos industry's efforts to prevent a ban on
3 Q. Okay. And when you say you've seen it? 3 asbestos in Pakistan?
4 A. Well, I've read it back then yeah.
4
(Document marked Exhibit 25. .)
5 Q. Has this -- back in 2010 when it was
5
THE WITNESS: Uh-huh.
6 written?
6 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
7 A. Yes. Yes.
7 Q. Have you seen that?
8 Q. And have you?
8 A. Yes.
9
A. I'm sure I did. I can't say I remember
9
Q. And have you read it?
10 it specifically because there are several articles 10 A. Yes.
11 on the same subject.
11 Q. And when did you read it? Let me hand
12 Q. You see that there's a list of 13 references on this article?
12 it to you. 13 A. Well, I should have -- no. Was after --
14 A. Yes.
14 I can't remember the exact date when the company in
15 Q. And it's I haven't added them up but it 15 Pakistan contacted ICA and asked for assistance or
16 goes over it's a couple pages?
16 materials to be submitted to Pakistan and then
17 A. Right.
17 shortly after -- after that happened earlier this
18 Q. Has the ICA taken these references and 18 year I saw this publication that you gave me, yes.
19 organized them and put them on a disk?
19 Q. And it's critical of the ICA correct?
20 A. Not to my knowledge.
20 A. What do you mean critical.
21 Q. To present them at any conventions? 21 Q. Well if you look on the page 1.
22 A. No.
22 The information to the international
69 (Pages 270 to 273)
Page 274
Page 276
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
2 Chrysotile association puts forward in its letter is 2 part of your speech that you gave at the Chrysotile
3 false.
3 international conference in 2006 correct.
4 Right there. The first page.
4 THE WITNESS: Correct.
5 A. Oh, yes I see. I see that.
5 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
6 Q. And then it sets forth?
6 Q. And this is just so the record is clear
7 A. Yeah.
7 the voice that we're hearing is your voice correct?
8 Q. It sets forth several numbered facts 8 A. Correct. I understand.
9 that these signers of this letter supports that
9
#06: And indisputably
10 position correct?
10 demonstrates that Chrysotile is the most valuable
11 A. Correct.
11 substance.
12 Q. And it's signed off by a whole bunch of 12 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
13 different scientific -- scientists around the world? 13
Q. And you believe Chrysotile is a most
14 A. Yes, correct.
14 valuable substance true?
15 Q. Has since this letter in February of
15 A. I do.
16 2013 has the ICA in any meetings discussed this 16
#06: Can be and should be
17 letter?
17 continued to be used safely for many decades to
18 A. Not to my knowledge, no.
18 come.
19 Q. Has ICA taken any action to respond to 19 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
20 this letter?
20 Q. And you believe that Chrysotile should
21 A. Not to my knowledge, no.
21 be used and be continued to be used safely for many
22 Q. We'll set that to the side.
22 decades to come?
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 275
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 277
2
Now you told me earlier that you have
2 A. Yes.
3 been a strong advocate for the continued use of
3
MR. COOK: Objection. Relevance.
4 Chrysotile asbestos correct?
4 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
5
MR. ARTABANE: Him personally.
5 Q. You've described Chrysotile asbestos as
6 THE WITNESS: Under.
6 a magic mineral?
7 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
7 A. Well, that's -- that's colloquial saying
8 Q. Sure you personally?
8 that has been around for a hundred years.
9 A. Well, I would place a condition on that. 9 Q. And you in your speech at the
10 Advocate for the continued use of it in a safe and 10 international Chrysotile institute described it as a
11 controlled manner.
11 magic mineral?
12 Q. You believe that Chrysotile asbestos
12 A. I don't remember my exact words but.
13 should be used for decades to come?
13 Q. Let's see. I don't remember your exact
14 A. Yes.
14 words either. So it's a good point.
15 Q. And you've publicly so stated correct?
15
#06: When I look back over the
16 A. Yes.
16 last 30 years and reflect what has transpired in the
17 Q. Let me show you.
17 United States I believe that asbestos is indeed the
18 Tape played.
18 magic mineral.
19 Eye we have already been presented today 19
THE WITNESS: Uh-huh.
20 clearly?
20 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
21
MR. SATTERLEY: Let me just so the 21
Q. You said that?
22 record is clear I'm presenting you with your speech 22
A. I said that because there are some
70 (Pages 274 to 277)
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 278
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 280
2 things there's no -- no substitute for.
2 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
3 Q. Well wait a second. You told me earlier 3 Q. AIANA. I'm sorry about that.
4 you're not an expert right?
4 So just let me ask the question again so
5 A. That's what I've read.
5 it's clear who we're talking about.
6 Q. Okay. And you're not you don't have any 6
You have publicly stated how the AIANA
7 technical expertise?
7 has assisted and successfully fighting the ban on
8 A. No.
8 asbestos going back in time correct?
9 Q. And you're not a scientist?
9 A. Yes.
10 A. I am not.
10 Q. And matter of fact you have boasted that
11 Q. And so the basis for your personal
11 the AIANA assisted industry in suing the EPA?
12 opinion about substitutes?
12 A. I -- I don't agree with the word
13 A. Is a layperson.
13 boasted.
14 Q. Is a layperson right?
14 Q. Okay. I apologize.
15 A. Right.
15 You have spoken publicly about how the
16 Q. Okay.
16 AIANA has assisted industry in suing the EPA on
17 Q. You describe in your speech in 2006 at 17 asbestos issues?
18 the international Chrysotile institute that the
18 A. And I think we legitimately made our
19 early claims of asbestos disease truly deserve
19 case and which was confirmed by the fifth circuit
20 compensation correct?
