Document OEg7jKnBqb2wb0wDrkapnbLJL

EDWARD COLELLA v. MONSAN Deposition of: ROBERT KALEY 11/18/2011 MISSOURI CIRCUIT COURT TWENTY-FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT ST. LOUIS COUNTY EDWARD COLELLA, ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) Cause No. 09SL-CC01972 MONSANTO CO.,ET AL., Defendants. ) Division No. 7 ) ) NOTICE OF DEPOSITION ) MISSOURI CIRCUIT COURT TWENTY-FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT ST. LOUIS COUNTY LIVINGSTON HAMPTON, MAGGIE MOOYMAN, and RUSSELL ABBER, Plaintiffs, vs. MONSANTO CO., ET AL., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) Cause No. 10SL-CC03428 ) Division 17 ) ) ) MISSOURI CIRCUIT COURT TWENTY-FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT ST. LOUIS COUNTY NISHIDA, NICHOLAS WHITE, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SURVIVOR OF MARK WHITE, DECEASED, AND ALISON TUCKER, Plaintiffs, vs. MONSANTO CO., ET AL., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Cause No. 09SL-CC01964 ) Division No. 13 ) ) NOTICE OF DEPOSITION ) 1 (Pages 1 to 4) 3 1 INDEX OF EXAMINATION 2 3 WITNESS: DR. ROBERT KALEY 4 Examination By Mr. Stewart...................7 5 Examination By Mr. Miller....................47 6 7 INDEX OF EXHIBITS 8 Plaintiffs Exhibit 32.............................. 9 9 U.S. Domestic Sales of PCBs by Category 10 Plaintiffs Exhibit 33.............................. 9 11 U.S. Domestic Sales of PCBs by Grade 12 13 14 Defendants Exhibit 34..............................47 September 1937 Document from The 15 Journal of Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology Regarding The Problem of 16 Possible Systemic Effects From Certain Chlorinated Hydrocarbons 17 18 19 The original Plaintiffs' Exhibits 32 and 33 were 2 0 retained by the court reporter to be attached to Mr. Stewart's transcript. 21 The original Defendants' Exhibit 34 was retained by 2 2 the court reporter to be attached to Mr. Miller's transcript. 23 24 25 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI LIVINGSTON HAMPTON, MAGGIE ) MOOYMAN, and RUSSELL ABBER, ) Plaintiffs, ) ) ) vs. )Cause No. 4-11-CV-01662 ) MONSANTO CO., SOLUTIA, INC., ) PHARMACIA CORP., AND PFIZER, ) INC., ) Defendants. ) ) THE VIDEOTAPED DEPOSIHON OF DR. ROBERT KALEY CORPORATE REPRESENTATIVE OF MONSANTO COMPAf' VOLUME II Taken on behalf of Plaintiffs November 18, 2011 Dawn M. Bloemker, CSR, CCR, RPR CSR License No. 084-004554 CCR License No. 1039 1 MISSOURI CIRCUIT COURT TWENTY-FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT 2 ST. LOUIS COUNTY 3 EDWARD COLELLA, ) 4 Plaintiff, ) ) 5 vs. ) ) Cause No. 09SL-CC01972 ) Division No. 7 6 MONSANTO CO., ET AL., ) ) NOTICE OF DEPOSITION 7 Defendants. ) 8 MISSOURI CIRCUIT COURT 9 TWENTY-FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT ST. LOUIS COUNTY 10 LIVINGSTON HAMPTON, MAGGIE ) 11 MOOYMAN, and RUSSELL ABBER, ) 12 Plaintiffs, ) ) 13 vs. ) ) Cause No. 10SL-CC03428 ) Division 17 MONSANTO CO., ET AL., ) Defendants. ) ) MISSOURI CIRCUIT COURT TWENTY-FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT ST. LOUIS COUNTY 18 NISHIDA, NICHOLAS WHITE, ) 19 INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SURVIVOR ) OF MARK WHITE, DECEASED, ) 20 AND ALISON TUCKER, ) 21 Plaintiffs, ) ) 22 vs. ) ) Cause No. 09SL-CC01964 ) DivisionNo. 13 23 MONSANTO CO., ETAL., ) ) NOTICE OF DEPOSITION 2 4 Defendants. ) 25 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT - DALLAS, TEXAS 214-741-6001 d776cd24-2094-4ef9-b521-0b23bed1ffd4 HARTOLDMONOOQ4547 EDWARD COLELLA v. MONSAN Deposition of: ROBERT KALEY 11/18/2011 2 (Pages 5 to 8) 57 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI 2 LIVINGSTON HAMPTON, MAGGIE ) 3 MOOYMAN, and RUSSELL ABBER, ) ) 4 Plaintiffs, ) ) 5 vs. )Cause No. 4-1 l-CV-01662 ) 6 MONSANTO CO., SOLUTIA, INC., PHARMACIA CORP., AND PFIZER, ) 8 Defendants. ) ) THE VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF DR. ROBERT ID KALEY, VOLUME II, produced, sworn, and examined on behalf of the Plaintiffs, November 18, 2011, between 11 the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 10:20 a.m. on that day, at the law offices of Husch Blackwell, LLP, 12 190 Carondelet Plaza, Suite 600, St. Louis, Missouri 63105, before DawnM. Bloemker, Illinois Certified 13 Shorthand Reporter, Missouri Certified Court Reporter, and Registered Professional Reporter. 