Document MMVxmox5VmO8Va4Z33RvvGOok

A3074BC KENNETH A. MUNDT, Ph.D. OCTOBER 13, 2009 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) THOMAS WAYNE REESE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) GANS INK & SUPPLY CO., a California ) corporation, and DOES 1 through 200, ) inclusive, ) ) Defendants. ) ________________________________________) No. BC332936 DEPOSITION OF KENNETH A. MUNDT, Ph.D. LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA OCTOBER 13, 2009 Atkinson-Baker, Inc. Court Reporters (800) 288-3376 www.depo.com Reported by: SHERI A. PLY, CSR No. 6507, RPR FILE No.: A3074BC A3074BC KENNETH A. MUNDT, Ph.D. OCTOBER 13, 2009 1 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 2 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 3 ) 4 THOMAS WAYNE REESE, ) ) 5 Plaintiff, ) ) 6 vs. ) No. BC332936 ) 7 GANS INK & SUPPLY CO., a California ) corporation, and DOES 1 through 200, ) 8 inclusive, ) ) 9 Defendants. ) ________________________________________) 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 13 16 14 DEPOSITION of KENNETH A. MUNDT, Ph.D., taken on behalf 15 of the PLAINTIFF, at 401 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite 17 16 800, Long Beach, California, commencing at 9:05 a.m., 17 on Tuesday, October 13, 2009, before Sheri A. Ply, CSR 18 18 No. 6507, RPR. 19 19 20 21 20 21 22 22 23 23 24 24 25 25 Page 2 APPEARANCES FOR THE DEFENDANT VAN SON HOLLAND INK AND WEIMAN PRODUCTS: (VIA TELEPHONE) WOOD SMITH HENNING & BERMAN LLP BY: JOSHUA A. QUINONES, ESQ. 10960 Wilshire Boulevard 18th Floor Los Angeles, California 90024-3804 (310)481-7600 FOR THE DEFENDANT CNA HOLDINGS, INC.: (OF RECORD, NOT PRESENT) MORRIS POLICH & PURDY LLP BY: RICHARD E. STULTZ, ESQ. 1055 West Seventh Street 24th Floor Los Angeles, California 90017-2503 (213)417-5189 FOR THE DEFENDANTS SUPERIOR PRINTING INK COMPANY, BRADEN SUTPHIN INK COMPANY, REYNOLDS GRAPHIC ARTS CORPORATION AND RECKITT-BENCKISER: POOLE & SHAFFERY, LLP BY: JOHN GRANNIS, ESQ. 445 South Figueroa Street Suite 2520 Los Angeles, California 90071 (213) 439-5390 FOR THE DEFENDANT KOHL & MADDEN: (VIA TELEPHONE) ROPERS MAJESKI KOHN BENTLEY BY: LEE HAMMER, ESQ. 515 South Flower Street Suite 1100 Los Angeles, California 90071 (213)312-2000 Page 4 1 APPEARANCES 2 3 FOR THE PLAINTIFF: 4 METZGER LAW GROUP 5 BY: RAPHAEL METZGER, ESQ. 401 East Ocean Boulevard 6 Suite 800 Long Beach, California 90802 7 (562)437-4499 8 FOR THE DEFENDANT 3M: 9 STEPTOE & JOHNSON 10 BY: JENNIFER B. BONNEVILLE, ESQ. 633 West Fifth Street 11 Suite 700 Los Angeles, California 90071-3500 12 (213)43909421 13 14 FOR THE DEFENDANT SAFETY-KLEEN: 15 (OF RECORD, NOT PRESENT) LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP 16 221 North Figueroa Street Suite 1200 17 Los Angeles, California 90012 (213)250-1800 18 -AND- (VIA TELEPHONE) 19 JONES CARR McGOLDRICK, LLP BY: HEATHER FORGEY, ESQ. 20 5307 E. Mockingbird Lane Suite 600 21 Dallas, Texas 75206 (214)828-9200 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 3 INDEX WITNESS: KENNETH A. MUNDT, PH.D. EXAMINATION BY: MR. METZGER PAGE 7 INFORMATION REQUESTED: (NONE) QUESTIONS WITNESS INSTRUCTED NOT TO ANSWER: (NONE) E X H I B I T S: DEPOSITION NUMBER DESCRIPTION 1 Multipage Curriculum Vitae 10 2 Three-page Testimony and Fees 32 PAGE 3 One-page Prior Testimony 64 4 Two-page list of materials received 65 5 Three-page NHL Epidemiology Articles 67 6 One-page Misc. Articles 68 7 One-page Summary of Opinions in Reese 71 Page 5 2 (Pages 2 to 5) A3074BC KENNETH A. MUNDT, Ph.D. OCTOBER 13, 2009 1 E X H I B I T S: 2 DEPOSITION 3 NUMBER DESCRIPTION 8 Multipage E-mail 4 correspondence 59 Multipage Invoices 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 PAGE 4 5 71 6 71 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 6 entire file. MR. METZGER: That is not going to work, John. Come on. We can recess and have all this stuff printed out, but I mean -- MR. GRANNIS: Can you have your CV E-mailed to us or faxed to us here? MR. METZGER: That is not the point. I mean that is going to require him to make a call. I want to get this deposition going. At least that is usually produced; not just given on a CD. So if we need to recess or -MR. GRANNIS: In the time we have been talking, Dr. Mundt could have called his office and asked to have it faxed here. We would be glad to do that. It is on the disk. Q BY MR. METZGER: Dr. Mundt, is your curriculum vitae on this disk? A Yes, sir. Q Is there a publications list with that curriculum vitae? A Yes, there is. Q Is that a separate document or is it incorporated within the CV? A Part of the same. Q Is there a list of the cases that you have Page 8 1 LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA, TUESDAY, OCTOBER 13, 2009 1 testified on this CD? 2 9:05 A.M. 2 A There is a list of trial testimony. 3 *** 3 Q And deposition testimony? 4 KENNETH A. MUNDT, PH.D., 4 A Not deposition testimony. 5 having been first duly sworn, was examined 5 Q Where is that? 6 and testified as follows: 6 A I have -- I have a list of all testimony in the 7 7 past four years. 8 EXAMINATION 8 Q Where is that? 9 BY MR. METZGER: 9 A That is in my office. I don't have it -- trial 10 Q Would you introduce yourself, please. 10 testimony on this file. 11 A Kenneth Mundt. I am an epidemiologist by 11 Q We are going to need that so I will ask you to 12 training and practice. 12 call for that. 13 Q And you are a Ph.D.; correct? 13 What else is on the CD that you have provided 14 A That is correct. 14 me? 15 Q Do you prefer to be called doctor, therefore? 15 A A listing of all of the case materials that I 16 A It is appropriate. I don't have a preference. 16 was provided by counsel, files containing all of the 17 Q Okay. Since it is appropriate, I will call you 17 articles in which I rely to form my opinions. 18 Dr. Mundt. 18 Q Is there a list of those? 19 Dr. Mundt, I don't believe we have met before, 19 A No. They are actual copies of the articles. 20 have we? 20 Q Is there an index or bibliography? 21 A We have not. 21 A No. 22 Q Okay. So I never had the pleasure of deposing 22 Q Okay. What else is on the CD? 23 you before, okay. 23 A Copies of all correspondence and billings in 24 So do you have a curriculum vitae with you? 24 this matter. 25 A Yes, it is on the DVD that I provided with my 25 Q What else? Page 7 Page 9 3 (Pages 6 to 9) A3074BC KENNETH A. MUNDT, Ph.D. OCTOBER 13, 2009 1 A This statement, summary of opinions. 1 non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in patients for deaths? 2 Q What else? 2 A No, I have not. 3 A I believe that is it. 3 Q Have you ever conducted any epidemiologic study 4 Q Okay. We are going to go off the record and we 4 that was specifically designed to investigate risks 5 will print out this stuff so we can do your deposition. 5 specifically for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma? 6 (Brief recess.) 6 A Specifically and excluding other causes of 7 MR. METZGER: Back on the record. 7 death or disease? 8 (Deposition Exhibit 1 was marked for 8 Q Yes. 9 identification.) 9 A That is correct, I have not. 10 Q BY MR. METZGER: Dr. Mundt, is Exhibit 1 your 10 Q Okay. Have you conducted any epidemiologic 11 curriculum vitae? 11 studies which investigated disease outcomes amongst 12 A Yes, sir. 12 benzene-exposed workers? 13 Q Is it current? 13 A Yes, I have. 14 A Yes, it is. 14 Q What studies are those? 15 Q Is it complete? 15 A There is a series of publications based on a 16 A I believe so. 16 large complex study of river workers in Germany and 17 Q Is it accurate? 17 portions of the cohort workers were presumed to have 18 A Yes, I believe so. 18 been exposed to benzene among many other solvents and 19 Q When was it prepared, the last updated? 19 chemicals. 20 A Within a month. 20 Q Would you show me on your publications list 21 Q Are there any articles or presentations or 21 where those publications are. 22 abstracts that are not listed on here? 22 Is it more than one? 23 A I believe it is up to date. 23 A Yes. And I can't recall specifically which of 24 Q So is the answer to my question no? 24 the publications address non-Hodgkin's lymphoma 25 A It is current. I don't recall the wording of 25 specifically. Page 10 Page 12 1 your question. 1 Q Do you recall that any of them do? 2 Q I asked you if there are any publications, 2 A I believe, yes. 3 articles, abstracts or presentations that you have given 3 On page 14, the penultimate entry is authored 4 or prepared that are not listed on this? 4 by Straif. This Part 2 of a two-part article covers 5 A I am sorry. It is complete. It is up to date. 5 mortality from non-respiratory cancers. 6 Therefore, there are no other presentations or abstracts 6 Q All right. Any others? 7 that have taken place that are not identified on this. 7 A On page 15, the third entry by Weiland is from 8 Q Okay. Have you conducted any epidemiologic 8 the same study, as is the sixth, I believe, also by 9 studies regarding non-Hodgkin's lymphoma? 9 Weiland. 10 A I have conducted several epidemiological 10 I think those are the three that provide -- I 11 studies in which non-Hodgkin's lymphoma was among the 11 am sorry. There is one more. 12 diseases of interest. 12 On page 14 again, middle of the list, I'm the 13 Q Were these all cancer mortality studies, that 13 first author of the study of women in the German rubber 14 type of thing? 14 industry. 15 A Mostly, yes. 15 Q You are the first named author on that? 16 Q Okay. 16 A Correct. 17 A I also conducted a review of the literature on 17 Q Okay. So it is those four studies? 18 perchloroethylene and -- perchloroethylene that looked 18 A Those are the most likely to contain results on 19 at various categories of cancers. 19 NHL. 20 Q There is a difference between an epidemiologic 20 Q Did you review the actual data regarding 21 study and a review, isn't there? 21 non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in those publications of yours 22 A Absolutely. 22 with respect to your opinions in this case as to whether 23 Q I am asking about epidemiologic studies so 23 benzene can cause non-Hodgkin's lymphoma? 24 let's stick with that for the moment, please. 24 A That is a complicated question. If you could 25 Have you ever conducted a case control study of 25 clarify what you mean by did I examine the data on Page 11 Page 13 4 (Pages 10 to 13) A3074BC KENNETH A. MUNDT, Ph.D. OCTOBER 13, 2009 1 non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. 1 identification number; is that correct? 2 Q I am asking if you actually looked at the data 2 A I provided Mr. Grannis with that information 3 in your own publications regarding benzene and 3 this morning. 4 non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in preparation for your opinions 4 Q So this is your handwriting? 5 in this case on the causal relationship between benzene 5 A No, it is not. 6 and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. 6 Q Okay. 7 Did you do that or not? 7 A I read it from an E-mail that I received. 8 MR. GRANNIS: It is argumentative. Lacks 8 Q And he wrote it down? 9 foundation. 9 A And he wrote it down. 10 THE WITNESS: I am sorry. The way I view data 10 MR. GRANNIS: Poorly, I might add. 11 are the raw materials of a study we gather, so I didn't 11 MR. METZGER: Off the record. 12 know if you were asking if I looked at the death 12 (Interruption in the proceedings.) 13 certificates that reported NHL. 13 MR. METZGER: Back on the record. 14 I think that would have been -- that is how I 14 Q Are you employed full time by Environ? 15 interpreted your use of the word "data." 15 A Yes, sir. 16 Did I review the published results in these 16 Q And how many hours a week do you work in your 17 publications in preparation for this deposition, no, I 17 work for Environ? 18 did not. 18 A Between 50 and 60. 19 Q BY MR. METZGER: Are you able to tell me what 19 Q Do you have any other professional work outside 20 your own studies that you just identified indicate 20 of Environ? 21 regarding whether there is an increased risk of 21 A No, sir. 22 non-Hodgkin's lymphoma among benzene-exposed rubber 22 Q Your curriculum vitae indicates that you have 23 workers in any of these studies? 23 an appointment as an adjunct professor in the department 24 MR. GRANNIS: Argumentative. 24 of epidemiology at the University of North Carolina at 25 THE WITNESS: Not from memory, no. 25 Chapel Hill; is that correct? Page 14 Page 16 1 Q BY MR. METZGER: Okay. Are you more familiar 1 A Yes, sir. 2 with the epidemiologic studies regarding benzene and 2 Q Where do you live? 3 non-Hodgkin's lymphoma that have been published by other 3 A Amherst, Massachusetts. 4 authors than yourself? 4 Q How frequently do you go to the University of 5 MR. GRANNIS: Argumentative. Lacks foundation. 5 North Carolina to serve as an adjunct professor? 6 THE WITNESS: I am very familiar with my study. 6 A Rarely. 7 I don't recall one of hundreds of specific results. 7 Q How rarely? 8 Q BY MR. METZGER: Okay. 8 A Once per year. 9 A I am also familiar with other's studies of 9 Q When is the last time you went there? 10 benzene-exposed populations and the range of causes of 10 A Couple years ago, a year ago. 11 disease and death they examined. 11 Q And what did you do on that occasion? 12 Q Okay. You are currently a principal of 12 A Colleagues in the department of epidemiology 13 Environ; correct? 13 and I prepared a large research proposal that was not 14 A Yes, sir. 14 ultimately funded. 15 Q And that is an environmental consulting firm? 15 Q What was that proposal for? 16 A That is correct. 16 A It was for a large study of health of workers 17 Q And Environ has as clients major oil companies 17 in the semiconductor industry. 18 and chemical companies; is that correct? 18 Q And from whom were you seeking funding for that 19 MR. GRANNIS: Argumentative. 19 study? 20 THE WITNESS: Not exclusively but including oil 20 A I don't recall specifically, but it was from 21 companies as clients, correct. 21 the trade association of semiconductor interests. 22 Q BY MR. METZGER: Before the deposition began 22 Q So when you went there on that one occasion a 23 you provided me or counsel provided me an indication 23 year or two ago, did you actually do any teaching on 24 that your check for today's testimony should be made 24 that occasion? 25 payable to Environ International Corp. with its tax 25 A On that occasion, no. Page 15 Page 17 5 (Pages 14 to 17) A3074BC KENNETH A. MUNDT, Ph.D. OCTOBER 13, 2009 1 Q When is the last time that you actually taught 1 helped introduce or arrange. This occurred early part 2 a course -- strike that. 2 of this year. 3 Have you taught a course as an adjunct 3 Q What is the project? 4 professor at UNC? 4 A It is the further development of some 5 A I have not, no. 5 sophisticated models that pertain to, I think, exposure, 6 Q Okay. Are you in fact still an adjunct 6 dispersion of exposure generated from various sources. 7 professor at UNC? 7 Q Is there any particular chemicals that are the 8 A Yes, sir. I think the CV accurately represents 8 subject of that project? 9 that my appointment is from 2007 to 2012. 9 A I don't know the details of that. I was much 10 Q I see. 10 more participating as a matchmaker than as a 11 Are you presently scheduled to teach any 11 practitioner on that project. 12 courses in the future at UNC? 12 Q You mean you were hooking up Environ with the 13 A No, sir. 13 university for this project? 14 Q When you were appointed an adjunct professor 14 A That is correct. 15 for the period 2007 to 2012, did you have any 15 Q Okay. Any other consultation that you have 16 understanding whether you would be expected to teach 16 provided for the university? 17 courses at UNC? 17 MR. GRANNIS: Vague. 18 A Yes, sir. 18 THE WITNESS: Not that I can think of right 19 Q What was your understanding? 19 now. 20 A That it was not expected because of my 20 Q BY MR. METZGER: Okay. Are you currently 21 location. 21 preparing any exams for the university? 22 Q Do you have an understanding as to why you were 22 A I am not now, no. 23 appointed an adjunct professor at UNC if you would not 23 Q When is the last time that you did that? 24 be teaching any courses there? 24 A I believe you asked me that already. It was a 25 A Yes, sir. 25 year or two ago. Page 18 Page 20 1 Q What is that? 1 Q And what exam or exams did you prepare? 2 A Adjunct faculty provide a wide range of service 2 A My specialty is in occupational epidemiology 3 and some include teaching. My appointment at UNC does 3 and the exams that I would prepare are limited to 4 not include teaching responsibilities. 4 questions on occupational epidemiology for written 5 Q What does it include? 5 doctoral exams. 6 A It includes advising, consulting, preparing 6 Q I am not asking what you would prepare; I am 7 exams for doctoral candidates in advanced areas in which 7 asking what you did prepare. 8 I am an expert or at least have something to contribute 8 Did you actually prepare any exams regarding 9 as a knowledgeable practitioner. 9 occupational epidemiology for UNC within the last two 10 I provide networking of resources and contacts 10 years? 11 for my clients and my colleagues to a mutual benefit of 11 A I'm not sure if it was within the last two 12 the university and other professional activities of the 12 years, but I certainly have prepared exam questions for 13 department and school. 13 that purpose. 14 Q Are you currently advising any doctoral 14 Q These were for doctoral candidates? 15 candidates? 15 A Yes. 16 A No, I am not. 16 Q How many? 17 Q When is the last time that you did? 17 A I don't recall. Not a large number. 18 A Probably in the same time frame of a year or 18 Q Less than five? 19 two ago. 19 A Two or three I would say. 20 Q Are you presently providing any consultation 20 Q And the rest of your activities for the 21 for the university? 21 university are networking of resources and contacts and 22 A Yes, I am. 22 some promotional work; is that correct? 23 Q What is that? 23 A That is my primary role. 24 A There is a joint project that Environ is 24 Q You also on your curriculum vitae list being an 25 pursuing with the school of public health at UNC that I 25 adjunct associate professor in the department of Page 19 Page 21 6 (Pages 18 to 21) A3074BC KENNETH A. MUNDT, Ph.D. OCTOBER 13, 2009 1 epidemiology at the University of Massachusetts at 1 concepts and methods mainly as applied to research in 2 Amherst from 2005 to the present. 2 musculoskeletal injury disorders. 3 Is that accurate? 3 Q Okay. 15 sessions that this course comprise, 4 A Yes, sir. 4 how many of those sessions did you actually teach 5 Q Are you currently teaching any courses at 5 yourself? 6 University of Massachusetts, Amherst? 6 A Keep in mind this was a shared course. I think 7 A Not this semester. 7 I had full responsibility for one session and partial 8 Q When is the last time that you taught courses 8 responsibility for two others. 9 there? 9 Q Okay. 10 A Last academic year. 10 A As well as participation in the seminar portion 11 Q That would be the year 2008 to 2009? 11 of the class, which is more discussion oriented. 12 A Correct. 12 Q Other than the three organizers, were there 13 Q Why are you not teaching a course this year? 13 other people who actually taught the course? 14 A I will teach a course in the next semester. 14 A I believe there were one or two. I don't know 15 This semester I am very busy and this is a voluntary 15 exactly how many, a few, and other invited speakers. 16 activity. 16 Q Okay. For the one session for which you have 17 Q I see. 17 full responsibility, what was the subject of that 18 Has it been your practice to teach one course 18 session that you taught? 19 per year at UMASS? 19 A It was either of the following two: The IARC 20 A No, sir. 20 evaluation process or the emerging use of epidemiology 21 Q How many courses per year in the last three 21 in European legislation known as REACH. 22 years have you taught? 22 It is an acronym for Registration 23 A I have only taught two courses in the last 23 Authorization -- 24 three years. 24 Q Okay. 25 Q Okay. What were those classes? 25 A -- et cetera, as it compares to regulation and Page 22 Page 24 1 A They were essentially the same class, different 1 use of epidemiologic evidence under EPA in the U.S. 2 years on the use of epidemiology in decision making. 2 Q Have you ever sat on an IARC committee other 3 Q Was that a graduate level course? 3 than as an observer? 4 A Yes. 4 A No, I have not. 5 Q Was that an independent study or a regular 5 Q Have you sat on any of the implementing 6 course listed? 6 committees for REACH? 7 A It was a classroom class, met once a week for 7 A No. 8 three hours. 8 Q In the courses which we have just been 9 Q For how many weeks? 9 discussing, did you in any way discuss benzene or 10 A I believe total of 15. 10 non-Hodgkin's lymphoma? 11 Q Did you teach each of those sessions or were 11 A No. 12 you an invited speaker at one or a few of them? 12 Q Okay. Other than the rubber worker 13 A I was one of the organizers of the course. 13 epidemiologic studies which you have done and which you 14 Q How many organizers were there? 14 have identified on your curriculum vitae, do you have 15 A There were two others. 15 any other publications which in any way relate to 16 Q Who were they? 16 benzene? 17 A Dr. Sulski and Dr. Silverberg, also both 17 MR. GRANNIS: Overbroad. Vague. 18 adjunct faculty members. 18 THE WITNESS: Not exclusively or directly. 19 Q What are their specialties? 19 There probably are a number where indirectly benzene may 20 A Dr. Silverberg is a physician whose specialty 20 be relevant; for example, meta-analyses of occupational 21 is outcomes research, a branch of epidemiology that 21 exposure as a painter, to the extent that painters may 22 attempts to match what is known scientifically with what 22 have been exposed to products containing some quantity 23 is practiced clinically. 23 of benzene. 24 Dr. Sulski is a colleague of mine at Environ at 24 Q BY MR. METZGER: Where -- oh, the second -- 25 my office in Amherst. Her specialty is in epidemiology 25 A That is the second one. I am citing this as an Page 23 Page 25 7 (Pages 22 to 25) A3074BC KENNETH A. MUNDT, Ph.D. OCTOBER 13, 2009 1 example, if this is what you would like me to identify 1 epidemiologic research studies as well as reviews and 2 for you. 2 syntheses of the epidemiologic engineering literature. 3 Q Okay. So let me see. 3 And the third is a bit more of a mix. It has 4 You are referring to what is the second article 4 to do with advising, consulting, opinion giving to 5 on your publications list on page 12; is that correct? 5 clients and operating an epidemiology practice within 6 A That is correct. 6 Environ, so some administrative responsibilities. 7 Q As I look at the title of that it appears to be 7 Q Okay. What percentage of the time that you 8 concerning a meta-analyses of occupational exposure as a 8 spend for your work for Environ is on litigation 9 painter for the specific outcomes of lung and bladder 9 support? 10 cancer; is that correct? 10 A It varies depending on the timing of the cases 11 A That is correct. 11 that we are working on and the demands of those cases, 12 Q So in that study do you specifically address 12 but it probably doesn't drop below 25 percent and it 13 non-Hodgkin's lymphoma or not? 13 probably doesn't go over 50 percent, somewhere in that 14 A No. 14 range. 