20 Court of Appeals.
21 A. Yes.
21 Q. So the AIANA is not only involved in
22 Q. But you certainly are not suggesting
22 regulators but also is involved in assisting in
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 279
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 281
2 that people suffering from mesothelioma from
2 court cases true?
3 asbestos exposure in 2013 don't likewise deserve 3
A. No.
4 compensation?
4 MR. COOK: Objection. Misstates
5
MR. COOK: Objection. Assumes
5 testimony.
6 facts lacks foundation incomplete hypothetical
6
THE WITNESS: No.
7 personal.
7 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
8
MR. ARTABANE: I object to this
8 Q. You just said you won at the fifth
9 entire line of questions.
9 circuit?
10
MR. COOK: Outside the scope.
10 A. No, but that was simply challenging a
11 THE WITNESS: No, I do not object. 11 regulation. We never.
12 I mean, I think I think everyone should be if they. 12
Q. In court, sir, right?
13 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
13 A. Well, true but not -- I thought you were
14 Q. If they had been injured?
14 referring to individual cases.
15 A. If they are indeed injured with asbestos 15 Q. No. I'm sorry.
16 should be compensated.
16 The AIANA?
17 Q. You have spoken publicly about how the 17 A. Yeah.
18 AIA has successfully fought the ban of asbestos in 18
Q. Didn't provide services for individual
19 the United States?
19 cases correct?
20 A. Yes.
20 A. Right.
21
MR. ARTABANE: AIA or AIANA.
21 Q. I mean, the AIANA they would give advice
22 THE WITNESS: AIANA.
22 on hiring expert witnesses and things like that back
71 (Pages 278 to 281)
Page 282
Page 284
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
2 in the '70s?
2 A. Rather the underlying work?
3 A. Yes.
3 Q. No no no?
4 Q. And that's what Dr. Weill?
4 A. Is that what you're talking?
5 A. Yes.
5 Q. I apologize. Let me help you out.
6 Q. Assisted with?
6 A. Where are you talking.
7 A. Yes.
7 Q. Number 3 Bernstein?
8 Q. Okay. No, I'm talking about when I was 8 A. Oh, okay.
9 talking about court cases?
9 Q. Where it's highlighted Bernstein's name.
10 A. Oh.
10 A. I'm sorry.
11 Q. I was talking about the challenging the 11 Q. All right and it says in this letter
12 bans and challenging regulations?
12 that the article contains a statement:
13 A. But.
13 This research was supported by a grant.
14
Q. You guys have been involved in that?
14
You see that "By a grant"?
15 A. Yes.
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Okay. All right. Let me ask one other 16 Q. From Georgia-Pacific?
17 question about -- we are up to 26 I think?
17 A. Next paragraph? Yeah.
18
(Document marked Exhibit 26.)
18 Q. Yeah. Georgia-Pacific LLC?
19 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
19 A. Right.
20 Q. 26 is -- I like to present this
20 Q. That's the same language same disclosure
21 information Exhibit 26 and ask you several
21 that Bernstein put in this paper a grant right?
22 hypothetical over the next set of questions.
22 A. Right.
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 283
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 285
2
This is a letter written to Dr. Donald
2 Q. All right. It goes on to say on the
3 Gardner. He's the editor in chief of inhalation
3 next -- on the next page.
4 toxicology a journal.
4 He talks about 2005?
5
Have you ever heard of Dr. Gardner?
5 A. Yes.
6 A. No.
6 Q. You see that?
7 Q. And in this letter the articles at issue 8 involve several written by Bernstein.
7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Mr. Child sent a letter to Mr. Holm
9 Do you see that?
9 confirming that Mr. Holm had been specifically
10 A. Yes.
10 employed by Georgia-Pacific to perform expert
11 Q. Articles?
11 consulting services in connection with pending and
12 A. Yes.
12 anticipated litigation concerning alleged exposure
13 Q. Number 1 and 2 is written by Bernstein? 13 to asbestos.
14 A. Yes.
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Okay. Articles number 3 are submitted 15 Q. Have you -- are you familiar with
16 by Bernstein in 2011. Do you see that? It's on the 16 Bernstein's involvement in assisting Georgia-Pacific
17 back side of the paper. I've double-sided it to try 17 with this paper?
18 to save a little bit of paper.
18 A. Not until a few days ago. I guess when
19 A. Where?
19 it was in the news or whatever.
20 Q. It's number 3 on the?
20 Q. And what did you learn a few days ago in
21 A. Number paragraph.
21 the news?
22 Q. Quantification?
22 A. Something about a decision in New York.
72 (Pages 282 to 285)
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 286
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 288
2 Q. And in that decision in New York it was
2 would report directly to GP's in-house counsel.
3 determined that there was a potential what's called 3
Do you see that?
4 crime-fraud exception?
4 A. Yes.
5 A. Yes.
5 Q. On this letter he.
6 Q. And up until that point in time you had
6
Then it says next paragraph.
7 never heard of crime-fraud exception or anything
7
Mr. Holm's met with lawyers in
8 like that?
8 Washington, DC who he knew were serving as outside
9 A. No.
9 counsel on asbestos litigation.
10 Q. And did you when you a few days ago when 10
Do you see that?
11 you heard of that decision in New York, did you go 11
A. Uh-huh.
12 back and look at the Bernstein article?
12 Q. Now did you know that Bruce Bishop one
13 A. No.
13 of Union Carbide's lawyers in this case was one of
14 Q. What did you do?
14 the lawyers involved in this?