14 15 APPEARANCES 15 The Plaintiffs, Edward Colella, et al., were represented by Mr. Allen M. Stewart of the law firm of 17 Allen Stewart, P.C., 325 N. St. Paul Street, Suite 2750, Dallas, Texas 75201. 13 The Defendants, were represented by Mr. Adam 19 E. Miller ofthe law firm of Husch Blackwell, LLP, 190 Carondelet Plaza, Suite 600, St. Louis, Missouri 2D 63105. 21 The Defendants were also represented by Ms. Carol A. Rutter of the law firm of Husch 22 Blackwell, LLP, 190 Carondelet Plaza, Suite 600, St. Louis, Missouri 63105. 23 Also Present: Mr. Mike Tisa, Videographer 24 representing U.S. Legal Support, Inc., 5910 N. Central Expressway, Suite 100, Dallas, Texas 75206. 25 1 reporter please remind the witness he is still under 2 oath. 3 ***** 4 DR. ROBERT KALEY, 5 of lawful age, being produced, sworn, and examined on 6 the part of the Plaintiffs, and after responding "Yes" 7 to the oath administered by the court reporter, 8 deposes and says: 9 *** 10 EXAMINATION 11 BY MR. STEWART 12 Q. Sir, when you retired from Monsanto in the 13 year 2003, how much were you making a month? 14 A. I don't recall. 15 Q. Can you give us your best estimate? 16 MR. MILLER: I'm sorry. Did you say 17 Monsanto or Solutia? 18 THE WITNESS: Oh. 19 MR. STEWART: I said Monsanto. 20 A. Oh, I didn't retire from Monsanto. 21 Q. (By Mr. Stewart) Okay. When you retired 22 from a Monsanto-related entity, Solutia, in the 23 year 2003, how much were you making approximately fro 24 them? 25 A. Probably, I would say 13 or $14,000 a month. 68 l IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between 1 Q. And when you worked for that 2 counsel for the Plaintiffs and counsel for the 2 Monsanto-related entity in the year 2003, were you 3 Defendants that the deposition of DR. ROBERT KALEY m V 3 working full time? 4 be taken in shorthand by Dawn M. Bloemker, a Certified 4 A. Yes. 5 Court Reporter, and afterwards transcribed into 5 Q. And what did that mean in terms of hours per 6 typewriting, and the signature of the witness is 6 week? 7 reserved by agreement of counsel and the witness. 7 A. Typically, 40 or more. 8 ***** 8 Q. And so when you became a consultant 9 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are on the record at 9 immediately after retiring from Monsanto-related 10 9:00 a.m. This is the videotaped deposition, 10 entity on Monsanto-related matters, you essentially 11 Volume II, of Robert Kaley in the matter of Edward 11 kept making the same amount of money; true? 12 Colella vs. Monsanto Company, Nishida White vs. 12 A. Approximately, yes. 13 Monsanto Company, et al., and Livingston Hampton, et 13 Q. And yet you worked half as much; right? 14 al., vs. Monsanto Company. The Cause Nos. 14 A. Sometimes. Sometimes more. 15 09SL-CC01972, 09SL-CC01964, and 10SL-CC03428. 15 Q. Hmm. I thought you told me that on average 16 This deposition is being held at Husch, 16 you worked 20 to 25 hours a week? 17 Blackwell, Sanders in St. Louis, Missouri. 17 A. Roughly. Yes. 18 Will counsel please state their name for the 18 Q. Isn't that roughly half of what you used to 19 record. 19 work? 20 MR. STEWART: Al Stewart for the plaintiffs. 20 A. Or more. 25 is more than half. 21 MR. MILLER: Adam Miller on behalf of 21 Q. Hmm. So isn't it true, sir, that by 22 defendants. 