15 Q Is this study one in which you have compiled 15 Q And what percentage of your time at Environ is 16 data and performed a meta-analysis of exposure data for 16 spent advising clients? 17 painters? 17 A That is really the first priority so it depends 18 MR. GRANNIS: Vague. 18 what the demand is at the time, but I would say it is 19 THE WITNESS: No. Unfortunately there are very 19 roughly a third on average. 20 poor exposure data for painters. 20 Q And that is advising and consulting for 21 Q BY MR. METZGER: Okay. Have you read the 21 clients? 22 recently published article regarding painter's exposure 22 A For that piece that I identified, and that 23 to benzene that was published in OEM, I think, within 23 includes some administrative. Do you want me to further 24 the last few weeks? 24 divide that? 25 A I can't recall that I have. 25 Q Yes. I'd like a breakdown. Page 26 Page 28 1 Q Okay. It is Chinese workers, does that ring -- 1 How much time do you spend in administrative 2 A Oh, yes, I have seen it. 2 work at Environ, what percentage of your time? 3 Q Have you read that article? 3 A That is probably 10 to 15 percent. 4 A I haven't had time to, no. 4 Q And how much time do you spend operating an 5 Q Okay. Other than the second article on your 5 epidemiologic practice at Environ? 6 publications list that you have identified, are there 6 A I consider that part administrative activities. 7 any other articles that you have which relate to 7 Q Okay. And what percentage of your time do you 8 benzene? 8 spend advising and consulting for clients outside of 9 A Indirectly. 9 litigation support? 10 Q Directly or indirectly, sure. 10 A That is probably 20, 25 percent. 11 A I don't believe there are any that directly do 11 Q And what percentage of your time do you spend 12 so. I will look to see if there are others that 12 reviewing and synthesizing the epidemiologic literature 13 indirectly address it. 13 at Environ? 14 MR. GRANNIS: While the doctor is doing that, 14 A That is a fair amount of what I do because that 15 Raphael, where could I get a glass of water? 15 is a large part of what I do in the litigation area as 16 Thanks. 16 well as in the research area as well as in the client 17 THE WITNESS: I believe that is it. 17 advising area. 18 Q BY MR. METZGER: Okay. Is all of your 18 So I would say more than half of my time is 19 professional income currently derived from your work at 19 spent in that type of activity. 20 Environ? 20 Q How much more than half? 21 A Yes, sir. 21 A I don't know. These are all rough estimates. 22 Q Would you describe for me the work that you do 22 I have never really split it out for that kind of 23 for Environ. 23 analysis. 24 A It divides roughly into three areas, one of 24 Q Okay. What percentage of your time at Environ 25 which is litigation support; another which is primary 25 is actually spent conducting primary epidemiologic Page 27 Page 29 8 (Pages 26 to 29) A3074BC KENNETH A. MUNDT, Ph.D. OCTOBER 13, 2009 1 research studies? 1 They are gradually bringing in things from your 2 A Well, that is what varies the most. During 2 CV that they have been printing out. 3 phases of start-up and protocol development I could be 3 So we have here this document which we will 4 spending three, four days per week, and then there will 4 mark as Exhibit 2. 5 be long stretches where I don't do anything. So it is 5 (Deposition Exhibit 2 was marked for 6 very difficult to average. 6 identification.) 7 Q Okay. In the year 2009 have you spent time at 7 Q BY MR. METZGER: I will ask you, is this the 8 Environ reviewing and synthesizing epidemiologic 8 list of testimony that you had faxed over? 9 literature apart from litigation? 9 A Yes. 10 A Yes, I have. 10 MR. GRANNIS: And this is a document 11 Q What have you done there this year in that 11 entitled -- three-page document entitled, "Testimony and 12 regard? 12 Fees"; correct? 13 A These first two publications that are -- I 13 THE WITNESS: Yes. The fourth page is a fax 14 think you have the CV. The first two publications that 14 cover. 15 are in press are very large reviews that consumed a fair 15 Q BY MR. METZGER: Why don't we just remove that 16 amount of time this year. 16 last page so it doesn't clutter up the exhibit, okay. 17 Q Let's talk about those briefly then -- well, we 17 A Yes. It is three pages. 18 will get to them in just a minute. 18 Q All right. And is this a list both of 19 A There are other areas, but yes, I spent a lot 19 deposition and trial testimony? 20 of time reviewing and critiquing literature. 20 A Yes. 21 Q And in 2009 have you conducted any primary 21 Q Okay. Now, the first case listed here is 22 epidemiologic research studies? 22 O'Neill versus The Sherwin-Williams Company. 23 A Yes. 23 And you apparently gave a deposition in July of 24 Q Which ones? 24 this year; is that correct? 25 A The largest and most time consuming is based in 25 A Yes, sir. Page 30 Page 32 1 Germany. It is a study of 18,000 men and women employed 1 Q What was that case about? 2 in the porcelain manufacturing industry. 2 A Mr. O'Neill was diagnosed with a bladder cancer 3 Q All right. Who is sponsoring that study? 3 which he alleged to have been caused by his recent use 4 A That is jointly sponsored by the European 4 of a product manufactured by Sherwin-Williams. 5 silica trade group called Eurosil and the German 5 Q A paint product? 6 Government. 6 A Which? 7 Q Okay. Regarding the first publication listed 7 Q A paint product? 8 on your CV, "Epidemiologic studies of formaldehyde 8 A A paint product, yes. I believe an epoxy 9 exposure and risk of leukemia and nasopharyngeal cancer: 9 system, something I don't fully understand. 10 A Meta-analysis," who sponsored that? 10 Q On whose behalf did you testify? 11 A That is sponsored by the formaldehyde council. 11 A I believe Sherwin-Williams. 12 Q The second one, "Meta-analyses of occupational 12 Q What was the thrust of your testimony? 13 exposure as a painter and lung and bladder cancer 13 A Essentially that the alleged painting exposure 14 morbidity and mortality," who sponsored that? 14 which consisted of I think half a dozen applications of 15 A That is sponsored by the National Paints and 15 this material, within 10 years, maybe less of the 16 Coatings Association. 16 diagnosis of bladder cancer was incompatible with the 17 Q Okay. And have you testified in cases for the 17 epidemiology of bladder cancers. 18 defense where the claimed exposure was formaldehyde? 18 My understanding was also that there is no 19 A I have not. 19 chemical in that product that could cause bladder cancer 20 Q Have you testified in cases where the claimed 20 and it was on that basis the case was dismissed. 21 exposure was paint? 21 Q Who is the attorney who took your deposition? 22 A I did give a deposition in a case where the 22 A I don't know. I mean I don't remember. 23 exposure included use of a paint product. I don't quite 23 Q When you say the case was dismissed, was there 24 believe that is a good fit but paint was mentioned. 24 a summary judgment brought that you are aware of? 25 Q Okay. All right. 25 A Yes, sir. Page 31 Page 33 9 (Pages 30 to 33) A3074BC KENNETH A. MUNDT, Ph.D. OCTOBER 13, 2009 1 Q Did you provide a declaration in support of the 1 Q BY MR. METZGER: So without knowing what the 2 dismissal of that case by summary judgment? 2 mechanism is and without knowing what the carcinogenic 3 A I don't recall. I believe that my testimony at 3 constituent -- causative carcinogenic constituents are, 4 deposition was cited in that motion, but I just don't 4 you can still determine that cigarette smoking causes 5 recall so ... 5 lung cancer; correct? 6 Q And the next case, Willis versus R.J. Reynolds 6 MR. GRANNIS: Argumentative. Irrelevant. 7 Tobacco Company, what was that about? 7 THE WITNESS: In this situation that can be 8 A This is a case in which I was asked to comment 8 held because of the strength of the association between 9 on what level of reduction or avoidance of risk occurs 9 those -- between the exposures and the occurrence of 10 among smokers who quit smoking, various stages of their 10 lung cancers. 11 smoking histories. 11 Q BY MR. METZGER: What is the strength of the 12 Q What was the case about? 12 association? 13 A This is one of complex series of cases that I 13 A It depends how carefully you have measured the 14 don't fully understand from a legal perspective, but 14 exposure. 15 it's one of the so-called angle progeny cases, 15 Q I am asking for cigarette smoking and lung 16 individuals that had filed claims earlier, years and 16 cancer, what is the strength of that association? 17 years ago and that are coming back now. 17 MR. GRANNIS: Irrelevant. Vague. 18 Q These are claims where smokers were suing R.J. 18 THE WITNESS: I would say that is not 19 Reynolds and perhaps other tobacco companies claiming 19 answerable as simply as that because it is an 20 that tobacco had caused their lung cancers. 20 oversimplification. 21 Is that it? 21 Q BY MR. METZGER: Okay. 22 A Essentially. I don't want to represent that it 22 A Epidemiologically you have to specify a 23 is as simple as that because I don't know, but that is 23 quantity of exposure and you have to specify a specific 24 essentially my limited understanding of those cases. 24 disease. If you asked me about adenocarcinomas -- 25 Q And on whose behalf were you testifying in that 25 Q I am asking about lung cancers. Page 34 Page 36 1 case? 1 A Lung cancers are -- 2 A The tobacco companies. 2 MR. GRANNIS: Excuse me, the witness has not 3 Q Does smoking cause lung cancer? 3 finished answering your previous question. He is 4 A Absolutely. And of course in all of these 4 entitled to do so. I appreciate if you give him that 5 situations where chemicals are -- exposures cause 5 courtesy. 6 disease, it has to be an adequately high level to cause 6 Go ahead, doctor. 7 that. 7 THE WITNESS: Lung cancers are many, many 8 Q What is the carcinogenic constituent of 8 different diseases with slightly different etiologies, 9 cigarette smoke that causes lung cancer? 9 meaning they have different constellation of causes. 10 MR. GRANNIS: Irrelevant. 10 If you ask me a more specific question about 11 THE WITNESS: I don't know that it is known. 11 adenocarcinoma of the lung, I'd give you a different 12 There may be many of them. And I think that that's -- 12 answer than if you asked me about small cell or squamous 13 there are many people working on that trying to 13 cell. All of them are, in lay terms, considered lung 14 disentangle that. 14 cancer. They're very different diseases. 15 Q BY MR. METZGER: How do you know if smoking 15 On the exposure side I'd have to ask you 16 causes lung cancer if you don't know which constituent 16 whether you are talking about a casual smoker of a 17 does cause lung cancer? 17 cigarette or two a day or a half a pack a day or a 18 MR. GRANNIS: Irrelevant. Argumentative. 18 serious smoker, 20 or 30 packs per day. 19 THE WITNESS: Well, I know this from various 19 If you looked at squamous or small cell -- 20 approaches, not the least of which is that this has been 20 Q BY MR. METZGER: 20 or 30 packs a day? 21 demonstrated epidemiologically, so many times it can't 21 A I'm sorry. 20 or 30 cigarettes per day. Thank 22 be counted, in that removing that exposure has been 22 you for correcting. 23 demonstrated to have parallel reductions in risk. 23 Q That is a real serious smoker. 24 So without knowing what the mechanism is, we 24 A I think most I have seen is five but not 25 or 25 can test it experimentally at the population level. 25 30. Page 35 Page 37 10 (Pages 34 to 37) A3074BC KENNETH A. MUNDT, Ph.D. OCTOBER 13, 2009 1 But if you looked at a squamous cell carcinoma 1 lung cancer which has been proven to be not caused by 2 risk among smokers of two to three packs a day, relative 2 cigarette smoking? 3 risk might be 100 or 200. 3 MR. GRANNIS: Vague. Overbroad. Irrelevant. 4 Q I see. 4 Argumentative. 5 A It is highly specific to both the specific 5 Q BY MR. METZGER: I am not asking about 6 exposure and the specific disease. 6 sufficiency of evidence. 7 Q How many types of lung cancer are there? 7 A I understand. I also understand it is not an 8 MR. GRANNIS: Irrelevant. Overbroad. 8 epidemiologic question. I think that proving something 9 THE WITNESS: I'd have to look at the ICD 9 doesn't cause something is not compatible with the basic 10 coding. It changes, you know. There are more added 10 approach we use to scientific method generally, but 11 over time as we understand that many of these cancers 11 specifically epidemiologically. 12 actually are multiple diseases, but there are four main 12 Q I understand you to be saying that epidemiology 13 groups. 13 doesn't do that. Epidemiology does not prove that 14 Q BY MR. METZGER: And those are? 14 something does not cause something. 15 A Large cell, small cell, squamous cell and 15 MR. GRANNIS: Vague. Overbroad. 16 adeno, and there are many subtypes. I know there are 16 Mischaracterizes testimony. 17 certain subtypes of adeno that are not associated with 17 THE WITNESS: I didn't understand the question 18 smoking. 18 as you phrased it, but I believe that you are asking 19 So it is more complicated than what is the 19 epidemiology doesn't or is not able, as is are other 20 relative risk of cigarette smoking. 20 sciences, unable to prove this negative. And that is 21 Q Does cigarette smoking cause all of the four 21 the way that it is summarized in lay terms. 22 major types of lung cancer that you just identified? 22 Q BY MR. METZGER: I see. 23 MR. GRANNIS: Argumentative. Irrelevant. 23 A The scientific method establishes a testable 24 THE WITNESS: To some degree. It varies, as I 24 hypothesis that there is an observable difference 25 previously explained, by the amount of exposure and by 25 between two groups. Page 38 Page 40 1 the specific subtype of the disease. 1 Failing to see an observable difference doesn't 2 Q BY MR. METZGER: Does cigarette smoking cause 2 prove a negative; it disproves the hypothetical. We 3 the various subtypes, the four main types of lung 3 build our understanding from this basic scientific 4 cancer? 4 method and I believe it is not limited to epidemiologic. 5 MR. GRANNIS: Vague. Irrelevant. Overbroad. 5 Q So in layman's terms so that an average person 6 Argumentative. 6 can understand this, are you saying that epidemiology 7 THE WITNESS: Again, it depends. There are 7 does not prove that a particular chemical does not cause 8 subtypes that either are shown to be weakly or 8 a particular disease? 9 non-associated with smoking, or where there is 9 MR. GRANNIS: Overbroad. Vague. 10 inadequate evidence available to conclude that a 10 Mischaracterizes testimony. Argumentative. 11 specific subtype is reasonably represented by the larger 11 THE WITNESS: The way we describe that in lay 12 family. 12 terms is that there is inadequate evidence to reject the 13 Q BY MR. METZGER: Is there any subtype of lung 13 hypothesis. 14 cancer that has been shown to not be caused by cigarette 14 It may lend support for the null hypothesis, 15 smoking? 15 that is that it doesn't cause the disease, but it 16 MR. GRANNIS: Vague. Irrelevant. Overbroad. 16 doesn't provide proof for that. 17 Argumentative. 17 Q BY MR. METZGER: And you say that that is lay 18 THE WITNESS: Yes. There is a subtype called 18 terminology? 19 B.A.C, bronchioalveolar carcinoma that I believe has 19 A It is. It doesn't get any better. 20 been looked at adequately to demonstrate 20 Q Okay. Well, then let me ask you the flip side 21 epidemiologically the evidence is mixed, so it is not 21 of this. Does epidemiology actually prove that a 22 strong enough to conclude that it is causal 22 chemical does cause a disease? 23 relationship. 23 A I think that I have found -- 24 Q BY MR. METZGER: But I wasn't quite asking you 24 MR. GRANNIS: Vague and overbroad. 25 that. What I was asking you is, is there any subtype of 25 THE WITNESS: I found a more commonly used lay Page 39 Page 41 11 (Pages 38 to 41) A3074BC KENNETH A. MUNDT, Ph.D. OCTOBER 13, 2009 1 explanation for your previous question. That is that 1 2 this is the white swan, black swan analogy. You can 2 3 repeatedly hypothesize that all swans are white and be 3 4 paraded in front of an endless stream of white swans but 4 5 still not be able to prove that there aren't black 5 6 swans. But as soon as you have identified a black swan, 6 7 you can disprove that hypothesis. 7 8 I think that is an analogy that's frequently 8 9 used in lay settings so you can understand the 9 10 difference between affirming epidemiologically or 10 11 observationally or scientifically versus disproving. 11 12 Q BY MR. METZGER: Is it true that epidemiologic 12 13 textbooks state that epidemiology does not prove causes 13 14 of disease? 14 15 MR. GRANNIS: Vague. Overbroad. 15 16 Argumentative. 16 17 THE WITNESS: Yes, epidemiology texts 17 18 appropriately identify that, but should also accurately 18 19 add that causality cannot be proven by any means except 19 20 some ridiculously obvious things like a gunshot wound 20 21 fatally injured someone. 21 22 As you move into chronic disease complex 22 23 epidemiology, then I think it is reasonable that proof 23 24 of causation cannot be determined. 24 25 Q BY MR. METZGER: Okay. All right. We were 25 Page 42 that it is still pending. I just believe so. I don't recall. Q Sure. A The Davis case, Mr. Davis had a biliary tract tumor and alleged that that was caused by his exposures while employed at BNSF. Q He was a railroad worker? A He was a tie plant worker. Q What was the claimed exposure? A It was a mix and it included most of the chemicals or all of the chemicals that were used at that facility. I haven't finished. You were eager for my words and I am getting there. The creosote was one. Chromium, pentachlorophenol, in this category, mostly wood preservatives. Q What was the thrust of your testimony? A I looked fairly comprehensively at each of those exposures in the epidemiologic literature as well as at that specific type of cancer and demonstrated that there was no epidemiologic support for that hypothesis. Q Who took your deposition? A I am sorry. I don't recall. I will do a better job and try to remember you in this deposition for future reference, but I don't retain the names of Page 44 1 looking at this case list. The next case down Bishop 1 the attorneys taking my depositions. 2 versus Shell Oil, what was that case about? 2 Q That case went to trial? 3 A This is an oil -- excuse me, oil production or 3 A It did. 4 oil worker -- I don't recall the details. And I believe 4 Q Did you testify at trial? 5 it is a multiple myeloma case. 5 A I did. 6 Q Was the claim that benzene from petroleum 6 Q What was the result? 7 products caused the worker's multiple lymphoma? 7 A Defense verdict. 8 A That is what I think it is, yes. 8 Q The next case, Valdez versus A.W. Chesterton 9 Q And you gave a deposition in that case this 9 Company, what was that about? 10 year? 10 A I don't recall the specifics of that. 11 A That is correct. 11 Q Do you recall generally that that was regarding 12 Q What was the thrust of your testimony? 12 asbestos? 13 A The epidemiologic literature on multiple 13 A That may be. I have given depositions in a 14 myeloma and benzene is very weak and not sufficient to 14 number of asbestos cases. 15 draw causal determination. 15 Q Have you testified for A.W. Chesterton? 16 Q And you testified on behalf of Shell Oil 16 A Not that I recall. The name is not familiar to 17 Company? 17 me. 18 A And/or one of the other defendants. 18 Q In that case did you testify for the defense? 19 Q Who took your deposition in that case? 19 A Yes, sir. 20 A I don't recall. 20 Q You seem quite definitive. 21 Q Is that case still pending, to your knowledge? 21 In all of these cases have you testified for 22 A Yes, it is. 22 the defense? 23 Q Okay. The next case, Davis versus BNSF Railway 23 A No, sir. 24 Company, what was that about? 24 Q All right. The next case, Kaplan versus R.J. 25 A I am sorry. I shouldn't say so definitively 25 Reynolds, is that another one of the angle cases? Page 43 Page 45 12 (Pages 42 to 45) A3074BC KENNETH A. MUNDT, Ph.D. OCTOBER 13, 2009 1 A Yes, it is. 1 and it was Burn & Brown, Oakland. 2 Q You testified for the defense? 2 Q But was there one law firm who was representing 3 A I don't even remember. 3 the plaintiffs? 4 Q For R.J. Reynolds; is that correct? 4 A I don't know. 5 A I believe it was for all of the defendants. 5 Q Do you recall the name of any law firm that was 6 Q All of the tobacco companies? 6 associated with the plaintiffs? 7 A Yes. 7 A No. These were mainly phone depositions, some 8 Q Is same true with the Grossman case? 8 of them 10 or 20 minutes and some never discussing the 9 A Yes. 9 science of the case, so I had fairly little interaction 10 Q The Gersten versus Asbestos Corporation, I 10 with any parties in these. 11 would assume that was some asbestos case; is that 11 Q Okay. Trombella versus Advocate Mines Limited, 12 correct? 12 what was that case about? 13 A That is correct. 13 A It must have been similar because the 14 Q And whose behalf did you testify? 14 deposition was in the same day and there was a cluster 15 A I believe it was Plant Insulation. 15 of cases in the same -- 16 Q That was one of the asbestos companies? 16 Q You testified for the defendant asbestos 17 A Yes. 17 company? 18 Q One of the defendants? 18 A That would have been plants, yes. 19 A Yes. 19 Q Okay. Village of Bensenville, Illinois versus 20 Q Who took your deposition in that case? 20 City of Chicago, what was that about? 21 A I don't know. 21 A Bensenville is the village adjacent to O'Hara. 22 Q The next case, Clayton -- sorry, Thompson 22 Q Airport, right. 23 versus Asbestos Defendants, another similar case? 23 A And I was representing Bensenville as a 24 A Yes. 24 plaintiff concerned about the way the City of Chicago 25 Q Collins versus A.W. Chesterton Company, another 25 was demolishing properties in their neighborhood while Page 46 Page 48 1 asbestos case? 1 people were still living next to the demolition site -- 2 A Yes. 2 Q The next case -- 3 Q And you gave both deposition and trial 3 A -- which included a hazardous waste site. 4 testimony in that case? 4 Q The next case, Marshall versus AC&S, another 5 A Yes. 5 asbestos case and you testified for the defense? 6 Q Barr versus Aladdin Heating Corporation, what 6 A That's correct. 7 was that about? 7 Q City of St. Louis versus American Tobacco 8 A I think that was similar. These cases -- 8 Company, what was that about? 9 Q Also asbestos -- 9 A This is a large and very complicated matter 10 A -- cases in Alameda are all on behalf of a 10 that I don't understand entirely. To simplify it, I 11 plant which I provided testimony on state of the art. 11 will describe it probably in a simplistic way. 12 Q I see. 12 The hospitals in and around throughout Missouri 13 And essentially that meant that the hazards of 13 have jointly filed this case in an attempt to recoup 14 asbestos were not knowable or known at a certain point 14 moneys that they expended on behalf of patients that 15 in time. 15 were either charity cases or non-paying, non-charity 16 Is that what you mean? 16 cases -- 17 A The question put to me is what would a 17 Q Lung cancer case -- 18 scientist at a particular point throughout history have 18 A -- alleging that their care caused damages, 19 available and possibly understand as to what was 19 financial damages to the hospitals in treating them. 20 knowable. Did not come into what a company might know. 20 Q Were these lung cancer patients suffering from 21 It really was a scientific question. 