15 A. Well.
15 A. No.
16 Q. Just read about it?
16 MR. COOK: Objection. Assumes
17 A. I just read about it.
17 facts lacks foundation.
18 Q. Where did you read about it?
18 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
19 A. It was in a -- I guess it was -- I think
19 Q. It says.
20 it was an article by Kathleen Ruff on her Web, Web 20
Mr. Holm agreed that this whole project
21 page.
21 that he had now specifically employed was
22 Q. Do you subscribe to Ms. Ruff?
22 specifically employed by GP to undertake what's for
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 287
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 289
2 A. No.
2 litigation driven research.
3 Q. Web page?
3 You see that?
4 A. No.
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Do you get e-mails from her?
5 Q. Okay. And you know what litigation
6 A. It was sent to me from ICA in Canada.
6 driven research is?
7 Q. Okay.
7 A. Well, in general I would.
8 A. They they of course got it. That's
8 Q. What's your understanding of litigation
9 where I read it.
9 driven research?
10 Q. So you stay up on sort of what's going 10 A. Well, it would be research concerning
11 on by and through ICA?
11 court cases.
12 A. Yes.
12 Q. Research to help out in litigation right
13 Q. They forward you information like this? 13 one side?
14 A. Right.
14 A. Assume so.
15 Q. And did you read the opinion the
15 Q. One side or the other?
16 decision about the New York the New York opinion? 16
A. Yes.
17 A. I glanced at it. I'm not -- I'm not a
17 Q. Okay. It says.
18 lawyer either.
18 Prior to sharing this litigation driven
19 Q. Sure. Sure.
19 research proposal with the GP attorneys and the GP
20 It says.
20 senior management Mr. Holm had spoken to David
21
Mr. Holm's work was directed solely by
21 Bernstein the lead author on the articles at issue
22 GP's in-house counsel. Mr. Holm was told that he 22 here who became one of the outside consultants who
73 (Pages 286 to 289)
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 290
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 292
2 eventually got hired for this litigation driven
2 in litigation driven research correct?
3 research.
3 A. Well, I don't think necessarily so. I
4 Do you see that the bottom of that page? 4 mean, I don't know what Dr. Bernstein's, you know,
5 A. Yeah, okay. . Yes, uh-huh.
5 everything he may have concluded in his scientific
6 Q. And at the time that ICA was funding
6 research. I think that's -- that's a decision that
7 Bernstein did ICA as far as you know know that
7 he has -- he has to make. If there's going to be
8 Bernstein was involved in this litigation driven
8 some culpability involved.
9 research?
9 Q. Well let's go to paragraph 10 here on
10 A. Not to my knowledge, no.
10 this letter. It may be on that other sheet over
11 Q. Okay. Do you agree that Mr. Bernstein 11 there. You got paragraph 10 here. I got it
12 should -- should be disclosing his involvement in
12 highlighted?
13 litigation driven research?
13 A. Is that the last page?
14
MR. COOK: Objection. Beyond I
14 Q. No no it's the next to last page.
15 note again my continuing objection it's beyond the 15
A. Oh, yeah I got it.
16 notice and personal knowledge of the witness
16 Q. Paragraph 10.
17 complete hypothetical relevance assumes facts and 17
A. At the top?
18 asks the witness to comment on a scientific standard 18
Q. No, this is the bottom.
19 with respect to disclosure than course of knowledge. 19
A. Okay. Mr. Holm?
20
MR. ARTABANE: I renew my
20 Q. Let me. No, that's number 46789 cease
21 continuing objection.
21 there's number 4 there?
22 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
22 A. Yeah.
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 291
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 293
2 Q. Sure?
2 Q. I'm looking at the one that has the
3
MR. ARTABANE: To anything that
3 number 10 on it. On that side there?
4 transpires.
4 A. Okay sorry.
5 #09: I'm going to join that 5 Q. That's okay.
6 objection this is Karen.
6 It says specifically in January 2006
7
MR. SATTERLEY: Who do you
7 Dr. Bernstein was hired "As a scientific medical
8 represent.
8 consultant who was committing under the terms of his
9 MR. COOK: GP.
9 contract "To follow the specific instructions given
10 MR. SATTERLEY: Are you
10 to him by the Georgia-Pacific attorneys.
11 Georgia-Pacific's lawyers.
11 Do you see that?
12 #09: Yes, I am.
12 A. Yes.
13 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
13 Q. Did you know that in the past Bernstein
14 Q. I apologize did you understand my
14 entered into contracts where he was specifically
15 question?
15 instructed that he must follow the instruction of
16 A. I've kind of lost it now.
16 Georgia-Pacific's attorneys?
17 Q. Yeah sure and everybody can have the 17 A. No.
18 same question again before I ask it just so you
18 Q. And as somebody that relies upon
19 don't lose it again.
19 scientists to provide information so that you can
20
You would agree, sir, that from from
20 share with the public, you would think that would be
21 your perspective and from ICA's perspective it would 21 wrong for a scientist to take the directions from
22 be best that Dr. Bernstein disclose his involvement 22 the attorneys correct?
74 (Pages 290 to 293)
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 294
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 296
2 A. Yes.
2 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
3 Q. I mean?
3 Q. Because the real world in the real world
4 A. Yes.
4 companies are involved in litigation they frequently
5 Q. Your role in providing this information
5 and regularly fund studies to support their defense
6 in this black book or this or anything that you're
6 in litigation?
7 providing to your customers or your rather your
7 A. I don't know about that but the letter
8 member companies, I mean, you want to have
8 you just gave me about Pakistan, everybody has their
9 reasonable assurance that what you're providing is 9 biases don't we? And you've got all those people
10 accurate right?