22 becoming a consultant for Monsanto-related entities, 23 MS. RUTTER: Carol Rutter on behalf of 23 you essentially got to make the same amount of mone; 24 defendants. 24 or more and work a lot less? 25 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: And will the court 25 A. I assume that's true, yes. U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT - DALLAS, TEXAS 214-741-6001 d776cd24-2094-4ef9-b521-0b23bed1ffd4 HARTOLDMONOOQ4548 EDWARD COLELLA v. MONSAN Deposition of: ROBERT KALEY 11/18/2011 3 (Pages 9 to 12) 9 11 1 Q. Now, in connection with a couple of the 1 MR. MILLER: Object to the form. 2 exhibits we looked at previously, Kaley Exhibit 5 and 2 A. I don't -- would you define what you mean by 3 Kaley Exhibit 10, there were some charts that you had 3 "ultimate"? 4 referenced in those documents, and they were a little 4 Q. (By Mr. Stewart) Sure. During the 1930s, 5 difficult to read. Have you brought us now those 5 the 1940s, the 1950s, the 1960s, and the 1970s, did 6 charts that are more refined, easier to read? 6 Monsanto agree that a chemical maker must take primary 7 A. I have. 7 responsibility for the products they sell, whatever 8 Q. Okay. Let's mark those as the next 8 those products do, and wherever those products end up? 9 exhibits. 9 MR. MILLER: Object to the form. 10 (Plaintiffs Exhibits 32 and 33 were 10 A. I'm not sure that was a concept that was 11 marked for identification.) 11 understood or considered during the earlier parts of 12 Q. (By Mr. Stewart) So these charts have been 12 those time frames. 13 marked Kaley 32 and Kaley 33 to this deposition, and 13 Q. (By Mr. Stewart) What do you mean by the 14 these are the same charts that are taken out of 14 earlier parts of those time frames? 15 Exhibit 5 and Exhibit 10; is that true? 15 A. Probably before the 1960s. 16 A. That's true. 16 Q. Hmm. So are you telling me that Monsanto in 17 Q. Okay. Previously when we broke, we were 17 the 1960s did not agree that a chemical maker must 18 talking about Monsanto's internal standards of 18 take primary responsibility for the products it sold? 19 conduct; correct? 19 MR. MILLER: Object to the form of the 20 A. As I recall, that's correct. Yes, sir. 20 question. Calls for potentially a legal conclusion 21 Q. And I want to know, sir, does Monsanto 21 with respect to the term "responsibility." 22 agree -- strike that. 22 Subject to that, you can answer, Doctor. 23 During the 1930s, the 1940s, the 1950s, the 23 A. I think they began to develop those kinds of 24 1960s, did Monsanto agree that chemical products mus : 24 understandings around all of their products during 25 be tested thoroughly, marketed responsibly, and 25 that time frame depending on the use patterns and wh; 10 12 1 applied discriminately? 1 they understood about the products and their potenti; ] 2 A. I believe that would be an applicable 2 ultimate dispensation and after -- during and after 3 concept, yes. Within the constraints of what was 3 use. 4 acceptable and considered appropriate at the time. 4 Q. (By Mr. Stewart) You would agree with me 5 Q. And did Monsanto agree in the 1930s, the 5 that in the 1930s Monsanto was the sole producer of 6 1940s, the 1950s, the 1960s, and the 1970s that 6 PCBs in the United States; true? 7 Monsanto's PCBs should have been tested thoroughly 7 A. Yes. 8 before they were sold to the public? 8 Q. And in the 1940s, Monsanto was the sole 9 A. I'd say I believe they were tested in a 9 producer of PCBs in the United States; true? 10 manner -- they should be tested in manners appropriat ; 10 A. Yes. As far as I know. 11 for the understanding of appropriate testing during 11 Q. And in the 1950s, Monsanto was the sole 12 those time frames, yes. 12 producer of PCBs in the United States; correct? 13 Q. And did Monsanto agree that during the 13 A. Yes. 14 entire time Monsanto made PCBs that those PCBs should 14 Q. And in the 1970s, Monsanto was the sole 15 have been marketed in such a way that the PCBs would 15 producer of PCBs in the United States; correct? 