21 tobacco-related disease? 22 Q I understand. 22 A That is where it is very complicated. 23 Was it one law firm that was representing the 23 Q Is that what the claim was? 24 plaintiffs in these cases? 24 A No. It has to do with a long list of diseases 25 A I was retained by one law firm in these cases 25 and -- Page 47 Page 49 13 (Pages 46 to 49) A3074BC KENNETH A. MUNDT, Ph.D. OCTOBER 13, 2009 1 Q Was the claim that the tobacco companies had 1 angiosarcoma of the liver but can also cause another 2 caused these diseases thereby resulting in this 2 host of -- a host of other diseases, including 3 treatment for which the hospitals were not compensated 3 acroosteolysis so... 4 and the hospitals wanted the tobacco companies to 4 Q BY MR. METZGER: Brain cancer? 5 compensate the hospitals for treating these patients? 5 A I don't agree at all with that, unless you have 6 A Something like that. When I try to reiterate 6 found a new battery of epidemiologic studies. And I 7 this way, they say, "No, no, it's much more 7 have looked very closely at that. 8 complicated." 8 Q If you want to agree with Rinkis, what about 9 So I don't want to -- 9 hepatocele carcinoma? 10 Q What was the thrust of your testimony in this 10 A I think that is a great question. 11 case? 11 Q How about answering it? 12 A That is ongoing and it is still unclear to me 12 A I would love to answer it. Would you like to 13 all of the areas that I will be addressing. And I 13 sponsor my research? I have access to very good data. 14 understand this has been underway for 10 or eight more 14 Q I can't afford you. No, thanks. 15 years. 15 Let's move on. 16 MR. GRANNIS: Have you testified in that case? 16 A I thought we were almost close to coming to a 17 THE WITNESS: I gave a deposition. And at the 17 deal. 18 deposition I identified a large number of diseases that 18 Q No. 19 I believe are caused by smoking. 19 A See, that is one of those good hypotheses for 20 Q BY MR. METZGER: So cigarette smoking doesn't 20 which there are epidemiological -- or data that could be 21 just cause lung cancer? 21 used in epidemiological study to answer it. 22 A That's right. 22 Q Carter versus A.W. Chesterton Company, another 23 Q Oh, how do you know that? 23 asbestos case you testified for the defense? 24 A General causation, you know, is a judgment 24 A Yes, just like the others above. 25 largely based on available evidence and often -- and 25 Q Okay. Johnese versus Ameron, what is that Page 50 Page 52 1 with cigarette smoking there is substantial scientific 1 about? 2 evidence that is specific to these diseases and from 2 I assume it is some paint-related case. 3 which causation can be reasonably inferred. 3 A I think so. I think it was a pancreatic cancer 4 Q So a chemical can actually cause more than one 4 case with non-specific exposure. 5 disease? 5 Q You testified for the paint company, Ameron? 6 MR. GRANNIS: Argumentative. Overbroad. 6 A It is possible. I -- 7 Vague. 7 Q For the defense, for some paint company in the 8 THE WITNESS: And doesn't at all reflect what I 8 case? 9 said in my previous answer. 9 A Correct, correct, or a defendant. I don't know 10 Q BY MR. METZGER: I am just asking. 10 if they were necessarily a paint company. 11 A Could you ask it as a new question. 11 Q All right. And you testified that the exposure 12 Q I'm asking a new question. 12 didn't cause the pancreatic cancer? 13 A Maybe by tone you implied that's what I had 13 A I don't recall specifically my testimony, but 14 suggested. 14 it would have been more likely something like that but 15 MR. GRANNIS: Same objections, and 15 more along the lines that the epidemiologic evidence 16 mischaracterizes previous testimony. 16 doesn't support that claim. 17 Q BY MR. METZGER: I will ask a new question. 17 Q Clark versus Kellogg Brown & Root, what was 18 A Thank you. 18 that about? 19 Q Can a chemical cause more than one disease? Is 19 You don't recall? 20 that possible? 20 A This is a benzene case. 21 MR. GRANNIS: Vague. Overbroad. 21 Q Okay. 22 Argumentative. 22 A I don't recall the disease that Mr. Clark had. 23 THE WITNESS: A specific chemical I believe 23 Q Did you testify that benzene did not cause that 24 could cause more than one disease. I think that there 24 disease? 25 are chemicals such as vinyl chloride that causes 25 A I don't recall. Page 51 Page 53 14 (Pages 50 to 53) A3074BC KENNETH A. MUNDT, Ph.D. OCTOBER 13, 2009 1 Q If I told you that the disease he had was acute 1 was a Havner hearing in Texas. 2 lymphocytic leukemia, would that have been your 2 Q Life testimony or declaration? 3 testimony in the case? 3 A It was life testimony before the judge. 4 MR. GRANNIS: Incomplete hypothetical. 4 Q Okay. You testified for the defense? 5 THE WITNESS: I would say that the 5 A Yes. 6 epidemiologic data was insufficient to draw that 6 Q Mountney versus 84 Lumber Company, what was 7 conclusion. 7 that about? 8 Q BY MR. METZGER: Okay. Cairns versus American 8 A It is an asbestos case. 9 Optical, what was that about? 9 Q You testified for the defense? 10 A This is an asbestos case. 10 A I testified on behalf of 84 Lumber. 11 Q You testified for the defense? 11 Q What was the thrust of your testimony? 12 A Yes. 12 A The asbestos, if any, in joint compound, if it 13 Q Hamman versus American Oil, what was that 13 had been sold by 84 Lumber was not capable of causing 14 about? 14 Mr. Mountney's disease. 15 A I think this is a benzene case. I don't recall 15 Q Why was that? 16 the disease. 16 A I am sorry? 17 Q Did you testify for the defense? 17 Q Why was that? 18 A Yes. 18 A Why was? 19 Q Do you recall generally what your testimony 19 Q Why was it not capable of causing the disease? 20 was? 20 MR. GRANNIS: Vague. Overbroad. 21 A No. 21 THE WITNESS: Two basic reasons. One is that I 22 Q Do you recall the plaintiff's attorney? 22 believe this was a mesothelioma and chrysotile was not 23 A No. 23 clearly a cause of mesothelioma, especially -- if there 24 Q Weir versus ArvinMeritor, what was that about? 24 is any doubt at all, it is -- it disappears at levels 25 A I actually think that was the pancreatic cancer 25 which might be exposed from joint compound. Page 54 Page 56 1 case. 1 Q BY MR. METZGER: What disappears? 2 Q The one that you mentioned earlier? 2 A The risk. 3 A Yes. We are getting back too far for me to 3 Q Oh, okay. 4 remember these things. 4 A In other words, there is no evidence whatever 5 Q In re: Tobacco Litigation, West Virginia, what 5 that low level exposures to chrysotile, if they occurred 6 was that about? 6 at all in this case, could have contributed to a 7 A That is another long time ongoing case where I 7 mesothelioma. 8 believe my testimony was similar to that in the St. 8 Q Do you mean on an epidemiologic basis? 9 Louis identifying the lists of diseases that I concluded 9 A Based on epidemiologic evidence, that 10 or caused by tobacco smoke. 10 conclusion was derived. 11 Q You testified for the tobacco industry in this 11 Q Is epidemiology as a science capable of making 12 case? 12 those assessments for extremely low dose exposures? 13 A Yes. 13 MR. GRANNIS: Argumentative. Vague. 14 Q Okay. Cantu versus Refining & Marketing, is 14 Overbroad. 15 that a benzene case? 15 Q BY MR. METZGER: Do you understand the 16 A Yes. 16 question? 17 Q What was the disease? 17 A I do understand the question. I think that it 18 A Actually I think that was an NHL case. This -- 18 is -- it is very broad and it is complicated to answer 19 that's right. I did not give a deposition in this case. 19 what epidemiology is capable of and what you mean by low 20 That was a Daubert hearing that I participated in. 20 exposures because, for example -- 21 Q When you say a Daubert hearing, was this 21 Q Let me rephrase the question then. 22 actually a hearing that took place in court or just a 22 A -- the insulators in Sulakoff's work were 23 Daubert hearing where you submitted an affidavit or 23 considered low exposed. 24 declaration? 24 Q Let me rephrase the question. 25 A I thought you were going to catch my error. It 25 A All right. Page 55 Page 57 15 (Pages 54 to 57) A3074BC KENNETH A. MUNDT, Ph.D. OCTOBER 13, 2009 1 Q In this case the exposure was to chrysotile in 1 deposition in an asbestos case, I don't recall. 2 what, joint compound? 2 Q Okay. Were you deposed by attorneys from the 3 A Alleged chrysotile. It was years and years 3 Braden Purcell firm? 4 where the joint compound did not contain chrysotile. 4 A I don't know. I am sorry. 5 So if you make it hypothetical, then we can get past the 5 Q You don't know, okay. 6 specifics of this case. 6 Next case, Lattin versus Borden, what was that 7 Q Sure, sure. 7 about? 8 A If this guy used joint compound yesterday, 8 A That is a vinyl chloride and brain cancer case. 9 nobody would say that anything in it contributed to his 9 Q I thought you said there was no such thing? 10 disease. 10 A There are cases. That is not what is lacking. 11 Q So here is my question: Is epidemiology a 11 MR. GRANNIS: Mischaracterizes prior testimony. 12 sufficiently precise and sensitive analytical device to 12 Q BY MR. METZGER: Go ahead. 13 detect statistically significant increases in the rates 13 A That is not what we are short on. It is the 14 of occurrence of mesothelioma amongst workers who are 14 science. I can't say much about this, not because I 15 exposed to chrysotile asbestos from joint compound? 15 don't want to. I was a fact witness. 16 MR. GRANNIS: Vague. Overbroad. 16 Q Really? 17 Argumentative. Irrelevant. 17 A I was in the court for five minutes. 18 THE WITNESS: It is still quite broad. You are 18 Q What were you testifying about? 19 asking me about epidemiology. Epidemiology is a world 19 A I published the study on vinyl chloride workers 20 of practitioners and methods. 20 in the U.S. and counsel believed that I could comment on 21 So you could say could -- could epidemiology 21 my study without being identified as an expert. 22 using state of the art techniques detect these things. 22 Q I see. 23 And I think that, well, if you look at quality of 23 Erroneously believed that? 24 studies and the numbers of individuals that have been 24 A And the judge didn't agree with that so I was 25 exposed to chrysotile fibers at low levels all their 25 excused after 10 minutes. Page 58 Page 60 1 lives, then in fact we can set those individuals apart 1 Q Without testifying? 2 epidemiologically from those that have been exposed to 2 A A side bar. 3 much, much higher levels and to moderate to high level 3 MR. GRANNIS: So this case was one of failure 4 of anthropoles. 4 to designate you as an expert. 5 Q BY MR. METZGER: So the answer to my question 5 Is that it? 6 is yes? 6 THE WITNESS: I can't say I know what happened 7 A Partly. It is not a "Yes" or "No" obviously. 7 there. 8 Q All right. Coulter versus Parks, that was a 8 MR. GRANNIS: Okay. 9 benzene lymphoma case; correct? 9 THE WITNESS: But I would say that I will be 10 A Yes, I believe so. 10 very careful if ever asked again to testify as a fact 11 Q And do you recall the name of the attorney who 11 witness. 12 took your deposition in that case? 12 Q BY MR. METZGER: You were called by counsel to 13 A No. 13 testify by counsel for Borden, the defendant? 14 Q I believe it was Phil Harley. 14 A By one of the defendants. 15 Does that ring a bell? 15 Q Ringstaff versus AMOCO, what is that about? 16 A I think it does, yes. Very nice guy. 16 A That is a benzene case. 17 Q He was a very nice guy. He recently died. 17 Q Disease? 18 A Did he really? 18 A Maybe a CLL, CML maybe. I don't know. 19 Q Yeah. Melanoma, unfortunately. 19 Q Okay. What was the outcome of that case? I 20 A Oh, I'm very sorry to hear that. 20 see there was a trial. 21 Q Did he take your deposition in other of the 21 A I don't recall. 22 asbestos cases that we have discussed? 22 Q Do you know who took your deposition? 23 A This was not an asbestos case. 23 A No. 24 Q I know. 24 Q Taylor versus AIRCO, what was that about? 25 A Oh, do I recall whether he had taken my 25 A This is a vinyl chloride case. Page 59 Page 61 16 (Pages 58 to 61) A3074BC KENNETH A. MUNDT, Ph.D. OCTOBER 13, 2009 1 Q On whose behalf did you testify? 1 Q BY MR. METZGER: So summing this all up, is it 2 A One of the defendants. 2 correct that in the past five years, wherever there was 3 Q Okay. Can you recall the name of any 3 a claim of an occupational cancer or disease, in all of 4 plaintiff's attorney who ever took your deposition? 4 the cases in which you testified, you testified on 5 MR. GRANNIS: Other than the deceased gentleman 5 behalf of the defense? 6 that you referred to? 6 A That's right. If you are only talking about 7 MR. METZGER: He didn't recall that one so I am 7 testimony, that is correct. 8 asking other than that, yes. 8 Q Have you -- 9 THE WITNESS: And other than yours. 9 A And the other caveat that it was an individual 10 Q BY MR. METZGER: I am not done yet. 10 rather than a town. 11 Other than Phil Harley and me. 11 Q Right, right. 12 A I remember the first. 12 A Yes. 13 Q Who was that? 13 Q Have you ever testified on behalf of a worker 14 A It was a gentleman by the name of Withey. 14 claiming to have suffered an occupational disease? 15 Q Mike Withey? 15 A Testified, no. 16 A Do you know him? 16 Q Okay. Let's take a break. 17 Q Sure. 17 MR. GRANNIS: Okay. 18 A Okay. 18 (Brief recess.) 19 Q Have you been deposed by Dean Heartly? 19 MR. METZGER: Back on the record. 20 A I am sorry. My -- 20 (Deposition Exhibit 3 was marked for 21 Q West Virginia, tall guy occasionally with a 21 identification.) 22 beard. 22 Q BY MR. METZGER: Dr. Mundt, is the document 23 A I don't -- I don't recall. 23 that I'm providing you, which has been marked as Exhibit 24 Q Hershall Hockson? 24 3, a list of trial testimony which you provided on the 25 A Oh, I do remember Mr. Baggett. I believe that 25 CD this morning? Page 62 Page 64 1 was June Taylor. So I think that I had only given 1 A Yes, sir. 2 depositions a few times before this list. This is five 2 Q Okay. So this lists all of the trials that you 3 years. And so I think those first had an impression on 3 have testified in? 4 me. No offense to any of your fine colleagues -- 4 A I believe that there are trials and -- for 5 Q Billy Baggett? 5 instance, I noticed there was hearing, so I think this 6 A -- since then. I don't recall their names, but 6 is testimony in court in front of a judge. 7 it was Mr. Baggett. 7 Q I understand. Okay. 8 Q Jr. or Sr.? 8 Looks like we have addressed most of these 9 A Jr. 9 cases. The only one I don't think we did is the one at 10 Q Any others that you can recall? 10 the bottom, which is from 1996, the DiPetrillo versus 11 A Not without prompting. I just don't remember. 11 Narragansett Electric, what was that about? 12 MR. GRANNIS: Is this a good time to take a 12 A That was a multiple myeloma case and alleged 13 break? 13 exposure was herbicide. 14 MR. METZGER: Just going to ask a few more 14 Q And you testified for the defendant? 15 names. 15 A On behalf of Narragansett Electric, yes. 16 Q What about Al Stewart? 16 Q All right. We will mark as Exhibit 4 this 17 A Doesn't ring a bell. 17 document from the CD. 18 Q Steve Jansen? 18 (Deposition Exhibit 4 was marked for 19 A (No audible response.) 19 identification.) 20 MR. GRANNIS: Is that a no? 20 Q BY MR. METZGER: Is this a list of materials 21 THE WITNESS: Sorry, I am waiting for something 21 that you have received from counsel for this case? 22 that rings a bell. I am sorry. I don't remember that. 22 A Yes, sir, that -- I recognize it. 23 MR. METZGER: Let me just wrap up on the cases 23 Q Did you read all of the materials on this list? 24 and we will take a break. 24 A No, I didn't. 25 MR. GRANNIS: Sure. 25 Q Go through it and tell me which of the Page 63 Page 65 17 (Pages 62 to 65) A3074BC KENNETH A. MUNDT, Ph.D. OCTOBER 13, 2009 1 materials you have actually read and which you haven't. 1 A They are. 2 A May I mark it? 2 Q And is this the collection of articles 3 Q Sure. Let's do it that way. 3 regarding non-Hodgkin's lymphoma epidemiology that you 4 How do you want to mark it just so we know 4 have reviewed and considered for this case? 5 what -- 5 A Yes, sir. 6 A Just put a checkmark next to the number. 6 Q Are there any other articles regarding the 7 Q That you have read? 7 epidemiology of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma that you have 8 A Yes. 8 read, reviewed or considered for this case? 9 Q Okay. 9 A So far this is what I have accumulated. I 10 A All right. The third amended complaint, 10 believe that this accurately reflects the literature on 11 Dr. Harrison's deposition and all of the exhibits, 11 this NHL epidemiology. 12 depositions of Dr. Whysner, Garabrant, Sarna, more 12 Q So is the answer to my question no? 13 deposition of Dr. Harrison, those are the ones that I 13 MR. GRANNIS: Hang on. I think he is still 14 have read. 14 answering. 15 The rest of the materials I have scanned, 15 THE WITNESS: I also recall that this was a 16 leafed through, but because there is so much in the 16 separate folder that also supports my opinions and that 17 medical record, I can't tell you that I have looked at a 17 I reviewed in this case. So maybe we just need to be 18 particular one. 18 more specific on the -- 19 Q Okay. 19 Q BY MR. METZGER: We will come back to this 20 A And the same with the materials from the 20 question then. 21 defendants listed here, excerpts from depositions 36 21 Let me mark as Exhibit 6 then a document which 22 through 53. I don't know what that last entry is. I 22 is a printout of a file listing entitled, "Miscellaneous 23 have not looked at it. 23 Articles" from your CV. 24 Q Okay. 24 (Deposition Exhibit 6 was marked for 25 A I don't -- I am actually going to put an "X" on 25 identification.) Page 66 Page 68 1 those numbers. I don't think that I have looked at 1 Q BY MR. METZGER: Is that what you were 2 these, and these are also scanned. 2 referring to? 3 Q Okay. 3 A Yes, it is. Thank you. 4 A And I am familiar with and in order to identify 4 And these don't fall neatly into a single 5 it to you, have this portion from the medical record 5 category. And since there aren't so many of them, they 6 which I find to be important though my research in this 6 are combined on this. 7 case. 7 And between these two, these do represent the 8 MR. GRANNIS: You are referring to Exhibit 3 to 8 published scientific literature which I relied in 9 Dr. Sarna's deposition? 9 formulating my opinions. 10 THE WITNESS: Correct. 10 Q Between Exhibits 5 and 6? 11 Q BY MR. METZGER: Okay. All right. We will get 11 A Yes. 12 to that later. 12 Q Okay. Are there any epidemiology articles 13 My staff has printed out a file listing from 13 regarding benzene, organic solvents or non-Hodgkin's 14 the CD that you provided and this appears to be 14 lymphoma that you are relying on for your opinions in 15 regarding non-Hodgkin's lymphoma epidemiology articles. 15 this case which are not listed on Exhibits 5 and/or 6? 16 We will mark that as 5. 16 A The only exception to this list would be 17 (Deposition Exhibit 5 was marked for 17 articles on which Dr. Harrison relies that I may not 18 identification.) 18 have incorporated on my list and addressing his 19 Q BY MR. METZGER: Could you tell me if I have 19 testimony and what he might put forward might also 20 correctly identified what that is? 20 review and critique those articles if they are not on 21 A Yes, you have. The heading from the CD printed 21 this list. 22 accurately. 22 Q How can I know which articles you are referring 23 Q Okay. So this is a list of the articles 23 to? 24 regarding non-Hodgkin's lymphoma epidemiology that are 24 A When he identifies them, then I can identify 25 actually on the CD that you have provided me? 25 them. Page 67 Page 69 18 (Pages 66 to 69) A3074BC KENNETH A. MUNDT, Ph.D. OCTOBER 13, 2009 1 Q Well, did you receive a CD-ROM which contained 1 might be an older E-mail because we were first retained 2 all of the articles which Dr. Harrison produced? 2 in this case a year ago and there was a long inactive 3 A Yes. As I understand it is a very large 3 period and then restarted in August I believe or 4 collection of articles that he provided. 4 September. 5 Q Have you read all of those? 5 Q BY MR. METZGER: So it might be missing -- 6 A I have not, no. 6 A There might have been an E-mail from an 7 Q Have you read any of the articles that 7 attorney, I believe Mr. Yang at Poole & Shaffery, 8 Dr. Harrison provided which are not on your lists 8 contacting me initially on the case. 9 Exhibit 5 and 6? 9 Q Okay. If you could just send that to me so we 10 A I have not had a chance to compare. I have 10 could have that, I would appreciate it. 11 done my evaluation based on articles that I have 11 MR. GRANNIS: If it exists. 12 identified and there is a good chance there is something 12 Q BY MR. METZGER: If you have it. If you don't 13 that he had identified that I was either unable to 13 have it, you don't have it. 14 identify or find a copy, but I have not made that 14 Okay. Is Exhibit 9 the billings in this case 15 comparison. 15 which Environ submitted to the Poole & Shaffery firm 16 Q Well, I am not really asking you to make a 16 which retained you for this case? 17 comparison. What I want to know is, are there any 17 A Yes, through September -- or through August, 18 articles on the CD-ROM that Dr. Harrison produced that 18 sorry. 19 you actually read other than those which are on your 19 Q Are there any more recent billings that have 20 lists Exhibits 5 and 6? 20 been prepared? 21 A I have not read all of the articles on his 21 A There will be. It hasn't been prepared yet. 22 list. It seems I think you are asking slightly 22 That will be for the month of September and we are into 23 different question. 23 October now. That will be forthcoming. 24 Given that I haven't read the articles on his 24 Q When does Environ send out bills? 25 list, unless they are on my list -- 25 A It is usually between the third and fourth week Page 70 Page 72 1 Q You haven't read them? 1 after a month ends. It runs through its process, so it 2 A I haven't read them. 2 hadn't come out. The one for September hadn't come out 3 Q Fair enough. That is all I was asking. 3 yet. Otherwise, I would have provided it. 4 A Okay. Good. I am glad you understood that 4 Q Do you have an estimate as to how many hours 5 one. I am sorry. 5 you have spent during the month of September and October 6 Q You did. Tried to make it simple. Okay. All 6 on this case? 7 right. 7 A Not precisely, but a lot more than in any 8 Let's see. I guess we have several copies of 8 previous months. 9 this. We will mark this as Exhibit 7 the single page 9 Q Give me your best estimate, if you could, 10 entitled, "Summary of Opinions in Reese." 10 recognizing it's an estimate. 11 (Deposition Exhibit 7 was marked for 11 A I have probably spent a week to 10 days plus 12 identification.) 12 staff time. I have no idea how much time. 13 Q BY MR. METZGER: Is this a list or summary of 13 Q How many hours per day? 14 the opinions that you have prepared for this case? 14 A I was referring to day equivalents so ... 15 A Yes. 15 Q So -- 16 (Deposition Exhibit 8 was marked for 16 A 40 to 60 hours. 17 identification.) 