10 who signed that letter opposing Chrysotile and yet
11 A. Yes.
11 you've got 175 references that Dr. Bernstein used in
12 Q. And?
12 his study that not necessarily support it but
13
MS. PRODROMO: Vague and
13 certainly are applicable to it. So, you know, it's
14 ambiguous.
14 -- it's you've got.
15 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
15 Q. So let me understand let me understand.
16 Q. And wouldn't it undermine your ability 16
So you have what you're saying is on the
17 to provide information scientific information that 17 one hand you have people that are biased in favor of
18 was reasonably accurate if the information in the 18 selling Chrysotile asbestos and those people are
19 articles are coming from attorneys that are involved 19 people like the folks that are mining the asbestos
20 in litigation as opposed to scientists?
20 right?
21
MR. COOK: Renew my continuing
21 A. Right. Yes.
22 objection.
22 Q. And then you have people here on the
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 295
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 297
2
THE WITNESS: That's a long
2 other side that you think may be biased against
3 question.
3 Chrysotile because they're concerned about people
4 MS. PRODROMO: Vague and ambiguous 4 getting sick from the asbestos?
5 and lack of foundation.
5 MR. COOK: Objection. Misstates
6 FEMALE VOICE: Calls for
6 testimony.
7 speculation.
7 THE WITNESS: And and they are
8 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
8 concerned about getting their litigation fees in the
9 Q. Let me ask it again and I apologize.
9 court cases.
10 Wouldn't you agree, sir, that when
10 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
11 presenting information to the public whoever it is 11 Q. Okay.
12 --
12 A. So how many -- how many people that you
13 A. Uh-huh.
13 named in there are expert witnesses for the
14 Q. -- that it would be better to have
14 plaintiffs.
15 information that was prepared by scientists as
15 Q. Okay. So?
16 opposed to information prepared by scientists at the 16
A. And how much money do they make.
17 instructions of attorneys in litigation?
17 Q. I hand you 25 Exhibit 25?
18 #09: Same objection.
18 (Document marked Exhibit 25.)
19
MR. COOK: Continuing objection.
19 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
20
THE WITNESS: Probably would be
20 Q. Tell me of all those people that signed
21 better but that's I don't think that's what the real
21 that who is biased in your view?
22 world is is like.
22 MR. COOK: Objection. Assumes
75 (Pages 294 to 297)
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 298
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 300
2 facts lacks foundation.
2 for to demonstrate that Chrysotile kills people?
3 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
3 MR. COOK: Objection.
4 Q. Can you?
4 Argumentative.
5 MR. COOK: Outside.
5 THE WITNESS: Please repeat.
6 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
6 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
7 Q. You can't do that can you?
7 Q. Sure. Did ICA fund Bernstein to
8 A. I can't do that.
8 demonstrate how many people have died from
9
MR. COOK: Outside the witnesses
9 mesothelioma from Chrysotile?
10 personal knowledge.
10 MR. COOK: Same objections.
11
THE WITNESS: I can't see in
11
THE WITNESS: No.
12 anybodies heart.
12 MR. COOK: Assumes facts.
13 #09: Objection.
13 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
14 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
14 Q. Did ICA fund Bernstein so that the
15 Q. The next?
15 public can be safer as it relates to exposure to
16 A. But they have their opinion and you have 16 Chrysotile asbestos?
17 the other side and again I'm talking about a layman. 17
MR. COOK: Same objection.
18 Q. Sure?
18 THE WITNESS: I think that the
19 A. I look at, you know, there are all kinds
19 study was to show what the effects are on the -- on
20 of documents.
20 the use of Chrysotile at low exposures with in the
21 Q. ICA the international Chrysotile
21 hope that that would -- would underscore that --
22 association funded Bernstein to support their
22 that theory. You know.
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 299
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 301
2 position correct? The Chrysotile safe?
2 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
3 MR. ARTABANE: That
3 Q. Objection move to strike nonresponsive.
4 mischaracterizes testimony.
4 My question, sir, was: Did ICA fund
5 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
5 Bernstein to educate the public that Chrysotile was
6 Q. The ICA funded Bernstein so that he
6 a safe or dangerous mineral?
7 could publish to support ICA's position?
7 A. ICA funded for the study to advance the
8 A. Well.
8 scientific knowledge of what the health effects are
9 Q. With about Chrysotile?
9 of Chrysotile. I don't know any other way to answer
10 A. I would say that -- I answered that
10 your question other than that.
11 question earlier. I said that was hoped for that
11 Q. So?
12 there would be a positive study.
12 A. But.
13 Q. And?
13 Q. In this study to you would agree was
14 A. Because of the recent group of
14 used or can be used by member companies of the ICA
15 scientific articles that have been published showing 15 to go around to various governmental bodies to
16 more and more that Chrysotile can be used safely. 16 promote the use of Chrysotile asbestos? True?
17 Q. So is it true that ICA funded Bernstein 17 A. True.
18 to write a paper to support their position?
18 Q. Okay. A couple more questions about
19 A. No.
19 this letter.
20 Q. That's not true?
20 Paragraph number 12 says.
21 A. No.
21 As of June 2011, pursuant to the
22 Q. Did they fund -- did ICA fund Bernstein 22 contracts with GP, Dr. Bernstein had been paid
76 (Pages 298 to 301)
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 302
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 304
2 $850,000.
2 A. If you say so.
3 Do you see that?
3 Q. You don't know one way or the other?
4 A. Yes.
4 A. I don't know one way or the other no.
5 Q. Did you know that prior to? 6 A. No.
5 Q. In all -- you can set this -- we can set 6 this exhibit to the side, sir.
7 Q. Bernstein's involvement in in this
7 And all the information that I marked as
8 paper?