16 be applied discriminately? 16 A. In the '70s? I'm sorry. No. l7 A. Yes. I believe they believed that within 17 Q. In the 1970s, that's not true? 18 the constraints and the understandings of those time 18 A. That's my understanding. 19 periods. 19 Q. Who else produced PCBs in the United States 20 Q. And did Monsanto agree that a chemical maker 20 in the 1970s? 21 during that period of time, the 1930s, the '40s, the 21 A. My understanding was there was a small 22 '50s, the '60s, the '70s, did Monsanto agree that a 22 producer in Texas that tried to pick up some of the 23 chemical maker must take ultimate responsibility for 23 slack after Monsanto announced it was going out of 24 the products it sells, whatever those products do and 24 business. 25 wherever those products end up? 25 Q. Who was that? U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT - DALLAS, TEXAS 214-741-6001 d776cd24-2094-4ef9-b521-0b23bed1ffd4 HARTOLDMONOOQ4549 EDWARD COLELLA v. MONSAN Deposition of: ROBERT KALEY 11/18/2011 4 (Pages 13 to 16) 13 15 1 A. I believe the name was Jimmy Vandustries 1 MR. MILLER: Object to the form of the 2 (phonetic). 2 question. 3 Q. Does Monsanto agree with the statement that 3 A. Within the constraints of what was 4 99 percent of all the PCBs used in the United States 4 understood by primary responsibility or whatever, 5 were Monsanto's PCBs? 5 however you're interpreting it now, I believe they dii 1 6 MR. MILLER: Object to the form of the 6 believe that, yes -- 7 question. It's outside the scope of your notice. 7 Q. (By Mr. Miller) All right. 8 Subject to that, if you know, you can 8 A. -- within the constraints of the time frame. 9 answer. 9 Q. And in the 1940s, should Monsanto have taken 10 A. I don't know. 10 primary responsibility for the PCBs that it sold? 11 Q. (By Mr. Stewart) So you don't know if 11 MR. MILLER: Object to the form of the 12 Monsanto agrees with that or not? 12 question. 13 A. That's correct. 13 A. Within the constraints of the understandings 14 Q. So are you here to tell us that in the 1930s 14 during that time frame, yes. I believe they should 15 Monsanto did not agree that it should take primary 15 have. 16 responsibility for the PCBs it sold? 16 Q. (By Mr. Stewart) And in the 1950s, should 17 MR. MILLER: Object to the form. Same 17 Monsanto have taken primary responsibility for the 18 objections. 18 products it sold? 19 A. Within the constructs or the constraints of 19 MR. MILLER: I'm going to object to the form 20 the understanding of industrial chemicals in that tim s 20 of the question. When you say take responsibility for 21 frame, yes, I think they understood that. 21 the product, can you define what that means because I 22 Q. (By Mr. Stewart) And in the 1940s, did 22 don't understand it, and I think all of these 23 Monsanto agree that it should take primary 23 questions are vague. 24 responsibility for the PCBs it sold? 24 But subject to that, if you understand it. 25 MR. MILLER: Object to the form of the 25 Dr. Kaley, go ahead and answer it. 14 16 1 question. 2 A. In the constraints of the understanding of 3 whatever would have been that, by primary 4 responsibility in the 1940s, I think they understood 5 that, yes. 6 Q. (By Mr. Stewart) Why do you keep putting 7 that proviso in there, "within the time constraints 8 of," and then you give a little speech? 9 A. Because a lot of what is considered today is 10 what I would assume, and I really don't know what yoi 11 mean by primary responsibility or concepts that have 12 developed in the 1970s and the 1980s and the 1990s. 13 Q. Negligence laws existed in the 1930s, didn't 14 they? 15 A. I don't -- I have no idea. 16 MR. MILLER: Object to the form of the l7 question. Exceeds the scope of the deposition notice, 18 and it calls for a legal conclusion. It calls for 19 speculation, and there's no foundation of this 20 witness. 