17 Q And eight to 10 weeks of those, is that what 18 Q BY MR. METZGER: Is Exhibit 8 a collection of 18 you said? 19 E-mails transmitting various materials to you that you 19 A Days. 20 received for this case? 20 Q I am not understanding. 21 A Yes. 21 A That's right, we are not communicating. 22 Q Okay. 22 I have probably spent a week. 23 (Deposition Exhibit 9 was marked for 23 Q Or 10 days? 24 identification.) 24 A Or 10 days. So it is -- 25 THE WITNESS: Excuse me, I just recall there 25 Q Eight to 10 hours per day? Page 71 Page 73 19 (Pages 70 to 73) A3074BC KENNETH A. MUNDT, Ph.D. OCTOBER 13, 2009 1 A Right. 1 THE WITNESS: I do address this more 2 Q I got it. Thank you. 2 specifically in my opinions here, but the 3 And I would like the bill when it does come 3 epidemiological literature on groups of individuals with 4 out. If you could send me that too, please. 4 non-Hodgkin's lymphoma specifically in the thyroid have 5 All right. And you have here some medical 5 also, concurrently or prior to the diagnosis, evidence 6 records which were Exhibit 3 to Dr. Sarna's deposition. 6 of thyroiditis. 7 And does this concern the thyroiditis? 7 Q BY MR. METZGER: Are you saying that all 8 A Yes, the thyroiditis as well as the site of the 8 lymphomas that occur in the thyroid either concurrently 9 lymphoma. 9 or previously have lymphocytic thyroiditis? 10 Q Okay. I am not going to need to attach that. 10 A No. 11 I believe now we did not -- I have not had my 11 MR. GRANNIS: Argumentative. Misstates prior 12 staff yet print out the actual articles on the CD that 12 testimony. 13 you provided us, but is it correct that all of the 13 THE WITNESS: No, I didn't say that. 14 articles that are on this CD are listed on Exhibits 5 14 Q BY MR. METZGER: Okay. Here is what I want to 15 and 6? 15 know: Is the pathological description of inflammation 16 A I believe so, yes. 16 of the thyroid gland consistent with the diagnosis of a 17 Q And -- 17 non-Hodgkin's lymphoma occurring in the thyroid gland? 18 A You represented that was a screen listing of 18 MR. GRANNIS: It's vague. Overbroad. 19 those? 19 Misstates prior testimony. It is argumentative. 20 Q Yes. 20 THE WITNESS: I find that to be a pathology 21 A Right. 21 question. I am not an expert in that area. 22 Q Recognizing that we have not printed out those 22 Epidemiologically it is -- 23 articles but that we have them on the CD, have you 23 Q BY MR. METZGER: I understand 24 actually now provided me either in paper form or 24 epidemiologically, but -- 25 electronic form all of your files for this case? 25 A Then I can't answer your pathology question. Page 74 Page 76 1 A Yes, I have. 1 MR. GRANNIS: Dr. Mundt is here as an expert in 2 Q All right. 2 epidemiology. And if he wishes to answer your question 3 A Understanding that I have only provided you a 3 from an epidemiologic standpoint, I'd appreciate if you 4 list of materials that were sent to me. They are not on 4 would give him the opportunity to do so. 5 the CD. 5 MR. METZGER: I thought he gave me his answer 6 Q Right. 6 to the prior question. 7 A They are identifiable and voluminous but ... 7 MR. GRANNIS: You cut him off, Raphael. 8 Q Right. I understand. 8 Q BY MR. METZGER: Well, I thought you had told 9 So now let's take a look at your opinions, 9 me that among patients -- 10 which are Exhibit -- 10 MR. GRANNIS: You still cut him off. I'd 11 A 7. 11 appreciate if you would let him finish his answers. 12 MR. GRANNIS: Yes. 12 Q BY MR. METZGER: Go ahead. 13 Q BY MR. METZGER: There they are, correct. 13 A Thank you. 14 Let's go over this if we could. 14 The epidemiological perspective, the 15 You first write, "I understand that Mr. Reese 15 thyroiditis is clearly a strong risk factor for certain 16 was diagnosed with lymphocytic thyroiditis and diffuse 16 NHL's of the thyroid. 17 large B-cell thyroid lymphoma." 17 Q Okay. Incidentally, have you produced any 18 What is lymphocytic thyroiditis? 18 literature regarding that? 19 A It is inflammation of the thyroid in which 19 A Yes. I believe those articles that pertain to 20 lymphocytes are present at some notable level. I am not 20 this are in the miscellaneous. 21 a pathologist. I am relying on the medical report 21 Q Okay. All right. 22 record for that information. 22 MR. GRANNIS: That is Exhibit 6. 23 Q Is that type of pathological observation 23 THE WITNESS: That is correct. 24 consistent with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma? 24 Q BY MR. METZGER: Let's just take a quick look 25 MR. GRANNIS: Vague. Overbroad. 25 at that. Page 75 Page 77 20 (Pages 74 to 77) A3074BC KENNETH A. MUNDT, Ph.D. OCTOBER 13, 2009 1 Tell me which of the articles on Exhibit 6 1 who committed suicide due to severe itching from his NHL 2 pertain to the epidemiology or the epidemiologic 2 which was not counted in the pliofilm cohort because the 3 association between chronic lymphocytic thyroiditis and 3 cause of death was suicide? 4 non-Hodgkin's lymphoma or B-cell lymphoma. 4 MR. GRANNIS: Argumentative. 5 A I can't recall these just off the top of my 5 THE WITNESS: I have seen this reported, but 6 head, but there are -- there are probably four or five 6 you have to keep in mind if you want to count it you 7 among them. I believe Pedersen, Hyjek, Holm and others. 7 would have to do the same thing in a reference 8 Q Okay. Now, you indicate in your opinions that 8 populations and make sure that it is a level of 9 you have evaluated the epidemiologic literature 9 inaccuracy that I think would be applied to across the 10 evaluating the association, if any, between exposure to 10 board. 11 benzene and other organic solvents, as well as working 11 Q BY MR. METZGER: So you are aware of that 12 in printing and related occupations, and increased risk 12 situation? 13 of NHL's including subtypes such as DLBCL and DLBTL; 13 A Yes. 14 correct? 14 Q I see. 15 A More or less. I am not sure that you read the 15 And what is the incidence of mortality from 16 word "benzene," but -- 16 suicide due to severe itching from non-Hodgkin's 17 Q Okay. In any event, you know where I am 17 lymphoma in the general population? 18 referring to in your statement? 18 MR. GRANNIS: Vague and ambiguous. Overbroad. 19 A Yes, in my preamble, yes. 19 Argumentative. Incomplete hypothetical. 20 Q In the preamble, okay. 20 THE WITNESS: It is not a research question 21 Is it correct that there are a number of 21 that has ever been posed to me before so I haven't 22 epidemiologic studies which have shown statistically 22 looked at it. 23 significantly increased risks or rates of NHL among 23 Q BY MR. METZGER: You don't know what the 24 benzene-exposed workers? 24 incidence is? 25 MR. GRANNIS: Vague. Overbroad. Incomplete 25 A I don't know that anyone knows what the Page 78 Page 80 1 hypothetical. Argumentative. 1 incidence is. 2 THE WITNESS: There are epidemiological studies 2 Q Is that incidence rate ascertainable from 3 that among their reports include statistically 3 existing literature? 4 significant measures of association in which the cohorts 4 A I doubt it. 5 were attempting to associate occupational exposures, 5 MR. GRANNIS: Vague and ambiguous. Overbroad. 6 including benzene and NHL's as a class or as subsets, 6 Calls for speculation. Incomplete hypothetical. 7 subtypes of NHL's. 7 Q BY MR. METZGER: So how would you control for 8 The only cohort I recall that is widely viewed 8 that since it can't be ascertained? 9 as limiting exposures to benzene is the pliofilm cohort 9 MR. GRANNIS: Vague and ambiguous. 10 in which NHL's are in fact evaluated. 10 Argumentative. Misstates prior testimony. 11 Q BY MR. METZGER: Okay. And there were NHL's 11 THE WITNESS: Epidemiologically you have to 12 identified in the pliofilm cohort, were there not? 12 evaluate whether or not that would lead to a bias. One 13 A There are NHL's identified in any cohort 13 could add one more NHL to that in a very conservative 14 because it is not an uncommon disease. They were not 14 way and ignore those that might occur in a referent 15 identified in excess in the pliofilm cohort. 15 population to determine what the sensitivity of the 16 Q Isn't that because some of the NHL's were left 16 result was to a single case. 17 out; they were excluded? 17 Q BY MR. METZGER: Okay. Now, have you read the 18 MR. GRANNIS: Argumentative. 18 most recent meta-analysis regarding benzene and 19 THE WITNESS: I have no reason to believe that 19 non-Hodgkin's lymphoma? 20 the reports as published and updated through at least 20 A There have been three. Let me clarify which 21 2002 have not had an opportunity to identify to show 21 you are referring to. 22 NHL's in excess. As of the record that I have, there is 22 Q Let me ask you please identify for me those 23 no excess. 23 meta-analyses regarding benzene and non-Hodgkin's 24 Q BY MR. METZGER: So you are not aware that 24 lymphoma that you are aware of that you have read, 25 there was in fact an NHL worker in the pliofilm cohort 25 reviewed and considered for this case. Page 79 Page 81 21 (Pages 78 to 81) A3074BC KENNETH A. MUNDT, Ph.D. OCTOBER 13, 2009 1 MR. GRANNIS: Well, that may be two different 1 Q What reviews regarding benzene and 2 questions; what's he aware of, what has he read, 2 non-Hodgkin's lymphoma have you read, reviewed and 3 reviewed and considered, you know. I'd prefer you ask 3 considered for this case that you rely on for your 4 him one question and then another. 4 opinions in this case? 5 Q BY MR. METZGER: Let's start with those that 5 A My reliance is on the primary studies, so I am 6 you are aware of. 6 aware of and have read and reviewed not only the 7 A I am aware of Wong's, and I am blanking on the 7 meta-analyses but several reviews on non-Hodgkin's 8 next, and the third is Steinmaus. 8 lymphoma and on benzene and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. 9 Q Okay. 9 Q Which reviews regarding benzene and 10 A If I could take a quick look at Exhibit 5, I 10 non-Hodgkin's lymphoma have you read, reviewed or 11 could provide it. 11 considered for this case? 12 Q Okay. 12 MR. GRANNIS: Vague. 13 A Thank you. 13 THE WITNESS: The ones that I have are on the 14 It is Lamm, the third author. 14 disk. I can't tell you off the top of my head. 15 Q So you are familiar with the meta-analyses by 15 Q BY MR. METZGER: Take a look at the listing, 16 Wong, Lamm and Steinmaus; is that correct? 16 please. 17 A Yes. 17 A Unfortunately without the titles printed I 18 Q Any others? 18 can't reliably identify these, but I know that that 19 A Not that I consider or self-identify as 19 Boffetta is a review, Alexander is a review, Morton. I 20 meta-analysis. 20 guess there is two Mortons. One in 2008 comes to mind 21 Q I am just asking are you aware of any other 21 as a particularly relevant review of NHL. 22 meta-analyses regarding benzene and non-Hodgkin's 22 I am afraid unless I look at the titles it is 23 lymphoma? 23 difficult. 24 MR. GRANNIS: Overbroad. Vague. 24 Q Okay. I want to go back to your CV. You 25 THE WITNESS: I identify those as the 25 mentioned that you have been doing some studies with Page 82 Page 84 1 meta-analyses distinct from other reviews where results 1 this group in Germany, and I think you identified an 2 are -- 2 article here by an author by the name of Straif or 3 Q BY MR. METZGER: I am not talking about 3 Straif? 4 reviews; I am talking about meta-analysis. 4 A Yes. Straif is an IARC employee. 5 A Okay. Thank you. 5 Q Is that Kurt Straif? 6 I wanted to make sure we were talking about 6 A Kurt Straif, yes. We have worked together for 7 meta-analyses as either the authors describe it or as I 7 years. 8 would consider it. 8 Q Okay. Do you respect his work? 9 Q So what I'm asking you is, setting aside 9 MR. GRANNIS: Vague. Overbroad. 10 reviews and any other type of study, are you aware of 10 THE WITNESS: I respect him as a colleague. 11 any meta-analysis regarding benzene and non-Hodgkin's 11 And I would have to look at a particular piece of work 12 lymphoma other than those published by Wong, Lamm and 12 because I think everyone is capable of producing 13 Steinmaus? 13 something that is not great. 14 MR. GRANNIS: Vague and ambiguous. Overbroad. 14 I wouldn't label him -- I have no reason to say 15 THE WITNESS: I am aware of earlier ones which 15 that I disrespect him in any way. But with respect to 16 I did not look at closely and factor in. 16 his work as a scientist and as an objective evaluator, I 17 Q BY MR. METZGER: Can you identify it? 17 would have to review, as I would a peer, submitted 18 A Not offhand. 18 publication to one of the journals I review for for the 19 Q Can you tell me the results? 19 quality of that work. 20 A No. I didn't examine older materials. I favor 20 Q BY MR. METZGER: How many years have you worked 21 newer materials. 21 with Kurt Straif? 22 Q Have you -- well, are you aware of any newer 22 A I worked with Kurt directly for probably five 23 meta-analyses regarding benzene and non-Hodgkin's 23 years surrounding the German rubber study, that 24 lymphoma than the three that you identified? 24 constellation of studies. 25 A No. 25 Q And during that time did you form an opinion Page 83 Page 85 22 (Pages 82 to 85) A3074BC KENNETH A. MUNDT, Ph.D. OCTOBER 13, 2009 1 regarding the scientific integrity? 1 results from a wide array of studies and exposures. 2 MR. GRANNIS: Vague and overbroad. 2 Q Have you ever done a meta-analysis regarding 3 THE WITNESS: Well, generally I respect Kurt 3 either benzene or organic solvents and NHL? 4 and his scientific integrity. I would have to reserve 4 MR. GRANNIS: Vague. Overbroad. 5 the right to comment on a particular piece of work just 5 THE WITNESS: No, I have not specifically done 6 not because he is a friend or colleague or any other 6 that. 7 category of person, but as a fellow scientist, we tend 7 Q BY MR. METZGER: Okay. Let's go back to your 8 to review and critique each other's work. 8 opinions. 9 Q BY MR. METZGER: Have you ever discussed with 9 In your first opinion you write that "Valid 10 him the relationship between benzene and non-Hodgkin's 10 interpretation of epidemiological evidence must consider 11 lymphoma? 11 study strengths and weaknesses, most importantly the 12 MR. GRANNIS: Vague and overbroad. 12 avoidance of bias, or systematic error stemming from 13 THE WITNESS: It is possible in the years we 13 study design and conduct, data availability, specificity 14 worked together in the German rubber cohorts that may 14 of exposure, specificity of disease, and random error, 15 have been discussed. I just don't have any specific 15 among others." 16 recall of it. 16 Did I read that correctly? 17 Q BY MR. METZGER: Okay. Have you prepared any 17 A Yes. 18 criticism of either the Steinmaus meta-analysis or -- 18 Q Have you -- 19 well, let me leave the question at that. 19 MR. GRANNIS: Except for the last sentence. 20 Have you done so? 20 MR. METZGER: I will get to that. 21 A I have not. I have not been asked. Again, 21 MR. GRANNIS: Okay. 22 this is -- 22 Q BY MR. METZGER: Well, I will read the last 23 MR. GRANNIS: By your question, you mean like a 23 sentence for Mr. Grannis. "Failure to avoid or account 24 written critique? 24 for such biases can result in invalid results and 25 MR. METZGER: Yes. 25 interpretations." Page 86 Page 88 1 THE WITNESS: I am certainly aware of what he 1 That is the last sentence that you wrote in 2 has done and I think it deserves some more in-depth 2 that paragraph; is that correct? 3 evaluation. But in the time that I have had available 3 A And you read it correctly. 4 to come up to speed on this case, it has not been a 4 Q So here is my question: Have you written out, 5 priority. 5 either for this case or to submit to any journal for 6 Again, I rely on the primary studies, some of 6 publication, an analysis of the strength and weaknesses 7 which Steinmaus selects and cites, but that is not the 7 of the epidemiologic studies regarding benzene or 8 universe. And the end of the day I think that there are 8 organic solvents and NHL? 9 serious questions raised by that paper that could be 9 MR. GRANNIS: Argumentative. Vague and 10 addressed, but it's not a priority scientifically for me 10 ambiguous. 11 to do that. 11 THE WITNESS: I have not produced such a 12 Q BY MR. METZGER: Have you done any statistical 12 document. 13 compilation of the studies regarding organic solvents 13 Q BY MR. METZGER: Okay. Have you produced such 14 and NHL? 14 a document regarding bias in those studies? 15 A No. 15 A No. 16 Q Have you done any statistical compilation 16 Q Or systematic error in those studies? 17 regarding the studies of benzene and NHL? 17 MR. GRANNIS: Same objections. 18 MR. GRANNIS: Vague. Overbroad. 18 THE WITNESS: No, I have not produced written 19 THE WITNESS: Statistical compilation may not 19 documents of the qualities of or lack of qualities of 20 be a valid exercise so -- 20 these various articles. 21 Q BY MR. METZGER: I am just asking if you did 21 Q BY MR. METZGER: Or data availability? 22 one or not. 22 MR. GRANNIS: Same objections. 23 A I just want to make sure that the reason I 23 THE WITNESS: Same answer. 24 wouldn't have done something like that is why would be 24 Q BY MR. METZGER: Specificity of exposure? 25 my question. Why would you statistically compile 25 MR. GRANNIS: Same objections. Page 87 Page 89 23 (Pages 86 to 89) A3074BC KENNETH A. MUNDT, Ph.D. OCTOBER 13, 2009 1 THE WITNESS: That's right, I have not written 1 Q No. I want a complete listing; not an example. 2 a report on this topic covering these dimensions of my 2 A Well, I told you three minutes ago that I 3 opinion. 3 didn't do that evaluation specifically for this case in 4 Q BY MR. METZGER: Okay. Have you in any way 4 a way that I could represent that these are the 12 best 5 compiled a list of the studies that you think suffer 5 articles for this purpose. 6 from such biases versus those that don't? 6 But, for example, Rinsky, which I don't think 7 MR. GRANNIS: Same objections. 7 we see in Steinmaus, Sorahan, large study NHL's in some 8 THE WITNESS: No. I think that it is an 8 of the most highly exposed workers in the U.K., not 9 oversimplification. If I were to critically assess the 9 included. 10 individual studies, they would not fall into one or 10 So my criticism is of what has been done and 11 another. 11 that it fails to achieve a level adequate to draw the 12 It really requires a critical assessment of how 12 conclusions that Dr. Harrison has drawn. 13 those results might have come about and whether that is 13 Q Well, I am not asking about Dr. Harrison's 14 a valid representation of the study. 14 conclusion; I am asking about your conclusion. 15 Q BY MR. METZGER: In your second opinion you 15 What I want to know is what quantum of evidence 16 write that "There is insufficient/inadequate evidence to 16 do you need for you to conclude that the association 17 validly support a conclusion that these chemicals cause 17 between benzene and NHL is causal, what is that level of 18 NHL's, including diffuse large B-cell lymphoma." 18 sufficient and adequate evidence for you? 19 What evidence are you looking to for you 19 MR. GRANNIS: Compound. Vague and ambiguous. 20 conclude that the evidence would be sufficient or 20 Overbroad. 21 adequate? 21 Q BY MR. METZGER: Can you quantify it for me, 22 A Fair question. The method and process that I 22 please? 23 use is pretty similar to what is used by the 23 A I don't think it can be quantified. I did 24 epidemiology group at the IARC reviews where the better 24 qualify it earlier by saying that you would need among 25 studies are identified based on their methodology, 25 this group, however defined, of better studies, strong Page 90 Page 92 1 typically case control, cohort studies. Not to say the 1 and consistent associations that are not otherwise 2 others are discarded, but they certainly carry less 2 explained by study bias or error. 3 weight. 3 Q How strong? 4 And then of those that are on point, I would 4 A I don't know that it needs to be specifically 5 identify studies looking at specific exposures and -- 5 quantified. If you have 20 studies and 15 of them show 6 for example, the diffuse B-cell lymphomas, there are a 6 positive associations ranging from, you know, 1. 7 few studies that look specifically at subtype NHL. 7 something to 34 or higher, you would clearly in that 8 And among those that have reasonable quality, 8 situation more readily embrace a conclusion, again, 9 that is large enough sample size, consideration of 9 assuming that the individual studies aren't flawed. 10 confounding, consideration for potential for selection 10 You might be more willing to conclude 11 bias, reporting bias; then look at among that subset how 11 epidemiologically that there is something going on than 12 strong and how consistently is that association 12 in the literature that we have at hand where the results 13 important. 13 range from appearing to be protective against NHL to 14 Q Okay. Did you do that for this case? 14 positive studies showing a statistically significant 15 MR. GRANNIS: Vague. Overbroad. 15 association. 16 Argumentative. 16 Q How consistent do the studies have to be? 17 THE WITNESS: In some ways I certainly have. 17 A Again, I don't know that consistency is ever 18 Q BY MR. METZGER: Okay. 18 quantified. It is I think part of the practice of 19 A Not to the extent of -- well, let's say enough 19 evaluating epidemiologic literature that one identifies 20 of the review of these papers to note that they have not 20 enough consistent evidence and a lack of opposing 21 been sufficiently critiqued by Dr. Harrison to justify 21 evidence to lean toward a judgment of causation. 22 his conclusions. 22 Q When you refer to studies showing a protective 23 Q Well, which are the pertinent studies that you 23 evidence against NHL, are you referring to studies that 24 identified for this case? 24 report statistically significant negative correlations 25 A For example -- 25 between benzene and NHL? Page 91 Page 93 24 (Pages 90 to 93) A3074BC KENNETH A. MUNDT, Ph.D. OCTOBER 13, 2009 1 A It is interesting wording because it seems that 1 in organic solvents. 2 statistically significant negative associations are 2 A Yes, there certainly are. 3 usually described that way, but statistically 3 Q What are they? 4 significant positive findings typically described as 4 A They are in there. 5 causal. 5 Q Which are they? 6 I think epidemiologically we view them as 6 A Well, we could go through it, but they are -- 7 statistically significant positive or negative, and that 7 Q I am asking you to identify any. 8 the big picture is some objective understanding of their 8 MR. GRANNIS: This is not a memory test. If 9 entirety. 9 the witness would like to refer to a document or to his 10 Q I don't know that you answered my question, but 10 CD-ROM, let him do so. 11 probably because I didn't understand your answer. 11 Q BY MR. METZGER: Can you identify any by 12 Let me ask you this: From all of the studies 12 looking at the listing of the studies on Exhibits 5 or 13 that you have reviewed that are set forth on Exhibits 5 13 6? 14 and 6, were there any studies that reported 14 A Well, it is also not a meaningful exercise for 15 statistically significantly negative correlations 15 me because I am not putting forward that any of these 16 between benzene exposure and NHL? 16 exposures are protective. 17 MR. GRANNIS: Vague and ambiguous. Overbroad. 17 Q Okay. Fair enough. 18 Argumentative. 