8 Exhibit 26 if it was true hypothetically would you
9 A. No.
9 agree that Bernstein is not someone who is properly
10 Q. Over on the next page, the next to last 10 reporting science?
11 page. I've got it highlighted paragraph 13?
11 A. No.
12 A. Yeah.
12 MR. COOK: Objection.
13 Q. Do you see that?
13 MR. ARTABANE: Objection.
14 A. Yes.
14 MR. COOK: Beyond the scope of the
15 Q. It says.
15 notice and personal knowledge of the witness
16 As of June 2011, Dr. Bernstein's
16 incomplete hypothetical relevance assumes facts
17 coauthors, specifically RCC, U Decker, S Gehring and 17 prejudicial and argumentative. Also asks for a
18 GAS Kuzendorf were $750,000 by GP.
18 value judgment that the witness can't give.
19 Do you see that?
19 THE WITNESS: From what I know
20 A. Yes.
20 about Dr. Bernstein no, I wouldn't say that.
21 Q. Did you know that? 22 A. I don't even know who they are.
21 BY MR. SATTERLEY: 22 Q. Do you think that Dr. Bernstein being if
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 303
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 305
2 Q. All right. It says.
2 this is true hypothetically being paid hundred of
3
RA Rogers and R Sepulveda was paid
3 thousands of dollars and being and signing
4 $700,000 by GP.
4 agreements to have lawyers telling him what to
5 Do you see that?
5 write, do you think Dr. Bernstein's science should
6 A. Yes.
6 be relied upon by others?
7 Q. Do you know who that is?
7 MR. COOK: Same objection it
8 A. No.
8 misstates evidence.
9 Q. Okay. It says coauthor Dr. Donaldson
9
MR. ARTABANE: You're asking for
10 has also been hired as a consultant -- hired by GP 10 his personal opinion.
11 as a consultant for the asbestos litigation project 11 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
12 on an hourly basis and has been paid from time to 12
Q. Sure your professional opinion?
13 time on GP asbestos litigation projects since 2006? 13
MR. ARTABANE: No. His personal
14 MR. COOK: Renew same objection. 14 opinion. He has no professional opinion.
15 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
15 MR. SATTERLEY: He's the he's the
16 Q. Do you see that?
16 ICA. He's an officer of ICA.
17 A. Yes.
17 MR. ARTABANE: But you can't ask
18 Q. Do you know who Dr. Donaldson is?
18 him that in his quote professional opinion. This is
19 A. I have no idea.
19 a lay witness.
20 Q. Donaldson was the guy at the particle 20 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
21 and fiber toxicology that Bernstein consulted on the 21
Q. Go ahead, sir.
22 Chrysotile review article correct?
22 A. Whether it's improper what you just
77 (Pages 302 to 305)
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 306
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 308
2 described about with the litigation part doesn't
2 I've read. And I have -- I don't know anything
3 detract from his scientific abilities. He could --
3 except what most of it is what you've told me today
4 he could very well do a scientific study on any --
4 about Dr. Bernstein. I don't know him on an
5 anything and it could be perfectly right.
5 intimate basis. I'm not a scientist. I looked at
6 Q. Is it ICA's position that science -- it
6 the study. It seems to be done properly. He
7 is good valid science to have a conclusion then do 7 acknowledges rewrites from the various scientific
8 the research to support the conclusion that you've 8 publications and which seems and the peer review
9 already come to?
9 people. So there has to be with all that he's gone
10 A. No, I think.
10 through the hoops there has to be some credibility
11
MR. COOK: Renew my objection.
11 given to his work.
12
THE WITNESS: I would say that's
12 Q. Is it acceptable to the international
13 not -- would be totally improper for either side of 13 Chrysotile association for someone to call something
14 the issue. Either the pro Chrysotile or the con
14 a grant when it was a fee for services deal?
15 Chrysotile people that you've put here to do that in 15
MR. COOK: Same objection.
16 advance. To do your study only to get a foregone 16
THE WITNESS: I don't I don't know
17 conclusion is not -- not the right thing to do.
17 what he may have been thinking when he did that.
18 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
18 Just like when he says international Chrysotile
19 Q. Before you continue to distribute this
19 association in Washington, DC. If he hadn't have
20 nice color brochure this Chrysotile revisited
20 put that in there I probably wouldn't be sitting
21 article, you would -- before you do this again and 21 here today.
22 send this out to people you would certainly agree 22 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 307
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 309
2 that Dr. Bernstein should be investigated with
2 Q. So my question was: Is it acceptable to
3 regards to his involvement in this correct?
3 the international Chrysotile association to call
4
MR. COOK: Renew the continuing
4 something a grant when it was a fee?
5 objection.
5 A. Well.
6 THE WITNESS: No.
6 Q. For services deal?
7 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
7 MR. COOK: Same objection.
8 Q. Okay. It's acceptable?
8 THE WITNESS: He shouldn't he
9 A. I.
9 shouldn't have done that unless as I say the
10 Q. To the international Chrysotile
10 Chrysotile institute may have made such an
11 association for Dr. Bernstein to receive secret
11 arrangement with him. As I've said before I don't
12 money behind the scenes, meet with lawyers behind 12 know the answer to that.
13 the scenes, write articles behind the scenes and
13 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
14 present it to the public as good science?
14 Q. Has the international Chrysotile
15
MR. COOK: Objection. Beyond the
15 association taken the time to evaluate the number of
16 scope of the notice and the personal knowledge
16 people that develop mesothelioma from Chrysotile?