21 Q. (By Mr. Stewart) Sir, as part of Monsanto's 22 standards of conduct in the 1930s, would you agree 23 with me that Monsanto should have been taking primary 24 responsibility for the PCBs it sold in the 1930s? 25 A. Within the -- 1 Q. (By Mr. Stewart) Is it confusing you, 2 Dr. Kaley? 3 A. Well, I'm trying to make it clear that I do 4 not necessarily understand what you mean by "primar 5 responsibility" or what was understood by the "term 6 primary responsibility" in those time frames, but I 7 believe that Monsanto during those time frames 8 undertook to be a responsible corporation within the 9 understanding of how responsible corporations behave : 10 during those time frames. 11 Q. Hmm. Did Monsanto test its PCBs in the 12 1930s to see if they could cause cancer in animals? 13 A. I'm not aware that they did. 14 Q. Isn't it true that they could have? 15 MR. MILLER: Object to the form. It could 16 have -- could have caused cancer in animals or 17 Monsanto was capable of doing the testing or the 18 testing was capable of finding cancers? I'm not sure 19 I understand your question. I object to it as vague. 20 MR. STEWART: So why don't you just object 21 as vague as opposed to giving that long speech? 22 MR. MILLER: I'm not going to debate my -- 23 my objections. 24 MR. STEWART: That's your way of coaching 25 the witness; right? U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT - DALLAS, TEXAS 214-741-6001 d776cd24-2094-4ef9-b521-0b23bed1ffd4 HARTOLDMON0004550 EDWARD COLELLA v. MONSAN Deposition of: ROBERT KALEY 11/18/2011 5 (Pages 17 to 20) 17 19 1 MR. MILLER: No, it's not. It's my way of 1 PCBs were toxic to people and could harm them in the 2 maybe helping you define what it is that you want to 2 1930s, Monsanto could have tested PCBs to see if they 3 ask in a way that results in an answer that is 3 cause cancer in animals; true? 4 responsive as opposed to a question that's vague and 4 MR. MILLER: Object to the form. 5 ambiguous in response that no one can discern what 5 A. The kinds of toxicities that were being 6 it's responding to. 6 observed were not related to cancer in that time 7 MR. STEWART: Oh, okay. 7 frame. 8 Q. (By Mr. Stewart) It's true, isn't it, sir. 8 MR. STEWART: I'll object to the 9 that in 1930s Monsanto could have tested to see if 9 responsiveness of the answer. 10 PCBs cause cancer in animals; right? 10 Q. (By Mr. Stewart) I asked you, sir, Monsanto 11 MR. MILLER: Object to the form. It exceeds 11 could have tested PCBs to determine if they were 12 the scope of your deposition notice. 12 cancerous in animals in the 1930s; correct? 13 A. There were tests available, primitive kinds 13 MR. MILLER: Object to the form. Asked and 14 of tests available, that were used to test chemicals 14 answered. 15 that had been shown to cause cancer in ani-- in 15 A. I believe I already answered that that is 16 humans -- excuse me -- in humans, and those tests wer ; 16 correct assuming they would have had a reason to d( 17 available. But they were triggered by the fact that 17 those tests. 18 those chemicals that were being tested were, in fact, 18 Q. (By Mr. Stewart) Well, Monsanto chose not to 19 causing cancer in humans. 19 do those tests in the 1930s; correct? 20 Q. (By Mr. Stewart) So you're saying that in 20 MR. MILLER: Object to the form. 21 the 1930s, the only chemicals that were tested to see 21 A. I don't believe it was a conscious decision 22 if they cause cancer in animals were chemicals that 22 not to do those tests. I believe there was no 23 had already been shown to cause cancer in people? 23 indication that they should do those tests. 24 A. Either that or already closely related 24 Q. (By Mr. Stewart) What was the indication 25 chemicals is my understanding, yes. 25 that they shouldn't do those tests, sir? 18 20 1 Q. Where did you get that understanding? 