18 A I am pointing out that the results are randomly 19 THE WITNESS: I would expect so. 19 distributed about the null; some positive, some 20 Q BY MR. METZGER: I am not asking what you 20 negative, some significant, both in each direction. 21 expect. 21 Q What methodology did you employ in reaching 22 Could you identify any studies? 22 your conclusion regarding general causation? 23 A Not off the top of my head. 23 MR. GRANNIS: Vague and ambiguous. Overbroad. 24 MR. GRANNIS: Same objection. 24 THE WITNESS: I would say the methodology is 25 Q BY MR. METZGER: And during the course of your 25 described by the process that IARC uses, which is a Page 94 Page 96 1 review of the study on Exhibits 5 and 6, which you 1 critical review and synthesis. 2 reviewed for this case, did you identify any 2 Q BY MR. METZGER: Is that based upon the 3 statistically significantly negative studies with a 3 Bradford Hill factors? 4 correlation between organic solvent exposure and NHL? 4 A Certainly Bradford Hill in the '60s brought 5 MR. GRANNIS: Same objections. 5 occupational medicine or helped focus occupational 6 THE WITNESS: I can't recall specifically. 6 medicine on applying a little bit more reasoning in 7 Q BY MR. METZGER: Have you identified any 7 drawing causal conclusions. 8 studies which demonstrate that exposure to solvents or 8 And I believe most epidemiologists are well 9 benzene produces a protective effect against the 9 aware of Bradford Hill's guidelines and incorporate them 10 development of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma? 10 in their thinking. 11 MR. GRANNIS: Same objections. 11 Q Did you -- 12 THE WITNESS: And by protective you mean a 12 A But I think that what Bradford Hill doesn't go 13 negative correlation. I am resistent to using the word 13 into adequately as would be, you know, embraced today is 14 "protective" as much as I am resistent to using the word 14 a fuller critical assessment of the findings rather than 15 "causal" for a positive study. 15 let's say a summation of the findings and applying 16 Q BY MR. METZGER: I only asked because you 16 arbitrarily these guidelines. 17 referred to a protective study that showed a protective 17 I certainly do embrace those as seminal 18 effect against NHL. 18 developments as with the Surgeon General 64 parallel set 19 Are there any? 19 of scientific considerations that help focus scientific 20 MR. GRANNIS: Same objections. 20 evidence and epidemiologists on how to synthesize and 21 THE WITNESS: Well, I don't know what your 21 conclude based on that evidence. 22 question is. Are you asking whether there are studies 22 Q In reaching your conclusion for general 23 that find statistically significant deficits of NHL in 23 causation in this case, did you evaluate the studies 24 exposed populations? 24 using the Bradford Hill factors? 25 Q BY MR. METZGER: Populations exposed to benzene 25 MR. GRANNIS: Argumentative. Page 95 Page 97 25 (Pages 94 to 97) A3074BC KENNETH A. MUNDT, Ph.D. OCTOBER 13, 2009 1 THE WITNESS: I am not sure that is an 1 Q BY MR. METZGER: Okay. 2 appropriate exercise. I think it is unusual for an 2 A But not in a mechanical way. I don't want to 3 epidemiologist to sit down and use something, a 3 imply it is appropriate to take these nine guideposts, 4 guideline like that. 4 guide points and that epidemiological critical review 5 On the other hand, the critical points that we 5 can be reduced to ticking off nine boxes. 6 do use in evaluating individual studies are compatible 6 Q You did mention that the approach that you 7 with those general principles. 7 followed was that in which you believe IARC employs; is 8 But, for instance, to determine whether 8 that correct? 9 exposure preceded the disease is not a particularly -- 9 A Yes, in the epidemiology section of IARC. 10 although it is the most necessary, perhaps the only one 10 Q Okay. It is true, is it not, that IARC 11 that's necessary in determining causation, not usually 11 classifies chemicals as to their carcinogenicity? 12 the focus of any attention in a critical review or 12 A That is I believe the purpose of the monograph 13 assessment. 13 series and the associated meetings is to identify 14 Q BY MR. METZGER: I appreciate your statement. 14 carcinogens. 15 But I just want to know in reaching your conclusion in 15 It has not been limited to chemicals per say. 16 this case did you or did you not attempt to faithfully 16 It has included things like shift work and fire 17 apply the Bradford Hill factors? 17 fighting. 18 MR. GRANNIS: Excuse me. Vague. Ambiguous. 18 Q And occupations like painting? 19 Overbroad. Argumentative. 19 A And painting, which are not chemicals or 20 THE WITNESS: And I don't want to be 20 exposures. 21 argumentative because I know Bradford Hill and they are 21 Q Right. Okay. 22 mistakenly referred to as criteria often are well 22 But it is also true, is it not, that IARC does 23 respected, but that reduces what epidemiologists today 23 not classify chemicals as lymphomagens? 24 do to fairly intuitive concepts. 24 MR. GRANNIS: Overbroad. Vague. 25 That doesn't mean that they necessarily apply 25 THE WITNESS: That is not true. Technically I Page 98 Page 100 1 directly to a study. They really were intended to apply 1 understand what you are getting at. IARC traditionally 2 to the occupational medical community who in its day was 2 had identified chemicals as carcinogenic. 3 finding many, many associations and reporting them. 3 As of about 2006 they have required the 4 Bradford Hill was cautioning that you really 4 committees to identify the sites that are supportive of 5 need to think through before you draw these conclusions. 5 that conclusion. 6 So he says given an association, does it fit these 6 Of course that can't be exhaustively known. It 7 things. 7 is a function of how much and how -- what the quality of 8 Q BY MR. METZGER: I understand. 8 the epidemiology literature is on that particular 9 My question is, did you or did you not apply it 9 relationship. 10 and consider the Bradford Hill factors in reaching your 10 Q BY MR. METZGER: But even since 2006 IARC does 11 causal opinion in this case? 11 not have a classification system for the classification 12 MR. GRANNIS: Same objections. And asked and 12 of lymphomagins. True? 13 answered. 13 A Well, if you narrow it to that, nor for any 14 THE WITNESS: I absolutely applied the 14 other specific site. It is covered by their more recent 15 principles embraced by those. 15 procedures for identifying the sites for which the -- 16 Q BY MR. METZGER: Okay. 16 let's say Group I designation applies in their opinion. 17 A But I do not go through a checklist of those 17 Q Okay. In your second opinion, the last 18 things, which is incompatible with their intended use. 18 sentence, the one that Mr. Grannis wanted -- I am sorry. 19 Q When you say that you absolutely do that, did 19 The last sentence of your second opinion says, 20 you do that in this case? 20 "Furthermore, there is substantially evidence detracting 21 A With what? 21 from this hypothesis," namely that benzene or organic 22 Q For in assessing the studies between -- 22 solvents cause NHL. 23 regarding benzene or organic solvent and NHL. 23 What is that substantial evidence that you are 24 MR. GRANNIS: Vague. Overbroad. 24 referring to? 25 THE WITNESS: Again, yes, absolutely. 25 A It comes in various forms. Let's simplify it Page 99 Page 101 26 (Pages 98 to 101) A3074BC KENNETH A. MUNDT, Ph.D. OCTOBER 13, 2009 1 and say that is two forms. 1 not report a positive association, did any of them have 2 One is the large number of studies that don't 2 sufficient statistical power to detect a doubling of the 3 find any association. I believe many of those resulted 3 risk at low concentrations, around one part per million? 4 in the findings in Lamm and Wong's meta-analyses. 4 MR. GRANNIS: Argumentative. Vague and 5 The other is if you look at the range of 5 ambiguous. Incomplete hypothetical. 6 exposures; not just chemicals, but range of risk factors 6 THE WITNESS: I would think so. 7 say for NHL there is hundreds of them. 7 Q BY MR. METZGER: Do you know so? 8 And though you can tease benzene or solvent out 8 A I wasn't finished. I am sorry. If you want 9 of some of these studies, there is many, many other 9 to -- 10 exposures that have produced excess risk estimates, 10 MR. GRANNIS: Go ahead. 11 including being a clergyman or involved in the 11 Q BY MR. METZGER: Are you speculating when you 12 transportation industry or working with meat or working 12 say "I would think so"? 13 on a farm. 13 MR. GRANNIS: That is another question. Let 14 So to isolate the benzene in chemicals from 14 him finish the last question. 15 this kind of cacophony of noise from these studies, I 15 MR. METZGER: I thought that was an answer. 16 think is not a balanced approach. 16 MR. GRANNIS: He just said he wasn't finished. 17 We really only have to look at say a state of 17 Q BY MR. METZGER: Give me your explanation and 18 the art review like Morton 2008 to see that, despite all 18 then we will go on. 19 of these findings across the studies, that these -- this 19 A Sorry, I have lost track of the question now. 20 very qualified group doesn't identify any of them as 20 Could we have a read back. 21 particularly compelling risk factors associated with 21 MR. GRANNIS: Thank you. 22 NHL. 22 (Record read as follows: 23 Q Are there any primary studies that you consider 23 "Q Did any of those studies -- what you 24 to provide substantial evidence detracting from the 24 are referring to as the studies in the 25 hypothesis that benzene or organic solvents causes NHL? 25 Lamm review which did not report a Page 102 Page 104 1 MR. GRANNIS: Vague. Overbroad. 1 positive association, did any of them 2 Argumentative. 2 have sufficient statistical power to 3 THE WITNESS: I think you are asking for 3 detect a doubling of the risk at low 4 specific references. 4 concentrations, around part per 5 Q BY MR. METZGER: Yes. 5 million?") 6 A I think that a look at the literature that I 6 THE WITNESS: And I began to answer that I 7 have provided you there are numerous studies that fail 7 would think so, but not having done a power calculation 8 to show a positive association. And that those, though 8 can't sit here and say yes. 9 they cannot prove a lack of association, certainly 9 But, for example, Sorahan. Sorahan is one of 10 detract from that hypothesis. 10 the largest studies that both of those reviews I believe 11 Q Can you identify those studies for me. 11 consider that would have found an increase as large as a 12 A I believe I did indirectly by citing the 12 doubling had there been one and there probably are 13 studies identified in the meta-analyses of Wong and 13 others but... 14 Lamm. 14 Q BY MR. METZGER: Are you referring to the 15 Their arriving at a conclusion of no 15 recent Sorahan study published around, what was it, 16 association is driven by studies, some positive, some 16 2005? 17 negative, but on average showing no association. 17 A Yes. 18 Q Can you identify any other studies other than 18 Q Well, that post dates both the Lamm and the 19 those in Wong and Lamm? 19 Wong reviews, doesn't it? 20 A I am not representing Wong and Lamm as those 20 A Sorahan 2002, it might. You are right so ... 21 studies. I am representing that among their studies 21 Q Okay. 22 reviewed will be ample studies that in sum provide no 22 A But I believe it answers your question, a paper 23 evidence of increased risk in those populations. 23 that has adequate power to detect a doubling. 24 Q Did any of those studies -- what you are 24 Q Have you read any criticisms of the Sorahan 25 referring to as the studies in the Lamm review which did 25 study? Page 103 Page 105 27 (Pages 102 to 105) A3074BC KENNETH A. MUNDT, Ph.D. OCTOBER 13, 2009 1 A I recall an exchange or a criticism that was 1 animal studies; correct? 2 appropriately addressed and dispensed with. I don't 2 MR. GRANNIS: Same objections. 3 recall what the criticism was. 3 THE WITNESS: I did not review any animal tox 4 Q Do you recall who authored the criticism? 4 studies. 5 A No. 5 Q BY MR. METZGER: Did you review any 6 Q Do you recall who authored the explanation or 6 experimental studies regarding the ability of the 7 the justification -- 7 benzene or organic solvents to cause hematotoxicity, 8 A No. 8 lymphopoietic toxicity, altercations of immune function, 9 Q -- addressing the criticism? 9 did you consider any of those studies? 10 A No, I don't recall. 10 MR. GRANNIS: Vague and ambiguous. Overbroad. 11 Q Okay. Now, I didn't -- in looking through the 11 Argumentative. 12 lists of the literature on Exhibits 5 and 6, I didn't 12 THE WITNESS: In humans or in animals? 13 see any animal studies. 13 Q BY MR. METZGER: In either, in reaching your 14 Were there any? 14 opinions in this case. 15 A I am sorry. I am an epidemiologist. 15 A No. 16 Q So you didn't consider any animal studies for 16 MR. GRANNIS: Same objections. 17 your -- 17 Q BY MR. METZGER: Did you consider any studies 18 A Epidemiology -- 18 evaluating the clastogenic potential -- strike that. 19 MR. GRANNIS: Excuse me. Argumentative. Vague 19 Did you consider any studies evaluating 20 and ambiguous. Overbroad. 20 clastogenicity of benzene and/or organic solvents in 21 THE WITNESS: -- has the pesky root of -demos 21 reaching your opinions in this case? 22 in it which pertains to people. 22 MR. GRANNIS: Vague and ambiguous. Overbroad. 23 Q BY MR. METZGER: Well, my question though is 23 Argumentative. 24 did you consider any animal studies regarding benzene 24 THE WITNESS: Yeah. I think I made it clear 25 and lymphoma or organic solvent and lymphoma in reaching 25 that I reviewed the epidemiologic literature and I don't Page 106 Page 108 1 your causal opinion in this case? 1 think that the epidemiological studies address 2 MR. GRANNIS: Compound. Vague and ambiguous. 2 toxicology or pathology directly. 3 Overbroad. Argumentative. 3 I'm certainly dependent on them for 4 THE WITNESS: And outside of my area of 4 understanding what we are studying and how we might 5 expertise. 5 design a study, but I did not review that literature. 6 Q BY MR. METZGER: So you did consider those; is 6 It is outside of my area of expertise. 7 that correct? 7 Q BY MR. METZGER: Okay. Do you believe that it 8 MR. GRANNIS: Same objection. 8 is appropriate to make a causal assessment without 9 THE WITNESS: I am an epidemiologist. 9 considering animal studies and experimental studies? Do 10 Q BY MR. METZGER: I just want to know if you 10 you? 11 considered those, "Yes" or "No." I am not asking what 11 MR. GRANNIS: Argumentative. Vague and 12 you are. 12 ambiguous. Overbroad. Incomplete hypothetical. 13 MR. GRANNIS: You are interrupting him again. 13 THE WITNESS: It also depends on what is 14 I believe he has given you his answer and explained the 14 available. Unfortunately, much research that we would 15 reason for it. 15 like to have on humans, the relevant species, in actual 16 MR. METZGER: I didn't get a clear answer. 16 doses that are encountered in whatever workplace 17 Q Have you considered any animal studies 17 settings, but we don't. 18 regarding benzene or solvent exposed animals and the 18 So to some extent we have to factor in evidence 19 development of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in reaching your 19 from other sciences to supplement what is seen 20 opinion as to whether solvents and benzene causes NHL? 20 epidemiologically. 21 MR. GRANNIS: Same objections. 21 Q BY MR. METZGER: My question is, do you 22 THE WITNESS: My research and therefore my 22 consider it to be a valid scientific methodology not to 23 opinions are based on my evaluation of the 23 consider animal studies and other experimental studies 24 epidemiological literature only. 24 in reaching a determination on the issue of general 25 Q BY MR. METZGER: So you did not consider any 25 causation? Page 107 Page 109 28 (Pages 106 to 109) A3074BC KENNETH A. MUNDT, Ph.D. OCTOBER 13, 2009 1 MR. GRANNIS: Vague and ambiguous. Overbroad. 1 Q Which studies? 2 Argumentative. Incomplete hypothetical. 2 A I am not -- I can't say that he has identified 3 THE WITNESS: I think that if one is conducting 3 specifically a set of studies in which he relies. 4 this review epidemiologically, as the epidemiology 4 Q Did you read the 200 odd page declaration that 5 section would at IARC, they come to a conclusion despite 5 he prepared regarding benzene/organic solvents and 6 what others are discussing in the other rooms on animal 6 non-Hodgkin's lymphoma? 7 studies or on mechanism. 7 A I did. 8 So they do come to a conclusion as to whether 8 Q Okay. And there were a lot of studies 9 the evidence epidemiologically is sufficient to support 9 identified in that, were there not? 10 a causal determination. 10 A There is a huge number of studies identified -- 11 So the methodology -- 11 Q Which of those studies do you have -- 12 Q BY MR. METZGER: So you consider it a valid -- 12 A -- some of which I expect he will specifically 13 A And I am not sure if you are referring to it in 13 identify as key in relying upon. I believe there was 14 any setting, but certainly an epidemiological evaluation 14 one, Hayes. I expect that if he advances his opinions 15 can be done exclusively of the evaluation of these 15 based on Hayes, that I would critique Hayes because I 16 other. Ultimately I think they combine. 16 don't think he has. 17 Q BY MR. METZGER: When you say they combine, do 17 Q All right. What are your critiques of the 18 you mean that in reaching a causal determination it is 18 Hayes study? 19 both necessary and appropriate to consider all of the 19 MR. GRANNIS: Which Hayes study? 20 available scientific evidence that bears on the 20 MR. METZGER: The one that he is referring to. 21 question, not just the epidemiology but also toxicology 21 MR. GRANNIS: Well, okay. Vague and ambiguous. 22 and experimental studies? 22 Overbroad. Incomplete hypothetical. Argumentative. He 23 MR. GRANNIS: Compound. Vague and ambiguous. 23 did not say "the Hayes study." 24 Argumentative. Overbroad. Incomplete hypothetical. 24 The witness did not say "the Hayes study." The 25 THE WITNESS: That is a different question. I 25 witness said, "Hayes." Page 110 Page 112 1 do believe that to make a causal judgment we want to 1 Q BY MR. METZGER: I assume that you are 2 factor in all available evidence from these other 2 referring to the 1997 study by Hayes published in JNCI; 3 fields. 3 is that correct, doctor? 4 I think you had worded it quite differently 4 MR. GRANNIS: That's not what Dr. Harrison 5 before so I had a hard time answering it. 5 limited himself to. 6 Q BY MR. METZGER: And in fact when IARC makes 6 THE WITNESS: Well, in fact that is one of 7 its determinations, IARC reviews and assesses the 7 several from the group that includes Yin. I think the 8 strength of the animal evidence and also the other 8 same results were published many times. 9 experimental studies, including DNA studies and other 9 Q BY MR. METZGER: Actually the results regarding 10 types of studies. True? 10 lymphoma were published in the Hayes 1997; correct, not 11 MR. GRANNIS: Vague and ambiguous. Overbroad. 11 in the other -- 12 THE WITNESS: Generally true, and as available. 12 A I don't think that is accurate, but we could 13 For instance, for painting there were no animal studies 13 check. 14 and I presume there are no animals that are painting. 14 Q What are your criticisms of the Hayes 1997 15 Q BY MR. METZGER: Okay. Are all of the opinions 15 study? 16 that you have formed for this case set forth in Exhibit 16 A Well, for one, with respect to NHL there is 17 7? 17 certain question regarding the actual diagnosis of 18 A Certainly these are my central opinions. There 18 NHL. 19 are probably variations on these that supplement these 19 Q Really? 20 opinions. 20 A In the article -- 21 For example, to the extent that evidence put 21 MR. GRANNIS: Excuse me, counsel. 22 forward by let's say Dr. Harrison relies on 22 Q BY MR. METZGER: Are you serious? 23 epidemiological studies, I would expect to critique, as 23 MR. GRANNIS: Excuse me, counsel. The witness 24 we discussed earlier, on these criteria, those studies 24 has not finished his answer. He is entitled to answer 25 that he relies upon. 25 your question. Page 111 Page 113 29 (Pages 110 to 113) A3074BC KENNETH A. MUNDT, Ph.D. OCTOBER 13, 2009 1 Q BY MR. METZGER: I am sorry. I do apologize 1 MR. GRANNIS: Argumentative. Vague and 2 for interrupting. I was just flabbergasted by the first 2 ambiguous. Overbroad. 3 statement. 3 THE WITNESS: I think the intent was good. The 4 MR. GRANNIS: Okay. Flabbergasted -- 4 reality of any of these studies is not the intent, 5 Q BY MR. METZGER: Finish your answer and we will 5 however. It is what is in the data. 6 go ahead and talk about that. 6 Q BY MR. METZGER: Let's talk about -- 7 MR. GRANNIS: One thing at a time, exactly. 7 A Noteworthy, since you point out that the Mayo 8 Go ahead. 8 Clinic diagnosed these cases, that the one that -- of 9 THE WITNESS: For example, you will read in 9 the four that is questionably NHL has always been 10 many of the NCI publications that there were panels of 10 included in the analyses as if it were confirmed, as 11 reviewers verifying diagnosis and that they looked at 11 were the other, what were there, 12 or maybe 20 total. 12 pathological specimens for these cases. 12 I don't recall the number. 13 Do you know how many they had for NHL? Four. 13 But the rest that were not confirmed are all 14 So three of which were confirmed, two of which were 14 included. And that harkens to your comment on the 15 follicular, one of which was diffuse B. The rest we 15 Rinsky, that there are always cases that might have been 16 don't know. 16 in and out. 17 I raise the question. I am not saying that I 17 You will find that in the Hayes study that you 18 know that those are undiagnosed, but I think there is 18 don't have to remove one or two or more or add one or 19 that sense that the quality of the diagnosis is better 19 two more to the referent group that whole statistically 20 than it actually is if you read deeply into the Hayes 20 significant finding comes apart. 21 family of publications. 21 Q Can you identify for me any other epidemiology 22 Q BY MR. METZGER: And where do you -- in which 22 study in which the investigators went to the trouble of 23 Hayes study do you find what you just stated, that there 23 attempting to confirm pathological diagnosis on the 24 were four that were pathologically reviewed? 24 reports by sending the specimens themselves to the Mayo 25 A I believe it is Travis. May I refer to Exhibit 25 Clinic for pathological analysis? Page 114 Page 116 1 5? 1 MR. GRANNIS: Argumentative. Vague and 2 MR. GRANNIS: 5. 2 ambiguous. Overbroad. 3 THE WITNESS: 5 or 6. 3 THE WITNESS: I think that the pathological 4 Q BY MR. METZGER: I know the Travis study. That 4 confirmation is much more prevalent in the U.S. and that 5 is fine. 5 registry based studies and just the degree of accurate 6 MR. GRANNIS: But if he wants to refer to it -- 6 diagnosis is going to be greater in the U.S. 7 Q BY MR. METZGER: You could refer to whatever 7 I think there were fundamental concerns about 8 you want. Look at whatever you want. I know what you 8 the quality of the diagnoses and the data in China and 9 are referring to. 9 therefore this was implemented to try to address that. 10 MR. GRANNIS: This is 5 here or there? 10 I think -- I am not questioning their intent. 