17 incomplete hypothetical relevance assumes facts
17 A. There was I think Dr. Nolan presented a
18 prejudicial lacks foundation calls for speculation.
18 paper at the Kiev Ukraine conference.
19 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
19 Q. No did ICA pay for that paper?
20 Q. True?
20 A. No.
21 A. I've read -- I will answer the question
21 Q. Oh, no. So my question let me ask you?
22 based on my limited knowledge of what I know. What 22
A. Oh.
78 (Pages 306 to 309)
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 310
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 312
2 Q. Has the ICA?
2 have on the tape.
3 A. Okay.
3 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: 15 minutes.
4 Q. I'm not talking about somebody else?
4 I'm sorry 17 minutes.
5 A. Okay.
5 BY MR. COOK:
6 Q. That I haven't I don't have subject to
6 Q. All right. Good afternoon, sir, my name
7 examination cross-examination.
7 is Eric cook and I have a few follow-up questions
8
Has the ICA spent money and time and
8 for you?
9 efforts to count up the number of people that have 9
A. Okay.
10 died of mesothelioma from Chrysotile?
10 Q. We're here today taking your deposition
11
MR. COOK: Same objection.
11 at the Merritt at the Washington Dulles Airport that
12
THE WITNESS: We this study
12 services Washington, DC correct?
13 critical review revisited Chrysotile is the only
13 A. Correct.
14 research that ICA has funded. So the answer to your 14
Q. And your home is and your home office
15 question is no.
15 specifically is nearby correct?
16 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
16 A. Yes.
17
Q. Okay. And so and setting aside funding,
17
Q. And when you sent checks to
18 has anybody on behalf of ICA done an investigation 18 Dr. Bernstein for the work that he performed on the
19 about how many people have suffered from
19 article we've been discussing today that was
20 mesothelioma after breathing Chrysotile asbestos? 20 ultimately published under the title health risk of
21
MR. COOK: Same objection.
21 Chrysotile revisited, did you send the checks from
22 THE WITNESS: Has any ICA person? 22 your home office here in the Northern Virginia
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 311
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 313
2 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
2 Washington, DC area?
3 Q. Sure.
3 A. Wire transferred. I never didn't use
4 A. No.
4 checks but wire transfer through the ICA's bank.
5 Q. Those are all the questions?
5 Q. I think you indicated before, sir, that
6 A. Not that I'm aware of.
6 the Chrysotile institute initially got involved with
7 Q. Those are all the questions I'm going to
7 the work on Dr. Bernstein's article prior to the
8 have.
8 ICA's involvement is that correct?
9 Oh, just to verify earlier I asked you
9 A. That's correct.
10 said there might be some documents that you have if 10
Q. All right. You were never present when
11 you find them?
11 members of the Chrysotile institute first discussed
12 A. Yeah.
12 the article or any funding of the article with
13 Q. Let your attorney know and I'll
13 Dr. Bernstein were you?
14 coordinate with your attorney. It's let me just
14 A. I was not.
15 close out you have produced all documents you have 15
Q. And you have no knowledge of any
16 in response to these subpoenas?
16 conversations that any members of the Chrysotile
17 A. Yes.
17 institute would have had with Dr. Bernstein about
18 Q. Right?
18 funding for that article?
19 A. I have.
19 A. I do not.
20
MR. SATTERLEY: Okay. Those are
20 Q. Similarly, sir, you have no knowledge of
21 all the questions I have at the current time.
21 whether anyone from the Chrysotile institute
22
MR. COOK: How much time do we
22 discussed a grant with Dr. Bernstein?
79 (Pages 310 to 313)
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 314
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 316
2 A. I do not.
2 there where Mr. Satterley had highlighted a section
3 Q. You haven't reviewed any documents from 3 with respect to -- I'm sorry -- the next page again,
4 the Chrysotile institute as to whether or not
4 sir. Roger McClellan?
5 Dr. Bernstein had submitted any -- any proposal for 5
A. Yeah.
6 a grant or they had approved a grant?
6 Q. That's in the 2007 answers?
7 A. I have not.
7 A. Right.
8 Q. Sir, I'd like to refer you to the
8 Q. To Interrogatories correct.
9 Answers to Interrogatories if I could?
9 You've never seen those prior to today
10 MR. SATTERLEY: You want me to get 10 have you?
11 them out for you.
11 A. Have not.
12
MR. COOK: Yeah if you could
12 Q. All right. And you can't give us any
13 please.
13 information about any any relationship between you
14 BY MR. COOK:
14 Union Carbide and any expert witnesses from your own
15 Q. All right.
15 personal knowledge can you, sir?
16
MR. SATTERLEY: That's Exhibit 19.
16 A. I cannot.
17 BY MR. COOK:
17 Q. Okay. Sir, have you ever personally
18 Q. All right. Sir, if I can ask you to
18 conducted a scientific study?
19 turn to Exhibit 19 please and specifically Mr.
19 A. No.
20 Satterley had asked you questions about payments to 20
Q. Have you ever personally authored or
21 certain experts on behalf of Union Carbide?
21 coauthored a scientific study?
22 A. Right.
22 A. No.
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 315
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 317
2 Q. And litigation had referred you to the
2 Q. Have you ever personally been involved
3 end portion of that he had highlighted some specific 3 in the peer review process for a scientific or
4 sections correct?
4 medical article?
5 A. You're talking about at the end?
5 A. No.
6 Q. Yeah. Actually if I could show you
6 Q. You can't testify as to the norms or the
7 where I'm pointing to, sir.