1 MR. MILLER: Object to the form. 2 A. Reading. Looking at available literature on 2 A. I didn't say there was an indication that 3 what kinds of tests were done during that time frame. 3 they shouldn't. I said there was no indication that 4 Q. Hmm. So Monsanto could have tested PCBs to 4 they should. 5 determine whether they cause cancer in animals in the 5 Q. (By Mr. Stewart) Well, a responsible 6 1930s; true? 6 chemical company in the 1930s could test its chemicals 7 A. If they would have had reason to believe 7 to determine whether they cause cancer in animals; 8 that they should do those tests, yes, they could have. 8 correct? 9 Q. Well, they could have done it even if they 9 MR. MILLER: Object to the form. 10 didn't have reason to believe it; right? 10 A. I've already answered that those tests were 11 MR. MILLER: Object to the form. 11 available in some form or another during the 1930s, 12 A. I -- I suppose that's true, but why would -- 12 yes. 13 I don't understand why Monsanto or any other compan; ' 13 Q. (By Mr. Stewart) Okay. So the answer is 14 would test something if it didn't have a reason. 14 "yes"; right? 15 Q. (By Mr. Stewart) Well, in the 1930s, 15 MR. MILLER: Object to the form. 16 Monsanto knew that PCBs were toxic; correct? 16 A. The answer is, yes, those tests existed. l7 MR. MILLER: Object to the form. 17 Q. (By Mr. Stewart) And Monsanto didn't do them 18 A. They knew there was potential toxicity 18 with respect to PCBs in the 1930s; correct? 19 associated with PCBs, yes. 19 A. That's correct. 20 Q. (By Mr. Stewart) And in the 1930s, Monsanto 20 Q. And in the 1940s, Monsanto did not test its 21 knew that PCBs could harm people; correct? 21 PCBs to determine whether it caused cancer in animals 22 A. There were indications that PCBs and/or 22 correct? 23 related chemicals during that time frame were having 23 A. That's correct. 24 affects on humans, yes. 24 Q. And in the 1950s, Monsanto didn't test its 25 Q. Okay. And so with Monsanto knowing that 25 PCBs to determine if it caused cancer in animals; U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT - DALLAS, TEXAS 214-741-6001 d776cd24-2094-4ef9-b521-0b23bed1ffd4 HARTOLDMONOOQ4551 EDWARD COLELLA v. MONSAN Deposition of: ROBERT KALEY 11/18/2011 6 (Pages 21 to 24) 21 23 1 correct? 1 legal nature of Mr. -- Dr. Calandra's troubles. 2 A. That's correct. 2 But subject to that, you can answer, if you 3 Q. In the 1960s, Monsanto did not test its 3 can answer. Dr. Kaley. 4 chem-- its PCBs to determine whether they caused 4 Q. (By Mr. Stewart) Go ahead. 5 cancer in animals; correct? 5 A. He was convicted of something along those 6 A. No. 6 lines, yes. 7 Q. Okay. When in the 1960s did Monsanto first 7 Q. Well, you know for a fact, sir, that -- that 8 test its chemicals to determine whether they caused 8 the federal government found or the federal govemmen 9 cancer in animals? 9 accused Dr. Calandra of falsifying test reports for 10 A. Well, I believe the consideration or the 10 corporations and that he was convicted of putting 11 instigator or the institution of those tests began 11 false information about tests that he did for 12 around 1968. 12 corporations in the mails; right? 13 Q. Hmm. And is this before or after other 13 MR. MILLER: Object to the form. 14 people had tested Monsanto's PCBs to determine whethe 14 A. That sounds about right, but it had nothing 15 they cause cancer in animals? 15 to do with PCBs. 16 A. Before. 16 Q. (By Mr. Stewart) So you're saying he was 17 Q. It was before? 17 honest about PCBs and dishonest about other things? 18 A. Yes. 18 MR. MILLER: Object to the form of the 19 Q. So Monsanto was the first entity that you're 19 question. 