11 MR. METZGER: I think this is my set. 11 Again, the reality was that they could not obtain path 12 MR. GRANNIS: Well, I see. 12 verification on the vast majority of the cases. 13 All right. Go ahead. 13 Q BY MR. METZGER: And the epidemiologic studies 14 THE WITNESS: Travis is there, Travis '94. 14 that you have conducted, have you ever sent or arranged 15 Q BY MR. METZGER: All right. In fact, regarding 15 for the pathology specimens to be sent to the Mayo 16 the pathology review, the pathology specimens that were 16 Clinic for pathological confirmation of the diagnosis? 17 the subject of the Hayes study were reviewed by 17 MR. GRANNIS: Argumentative. Vague and 18 pathologists at the Mayo Clinic, were they not? 18 ambiguous. Overbroad. 19 MR. GRANNIS: Vague. Overbroad. Ambiguous. 19 THE WITNESS: I say analogously in my German 20 THE WITNESS: I understand that all four of 20 silica worker study, we sent every single x-ray to the 21 them. 21 German B-readers to be re-read so that we would have a 22 Q BY MR. METZGER: And do you consider -- isn't 22 high quality of diagnosis before we tried to published 23 that a very positive feature of the study, that the 23 any paper on the risks -- quantitative risks of 24 specimens were in fact reviewed by pathologists from the 24 silicosis and myelo Class I,I x-ray interpretation. 25 Mayo Clinic? 25 Q BY MR. METZGER: In any of the epidemiologic Page 115 Page 117 30 (Pages 114 to 117) A3074BC KENNETH A. MUNDT, Ph.D. OCTOBER 13, 2009 1 studies that you have done, did you ever send pathology 1 that the matters on which Dr. Harrison is relying for 2 specimens of patients diagnosed with cancer to the Mayo 2 his assessment of the general causation issue are those 3 Clinic to have the Mayo Clinic's expert pathologists 3 papers identified in his 200 odd page declaration, plus 4 confirm the diagnosis? 4 the additional papers which supplement that that were 5 MR. GRANNIS: Argumentative. Vague and 5 published after he prepared that declaration. 6 ambiguous. Overbroad. 6 So with that understanding, are there any 7 THE WITNESS: No, I have not. I have not had 7 opinions that you have for this case that are not set 8 the opportunity to do comparable research in a place 8 forth in Exhibit 7? 9 where I had seriously questions about a diagnostic 9 A No. 10 capability locally. 10 Q Okay. And have you -- is there any particular 11 Q BY MR. METZGER: You mentioned that there were 11 work that you have been asked to perform for this case 12 some variation on a theme for these opinions. 12 that you have not yet done? 13 What other opinions do you have for this case 13 A No. I have not been asked to do anything more 14 that are not set forth on Exhibit 7? 14 than what I have described here. 15 MR. GRANNIS: Mischaracterizes his prior 15 Q Were there any materials or publications that 16 testimony. 16 you wanted to read for this case but which were not 17 THE WITNESS: These in fact are the main themes 17 available to you so you could not consider them in 18 and anything that I would testify to as far as I know 18 reaching your opinions? 19 right now at this moment, given other, you know, usual 19 A That is a very good question. I appreciate 20 caveats that things may change or another paper may be 20 that. I believe that I to date have been able to find 21 published that somehow changes things, my opinions will 21 and consider any of those materials that arose in the 22 largely be based on these. 22 course of my review. 23 They could be -- this is only a few paragraphs. 23 Q Okay. Is your opinion in this case limited to 24 I didn't write a 300-page report, so obviously these 24 opinions on the subject of general causation or are you 25 could be expanded in detail, but they would be 25 also opining regarding specific causation? Page 118 Page 120 1 encompassed under these. 1 A Well, that construct is -- translates into 2 Q BY MR. METZGER: Are there any opinions that 2 epidemiologically causation determination because 3 you have formed in this case that are not encompassed in 3 epidemiology we tend to focus on determining general 4 the opinions set forth in Exhibit 7? 4 causation. 5 A No, sir. I did my best to write these as 5 Q Right. 6 carefully as I could to cover those bases. 6 A Where general causation is substantiated and a 7 Q Have you completed your work in this case? 7 conclusion can reasonably be determined, there are 8 A I don't think so. 8 epidemiological approaches to addressing specific 9 Q What else do you need to do that you haven't 9 causation. 10 done? 10 Q Have you done that in this case or have you not 11 A I think when it becomes clearer what 11 because you do not believe that general causation is 12 specifically Dr. Harrison might rely upon -- I have 12 satisfied? 13 described this before -- I will take a closer, more 13 A Well, I am confident that general causation is 14 critical look at it to see whether his conclusions can 14 not met with respect to the B -- diffuse-B, whether it 15 be substantiated when the quality of the study and the, 15 is in the thyroid or not, that has not been determined. 16 you know, evaluation of these -- these are things that 16 There is additionally evidence that risk 17 he did not consider that I could tell for any one of the 17 factors that Mr. Reese has evidence of do cause that 18 hundreds of papers that he identified. 18 disease or are strongly associated with it in 19 I would -- 19 epidemiologic terms. 20 MR. GRANNIS: "These" being the issues 20 Q Well, I guess my question is, are you going to 21 addressed in your summary of opinions? 21 be testifying at trial that Mr. Reese's exposure to 22 THE WITNESS: Paragraph 1 of my opinions, I 22 benzene was insufficient to cause hematologic disease? 23 would expect to apply that to each and every paper that 23 A I am not aware that that is the question in 24 he puts forward. 24 this case. I think that Mr. Reese has a specific 25 Q BY MR. METZGER: I'd like to represent to you 25 disease and I think that the epidemiological evidence is Page 119 Page 121 31 (Pages 118 to 121) A3074BC KENNETH A. MUNDT, Ph.D. OCTOBER 13, 2009 1 insufficient to conclude that those exposures caused 1 2 that disease. 2 3 So I will specifically address that causation 3 4 at that level. 4 5 Q General causation but not -- 5 6 A I will apply the general causation to the 6 7 specific facts in this case that because -- and I think 7 8 it is captured here. 8 9 Because it does not support a general causation 9 10 conclusion, the claim that these alleged exposures 10 11 actually caused or substantially contributed to his 11 12 diffuse large cell B -- B-cell thyroid lymphoma cannot 12 13 be supported. That is that specific causal conclusion. 13 14 Q I understand what you are saying, but it's not 14 15 a specific causal assessment in the sense that you are 15 16 basing it on a specific dose assessment or a specific 16 17 latency or anything of that sort which usually goes into 17 18 specific causation because you don't even believe that 18 19 there is general causation; right? 19 20 MR. GRANNIS: Argumentative. Vague and 20 21 ambiguous. Overbroad. 21 22 THE WITNESS: It is my turn to gasp. That is 22 23 illogical. Of course I am talking about specific 23 24 causation. 24 25 Q BY MR. METZGER: Have you -- all right. It 25 Page 122 things that you have suggested in your proposed stip. MR. METZGER: That is fine. So stipulated? ALL DEFENSE COUNSEL: So stipulated. (ENDING TIME: 12:10 P.M.) Page 124 1 doesn't matter. 1 2 We are done. I will get you a check. 3 I will propose that the court reporter can 2 4 forward the original transcript to Mr. Grannis; that he 5 will make it available to you; you can read and sign it 6 under penalty of perjury so you don't have to have it 7 notarized. 3 4 5 6 7 8 I would ask you to make any corrections or 8 9 changes that you have on the pages where the testimony 9 10 occurs and then to list them on the correction sheet at 10 11 the end of it so we may know where they are. 12 If you would then forward the original 13 transcript -- you could have 30 days to do this. If you 14 would then forward the original transcript to 15 Mr. Grannis, he will notify all counsel of changes, if 16 any; and then forward the original transcript on to me; 17 we will preserve it and lodge it with the court in 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 advance of trial; if the original is lost or not signed, 18 19 a certified copy may be used with full force and effect. 19 20 So stipulated? 21 MR. GRANNIS: I would just simply suggest 22 cutting out the middleman on one of those transmittals 23 and having the reporter transmit the original directly 24 to Dr. Mundt in Amherst with a pre-addressed pre-stamped 25 return envelope to my office so that I accomplish the 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 123 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) I, the undersigned, declare under penalty of perjury that I have read the foregoing transcript, and I have made any corrections, additions or deletions that was desirous of making; that the foregoing is a true and correct transcript of my testimony contained therein. EXECUTED this _______ day of _______________, 20___, at __________________, _______________________ (City) (State) ___________________________ KENNETH A. MUNDT, Ph.D. Page 125 32 (Pages 122 to 125) AUTHETNhTe IoCrifCgileiOnawPlaYcsuesretilniefigcetdRroeEna-iTclLareallgnyasslcigtreinpctehdnology. A3074BC KENNETH A. MUNDT, Ph.D. OCTOBER 13, 2009 1 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATION 2 3 I, SHERI A. PLY, CSR No. 6507, a Certified 4 Shorthand Reporter in and for the State of California do 5 hereby certify: 6 That the foregoing proceedings were taken before 7 me at the time and place therein set forth, at which 8 time the witness was placed under oath by me; 9 That the testimony of the witness and all 10 objections made at the time of the examination were 11 recorded stenographically by me and were thereafter 12 transcribed; 13 That the foregoing transcript is a true and 14 correct record of the testimony so taken. 15 I further certify that I am not a relative or 16 employee of any attorney or of any of the parties, nor 17 financially interested in the action. 18 I declare under the penalty of perjury under the 19 laws of the State of California that the foregoing is 20 true and correct. 21 22 Dated this 21st day of October, 2009. 23 24 _________________________________ 25 SHERI A. PLY, CSR No. 6507 Page 126 33 (Page 126) A3074BC KENNETH A. MUNDT, Ph.D. OCTOBER 13, 2009 A ability 108:6 able 14:19 40:19 42:5 120:20 absolutely 11:22 35:4 99:14,19,25 abstracts 10:22 11:3 ,6 academic 22:10 access 52:13 accomplish 123:25 account 88:23 accumulated 68:9 accurate 10:17 22:3 113:12 117:5 accurately 18:8 42:18 67:22 68:10 achieve 92:11 acronym 24:22 acroosteolysis 52:3 action 126:17 activities 19:12 21:20 29:6 activity 22:16 29:19 actual 9:19 13:20 74:12 109:15 113:17 acute 54:1 AC&S 49:4 add 16:10 42:19 81:13 116:18 added 38:10 additional 120:4 additionally 121:16 additions 125:6 address 12:24 26:12 27:13 76:1 109:1 117:9 122:3 addressed 65:8 87:10 106:2 119:21 addressing 50:13 69:18 106:9 121:8 adeno 38:16,17 adenocarcinoma 37:11 adenocarcinomas 36:24 adequate 90:21 92:11,18 105:23 adequately 35:6 39:20 97:13 adjacent 48:21 adjunct 16:23 17:5 18:3 18:6,14,23 19:2 21:25 23:18 administrative 28:6,23 29:1,6 advance 123:18 advanced 19:7 advances 112:14 advising 19:6,14 28:4,16 28:20 29:8 ,17 Advocate 48:11 affidavit 55:23 affirming 42:10 afford 52:14 afraid 84:22 ago 17:10,10,23 19:19 20:25 34:17 72:2 92:2 agree 52:5,8 60:24 ahead 37:6 60:12 77:12 104:10 114:6,8 115:13 AIRCO 61:24 Airport 48:22 Al 63:16 Aladdin 47:6 Alameda 47:10 Alexander 84:19 alleged 33:3,13 44:5 58:3 65:12 122:10 alleging 49:18 altercations 108:8 ambiguous 80:18 81:5,9 83:14 89:10 92:19 94:17 96:23 98:18 104:5 106:20 107:2 108:10,22 109:12 110:1,23 111:11 112:21 115:19 116:2 117:2,18 118:6 122:21 amended 66:10 American 49:7 54:8,13 Ameron 52:25 53:5 Amherst 17:3 22:2,6 23:25 123:24 AMOCO 61:15 amount 29:14 30:16 38:25 ample 103:22 analogously 117:19 analogy 42:2,8 analyses 116:10 analysis 29:23 89:6 116:25 analytical 58:12 and/or 43:18 69:15 108:20 Angeles 1:2 2:2 3:11,17 4:7,12,18,23 125:2 angiosarcoma 52:1 angle 34:15 45:25 animal 106:13,16,24 107:17 108:1,3 109:9 109:23 110:6 111:8,13 animals 107:18 108:12 111:14 answer 5:9 10:24 37:12 51:9 52:12,21 57:18 59:5 68:12 76:25 77:2 77:5 89:23 94:11 104:15 105:6 107:14 107:16 113:24,24 114:5 answerable 36:19 answered 94:10 99:13 answering 37:3 52:11 68:14 111:5 answers 77:11 105:22 anthropoles 59:4 apart 30:9 59:1 116:20 apologize 114:1 apparently 32:23 appearing 93:13 appears 26:7 67:14 applications 33:14 applied 24:1 80:9 99:14 applies 101:16 apply 98:17,25 99:1,9 119:23 122:6 applying 97:6,15 appointed 18:14,23 appointment 16:23 18:9 19:3 appreciate 37:4 72:10 77:3,11 98:14 120:19 approach 40:10 100:6 102:16 approaches 35:20 121:8 appropriate 7:16,17 98:2 100:3 109:8 110:19 appropriately 42:18 106:2 arbitrarily 97:16 area 29:15,16,17 76:21 107:4 109:6 areas 19:7 27:24 30:19 50:13 argumentative 14:8,24 15:5,19 35:18 36:6 38:23 39:6,17 40:4 41:10 42:16 51:6 ,22 57:13 58:17 76:11,19 79:1,18 80:4,19 81:10 89:9 91:16 94:18 97:25 98:19,21 103:2 104:4 106:19 107:3 108:11 108:23 109:11 110:2 110:24 112:22 116:1 117:1,17 118:5 122:20 arose 120:21 arrange 20:1 arranged 117:14 array 88:1 arriving 103:15 art 47:11 58:22 102:18 article 13:4 26:4,22 27:3 27:5 85:2 113:20 articles 5:20,21 9:17,19 10:21 11:3 27:7 67:15 67:23 68:2,6,23 69:12 69:17,20,22 70:2,4,7 70:11,18,21,24 74:12 74:14,23 77:19 78:1 89:20 92:5 ARTS 4:15 ArvinMeritor 54:24 asbestos 45:12,14 46:10 46:11,16,23 47:1,9,14 48:16 49:5 52:23 54:10 56:8,12 58:15 59:22,23 60:1 ascertainable 81:2 ascertained 81:8 aside 83:9 asked 8:13 11:2 20:24 34:8 36:24 37:12 61:10 86:21 95:16 99:12 120:11,13 asking 11:23 14:2,12 21:6 21:7 36:15,25 39:24,25 40:5,18 51:10,12 58:19 62:8 70:16,22 71:3 82:21 83:9 87:21 92:13 92:14 94:20 95:22 96:7 103:3 107:11 assess 90:9 assesses 111:7 assessing 99:22 assessment 90:12 97:14 98:13 109:8 120:2 122:15,16 assessments 57:12 associate 21:25 79:5 associated 38:17 48:6 100:13 102:21 121:18 association 17:21 31:16 36:8,12,16 78:3,10 79:4 91:12 92:16 93:15 99:6 102:3 103:8,9,16 103:17 104:1 105:1 associations 93:1,6 94:2 99:3 assume 46:11 53:2 113:1 assuming 93:9 Atkinson-Baker 1:21 attach 74:10 attempt 49:13 98:16 attempting 79:5 116:23 attempts 23:22 attention 98:12 attorney 33:21 54:22 59:11 62:4 72:7 126:16 attorneys 45:1 60:2 audible 63:19 August 72:3,17 author 13:13,15 82:14 85:2 authored 13:3 106:4,6 Authorization 24:23 authors 15:4 83:7 availability 88:13 89:21 available 39:10 47:19 50:25 87:3 109:14 110:20 111:2,12 120:17 123:5 average 28:19 30:6 41:5 103:17 avoid 88:23 avoidance 34:9 88:12 aware 33:24 79:24 80:11 81:24 82:2,6,7,21 83:10,15,22 84:6 87:1 97:9 121:23 a.m 2:16 7:2 A.W 45:8,15 46:25 52:22 A3074BC 1:25 B B 3:10 5:11 6:1 114:15 121:14 122:12 back 10:7 16:13 34:17 55:3 64:19 68:19 84:24 88:7 104:20 Baggett 62:25 63:5,7 balanced 102:16 bar 61:2 Barr 47:6 based 12:15 30:25 50:25 57:9 70:11 90:25 97:2 97:21 107:23 112:15 117:5 118:22 bases 119:6 basic 40:9 41:3 56:21 basing 122:16 basis 33:20 57:8 battery 52:6 BC332936 1:6 2:6 Beach 1:14 2:16 3:6 7:1 beard 62:22 bears 110:20 began 15:22 105:6 behalf 2:14 33:10 34:25 43:16 46:14 47:10 49:14 56:10 62:1 64:5 64:13 65:15 believe 7:19 10:3,16,18 10:23 13:2,8 20:24 23:10 24:14 27:11,17 31:24 33:8,11 34:3 39:19 40:18 41:4 43:4 44:1 46:5,15 50:19 51:23 55:8 56:22 59:10 59:14 62:25 65:4 68:10 72:3,7 74:11,16 77:19 78:7 79:19 97:8 100:7 100:12 102:3 103:12 105:10,22 107:14 109:7 111:1 112:13 114:25 120:20 121:11 122:18 believed 60:20,23 bell 59:15 63:17,22 benefit 19:11 Bensenville 48:19,21,23 BENTLEY 4:21 benzene 12:18 13:23 14:3 14:5 15:2 25:9,16,19 25:23 26:23 27:8 43:6 43:14 53:20,23 54:15 55:15 59:9 61:16 69:13 78:11,16 79:6,9 81:18 81:23 82:22 83:11,23 84:1,8,9 86:10 87:17 88:3 89:7 92:17 93:25 94:16 95:9,25 99:23 101:21 102:8,14,25 106:24 107:18,20 108:7,20 121:22 benzene-exposed 12:12 14:22 15:10 78:24 benzene/organic 112:5 BERMAN 4:5 best 73:9 92:4 119:5 better 41:19 44:24 90:24 92:25 114:19 bias 81:12 88:12 89:14 91:11,11 93:2 biases 88:24 90:6 bibliography 9:20 big 94:8 biliary 44:4 bill 74:3 billings 9:23 72:14,19 bills 72:24 Billy 63:5 BISGAARD 3:15 Bishop 43:1 bit 28:3 97:6 black 42:2,5,6 bladder 26:9 31:13 33:2 33:16,17,19 blanking 82:7 BNSF 43:23 44:6 board 80:10 Boffetta 84:19 BONNEVILLE 3:10 Borden 60:6 61:13 bottom 65:10 Boulevard 2:15 3:5 4:6 boxes 100:5 Braden 4:15 60:3 Bradford 97:3,4,9,12,24 98:17,21 99:4,10 brain 52:4 60:8 branch 23:21 break 63:13,24 64:16 breakdown 28:25 Brief 10:6 64:18 briefly 30:17 bringing 32:1 BRISBOIS 3:15 broad 57:18 58:18 Page 1 A3074BC KENNETH A. MUNDT, Ph.D. OCTOBER 13, 2009 bronchioalveolar 39:19 brought 33:24 97:4 Brown 48:1 53:17 build 41:3 Burn 48:1 busy 22:15 B-cell 75:17 78:4 90:18 91:6 122:12 B-readers 117:21 B.A.C 39:19 C C 3:1 4:1 cacophony 102:15 Cairns 54:8 calculation 105:7 California 1:1,7,14 2:1,7 2:16 3:6,11,17 4:7,12 4:18,23 7:1 125:1 126:4,19 call 7:17 8:8 9:12 called 7:15 8:13 31:5 39:18 61:12 Calls 81:6 cancer 11:13 26:10 31:9 31:13 33:2 ,16,19 35:3 35:9,16,17 36:5,16 37:14 38:7 ,22 39:4,14 40:1 44:20 49:17,20 50:21 52:4 53:3,12 54:25 60:8 64:3 118:2 cancers 11:19 13:5 33:17 34:20 36:10,25 37:1 ,7 38:11 candidates 19:7,15 21:14 Cantu 55:14 capability 118:10 capable 56:13,19 57:11 57:19 85:12 captured 122:8 carcinogenic 35:8 36:2,3 101:2 carcinogenicity 100:11 carcinogens 100:14 carcinoma 38:1 39:19 52:9 care 49:18 careful 61:10 carefully 36:13 119:6 Carolina 16:24 17:5 CARR 3:19 carry 91:2 Carter 52:22 case 9:15 11:25 13:22 14:5 31:22 32:21 33:1 33:20,23 34:2,6,8,12 35:1 43:1,1,2,5,9,19,21 43:23 44:4 45:2,8,18 45:24 46:8 ,11,20,22,23 47:1,4 48:9,12 49:2,4,5 49:13,17 50:11,16 52:23 53:2 ,4,8,20 54:3 54:10,15 55:1,7,12,15 55:18,19 56:8 57:6 58:1,6 59:9,12,23 60:1 60:6,8 61:3,16,19,25 65:12,21 67:7 68:4,8 68:17 69:15 71:14,20 72:2,8,14,16 73:6 74:25 81:16,25 84:3 ,4 84:11 87:4 89:5 91:1 91:14,24 92:3 95:2 97:23 98:16 99:11,20 107:1 108:14,21 111:16 118:13 119:3,7 120:7,11,16,23 121:10 121:24 122:7 cases 8:25 28:10,11 31:17 31:20 34:13,15,24 45:14,21,25 47:8,10,24 47:25 48:15 49:15,16 59:22 60:10 63:23 64:4 65:9 114:12 116:8,15 117:12 casual 37:16 catch 55:25 categories 11:19 category 44:15 69:5 86:7 causal 14:5 39:22 43:15 92:17 94:5 95:15 97:7 99:11 107:1 109:8 110:10,18 111:1 122:13,15 causality 42:19 causation 42:24 50:24 51:3 93:21 96:22 97:23 98:11 109:25 120:2,24 120:25 121:2,4,6,9,11 121:13 122:3,5,6,9,18 122:19,24 causative 36:3 cause 13:23 33:19 35:3,5 35:6,17 38:21 39:2 40:9,14 41:7,15,22 50:21 51:4,19,24 52:1 53:12,23 56:23 80:3 90:17 101:22 108:7 121:17,22 caused 33:3 34:20 39:14 40:1 43:7 44:5 49:18 50:2,19 55:10 122:1,11 causes 12:6 15:10 35:9,16 36:4 37:9 42:13 51:25 102:25 107:20 causing 56:13,19 cautioning 99:4 caveat 64:9 caveats 118:20 CD 8:10 9:1,13,22 64:25 65:17 67:14,21,25 74:12,14,23 75:5 CD-ROM 70:1,18 96:10 cell 37:12,13,19 38:1,15 38:15,15 122:12 central 111:18 certain 38:17 47:14 77:15 113:17 certainly 21:12 87:1 91:2 91:17 96:2 97:4,17 103:9 109:3 110:14 111:18 certificates 14:13 CERTIFICATION 126:1 certified 123:19 126:3 certify 126:5,15 cetera 24:25 chance 70:10,12 change 118:20 changes 38:10 118:21 123:9,15 Chapel 16:25 charity 49:15 check 15:24 113:13 123:2 checklist 99:17 checkmark 66:6 chemical 15:18 33:19 41:7,22 51:4,19,23 chemicals 12:19 20:7 35:5 44:11,11 51:25 90:17 100:11,15,19,23 101:2 102:6,14 Chesterton 45:8,15 46:25 52:22 Chicago 48:20,24 China 117:8 Chinese 27:1 chloride 51:25 60:8,19 61:25 Chromium 44:15 chronic 42:22 78:3 chrysotile 56:22 57:5 58:1,3,4,15,25 cigarette 35:9 36:4,15 37:17 38:20,21 39:2,14 40:2 50:20 51:1 cigarettes 37:21 cited 34:4 cites 87:7 citing 25:25 103:12 City 48:20,24 49:7 125:10 claim 43:6 49:23 50:1 53:16 64:3 122:10 claimed 31:18,20 44:9 claiming 34:19 64:14 claims 34:16,18 clarify 13:25 81:20 Clark 53:17,22 class 23:1,7 24:11 79:6 117:24 classes 22:25 classification 101:11,11 classifies 100:11 classify 100:23 classroom 23:7 clastogenic 108:18 clastogenicity 108:20 Clayton 46:22 clear 107:16 108:24 clearer 119:11 clearly 56:23 77:15 93:7 clergyman 102:11 client 29:16 clients 15:17,21 19:11 28:5,16,21 29:8 Clinic 115:18,25 116:8 116:25 117:16 118:3 clinically 23:23 Clinic's 118:3 CLL 61:18 close 52:16 closely 52:7 83:16 closer 119:13 cluster 48:14 clutter 32:16 CML 61:18 CNA 4:9 Coatings 31:16 coding 38:10 cohort 12:17 79:8,9,12,13 79:15,25 80:2 91:1 cohorts 79:4 86:14 colleague 23:24 85:10 86:6 colleagues 17:12 19:11 63:4 collection 68:2 70:4 71:18 Collins 46:25 combine 110:16,17 combined 69:6 come 8:3 47:20 68:19 73:2,2 74:3 87:4 90:13 110:5,8 comes 84:20 101:25 116:20 coming 34:17 52:16 commencing 2:16 comment 34:8 60:20 86:5 116:14 committed 80:1 committee 25:2 committees 25:6 101:4 commonly 41:25 communicating 73:21 community 99:2 companies 15:17,18,21 34:19 35:2 46:6,16 50:1,4 company 4:14,15 32:22 34:7 43:17,24 45:9 46:25 47:20 48:17 49:8 52:22 53:5,7,10 56:6 comparable 118:8 compare 70:10 compares 24:25 comparison 70:15,17 compatible 40:9 98:6 compelling 102:21 compensate 50:5 compensated 50:3 compilation 87:13,16,19 compile 87:25 compiled 26:15 90:5 complaint 66:10 complete 10:15 11:5 92:1 completed 119:7 complex 12:16 34:13 42:22 complicated 13:24 38:19 49:9,22 50:8 57:18 compound 56:12,25 58:2 58:4,8,15 92:19 107:2 110:23 comprehensively 44:18 comprise 24:3 concentrations 104:3 105:4 concepts 24:1 98:24 concern 74:7 concerned 48:24 concerning 26:8 concerns 117:7 conclude 39:10,22 90:20 92:16 93:10 97:21 122:1 concluded 55:9 conclusion 54:7 57:10 90:17 92:14,14 93:8 96:22 97:22 98:15 101:5 103:15 110:5,8 121:7 122:10,13 conclusions 91:22 92:12 97:7 99:5 119:14 concurrently 76:5,8 conduct 88:13 conducted 11:8,10,17,25 12:3,10 30:21 117:14 conducting 29:25 110:3 confident 121:13 confirm 116:23 118:4 confirmation 117:4,16 confirmed 114:14 116:10 116:13 confounding 91:10 conservative 81:13 consider 29:6 82:19 83:8 88:10 99:10 102:23 105:11 106:16,24 107:6,25 108:9,17,19 109:22,23 110:12,19 115:22 119:17 120:17 120:21 consideration 91:9,10 considerations 97:19 considered 37:13 57:23 68:4,8 81:25 82:3 84:3 84:11 107:11,17 considering 109:9 consisted 33:14 consistency 93:17 consistent 75:24 76:16 93:1,16,20 consistently 91:12 constellation 37:9 85:24 constituent 35:8,16 36:3 constituents 36:3 construct 121:1 consultation 19:20 20:15 consulting 15:15 19:6 28:4,20 29:8 consumed 30:15 consuming 30:25 contacting 72:8 contacts 19:10 21:21 contain 13:18 58:4 contained 70:1 125:8 containing 9:16 25:22 contribute 19:8 contributed 57:6 58:9 122:11 control 11:25 81:7 91:1 copies 9:19,23 71:8 copy 70:14 123:19 Corp 15:25 corporation 1:7 2:7 4:15 46:10 47:6 correct 7:13,14 12:9 13:16 15:13,16,18,21 16:1,25 20:14 21:22 22:12 26:5,6,10,11 32:12,24 36:5 43:11 46:4,12,13 49:6 53:9,9 59:9 64:2,7 67:10 74:13 75:13 77:23 78:14,21 82:16 89:2 100:8 107:7 108:1 113:3,10 125:8 126:14 126:20 correcting 37:22 correction 123:10 corrections 123:8 125:6 correctly 67:20 88:16 89:3 correlation 95:4,13 correlations 93:24 94:15 correspondence 6:4 9:23 Coulter 59:8 Page 2 A3074BC KENNETH A. MUNDT, Ph.D. OCTOBER 13, 2009 council 31:11 counsel 9:16 15:23 60:20 61:12,13 65:21 113:21 113:23 123:15 124:4 count 80:6 counted 35:22 80:2 COUNTY 1:2 2:2 125:2 Couple 17:10 course 18:2,3 22:13,14,18 23:3,6,13 24:3 ,6,13 35:4 94:25 101:6 120:22 122:23 courses 18:12,17,24 22:5 22:8,21,23 25:8 court 1:1,21 2:1 55:22 