7 standards as to what what a coauthor should or
8 Exhibit 19 Mr. Satterley has he had 8 should not do with respect to a scientific study can
9 highlighted this particular section?
9 you?
10 A. Oh, yeah okay.
10 A. I cannot.
11 Q. Sections he wanted you to look at?
11 Q. You have you do not have a detailed
12 A. Right.
12 understanding of a peer reviewed process for
13 Q. Looking at with respect to the one on
13 scientific medical papers do you?
14 Exhibit A, Exhibit A refers to some Answers to
14 A. No, I haven't. Not of the details no.
15 Interrogatories?
15 Q. Okay. Your understanding generally is
16 A. Okay yeah.
16 that an author of a proposed publication would
17 Q. In the Nicolella case right?
17 submit it to a journal for peer review correct?
18 A. Right.
18 A. Correct.
19 Q. And the date from Nicolella case would 19 Q. And then it would be distributed to peer
20 be August of 2007 correct?
20 reviewers and they would make a determination as to
21 A. Right.
21 the scientific merits of a proposed article?
22 Q. Okay. And if you turn to the next page 22
MR. SATTERLEY: Objection.
80 (Pages 314 to 317)
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 318
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 320
2 Foundation speculation.
2 One of the items or roles that you
3 BY MR. COOK:
3 mentioned earlier with respect to the AIANA?
4 Q. Is that correct, sir?
4 A. Right.
5 A. It's correct.
5 Q. Was to educate correct?
6 Q. Okay. Sir, I'd like to go back to your
6 A. That's correct.
7 time with the asbestos information association of 7
Q. How did the AIANA go about educating
8 North America.
8 with respect to asbestos in the 1970s, sir?
9
When did you first join the AIANA, sir?
9 A. Mostly by publications, recommended work
10 A. July 1, 1974.
10 practices for all the various segments of the
11 Q. And when you joined the AIANA in July of 11 industry, friction, paper, textiles, etc. as well as
12 1974, sir, what was your position?
12 I mentioned earlier development of of posters that
13 A. Administrative assistant.
13 could be placed in plants that would say if you
14 Q. Who were you the administrative
14 smoke, stop, don't dry sweep, wear respirators when
15 assistant to, sir?
15 required, things like that.
16 A. Robert, Mr. Robert H. Mereness
16 Q. Did the AIANA fill that same role in the
17 M-e-r-e-n-e-s-s.
17 1980s?
18 Q. And at that time in 1974 what was Mr. 18 A. Yes.
19 Mereness role in the AIANA?
19 Q. Okay. How did the AIANA distribute that
20 A. He was the executive director.
20 information in the 1970s and '80s?
21 Q. How long did you remain his
21 A. We -- we back then of course we had --
22 administrative assistant, sir?
22 don't have the files now but back then we had
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 319
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 321
2 A. Four years.
2 pre-prepared forms where the membership was given
3 Q. And in 1978, sir, what position did you
3 the examples of what was available and the
4 take on with the AIANA?
4 membership would indicate how many copies of those
5 A. I succeeded him Mr. Mereness.
5 that they wanted and there was a quite -- quite a
6 Q. Okay. You were never at any time
6 response to that. All of those materials were
7 employed by Union Carbide corporation were you, sir? 7 developed by a technical committee. The recommended
8 A. No.
8 work practices had the OSHA asbestos regulation as
9 Q. You have no information or knowledge as 9 an appendix and there was quite a response to that
10 to what information Union Carbide corporation
10 effort.
11 distributed to its customers of Caldera Chrysotile
11 Q. Okay. And so it was actually if I
12 in the 1970s or 1980s do you?
12 understand it correctly, sir, it was the role of the
13 A. I do not.
13 AIANA to distribute information about asbestos and
14 Q. When you joined the AIANA in the 1970s, 14 how to control asbestos to its members and other
15 sir, were you familiar with the purpose of the
15 individuals; is that correct?
16 AIANA?
16 A. Yes.
17 A. Was I familiar with the purpose of
17 Q. Okay. Sir, do you know whether the
18 AIANA?
18 chairman of the ICA ever had any conversations with
19 Q. Let me let me withdraw that question,
19 Dr. Bernstein about the funding for his study that
20 sir?
20 was ultimately published under the title health risk
21 A. Okay.
21 of cross Chrysotile revisited?
22 Q. That's a poorly worded question.
22 A. Repeat the question.
81 (Pages 318 to 321)
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 322
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 324
2 Q. Sure. I changed tracks on you and I
2 Union Carbide and was of -- I think he was at one
3 apologize?
3 point was the chairman of our technical committee.
4 A. Yeah.
4 Q. And there was another person I was?
5 Q. I'm now referring to the ICA the
5
MR. ARTABANE: That's of AIANA.
6 international Chrysotile association?
6 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
7 A. Yeah.
7 Q. Oh, okay.
8 Q. Do you know whether the chairman?
8 A. Of AIANA.
9 A. Yeah.
9 Q. Of AIANA okay.
10 Q. Of the ICA ever had any conversations
10
And there was one other person I was
11 with Dr. Bernstein about his article that was
11 going to ask about. Let's see. Thurber. William
12 ultimately published under the title health risk of
12 C. Thurber?
13 Chrysotile revisited?
13 A. Yes.
14 A. I I was not present but I'm confident
14 Q. Who is William C. Thurber?
15 especially with Mr. Godbout when it first began
15 A. He was the first, first representative
16 discussed, you know, what the limitations were.
16 of Union Carbide.
17
MR. SATTERLEY: Objection
17 Q. As a part of the that you recall as a
18 objection hearsay.