60:17 65:6 123:3,17 courtesy 37:5 cover 32:14 119:6 covered 101:14 covering 90:2 covers 13:4 creosote 44:14 criteria 98:22 111:24 critical 90:12 97:1,14 98:5,12 100:4 119:14 critically 90:9 criticism 86:18 92:10 106:1,3,4,9 criticisms 105:24 113:14 critique 69:20 86:8,24 111:23 112:15 critiqued 91:21 critiques 112:17 critiquing 30:20 CSR 1:24 2:17 126:3,25 current 10:13,25 currently 15:12 19:14 20:20 22:5 27:19 curriculum 5:13 7:24 8:16,20 10:11 16:22 21:24 25:14 cut 77:7,10 cutting 123:22 CV 8:5,23 18:8 30:14 31:8 32:2 68:23 84:24 D D 5:1 Dallas 3:21 damages 49:18,19 data 13:20,25 14:2,10,15 26:16,16,20 52:13,20 54:6 88:13 89:21 116:5 117:8 date 10:23 11:5 120:20 Dated 126:22 dates 105:18 Daubert 55:20,21,23 Davis 43:23 44:4,4 day 37:17,17,18,20,21 38:2 48:14 73:13,14,25 87:8 99:2 125:9 126:22 days 30:4 73:11,19,23,24 123:13 deal 52:17 Dean 62:19 death 12:7 14:12 15:11 80:3 deaths 12:1 deceased 62:5 decision 23:2 declaration 34:1 55:24 56:2 112:4 120:3,5 declare 125:4 126:18 deeply 114:20 defendant 3:8,14 4:3,9 4:20 48:16 53:9 61:13 65:14 defendants 1:9 2:9 4:14 43:18 46:5,18,23 61:14 62:2 66:21 defense 31:18 45:7,18,22 46:2 49:5 52:23 53:7 54:11,17 56:4,9 64:5 124:4 deficits 95:23 defined 92:25 definitive 45:20 definitively 43:25 degree 38:24 117:5 deletions 125:6 demand 28:18 demands 28:11 demolishing 48:25 demolition 49:1 demonstrate 39:20 95:8 demonstrated 35:21,23 44:20 demos 106:21 department 16:23 17:12 19:13 21:25 dependent 109:3 depending 28:10 depends 28:17 36:13 39:7 109:13 deposed 60:2 62:19 deposing 7:22 deposition 1:12 2:14 5:12 6:2 8:9 9:3,4 10:5,8 14:17 15:22 31:22 32:5 32:19,23 33:21 34:4 43:9,19 44:22,24 46:20 47:3 48:14 50:17,18 55:19 59:12,21 60:1 61:22 62:4 64:20 65:18 66:11,13 67:9,17 68:24 71:11,16,23 74:6 depositions 45:1,13 48:7 63:2 66:12,21 derived 27:19 57:10 describe 27:22 41:11 49:11 83:7 described 94:3,4 96:25 119:13 120:14 description 5:13 6:3 76:15 deserves 87:2 design 88:13 109:5 designate 61:4 designation 101:16 designed 12:4 desirous 125:7 despite 102:18 110:5 detail 118:25 details 20:9 43:4 detect 58:13,22 104:2 105:3,23 determination 43:15 109:24 110:10,18 121:2 determinations 111:7 determine 36:4 81:15 98:8 determined 42:24 121:7 121:15 determining 98:11 121:3 detract 103:10 detracting 101:20 102:24 development 20:4 30:3 95:10 107:19 developments 97:18 device 58:12 diagnosed 33:2 75:16 116:8 118:2 diagnoses 117:8 diagnosis 33:16 76:5,16 113:17 114:11,19 116:23 117:6,16,22 118:4 diagnostic 118:9 died 59:17 difference 11:20 40:24 41:1 42:10 different 23:1 37:8,8,9,11 37:14 70:23 82:1 110:25 differently 111:4 difficult 30:6 84:23 diffuse 75:16 90:18 91:6 114:15 122:12 diffuse-B 121:14 dimensions 90:2 DiPetrillo 65:10 direction 96:20 directly 25:18 27:10,11 85:22 99:1 109:2 123:23 disappears 56:24 57:1 discarded 91:2 discuss 25:9 discussed 59:22 86:9,15 111:24 discussing 25:9 48:8 110:6 discussion 24:11 disease 12:7,11 15:11 35:6 36:24 38:6 39:1 41:8,15,22 42:14,22 49:21 51:5,19,24 53:22 53:24 54:1,16 55:17 56:14,19 58:10 61:17 64:3,14 79:14 88:14 98:9 121:18,22,25 122:2 diseases 11:12 37:8 ,14 38:12 49:24 50:2 ,18 51:2 52:2 55:9 disentangle 35:14 disk 8:15 ,17 84:14 dismissal 34:2 dismissed 33:20,23 disorders 24:2 dispensed 106:2 dispersion 20:6 disprove 42:7 disproves 41:2 disproving 42:11 disrespect 85:15 distinct 83:1 distributed 96:19 divide 28:24 divides 27:24 DLBCL 78:13 DLBTL 78:13 DNA 111:9 doctor 7:15 27:14 37:6 113:3 doctoral 19:7,14 21:5,14 document 8:22 32:3 ,10 32:11 64:22 65:17 68:21 89:12,14 96:9 documents 89:19 doing 27:14 84:25 dose 57:12 122:16 doses 109:16 doubling 104:2 105:3,12 105:23 doubt 56:24 81:4 dozen 33:14 Dr 7:18,19 8:13,16 10:10 23:17,17,20,24 64:22 66:11,12,13 67:9 69:17 70:2,8,18 74:6 77:1 91:21 92:12,13 111:22 113:4 119:12 120:1 123:24 draw 43:15 54:6 92:11 99:5 drawing 97:7 drawn 92:12 driven 103:16 drop 28:12 due 80:1,16 duly 7:5 DVD 7:25 E E 3:1,1,20 4:1,1,11 5:1 ,11 6:1 eager 44:13 earlier 34:16 55:2 83:15 92:24 111:24 early 20:1 East 2:15 3:5 effect 95:9,18 123:19 eight 50:14 73:17,25 either 24:19 39:8 49:15 70:13 74:24 76:8 83:7 86:18 88:3 89:5 108:13 Electric 65:11,15 electronic 74:25 embrace 93:8 97:17 embraced 97:13 99:15 emerging 24:20 employ 96:21 employed 16:14 31:1 44:6 employee 85:4 126:16 employs 100:7 encompassed 119:1,3 encountered 109:16 endless 42:4 ends 73:1 engineering 28:2 entire 8:1 entirely 49:10 entirety 94:9 entitled 32:11,11 37:4 68:22 71:10 113:24 entry 13:3,7 66:22 envelope 123:25 Environ 15:13,17,25 16:14,17,20 19:24 20:12 23:24 27:20,23 28:6,8,15 29:2,5,13,24 30:8 72:15,24 environmental 15:15 EPA 25:1 epidemiologic 11:8,20,23 12:3,10 15:2 25:1 ,13 28:1,2 29:5,12,25 30:8 30:22 31:8 40:8 41:4 42:12 43:13 44:19,21 52:6 53:15 54:6 57:8,9 77:3 78:2,9,22 89:7 93:19 108:25 117:13 117:25 121:19 epidemiological 11:10 52:20,21 76:3 77:14 79:2 88:10 100:4 107:24 109:1 110:14 111:23 121:8,25 epidemiologically 35:21 36:22 39:21 40:11 42:10 59:2 76:22,24 81:11 93:11 94:6 109:20 110:4,9 121:2 epidemiologist 7:11 98:3 106:15 107:9 epidemiologists 97:8,20 98:23 epidemiology 5:20 16:24 17:12 21:2,4,9 22:1 23:2,21,25 24:20 28:5 33:17 40:12,13,19 41:6 41:21 42:13,17,23 57:11,19 58:11,19,19 58:21 67:15,24 68:3,7 68:11 69:12 77:2 78:2 90:24 100:9 101:8 106:18 110:4,21 116:21 121:3 epoxy 33:8 equivalents 73:14 Erroneously 60:23 error 55:25 88:12,14 89:16 93:2 especially 56:23 ESQ 3:5,10,19 4:5,11,17 4:22 essentially 23:1 33:13 34:22,24 47:13 establishes 40:23 estimate 73:4 ,9,10 estimates 29:21 102:10 et 24:25 etiologies 37:8 European 24:21 31:4 Eurosil 31:5 evaluate 81:12 97:23 evaluated 78:9 79:10 evaluating 78:10 93:19 98:6 108:18,19 evaluation 24:20 70:11 87:3 92:3 107:23 110:14,15 119:16 evaluator 85:16 event 78:17 evidence 25:1 39:10,21 40:6 41:12 50:25 51:2 53:15 57:4,9 76:5 88:10 90:16,19,20 92:15,18 93:20,21,23 97:20,21 101:20,23 102:24 103:23 109:18 110:9,20 111:2,8,21 121:16,17,25 exactly 24:15 114:7 Page 3 A3074BC KENNETH A. MUNDT, Ph.D. OCTOBER 13, 2009 exam 21:1,12 examination 5:5 7:8 126:10 examine 13:25 83:20 examined 7:5 15:11 example 25:20 26:1 57:20 91:6,25 92:1 ,6 105:9 111:21 114:9 exams 19:7 20:21 21:1,3 21:5,8 exception 69:16 excerpts 66:21 excess 79:15,22,23 102:10 exchange 106:1 excluded 79:17 excluding 12:6 exclusively 15:20 25:18 110:15 excuse 37:2 43:3 71:25 98:18 106:19 113:21 113:23 excused 60:25 EXECUTED 125:9 exercise 87:20 96:14 98:2 exhaustively 101:6 exhibit 10:8,10 32:4,5,16 64:20,23 65:16,18 67:8 67:17 68:21,24 70:9 71:9,11,16,18,23 72:14 74:6 75:10 77:22 78:1 82:10 111:16 114:25 118:14 119:4 120:8 exhibits 66:11 69:10,15 70:20 74:14 94:13 95:1 96:12 106:12 existing 81:3 exists 72:11 expanded 118:25 expect 94:19,21 111:23 112:12,14 119:23 expected 18:16,20 expended 49:14 experimental 108:6 109:9,23 110:22 111:9 experimentally 35:25 expert 19:8 60:21 61:4 76:21 77:1 118:3 expertise 107:5 109:6 explained 38:25 93:2 107:14 explanation 42:1 104:17 106:6 exposed 12:18 25:22 56:25 57:23 58:15,25 59:2 92:8 95:24,25 107:18 exposure 20:5,6 25:21 26:8,16,20,22 31:9,13 31:18,21,23 33:13 35:22 36:14,23 37:15 38:6,25 44:9 53:4,11 58:1 65:13 78:10 88:14 89:24 94:16 95:4,8 98:9 121:21 exposures 35:5 36:9 44:5 44:19 57:5 ,12,20 79:5 79:9 88:1 91:5 96:16 100:20 102:6,10 122:1 122:10 extent 25:21 91:19 109:18 111:21 extremely 57:12 E-mail 6:3 16:7 72:1,6 E-mailed 8:5 E-mails 71:19 F facility 44:12 fact 18:6 59:1 60:15 61:10 79:10,25 111:6 113:6 115:15,24 118:17 factor 77:15 83:16 109:18 111:2 factors 97:3,24 98:17 99:10 102:6,21 121:17 facts 122:7 faculty 19:2 23:18 fail 103:7 Failing 41:1 fails 92:11 failure 61:3 88:23 fair 29:14 30:15 71:3 90:22 96:17 fairly 44:18 48:9 98:24 faithfully 98:16 fall 69:4 90:10 familiar 15:1,6,9 45:16 67:4 82:15 family 39:12 114:21 far 55:3 68:9 118:18 farm 102:13 fatally 42:21 favor 83:20 fax 32:13 faxed 8:6 ,14 32:8 feature 115:23 Fees 5:15 32:12 fellow 86:7 fibers 58:25 fields 111:3 Fifth 3:10 fighting 100:17 Figueroa 3:16 4:17 file 1:25 8:1 9:10 67:13 68:22 filed 34:16 49:13 files 9:16 74:25 financial 49:19 financially 126:17 find 67:6 70:14 76:20 95:23 102:3 114:23 116:17 120:20 finding 99:3 116:20 findings 94:4 97:14,15 102:4,19 fine 63:4 115:5 124:2 finish 77:11 104:14 114:5 finished 37:3 44:13 104:8 104:16 113:24 fire 100:16 firm 15:15 47:23,25 48:2 48:5 60:3 72:15 first 7:5 13:13,15 28:17 30:13,14 31:7 32:21 62:12 63:3 72:1 75:15 88:9 114:2 fit 31:24 99:6 five 21:18 37:24 60:17 63:2 64:2 78:6 85:22 flabbergasted 114:2,4 flawed 93:9 flip 41:20 Floor 4:6,12 Flower 4:22 focus 97:5,19 98:12 121:3 folder 68:16 follicular 114:15 followed 100:7 following 24:19 follows 7:6 104:22 force 123:19 foregoing 125:5,7 126:6 126:13,19 FORGEY 3:19 form 9:17 74:24,25 85:25 formaldehyde 31:8,11,18 formed 111:16 119:3 forms 101:25 102:1 formulating 69:9 forth 94:13 111:16 118:14 119:4 120:8 126:7 forthcoming 72:23 forward 69:19 96:15 111:22 119:24 123:4 123:12,14,16 found 41:23,25 52:6 105:11 foundation 14:9 15:5 four 9:7 13:17 30:4 38:12 38:21 39:3 78:6 114:13 114:24 115:20 116:9 fourth 32:13 72:25 frame 19:18 frequently 17:4 42:8 friend 86:6 front 42:4 65:6 full 16:14 24:7,17 123:19 fuller 97:14 fully 33:9 34:14 function 101:7 108:8 fundamental 117:7 funded 17:14 funding 17:18 further 20:4 28:23 126:15 Furthermore 101:20 future 18:12 44:25 G GANS 1:7 2:7 Garabrant 66:12 gasp 122:22 gather 14:11 general 50:24 80:17 96:22 97:18,22 98:7 109:24 120:2,24 121:3 121:6,11,13 122:5,6,9 122:19 generally 40:10 45:11 54:19 86:3 111:12 generated 20:6 gentleman 62:5,14 German 13:13 31:5 85:23 86:14 117:19,21 Germany 12:16 31:1 85:1 Gersten 46:10 getting 44:14 55:3 101:1 give 31:22 37:4,11 55:19 73:9 77:4 104:17 given 8:10 11:3 45:13 63:1 70:24 99:6 107:14 118:19 giving 28:4 glad 8:14 71:4 gland 76:16,17 glass 27:15 go 10:4 17:4 28:13 37:6 60:12 65:25 75:14 77:12 84:24 88:7 96:6 97:12 99:17 104:10,18 114:6,8 115:13 goes 122:17 going 8:2,8,9 9:11 10:4 55:25 63:14 66:25 74:10 93:11 117:6 121:20 good 31:24 52:13,19 63:12 70:12 71:4 116:3 120:19 Government 31:6 gradually 32:1 graduate 23:3 Grannis 4:17 8:5,12 14:8 14:24 15:5,19 16:2,10 20:17 25:17 26:18 27:14 32:10 35:10,18 36:6,17 37:2 38:8,23 39:5,16 40:3,15 41:9 41:24 42:15 50:16 51:6 51:15,21 54:4 56:20 57:13 58:16 60:11 61:3 61:8 62:5 63:12,20,25 64:17 67:8 68:13 72:11 75:12,25 76:11,18 77:1 77:7,10,22 78:25 79:18 80:4,18 81:5,9 82:1,24 83:14 84:12 85:9 86:2 86:12,23 87:18 88:4,19 88:21,23 89:9,17,22,25 90:7 91:15 92:19 94:17 94:24 95:5,11,20 96:8 96:23 97:25 98:18 99:12,24 100:24 101:18 103:1 104:4,10 104:13,16,21 106:19 107:2,8,13,21 108:2,10 108:16,22 109:11 110:1,23 111:11 112:19,21 113:4,21,23 114:4,7 115:2,6,10,12 115:19 116:1 117:1,17 118:5,15 119:20 122:20 123:4,15,21 GRAPHIC 4:15 great 52:10 85:13 greater 117:6 Grossman 46:8 group 3:4 31:5 85:1 90:24 92:25 101:16 102:20 113:7 116:19 groups 38:13 40:25 76:3 guess 71:8 84:20 121:20 guide 100:4 guideline 98:4 guidelines 97:9,16 guideposts 100:3 gunshot 42:20 guy 58:8 59:16,17 62:21 H H 5:11 6:1 half 29:18,20 33:14 37:17 Hamman 54:13 HAMMER 4:22 hand 93:12 98:5 handwriting 16:4 Hang 68:13 happened 61:6 hard 111:5 harkens 116:14 Harley 59:14 62:11 Harrison 66:13 69:17 70:2,8,18 91:21 92:12 111:22 113:4 119:12 120:1 Harrison's 66:11 92:13 Havner 56:1 Hayes 112:14,15,15,18 112:19,23,24,25 113:2 113:10,14 114:20,23 115:17 116:17 hazardous 49:3 hazards 47:13 head 78:6 84:14 94:23 heading 67:21 health 17:16 19:25 hear 59:20 hearing 55:20,21,22,23 56:1 65:5 Heartly 62:19 HEATHER 3:19 Heating 47:6 held 36:8 help 97:19 helped 20:1 97:5 hematologic 121:22 hematotoxicity 108:7 HENNING 4:5 hepatocele 52:9 herbicide 65:13 Hershall 62:24 high 35:6 59:3 117:22 higher 59:3 93:7 highly 38:5 92:8 Hill 16:25 97:3,4,12,24 98:17,21 99:4,10 Hill's 97:9 histories 34:11 history 47:18 Hockson 62:24 HOLDINGS 4:9 HOLLAND 4:3 Holm 78:7 hooking 20:12 hospitals 49:12,19 50:3,4 50:5 host 52:2,2 hours 16:16 23:8 73:4,13 73:16,25 huge 112:10 humans 108:12 109:15 hundreds 15:7 102:7 119:18 Hyjek 78:7 hypotheses 52:19 hypothesis 40:24 41:13 41:14 42:7 44:21 101:21 102:25 103:10 hypothesize 42:3 hypothetical 41:2 54:4 58:5 79:1 80:19 81:6 104:5 109:12 110:2,24 112:22 Page 4 A3074BC KENNETH A. MUNDT, Ph.D. OCTOBER 13, 2009 I IARC 24:19 25:2 85:4 90:24 96:25 100:7,9,10 100:22 101:1,10 110:5 111:6,7 ICD 38:9 idea 73:12 identifiable 75:7 identification 10:9 16:1 32:6 64:21 65:19 67:18 68:25 71:12,17,24 identified 11:7 14:20 25:14 27:6 28:22 38:22 42:6 50:18 60:21 67:20 70:12,13 79:12,13,15 83:24 85:1 90:25 91:24 95:7 101:2 103:13 112:2,9,10 119:18 120:3 identifies 69:24 93:19 identify 26:1 42:18 67:4 69:24 70:14 79:21 81:22 82:25 83:17 84:18 91:5 94:22 95:2 96:7,11 100:13 101:4 102:20 103:11,18 112:13 116:21 identifying 55:9 101:15 ignore 81:14 Illinois 48:19 illogical 122:23 immune 108:8 implemented 117:9 implementing 25:5 implied 51:13 imply 100:3 important 67:6 91:13 importantly 88:11 impression 63:3 inaccuracy 80:9 inactive 72:2 inadequate 39:10 41:12 incidence 80:15,24 81:1,2 Incidentally 77:17 include 19:3,4,5 79:3 included 31:23 44:10 49:3 92:9 100:16 116:10,14 includes 19:6 28:23 113:7 including 15:20 52:2 78:13 79:6 90:18 102:11 111:9 inclusive 1:8 2:8 income 27:19 incompatible 33:16 99:18 Incomplete 54:4 78:25 80:19 81:6 104:5 109:12 110:2,24 112:22 incorporate 97:9 incorporated 8:23 69:18 increase 105:11 increased 14:21 78:12,23 103:23 increases 58:13 independent 23:5 index 9:20 indicate 14:20 78:8 indicates 16:22 indication 15:23 indirectly 25:19 27:9,10 27:13 103:12 individual 64:9 90:10 93:9 98:6 individuals 34:16 58:24 59:1 76:3 industry 13:14 17:17 31:2 55:11 102:12 inferred 51:3 inflammation 75:19 76:15 information 5:7 16:2 75:22 initially 72:8 injured 42:21 injury 24:2 INK 1:7 2:7 4:3,14,15 instance 65:5 98:8 111:13 INSTRUCTED 5:9 insufficient 54:6 121:22 122:1 insufficient/inadequate 90:16 Insulation 46:15 insulators 57:22 integrity 86:1,4 intended 99:1,18 intent 116:3,4 117:10 interaction 48:9 interest 11:12 interested 126:17 interesting 94:1 interests 17:21 International 15:25 interpretation 88:10 117:24 interpretations 88:25 interpreted 14:15 interrupting 107:13 114:2 Interruption 16:12 introduce 7:10 20:1 intuitive 98:24 invalid 88:24 investigate 12:4 investigated 12:11 investigators 116:22 invited 23:12 24:15 Invoices 6:5 involved 102:11 in-depth 87:2 Irrelevant 35:10,18 36:6 36:17 38:8,23 39:5,16 40:3 58:17 isolate 102:14 issue 109:24 120:2 issues 119:20 itching 80:1,16 I,I 117:24 J Jansen 63:18 JENNIFER 3:10 JNCI 113:2 job 44:24 John 4:17 8:2 Johnese 52:25 JOHNSON 3:9 joint 19:24 56:12,25 58:2 58:4,8,15 jointly 31:4 49:13 JONES 3:19 JOSHUA 4:5 journal 89:5 journals 85:18 Jr 63:8,9 judge 56:3 60:24 65:6 judgment 33:24 34:2 50:24 93:21 111:1 July 32:23 June 63:1 justification 106:7 justify 91:21 K Kaplan 45:24 keep 24:6 80:6 Kellogg 53:17 Kenneth 1:13 2:14 5:3 7:4,11 125:19 key 112:13 kind 29:22 102:15 know 14:12 20:9 24:14 29:21 33:22 34:23 35:11,15,16,19 38:10 38:16 46:21 47:20 48:4 50:23,24 53:9 59:24 60:4,5 61:6 ,18,22 62:16 66:4,22 69:22 70:17 76:15 78:17 80:23,25 82:3 84:18 92:15 93:4,6,17 94:10 95:21 97:13 98:15,21 104:7 107:10 114:13 114:16,18 115:4,8 118:18,19 119:16 123:11 knowable 47:14,20 knowing 35:24 36:1,2 knowledge 43:21 knowledgeable 19:9 known 23:22 24:21 35:11 47:14 101:6 knows 80:25 KOHL 4:20 KOHN 4:21 Kurt 85:5,6,21,22 86:3 L label 85:14 lack 89:19 93:20 103:9 lacking 60:10 Lacks 14:8 15:5 Lamm 82:14,16 83:12 102:4 103:14,19,20,25 104:25 105:18 Lane 3:20 large 12:16 17:13,16 21:17 29:15 30:15 38:15 49:9 50:18 70:3 75:17 90:18 91:9 92:7 102:2 105:11 122:12 largely 50:25 118:22 larger 39:11 largest 30:25 105:10 latency 122:17 Lattin 60:6 law 3:4 47:23,25 48:2,5 laws 126:19 lay 37:13 40:21 41:11,17 41:25 42:9 layman's 41:5 lead 81:12 leafed 66:16 lean 93:21 leave 86:19 LEE 4:22 left 79:16 legal 34:14 legislation 24:21 lend 41:14 let's 11:24 30:17 52:15 64:16 66:3 71:8 75:9 75:14 77:24 82:5 88:7 91:19 97:15 101:16,25 111:22 116:6 leukemia 31:9 54:2 level 23:3 34:9 35:6,25 57:5 59:3 75:20 80:8 92:11,17 122:4 levels 56:24 58:25 59:3 LEWIS 3:15 life 56:2 ,3 limited 21:3 34:24 41:4 48:11 100:15 113:5 120:23 limiting 79:9 lines 53:15 list 5:18 8:19,25 9:2,6,18 12:20 13:12 21:24 26:5 27:6 32:8,18 43:1 49:24 63:2 64:24 65:20 65:23 67:23 69:16,18 69:21 70:22,25,25 71:13 75:4 90:5 123:10 listed 10:22 11:4 23:6 31:7 32:21 66:21 69:15 74:14 listing 9:15 67:13 68:22 74:18 84:15 92:1 96:12 lists 55:9 65:2 70:8,20 106:12 literature 11:17 28:2 29:12 30:9,20 43:13 44:19 68:10 69:8 76:3 77:18 78:9 81:3 93:12 93:19 101:8 103:6 106:12 107:24 108:25 109:5 litigation 27:25 28:8 29:9 29:15 30:9 55:5 little 48:9 97:6 live 17:2 liver 52:1 lives 59:1 living 49:1 LLP 3:15,19 4:5,10,16 locally 118:10 location 18:21 lodge 123:17 long 1:14 2:16 3:6 7:1 30:5 49:24 55:7 72:2 look 26:7 27:12 38:9 58:23 75:9 77:24 82:10 83:16 84:15,22 85:11 91:7,11 102:5,17 103:6 115:8 119:14 looked 11:18 14:2,12 37:19 38:1 39:20 44:18 52:7 66:17,23 67:1 80:22 114:11 looking 43:1 90:19 91:5 96:12 106:11 Looks 65:8 Los 1:2 2:2 3:11,17 4:7 4:12,18,23 125:2 lost 104:19 123:18 lot 30:19 73:7 112:8 Louis 49:7 55:9 love 52:12 low 57:5,12,19,23 58:25 104:3 105:3 Lumber 56:6,10,13 lung 26:9 31:13 34:20 35:3,9,16,17 36:5,10 36:15,25 37:1,7,11,13 38:7,22 39:3,13 40:1 49:17,20 50:21 lymphocytes 75:20 lymphocytic 54:2 75:16 75:18 76:9 78:3 lymphoma 11:9,11 12:1 12:5,24 13:21,23 14:1 14:4,6,22 15:3 25:10 26:13 43:7 59:9 67:15 67:24 68:3,7 69:14 74:9 75:17,24 76:4,17 78:4,4 80:17 81:19,24 82:23 83:12,24 84:2,8 84:8,10 86:11 90:18 95:10 106:25,25 107:19 112:6 113:10 122:12 lymphomagens 100:23 lymphomagins 101:12 lymphomas 76:8 91:6 lymphopoietic 108:8 M MADDEN 4:20 main 38:12 39:3 118:17 MAJESKI 4:21 major 15:17 38:22 majority 117:12 making 23:2 57:11 125:7 manufactured 33:4 manufacturing 31:2 mark 32:4 65:16 66:2,4 67:16 68:21 71:9 marked 10:8 32:5 64:20 64:23 65:18 67:17 68:24 71:11,16,23 Marketing 55:14 Marshall 49:4 Massachusetts 17:3 22:1 22:6 match 23:22 matchmaker 20:10 material 33:15 materials 5:18 9:15 14:11 65:20,23 66:1,15,20 71:19 75:4 83:20,21 120:15,21 matter 9:24 49:9 123:1 matters 120:1 Mayo 115:18,25 116:7,24 117:15 118:2,3 McGOLDRICK 3:19 mean 8:4,7 13:25 20:12 33:22 47:16 57:8,19 86:23 95:12 98:25 110:18 meaning 37:9 meaningful 96:14 means 42:19 meant 47:13 Page 5 A3074BC KENNETH A. MUNDT, Ph.D. OCTOBER 13, 2009 measured 36:13 measures 79:4 meat 102:12 mechanical 100:2 mechanism 35:24 36:2 110:7 medical 66:17 67:5 74:5 75:21 99:2 medicine 97:5,6 meetings 100:13 Melanoma 59:19 members 23:18 memory 14:25 96:8 men 31:1 mention 100:6 mentioned 31:24 55:2 84:25 118:11 mesothelioma 56:22,23 57:7 58:14 met 7:19 23:7 121:14 meta-analyses 25:20 26:8 31:12 81:23 82:15,22 83:1,7,23 84:7 102:4 103:13 meta-analysis 26:16 31:10 81:18 82:20 83:4 83:11 86:18 88:2 method 40:10,23 41:4 90:22 methodology 90:25 96:21 96:24 109:22 110:11 methods 24:1 58:20 METZGER 3:4,5 5:6 7:9 8:2 ,7,16 10:7,10 14:19 15:1,8,22 16:11,13 20:20 25:24 26:21 27:18 32:7 ,15 35:15 36:1,11,21 37:20 38:14 39:2,13,24 40:5,22 41:17 42:12,25 50:20 51:10,17 52:4 54:8 57:1,15 59:5 60:12 61:12 62:7 ,10 63:14,23 64:1,19,22 65:20 67:11 67:19 68:19 69:1 71:13 71:18 72:5 ,12 75:13 76:7,14,23 77:5,8,12 77:24 79:11,24 80:11 80:23 81:7 ,17 82:5 83:3,17 84:15 85:20 86:9,17,25 87:12,21 88:7,20,22 89:13,21,24 90:4,15 91:18 92:21 94:20,25 95:7,16,25 96:11 97:2 98:14 99:8 99:16 100:1 101:10 103:5 104:7,11,15,17 105:14 106:23 107:6 107:10,16,25 108:5,13 108:17 109:7,21 110:12,17 111:6,15 112:20 113:1,9,22 114:1,5,22 115:4,7,11 115:15,22 116:6 117:13,25 118:11 119:2,25 122:25 124:2 middle 13:12 middleman 123:22 Mike 62:15 million 104:3 105:5 mind 24:6 80:6 84:20 mine 23:24 Mines 48:11 minute 30:18 minutes 48:8 60:17,25 92:2 Misc 5:21 miscellaneous 68:22 77:20 mischaracterizes 40:16 41:10 51:16 60:11 118:15 missing 72:5 Missouri 49:12 Misstates 76:11,19 81:10 mistakenly 98:22 mix 28:3 44:10 mixed 39:21 Mockingbird 3:20 models 20:5 moderate 59:3 moment 11:24 118:19 moneys 49:14 monograph 100:12 month 10:20 72:22 73:1 73:5 months 73:8 morbidity 31:14 morning 16:3 64:25 MORRIS 4:10 mortality 11:13 13:5 31:14 80:15 Morton 84:19 102:18 Mortons 84:20 motion 34:4 Mountney 56:6 Mountney's 56:14 move 42:22 52:15 Multipage 5:13 6:3,5 multiple 38:12 43:5,7,13 65:12 Mundt 1:13 2:14 5:3 7:4 7:11,18,19 8:13,16 10:10 64:22 77:1 123:24 125:19 musculoskeletal 24:2 mutual 19:11 myelo 117:24 myeloma 43:5,14 65:12 N N 3:1 4:1 5:1 name 45:16 48:5 59:11 62:3,14 85:2 named 13:15 names 44:25 63:6,15 Narragansett 65:11,15 narrow 101:13 nasopharyngeal 31:9 National 31:15 NCI 114:10 neatly 69:4 necessarily 53:10 98:25 necessary 98:10,11 110:19 need 8:11 9:11 68:17 74:10 92:16,24 99:5 119:9 needs 93:4 negative 40:20 41:2 93:24 94:2,7,15 95:3 95:13 96:20 103:17 neighborhood 48:25 networking 19:10 21:21 never 7:22 29:22 48:8 new 51:11,12,17 52:6 newer 83:21,22 NHL 5:19 13:19 14:13 55:18 68:11 78:23 79:25 80:1 81:13 84:21 87:14,17 88:3 89:8 91:7 92:17 93:13,23,25 94:16 95:4,18,23 99:23 101:22 102:7,22,25 107:20 113:16,18 114:13 116:9 NHL's 77:16 78:13 79:6 79:7,10,11,13,16,22 90:18 92:7 nice 59:16,17 nine 100:3,5 noise 102:15 non-associated 39:9 non-charity 49:15 non-Hodgkin's 11:9,11 12:1,5,24 13:21,23 14:1,4,6,22 15:3 25:10 26:13 67:15,24 68:3,7 69:13 75:24 76:4 ,17 78:4 80:16 81:19,23 82:22 83:11,23 84:2,7 84:8,10 86:10 95:10 107:19 112:6 non-paying 49:15 non-respiratory 13:5 non-specific 53:4 North 3:16 16:24 17:5 notable 75:20 notarized 123:7 note 91:20 Noteworthy 116:7 noticed 65:5 notify 123:15 null 41:14 96:19 number 5:13 6:3 16:1 21:17 25:19 45:14 50:18 66:6 78:21 102:2 112:10 116:12 numbers 58:24 67:1 numerous 103:7 O Oakland 48:1 oath 126:8 objection 94:24 107:8 objections 51:15 89:17 89:22,25 90:7 95:5 ,11 95:20 99:12 107:21 108:2,16 126:10 objective 85:16 94:8 observable 40:24 41:1 observation 75:23 observationally 42:11 observer 25:3 obtain 117:11 obvious 42:20 obviously 59:7 118:24 occasion 17:11,22,24,25 occasionally 62:21 occupational 21:2,4,9 25:20 26:8 31:12 64:3 64:14 79:5 97:5,5 99:2 occupations 78:12 100:18 occur 76:8 81:14 occurred 20:1 57:5 occurrence 36:9 58:14 occurring 76:17 occurs 34:9 123:10 Ocean 2:15 3:5 October 1:15 2:17 7:1 72:23 73:5 126:22 odd 112:4 120:3 OEM 26:23 offense 63:4 offhand 83:18 office 8:13 9:9 23:25 123:25 oh 25:24 27:2 50:23 57:3 59:20,25 62:25 oil 15:17,20 43:2,3,3,4,16 54:13 okay 7:17,22,23 9:22 10:4 11:8,16 12:10 13:17 15:1,8,12 16:6 18:6 20:15,20 22:25 24:3,9,16,24 25:12 26:3,21 27:1,5,18 28:7 29:7,24 30:7 31:7,17 31:25 32:16,21 36:21 41:20 42:25 43:23 48:11,19 52:25 53:21 54:8 55:14 56:4 57:3 60:2,5 61:8,19 62:3,18 64:16,17 65:2,7 66:9 66:19,24 67:3,11,23 69:12 71:4,6,22 72:9 72:14 74:10 76:14 77:17,21 78:8,17,20 79:11 81:17 82:9,12 83:5 84:24 85:8 86:17 88:7,21 89:13 90:4 91:14,18 96:17 99:16 100:1,10,21 101:17 105:21 106:11 109:7 111:15 112:8,21 114:4 120:10,23 older 72:1 83:20 once 17:8 23:7 ones 30:24 66:13 83:15 84:13 One-page 5:16,21,22 ongoing 50:12 55:7 operating 28:5 29:4 opining 120:25 opinion 28:4 85:25 88:9 90:3,15 99:11 101:16 101:17,19 107:1,20 120:23 opinions 5:23 9:17 10:1 13:22 14:4 68:16 69:9 69:14 71:10,14 75:9 76:2 78:8 84:4 88:8 107:23 108:14,21 111:15,18,20 112:14 118:12,13,21 119:2,4 119:21,22 120:7,18,24 opportunity 77:4 79:21 118:8 opposing 93:20 Optical 54:9 order 67:4 organic 69:13 78:11 87:13 88:3 89:8 95:4 96:1 99:23 101:21 102:25 106:25 108:7 108:20 organizers 23:13,14 24:12 oriented 24:11 original 123:4,12,14,16 123:18,23 other's 15:9 86:8 outcome 61:19 outcomes 12:11 23:21 26:9 outside 16:19 29:8 107:4 109:6 overbroad 25:17 38:8 39:5,16 40:3,15 41:9 41:24 42:15 51:6,21 56:20 57:14 58:16 75:25 76:18 78:25 80:18 81:5 82:24 83:14 85:9 86:2,12 87:18 88:4 91:15 92:20 94:17 96:23 98:19 99:24 100:24 103:1 106:20 107:3 108:10,22 109:12 110:1,24 111:11 112:22 115:19 116:2 117:2,18 118:6 122:21 oversimplification 36:20 90:9 O'Hara 48:21 O'Neill 32:22 33:2 P P 3:1 ,1 4:1,1 pack 37:17 packs 37:18,20 38:2 page 5:5,13 6:3 13:3,7,12 26:5 32:13,16 71:9 112:4 120:3 pages 32:17 123:9 paint 31:21,23,24 33:5,7 33:8 53:5,7,10 painter 25:21 26:9 31:13 painters 25:21 26:17,20 painter's 26:22 painting 33:13 100:18,19 111:13,14 Paints 31:15 paint-related 53:2 pancreatic 53:3,12 54:25 panels 114:10 paper 74:24 87:9 105:22 117:23 118:20 119:23 papers 91:20 119:18 120:3,4 paraded 42:4 paragraph 89:2 119:22 paragraphs 118:23 parallel 35:23 97:18 Parks 59:8 part 8:24 13:4 20:1 29:6 29:15 93:18 104:3 105:4 partial 24:7 participated 55:20 participating 20:10 participation 24:10 particular 20:7 41:7,8 47:18 66:18 85:11 86:5 101:8 120:10 particularly 84:21 98:9 Page 6 A3074BC KENNETH A. MUNDT, Ph.D. OCTOBER 13, 2009 102:21 parties 48:10 126:16 Partly 59:7 path 117:11 pathological 75:23 76:15 114:12 116:23,25 117:3,16 pathologically 114:24 pathologist 75:21 pathologists 115:18,24 118:3 pathology 76:20,25 109:2 115:16,16 117:15 118:1 patients 12:1 49:14,20 50:5 77:9 118:2 payable 15:25 Pedersen 78:7 peer 85:17 penalty 123:6 125:4 126:18 pending 43:21 44:1 pentachlorophenol 44:15 penultimate 13:3 people 24:13 35:13 49:1 106:22 percent 28:12,13 29:3,10 percentage 28:7,15 29:2 29:7,11,24 perchloroethylene 11:18 11:18 perform 120:11 performed 26:16 period 18:15 72:3 perjury 123:6 125:5 126:18 person 41:5 86:7 perspective 34:14 77:14 pertain 20:5 77:19 78:2 pertains 106:22 pertinent 91:23 pesky 106:21 petroleum 43:6 phases 30:3 Phil 59:14 62:11 phone 48:7 phrased 40:18 physician 23:20 Ph.D 1:13 2:14 5:3 7:4,13 125:19 picture 94:8 piece 28:22 85:11 86:5 place 11:7 55:22 118:8 126:7 placed 126:8 plaintiff 1:5 2:5,15 3:3 48:24 plaintiffs 47:24 48:3,6 plaintiff's 54:22 62:4 plant 44:8 46:15 47:11 plants 48:18 please 7:10 11:24 74:4 81:22 84:16 92:22 pleasure 7:22 pliofilm 79:9,12,15,25 80:2 plus 73:11 120:3 Ply 1:24 2:17 126:3,25 point 8:7 47:14,18 91:4 116:7 pointing 96:18 points 98:5 100:4 POLICH 4:10 Poole 4:16 72:7,15 poor 26:20 Poorly 16:10 population 35:25 80:17 81:15 populations 15:10 80:8 95:24,25 103:23 porcelain 31:2 portion 24:10 67:5 portions 12:17 posed 80:21 positive 93:6,14 94:4,7 95:15 96:19 103:8,16 104:1 105:1 115:23 possible 51:20 53:6 86:13 possibly 47:19 post 105:18 potential 91:10 108:18 power 104:2 105:2,7,23 practice 7:12 22:18 28:5 29:5 93:18 practiced 23:23 practitioner 19:9 20:11 practitioners 58:20 preamble 78:19,20 preceded 98:9 precise 58:12 precisely 73:7 prefer 7:15 82:3 preference 7:16 preparation 14:4,17 prepare 21:1,3,6,7,8 prepared 10:19 11:4 17:13 21:12 71:14 72:20,21 86:17 112:5 120:5 preparing 19:6 20:21 present 3:15 4:10 22:2 75:20 presentations 10:21 11:3 11:6 presently 18:11 19:20 preservatives 44:16 preserve 123:17 press 30:15 presume 111:14 presumed 12:17 pretty 90:23 prevalent 117:4 previous 37:3 42:1 51:9 51:16 73:8 previously 38:25 76:9 pre-addressed 123:24 pre-stamped 123:24 primary 21:23 27:25 29:25 30:21 84:5 87:6 102:23 principal 15:12 principles 98:7 99:15 print 10:5 74:12 printed 8:3 67:13,21 74:22 84:17 printing 4:14 32:2 78:12 printout 68:22 prior 5:16 60:11 76:5,11 76:19 77:6 81:10 118:15 priority 28:17 87:5,10 probably 19:18 25:19 28:12,13 29:3,10 49:11 73:11,22 78:6 85:22 94:11 105:12 111:19 procedures 101:15 proceedings 16:12 126:6 process 24:20 73:1 90:22 96:25 produced 8:10 70:2,18 77:17 89:11,13,18 102:10 produces 95:9 producing 85:12 product 31:23 33:4 ,5,7,8 33:19 production 43:3 products 4:3 25:22 43:7 professional 16:19 19:12 27:19 professor 16:23 17:5 18:4 18:7,14,23 21:25 progeny 34:15 project 19:24 20:3,8,11 20:13 promotional 21:22 prompting 63:11 proof 41:16 42:23 properties 48:25 proposal 17:13,15 propose 123:3 proposed 124:1 protective 93:13,22 95:9 95:12,14,17,17 96:16 protocol 30:3 prove 40:13,20 41:2,7,21 42:5,13 103:9 proven 40:1 42:19 provide 13:10 19:2,10 34:1 41:16 82:11 102:24 103:22 provided 7:25 9:13,16 15:23,23 16:2 20:16 47:11 64:24 67:14,25 70:4,8 73:3 74:13,24 75:3 103:7 providing 19:20 64:23 proving 40:8 public 19:25 publication 31:7 85:18 89:6 publications 8:19 11:2 12:15,20,21,24 13:21 14:3,17 25:15 26:5 27:6 30:13,14 114:10 114:21 120:15 published 14:16 15:3 26:22,23 60:19 69:8 79:20 83:12 105:15 113:2,8,10 117:22 118:21 120:5 Purcell 60:3 PURDY 4:10 purpose 21:13 92:5 100:12 pursuing 19:25 put 47:17 66:6,25 69:19 111:21 puts 119:24 putting 96:15 P.M 124:5 Q qualified 102:20 qualify 92:24 qualities 89:19,19 quality 58:23 85:19 91:8 101:7 114:19 117:8,22 119:15 quantified 92:23 93:5,18 quantify 92:21 quantitative 117:23 quantity 25:22 36:23 quantum 92:15 question 10:24 11:1 13:24 37:3,10 40:8,17 42:1 47:17,21 51:11,12 51:17 52:10 57:16,17 57:21,24 58:11 59:5 68:12,20 70:23 76:21 76:25 77:2,6 80:20 82:4 86:19,23 87:25 89:4 90:22 94:10 95:22 99:9 104:13,14,19 105:22 106:23 109:21 110:21,25 113:17,25 114:17 120:19 121:20 121:23 questionably 116:9 questioning 117:10 questions 5:9 21:4,12 82:2 87:9 118:9 quick 77:24 82:10 QUINONES 4:5 quit 34:10 quite 31:23 39:24 45:20 58:18 111:4 R R 3:1 4:1 railroad 44:7 Railway 43:23 raise 114:17 raised 87:9 random 88:14 randomly 96:18 range 15:10 19:2 28:14 93:13 102:5,6 ranging 93:6 Raphael 3:5 27:15 77:7 rarely 17:6,7 rate 81:2 rates 58:13 78:23 raw 14:11 REACH 24:21 25:6 reaching 96:21 97:22 98:15 99:10 106:25 107:19 108:13,21 109:24 110:18 120:18 read 16:7 26:21 27:3 65:23 66:1,7,14 68:8 70:5,7,19,21,24 71:1,2 78:15 81:17,24 82:2 84:2,6,10 88:16,22 89:3 104:20,22 105:24 112:4 114:9,20 120:16 123:5 125:5 readily 93:8 real 37:23 reality 116:4 117:11 really 28:17 29:22 47:21 59:18 60:16 70:16 90:12 99:1,4 102:17 113:19 reason 79:19 85:14 87:23 107:15 reasonable 42:23 91:8 reasonably 39:11 51:3 121:7 reasoning 97:6 reasons 56:21 recall 10:25 12:23 13:1 15:7 17:20 21:17 26:25 34:3,5 43:4,20 44:2 ,23 45:10,11,16 48:5 53:13 53:19,22,25 54:15,19 54:22 59:11,25 60:1 61:21 62:3,7,23 63:6 63:10 68:15 71:25 78:5 79:8 86:16 95:6 106:1 106:3,4,6,10 116:12 receive 70:1 received 5:18 16:7 65:21 71:20 recess 8:3,11 10:6 64:18 RECKITT-BENCKIS... 4:15 recognize 65:22 recognizing 73:10 74:22 record 3:15 4:10 10:4,7 16:11,13 64:19 66:17 67:5 75:22 79:22 104:22 126:14 recorded 126:11 records 74:6 recoup 49:13 reduced 100:5 reduces 98:23 reduction 34:9 reductions 35:23 Reese 1:4 2:4 5:23 71:10 75:15 121:17,24 Reese's 121:21 refer 93:22 96:9 114:25 115:6,7 reference 44:25 80:7 references 103:4 referent 81:14 116:19 referred 62:6 95:17 98:22 referring 26:4 67:8 69:2 69:22 73:14 78:18 81:21 93:23 101:24 103:25 104:24 105:14 110:13 112:20 113:2 115:9 Refining 55:14 reflect 51:8 reflects 68:10 regard 30:12 regarding 11:9 13:20 14:3,21 15:2 21:8 26:22 31:7 45:11 67:15 67:24 68:3,6 69:13 77:18 81:18,23 82:22 83:11,23 84:1,9 86:1 87:13,17 88:2 89:7,14 96:22 99:23 106:24 107:18 108:6 112:5 113:9,17 115:15 120:25 Registration 24:22 registry 117:5 regular 23:5 regulation 24:25 reiterate 50:6 reject 41:12 relate 25:15 27:7 Page 7 A3074BC KENNETH A. MUNDT, Ph.D. OCTOBER 13, 2009 related 78:12 relationship 14:5 39:23 86:10 101:9 relative 38:2,20 126:15 relevant 25:20 84:21 109:15 reliably 84:18 reliance 84:5 relied 69:8 relies 69:17 111:22,25 112:3 rely 9:17 84:3 87:6 119:12 relying 69:14 75:21 112:13 120:1 remember 33:22 44:24 46:3 55:4 62:12,25 63:11,22 remove 32:15 116:18 removing 35:22 repeatedly 42:3 rephrase 57:21,24 report 75:21 90:2 93:24 104:1,25 118:24 reported 1:24 14:13 80:5 94:14 reporter 123:3,23 126:4 Reporters 1:21 REPORTER'S 126:1 reporting 91:11 99:3 reports 79:3,20 116:24 represent 34:22 69:7 92:4 119:25 representation 90:14 represented 39:11 74:18 representing 47:23 48:2 48:23 103:20,21 represents 18:8 REQUESTED 5:7 require 8:8 required 101:3 requires 90:12 research 17:13 23:21 24:1 28:1 29:16 30:1 30:22 52:13 67:6 80:20 107:22 109:14 118:8 reserve 86:4 resistent 95:13,14 resources 19:10 21:21 respect 13:22 85:8,10,15 86:3 113:16 121:14 respected 98:23 response 63:19 responsibilities 19:4 28:6 responsibility 24:7,8,17 rest 21:20 66:15 114:15 116:13 restarted 72:3 result 45:6 81:16 88:24 resulted 102:3 resulting 50:2 results 13:18 14:16 15:7 83:1,19 88:1 ,24 90:13 93:12 96:18 113:8,9 retain 44:25 retained 47:25 72:1,16 return 123:25 review 11:17,21 13:20 14:16 69:20 84:19,19 84:21 85:17,18 86:8 91:20 95:1 97:1 98:12 100:4 102:18 103:25 104:25 108:3,5 109:5 110:4 115:16 120:22 reviewed 68:4,8,17 81:25 82:3 84:2,6,10 94:13 95:2 103:22 108:25 114:24 115:17,24 reviewers 114:11 reviewing 29:12 30:8,20 reviews 28:1 30:15 83:1,4 83:10 84:1,7,9 90:24 105:10,19 111:7 Reynolds 4:15 34:6,19 45:25 46:4 re-read 117:21 RICHARD 4:11 ridiculously 42:20 right 13:6 20:18 31:3,25 32:18 42:25 45:24 48:22 50:22 53:11 55:19 57:25 59:8 64:6 64:11,11 65:16 66:10 67:11 71:7 73:21 74:1 74:5,21 75:2,6,8 77:21 86:5 90:1 100:21 105:20 112:17 115:13 115:15 118:19 121:5 122:19,25 ring 27:1 59:15 63:17 rings 63:22 Ringstaff 61:15 Rinkis 52:8 Rinsky 92:6 116:15 risk 14:21 31:9 34:9 35:23 38:2,3,20 57:2 77:15 78:12 102:6,10 102:21 103:23 104:3 105:3 121:16 risks 12:4 78:23 117:23 117:23 river 12:16 role 21:23 rooms 110:6 root 53:17 106:21 ROPERS 4:21 rough 29:21 roughly 27:24 28:19 RPR 1:24 2:18 rubber 13:13 14:22 25:12 85:23 86:14 runs 73:1 R.J 34:6,18 45:24 46:4 S S 3:1 4:1 5:11 6:1 SAFETY-KLEEN 3:14 sample 91:9 Sarna 66:12 Sarna's 67:9 74:6 sat 25:2,5 satisfied 121:12 saying 40:12 41:6 76:7 92:24 114:17 122:14 says 99:6 101:19 scanned 66:15 67:2 scheduled 18:11 school 19:13,25 science 48:9 57:11 60:14 sciences 40:20 109:19 scientific 40:10,23 41:3 47:21 51:1 69:8 86:1,4 97:19,19 109:22 110:20 scientifically 23:22 42:11 87:10 scientist 47:18 85:16 86:7 screen 74:18 second 25:24,25 26:4 27:5 31:12 90:15 101:17,19 section 100:9 110:5 see 18:10 22:17 26:3 27:12 38:4 40:22 41:1 47:12 52:19 60:22 61:20 71:8 80:14 92:7 102:18 106:13 115:12 119:14 seeking 17:18 seen 27:2 37:24 80:5 109:19 selection 91:10 selects 87:7 self-identify 82:19 semester 22:7,14,15 semiconductor 17:17,21 seminal 97:17 seminar 24:10 send 72:9,24 74:4 118:1 sending 116:24 sense 114:19 122:15 sensitive 58:12 sensitivity 81:15 sent 75:4 117:14,15,20 sentence 88:19,23 89:1 101:18,19 separate 8:22 68:16 September 72:4,17,22 73:2,5 series 12:15 34:13 100:13 serious 37:18,23 87:9 113:22 seriously 118:9 serve 17:5 service 19:2 session 24:7,16,18 sessions 23:11 24:3,4 set 59:1 94:13 97:18 111:16 112:3 115:11 118:14 119:4 120:7 126:7 setting 83:9 110:14 settings 42:9 109:17 Seventh 4:11 severe 80:1,16 Shaffery 4:16 72:7,15 shared 24:6 sheet 123:10 Shell 43:2,16 Sheri 1:24 2:17 126:3,25 Sherwin-Williams 32:22 33:4,11 shift 100:16 short 60:13 Shorthand 126:4 show 12:20 79:21 93:5 103:8 showed 95:17 showing 93:14,22 103:17 shown 39:8,14 78:22 side 37:15 41:20 61:2 sign 123:5 signed 123:18 significant 58:13 79:4 93:14,24 94:2,4,7 95:23 96:20 116:20 significantly 78:23 94:15 95:3 silica 31:5 117:20 silicosis 117:24 Silverberg 23:17,20 similar 46:23 47:8 48:13 55:8 90:23 simple 34:23 71:6 simplify 49:10 101:25 simplistic 49:11 simply 36:19 123:21 single 69:4 71:9 81:16 117:20 sir 8:18 10:12 15:14 16:15,21 17:1 18:8,13 18:18,25 22:4,20 27:21 32:25 33:25 45:19,23 65:1,22 68:5 119:5 sit 98:3 105:8 site 49:1,3 74:8 101:14 sites 101:4,15 situation 36:7 80:12 93:8 situations 35:5 sixth 13:8 size 91:9 slightly 37:8 70:22 small 37:12,19 38:15 SMITH 3:15 4:5 smoke 35:9 55:10 smoker 37:16,18,23 smokers 34:10,18 38:2 smoking 34:10,11 35:3 35:15 36:4,15 38:18,20 38:21 39:2,9,15 40:2 50:19,20 51:1 sold 56:13 solvent 95:4 99:23 102:8 106:25 107:18 solvents 12:18 69:13 78:11 87:13 88:3 89:8 95:8 96:1 101:22 102:25 107:20 108:7 108:20 112:5 SON 4:3 soon 42:6 sophisticated 20:5 Sorahan 92:7 105:9,9,15 105:20,24 sorry 11:5 13:11 14:10 37:21 43:25 44:23 46:22 56:16 59:20 60:4 62:20 63:21,22 71:5 72:18 101:18 104:8,19 106:15 114:1 sort 122:17 sources 20:6 South 4:17,22 so-called 34:15 speaker 23:12 speakers 24:15 specialties 23:19 specialty 21:2 23:20,25 species 109:15 specific 15:7 26:9 36:23 37:10 38:5,5,6 39:1,11 44:20 51:2,23 68:18 86:15 91:5 101:14 103:4 120:25 121:8,24 122:7,13,15,16,16,18 122:23 specifically 12:4,5,6,23 12:25 17:20 26:12 40:11 53:13 76:2,4 88:5 91:7 92:3 93:4 95:6 112:3,12 119:12 122:3 specificity 88:13,14 89:24 specifics 45:10 58:6 specify 36:22,23 specimens 114:12 115:16 115:24 116:24 117:15 118:2 speculating 104:11 speculation 81:6 speed 87:4 spend 28:8 29:1,4,8,11 spending 30:4 spent 28:16 29:19,25 30:7,19 73:5,11,22 split 29:22 sponsor 52:13 sponsored 31:4,10,11,14 31:15 sponsoring 31:3 squamous 37:12,19 38:1 38:15 Sr 63:8 ss 125:1 St 49:7 55:8 staff 67:13 73:12 74:12 stages 34:10 standpoint 77:3 start 82:5 start-up 30:3 state 1:1 2:1 42:13 47:11 58:22 102:17 125:1,10 126:4,19 stated 114:23 statement 10:1 78:18 98:14 114:3 statistical 87:12,16,19 104:2 105:2 statistically 58:13 78:22 79:3 87:25 93:14,24 94:2,3,7,15 95:3,23 116:19 Steinmaus 82:8,16 83:13 86:18 87:7 92:7 stemming 88:12 stenographically 126:11 STEPTOE 3:9 Steve 63:18 Stewart 63:16 stick 11:24 stip 124:1 stipulated 123:20 124:3,4 Straif 13:4 85:2,3,4,5,6 85:21 stream 42:4 Street 3:10,16 4:11,17,22 strength 36:8,11,16 89:6 111:8 strengths 88:11 stretches 30:5 strike 18:2 108:18 strong 39:22 77:15 91:12 92:25 93:3 strongly 121:18 studies 11:9,11,13,23 12:11,14 13:17 14:20 14:23 15:2,9 25:13 28:1 30:1,22 31:8 52:6 58:24 78:22 79:2 84:5 Page 8 A3074BC KENNETH A. MUNDT, Ph.D. OCTOBER 13, 2009 84:25 85:24 87:6,13,17 88:1 89:7,14,16 90:5 90:10,25 91:1,5,7,23 92:25 93:5 ,9,14,16,22 93:23 94:12,14,22 95:3 95:8,22 96:12 97:23 98:6 99:22 102:2,9,15 102:19,23 103:7,11,13 103:16,18,21,21,22,24 103:25 104:23,24 105:10 106:13,16,24 107:17 108:1,4,6,9,17 108:19 109:1,9,9,23,23 110:7,22 111:9,9,10,13 111:23,24 112:1,3,8,10 112:11 116:4 117:5,13 118:1 study 11:21,25 12:3,16 13:8,13 14:11 15:6 17:16,19 23:5 26:12,15 31:1,3 52:21 60:19,21 83:10 85:23 88:11,13 90:14 92:7 93:2 95:1 95:15,17 99:1 105:15 105:25 109:5 112:18 112:19,23,24 113:2,15 114:23 115:4,17,23 116:17,22 117:20 119:15 studying 109:4 stuff 8:3 10:5 STULTZ 4:11 subject 20:8 24:17 115:17 120:24 submit 89:5 submitted 55:23 72:15 85:17 subset 91:11 subsets 79:6 substantial 51:1 101:23 102:24 substantially 101:20 122:11 substantiated 119:15 121:6 subtype 39:1,11,13,18,25 91:7 subtypes 38:16,17 39:3,8 78:13 79:7 suffer 90:5 suffered 64:14 suffering 49:20 sufficiency 40:6 sufficient 43:14 90:20 92:18 104:2 105:2 110:9 sufficiently 58:12 91:21 suggest 123:21 suggested 51:14 124:1 suicide 80:1,3,16 suing 34:18 Suite 2:15 3:6,11,16,20 4:18,23 Sulakoff's 57:22 Sulski 23:17,24 sum 103:22 summarized 40:21 summary 5:22 10:1 33:24 34:2 71:10,13 119:21 summation 97:15 summing 64:1 SUPERIOR 1:1 2:1 4:14 supplement 109:19 111:19 120:4 SUPPLY 1:7 2:7 support 27:25 28:9 29:9 34:1 41:14 44:21 53:16 90:17 110:9 122:9 supported 122:13 supportive 101:4 supports 68:16 sure 21:11 27:10 44:3 58:7,7 62:17 63:25 66:3 78:15 80:8 83:6 87:23 98:1 110:13 Surgeon 97:18 surrounding 85:23 SUTPHIN 4:15 swan 42:2 ,2,6 swans 42:3,4,6 sworn 7:5 syntheses 28:2 synthesis 97:1 synthesize 97:20 synthesizing 29:12 30:8 system 33:9 101:11 systematic 88:12 89:16 T T 5:11 6:1 take 59:21 63:12,24 64:16 75:9 77:24 82:10 84:15 100:3 119:13 taken 2:14 11:7 59:25 126:6,14 talk 30:17 114:6 116:6 talking 8:12 37:16 64:6 83:3,4,6 122:23 tall 62:21 taught 18:1,3 22:8,22,23 24:13,18 tax 15:25 Taylor 61:24 63:1 teach 18:11,16 22:14,18 23:11 24:4 teaching 17:23 18:24 19:3,4 22:5,13 tease 102:8 Technically 100:25 techniques 58:22 TELEPHONE 3:18 4:4 4:21 tell 14:19 65:25 66:17 67:19 78:1 83:19 84:14 119:17 tend 86:7 121:3 terminology 41:18 terms 37:13 40:21 41:5 41:12 121:19 test 35:25 96:8 testable 40:23 testified 7:6 9:1 31:17,20 43:16 45:15,21 46:2 48:16 49:5 50:16 52:23 53:5,11 54:11 55:11 56:4,9,10 64:4,4,13,15 65:3,14 testify 33:10 45:4,18 46:14 53:23 54:17 61:10,13 62:1 118:18 testifying 34:25 60:18 61:1 121:21 testimony 5:15,17 9:2,3,4 9:6,10 15:24 32:8,11 32:19 33:12 34:3 40:16 41:10 43:12 44:17 47:4 47:11 50:10 51:16 53:13 54:3,19 55:8 56:2,3,11 60:11 64:7 64:24 65:6 69:19 76:12 76:19 81:10 118:16 123:9 125:8 126:9,14 Texas 3:21 56:1 textbooks 42:13 texts 42:17 Thank 37:21 51:18 69:3 74:2 77:13 82:13 83:5 104:21 thanks 27:16 52:14 theme 118:12 themes 118:17 thing 11:14 60:9 80:7 114:7 things 32:1 42:20 55:4 58:22 99:7,18 100:16 118:20,21 119:16 124:1 think 13:10 14:14 18:8 20:5,18 24:6 26:23 30:14 33:14 35:12 37:24 40:8 41:23 42:8 42:23 43:8 47:8 51:24 52:10 53:3,3 54:15,25 55:18 57:17 58:23 59:16 63:1,3 65:5,9 67:1 68:13 70:22 80:9 85:1,12 87:2,8 90:5,8 92:6,23 93:18 94:6 97:12 98:2 99:5 102:16 103:3,6 104:6,12 105:7 108:24 109:1 110:3,16 111:4 112:16 113:7,12 114:18 115:11 116:3 117:3,7,10 119:8,11 121:24,25 122:7 thinking 97:10 third 13:7 28:3,19 66:10 72:25 82:8,14 THOMAS 1:4 2:4 Thompson 46:22 thought 52:16 55:25 60:9 77:5,8 104:15 three 13:10 21:19 22:21 22:24 23:8 24:12 27:24 30:4 32:17 38:2 81:20 83:24 92:2 114:14 three-page 5:15,19 32:11 thrust 33:12 43:12 44:17 50:10 56:11 thyroid 75:17,19 76:4,8 76:16,17 77:16 121:15 122:12 thyroiditis 74:7,8 75:16 75:18 76:6,9 77:15 78:3 ticking 100:5 tie 44:8 time 8:12 16:14 17:9 18:1 19:17,18 20:23 22:8 27:4 28:7 ,15,18 29:1 ,2 29:4,7,11,18,24 30:7 30:16,20,25 38:11 47:15 55:7 63:12 73:12 73:12 85:25 87:3 111:5 114:7 124:5 126:7,8,10 times 35:21 63:2 113:8 timing 28:10 title 26:7 titles 84:17,22 tobacco 34:7,19,20 35:2 46:6 49:7 50:1,4 55:5 55:10,11 tobacco-related 49:21 today 97:13 98:23 today's 15:24 told 54:1 77:8 92:2 tone 51:13 top 78:5 84:14 94:23 topic 90:2 total 23:10 116:11 town 64:10 tox 108:3 toxicity 108:8 toxicology 109:2 110:21 track 104:19 tract 44:4 trade 17:21 31:5 traditionally 101:1 training 7:12 transcribed 126:12 transcript 123:4,13,14,16 125:5,8 126:13 translates 121:1 transmit 123:23 transmittals 123:22 transmitting 71:19 transportation 102:12 Travis 114:25 115:4,14 115:14 treating 49:19 50:5 treatment 50:3 trial 9:2 ,9 32:19 45:2,4 47:3 61:20 64:24 121:21 123:18 trials 65:2,4 tried 71:6 117:22 Trombella 48:11 trouble 116:22 true 42:12 46:8 100:10 100:22,25 101:12 111:10,12 125:7 126:13,20 try 44:24 50:6 117:9 trying 35:13 Tuesday 2:17 7:1 tumor 44:5 turn 122:22 two 17:23 19:19 20:25 21:9,11,19 22:23 23:15 24:8,14,19 30:13,14 37:17 38:2 40:25 56:21 69:7 82:1 84:20 102:1 114:14 116:18,19 Two-page 5:18 two-part 13:4 type 11:14 29:19 44:20 75:23 83:10 types 38:7,22 39:3 111:10 typically 91:1 94:4 U ultimately 17:14 110:16 UMASS 22:19 unable 40:20 70:13 UNC 18:4,7,12,17,23 19:3,25 21:9 unclear 50:12 uncommon 79:14 undersigned 125:4 understand 33:9 34:14 38:11 40:7,7,12,17 41:6 42:9 47:19,22 49:10 50:14 57:15,17 65:7 70:3 75:8,15 76:23 94:11 99:8 101:1 115:20 122:14 understanding 18:16,19 18:22 33:18 34:24 41:3 73:20 75:3 94:8 109:4 120:6 understood 71:4 underway 50:14 undiagnosed 114:18 unfortunately 26:19 59:19 84:17 109:14 universe 87:8 university 16:24 17:4 19:12,21 20:13,16,21 21:21 22:1,6 unusual 98:2 updated 10:19 79:20 use 14:15 23:2 24:20 25:1 31:23 33:3 40:10 90:23 98:3,6 99:18 uses 96:25 usual 118:19 usually 8:9 72:25 94:3 98:11 122:17 U.K 92:8 U.S 25:1 60:20 117:4,6 V vague 20:17 25:17 26:18 36:17 39:5,16 40:3,15 41:9,24 42:15 51:7,21 56:20 57:13 58:16 75:25 76:18 78:25 80:18 81:5,9 82:24 83:14 84:12 85:9 86:2 86:12 87:18 88:4 89:9 91:15 92:19 94:17 96:23 98:18 99:24 100:24 103:1 104:4 106:19 107:2 108:10 108:22 109:11 110:1 110:23 111:11 112:21 115:19 116:1 117:1,17 118:5 122:20 Valdez 45:8 valid 87:20 88:9 90:14 109:22 110:12 validly 90:17 VAN 4:3 variation 118:12 variations 111:19 varies 28:10 30:2 38:24 various 11:19 20:6 34:10 35:19 39:3 71:19 89:20 101:25 vast 117:12 verdict 45:7 verification 117:12 verifying 114:11 versus 32:22 34:6 42:11 43:2,23 45:8,24 46:10 46:23,25 47:6 48:11,19 Page 9 A3074BC KENNETH A. MUNDT, Ph.D. OCTOBER 13, 2009 49:4,7 52:22,25 53:17 54:8,13,24 55:14 56:6 59:8 60:6 61:15,24 65:10 90:6 view 14:10 94:6 viewed 79:8 village 48:19,21 vinyl 51:25 60:8,19 61:25 Virginia 55:5 62:21 vitae 5:14 7:24 8:17,20 10:11 16:22 21:24 25:14 voluminous 75:7 voluntary 22:15 vs 1:6 2:6 W waiting 63:21 want 8:8 28:23 34:22 50:9 52:8 60:15 66:4 70:17 76:14 80:6 84:24 87:23 92:1 ,15 98:15,20 100:2 104:8 107:10 111:1 115:8,8 wanted 50:4 83:6 101:18 120:16 wants 115:6 wasn't 39:24 104:8,16 waste 49:3 water 27:15 way 14:10 25:9,15 40:21 41:11 48:24 49:11 50:7 66:3 81:14 85:15 90:4 92:4 94:3 100:2 WAYNE 1:4 2:4 ways 91:17 weak 43:14 weakly 39:8 weaknesses 88:11 89:6 week 16:16 23:7 30:4 72:25 73:11,22 weeks 23:9 26:24 73:17 weight 91:3 Weiland 13:7,9 WEIMAN 4:3 Weir 54:24 went 17:9,22 45:2 116:22 West 3:10 4:11 55:5 62:21 white 42:2,3,4 Whysner 66:12 wide 19:2 88:1 widely 79:8 willing 93:10 Willis 34:6 Wilshire 4:6 wishes 77:2 Withey 62:14,15 witness 5:3 ,9 14:10,25 15:6,20 20:18 25:18 26:19 27:17 32:13 35:11,19 36:7,18 37:2 37:7 38:9,24 39:7,18 40:17 41:11,25 42:17 50:17 51:8 ,23 54:5 56:21 58:18 60:15 61:6 61:9,11 62:9 63:21 67:10 68:15 71:25 76:1 76:13,20 77:23 79:2 ,19 80:5,20 81:11 82:25 83:15 84:13 85:10 86:3 86:13 87:1,19 88:5 89:11,18,23 90:1,8 91:17 94:19 95:6,12,21 96:9,24 98:1,20 99:14 99:25 100:25 103:3 104:6 105:6 106:21 107:4,9,22 108:3,12,24 109:13 110:3,25 111:12 112:24,25 113:6,23 114:9 115:3 115:14,20 116:3 117:3 117:19 118:7,17 119:22 122:22 126:8,9 women 13:13 31:1 Wong 82:16 83:12 103:13,19,20 105:19 Wong's 82:7 102:4 wood 4:5 44:16 word 14:15 78:16 95:13 95:14 worded 111:4 wording 10:25 94:1 words 44:14 57:4 work 8:2 16:16,17,19 21:22 27:19,22 28:8 29:2 57:22 85:8,11,16 85:19 86:5,8 100:16 119:7 120:11 worked 85:6,20,22 86:14 worker 25:12 43:4 44:7,8 64:13 79:25 117:20 workers 12:12,16,17 14:23 17:16 27:1 58:14 60:19 78:24 92:8 worker's 43:7 working 28:11 35:13 78:11 102:12,12 workplace 109:16 world 58:19 wouldn't 85:14 87:24 wound 42:20 wrap 63:23 write 75:15 88:9 90:16 118:24 119:5 written 21:4 86:24 89:4 89:18 90:1 wrote 16:8,9 89:1 www.depo.com 1:22 X X 5:1,11 6:1 66:25 x-ray 117:20,24 Y Yang 72:7 Yeah 59:19 108:24 year 17:8,10,23 19:18 20:2,25 22:10,11,13,19 22:21 30:7,11,16 32:24 43:10 72:2 years 9:7 17:10 21:10,12 22:22,24 23:2 33:15 34:16,17 50:15 58:3,3 63:3 64:2 85:7,20,23 86:13 yesterday 58:8 Yin 113:7 1 1 1:7 2:7 5:13 10:8,10 93:6 119:22 10 5:14 29:3 33:15 48:8 50:14 60:25 73:11,17 73:23,24,25 100 38:3 1055 4:11 10960 4:6 1100 4:23 12 26:5 92:4 116:11 12:10 124:5 1200 3:16 13 1:15 2:17 7:1 14 13:3 ,12 15 13:7 23:10 24:3 29:3 93:5 18th 4:6 18,000 31:1 1996 65:10 1997 113:2,10,14 2 2 5:15 13:4 32:4,5 20 29:10 37:18,20,21 48:8 93:5 116:11 125:10 200 1:7 2:7 38:3 112:4 120:3 2002 79:21 105:20 2005 22:2 105:16 2006 101:3,10 2007 18:9,15 2008 22:11 84:20 102:18 2009 1:15 2:17 7:1 22:11 30:7,21 126:22 2012 18:9,15 21st 126:22 213 4:19 213)250-1800 3:17 213)312-2000 4:24 213)417-5189 4:13 213)43909421 3:12 214)828-9200 3:21 221 3:16 24th 4:12 25 28:12 29:10 37:24 2520 4:18 288-3376 1:22 3 3 5:16 64:20,24 67:8 74:6 3M 3:8 30 37:18,20,21,25 123:13 300-page 118:24 310)481-7600 4:7 32 5:15 34 93:7 36 66:21 4 4 5:18 65:16,18 40 73:16 401 2:15 3:5 439-5390 4:19 445 4:17 5 5 5:19 67:16,17 69:10,15 70:9,20 74:14 82:10 94:13 95:1 96:12 106:12 115:1,2,3,10 50 16:18 28:13 515 4:22 53 66:22 5307 3:20 562)437-4499 3:7 6 6 5:21 68:21,24 69:10,15 70:9,20 74:15 77:22 78:1 94:14 95:1 96:13 106:12 115:3 60 16:18 73:16 60s 97:4 600 3:20 633 3:10 64 5:17 97:18 65 5:18 6507 1:24 2:18 126:3,25 67 5:20 68 5:21 7 7 5:6,22 71:9,11 75:11 111:17 118:14 119:4 120:8 700 3:11 71 5:23 6:4,5 75206 3:21 8 8 6:3 71:16,18 800 1:22 2:16 3:6 84 56:6,10,13 9 9 6:5 71:23 72:14 9:05 2:16 7:2 90012 3:17 90017-2503 4:12 90024-3804 4:7 90071 4:18,23 90071-3500 3:11 90802 3:6 94 115:14 Page 10