18 part of the AIANA?
19 BY MR. COOK:
19 A. NA correct.
20 Q. Have you had a conversation with
20 Q. Okay.
21 Mr. Godbout about any talks he would have had with 21
A. And Rhodes succeeded him.
22 Dr. Bernstein regarding his study?
22 Q. Just so that the record is clear with
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 323
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 325
2 A. Only in general terms.
2 regards to this particular case you're not
3 Q. Sir, subject to any follow-up I think
3 suggesting to the jury that posters or written
4 those are the questions that I have for you thank 4 materials or anything was shared with Mr. And Mrs.
5 you very much?
5 Nelson about the danger of asbestos back in the '70s
6 A. Thank you.
6 or '80s?
7
MR. SATTERLEY: Anybody on the
7
MR. COOK: Objection. Beyond the
8 phone have any questions? I just got a couple
8 scope of the notice and the witness's personal
9 follow-ups.
9 knowledge and calls for speculation.
10 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
10 THE WITNESS: Nelson did you say.
11 Q. I forgot to ask you if you knew Harrison 11 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
12 V. Rose?
12 Q. Yeah the person that suffered from
13 MR. ARTABANE: Wait.
13 mesothelioma that we're here talking today that's in
14
MR. SATTERLEY: I'm sorry?
14 this case?
15 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
15 A. Oh, I have no idea.
16
Q. I'm trying to get you out of here, sir? 16
Q. Counsel asked you some questions about
17 A. Yeah.
17 what the AIANA did?
18
Q. Harrison V. Rhodes from Union Carbide 18
A. Yeah.
19 corporation. Did you know him?
19 Q. You said you provided some posters to
20 A. Yes.
20 various companies and things like that?
21 Q. And who was he?
21 A. Yeah.
22
A. He was a representative as I recall of 22
Q. I just want to make it clear?
82 (Pages 322 to 325)
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 326
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 328
2 A. I have no knowledge that she would have
2
MR. SATTERLEY: Oh, Karen. I
3 seen it.
3 apologize. We didn't hear you.
4 Q. Or yeah somebody out in Oakland
4
MR. HARTLEY: Just so you know
5 California would have seen something you might have 5 Karen you're very faint and the witness has to lean
6 provided to some companies?
6 into hear you.
7 A. Because we got many requests from the
7
MS. PRODROMO: Okay. Let me see
8 public. In fact, you know, would have advanced it
8 if I can fix that. Can you hear me any better.
9 but I have no knowledge that she that she was one of 9
MR. SATTERLEY: Yes.
10 them. I just don't know.
10 BY MS. PRODROMO:
11 Q. And with regards to the AIANA's role it
11 Q. Georgia-Pacific has come up a couple of
12 was saying through Mr. Mereness his tenure through 12 times in this deposition and I just want to be
13 all the way through the '70s and '80s correct?
13 clear. ICA as you talked about funded David
14 A. Mr. Mereness.
14 Bernstein's paper health risks health risks of
15 Q. Mr. Mereness?
15 Chrysotile.
16 A. Left in '78.
16 Georgia-Pacific didn't have anything to
17 Q. Sure?
17 do with that funding correct?
18 A. And I succeeded him in '78.
18 MR. SATTERLEY: Object to form.
19 Q. Yeah but I guess the point I'm trying to
19 Calls for speculation.
20 get at?
20 THE WITNESS: What? Did
21 A. Oh.
21 Georgia-Pacific have anything to do with the funding
22 Q. The asbestos information association of
22 of the study?
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 327
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 329
2 North America its role has been?
2 BY MS. PRODROMO:
3 A. Oh.
3 Q. Yes.
4 Q. Has been the same throughout his tenure 4 A. No.
5 and your tenure?
5 Q. Right?
6 A. Correct.
6 A. No.
7 Q. Okay.
7 Q. Thank you.
8
MR. COOK: Objection. Vague and
8
MR. SATTERLEY: Any further
9 ambiguous.
9 questions.
10 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Counsel we have 10
MS. PRODROMO: Thank you very
11 three minutes before.
11 much.
12
MR. SATTERLEY: No further
12
MR. SATTERLEY: Is that it?
13 questions.
13 MS. PRODROMO: That's all my
14
MS. PRODROMO: I just have a
14 questions.
15 couple of quick questions one or two questions on 15
MR. COOK: Just one quick
16 the phone.
16 follow-up, sir.
17
MR. SATTERLEY: Okay just identify
17 BY MR. COOK:
18 who you are and who you represent.
18 Q. Union Carbide did not have anything to
19
MS. PRODROMO: Sure. This is
19 do with the funding of Dr. Bernstein's study health
20 Karen Prodromo for Georgia-Pacific.
20 risk of Chrysotile?
21
MR. SATTERLEY: Catherine who.
21 A. No.
22 MS. PRODROMO: Karen Prodromo. 22 Q. Thank you, sir.
83 (Pages 326 to 329)
1 ROUGH DRAFT, NOT EDITED
Page 330
2 BY MR. SATTERLEY:
3 Q. Let me do a follow-up.
4 Do you know the names of the various
5 companies that have funded the various studies that
6 you've presented us with today?
7 MR. COOK: Objection documents
8 speaks for themselves.
9 THE WITNESS: No.
10 MR. SATTERLEY: Okay. No further
11 questions. Let's close out the record.
12 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Going off
13 record end of deposition end of tape disk 4,
14 15:32:03.
15 (Recess taken - 3:31 p.m.
16 #09: This is Karen can make one
17 request
18
19
20
21
22
84 (Page 330)