20 aware of that tested its PCBs to determine whether 20 A. I don't have any reason to know that one waj 21 they cause cancer in animals; is that right? 21 or the other. I've never seen any indication that the 22 A. Yes. 22 tests of PCBs were not honest, no. 23 Q. Who conducted those tests? 23 Q. (By Mr. Stewart) Hmm. So he was dishonest 24 A. A laboratory in Chicago. 24 with some companies but not dishonest with Monsanto' 25 Q. Who was that? 25 MR. MILLER: Object to the form of the 22 24 1 A. Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories. 1 question. 2 Q. Hmm. Who ran that laboratory? 2 You can answer if you know. 3 A. I believe the gentleman's name was Joseph 3 A. I don't know. 4 Calandra. 4 Q. (By Mr. Stewart) How do you know he wasn't 5 Q. Didn't Joseph Calandra go to prison? 5 dishonest with Monsanto's data? 6 A. Yes. 6 MR. MILLER: Object to the -- 7 Q. What did he go to prison for, sir? 7 A. I don't. 8 MR. MILLER: Object to the form. 8 MR. MILLER: Listen, I'll object to the form 9 A. I believe the charge was illegal use of the 9 of the question. 10 U.S. Mails. 10 Q. (By Mr. Stewart) And a Dr. Paul Wright, he 11 Q. (By Mr. Stewart) Hmm. 11 was also convicted of falsifying information at that 12 A. In fact, I don't think Joseph Calandra 12 IBT Laboratory; true? 13 actually went to prison. 13 A. Correct. 14 Q. You don't? 14 Q. Uh-huh. And he was a former Monsanto 15 A. I don't think so. My recollection is that 15 employee; right? 16 he did not. 16 A. That's correct. 17 Q. Hmm. Wasn't he convicted of falsifying test 17 Q. Matter of fact, when he was convicted, he 18 results? 18 was a Monsanto employee; right? 19 A. No. He was convicted of improper use of thi : 19 A. That's correct. 20 U.S. Mail or something similar to that. 20 Q. Uh-huh. 21 Q. Oh. Because he was putting false 21 MR. MILLER: Is that "uh-huh" another 22 information in test reports in the mail; right? 22 question or just a statement you're making for the 23 MR. MILLER: Let me object to the form of 23 record? Are you agreeing with the testimony or -- I'rr 24 the questions. It exceeds the scope of your notice 24 confused about what the "uh-huh" is. 25 and may call for Dr. Kaley to speculate as to the 25 MR. STEWART: Why are you doing that? U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT - DALLAS, TEXAS 214-741-6001 d776cd24-2094-4ef9-b521-0b23bed1ffd4 HARTOLDMONOOQ4552 EDWARD COLELLA v. MONSAN Deposition of: ROBERT KALEY 11/18/2011 7 (Pages 25 to 28) 25 27 1 MR. MILLER: Because you're including in the 1 determine whether or not PCBs cause cancer in animals; 2 record things that are not questions. So I don't 2 true? 3 think it's appropriate. 3 A. I believe that's correct. I don't know the 4 MR. STEWART: Are you done? 4 exact time frame, but I believe he was there during 5 MR. MILLER: Yeah. 5 part of the time at least. 6 MR. STEWART: Okay. Good. 6 Q. Has Monsanto ever found that PCBs cause 7 Q. (By Mr. Stewart) So Dr. Paul Wright was a 7 cancer in animals? 8 Monsanto employee that left Monsanto to work at IBT , 8 A. By their own tests? 9 correct? 9 Q. Yes. 10 A. Yes. 10 A. Not that I'm aware of. 11 Q. When he worked at IBT, he falsified 11 Q. Other people have found that PCBs cause 12 information; correct? 12 cancer in animals; correct? 13 MR. MILLER: Object to the form. Calls for 13 A. Yes. 14 speculation. 14 Q. So other people have looked and found that 15 A. I don't know. 15 PCBs cause cancer in animals; true? 16 Q. (By Mr. Stewart) You think he was wrongfully 16 A. Yes. 17 convicted? 17 Q. When Monsanto looked to determine whether 18 MR. MILLER: Object to the form of question. 18 PCBs cause cancer in animals, they didn't find that; 19 Calls for speculation. 19 correct? 20 A. I don't know -- 20 A. That's true. Along with other -- other 21 MR. MILLER: And there's no foundation. 21 people outside of Monsanto that looked to see whether 22 Go ahead. 22 PCBs caused cancer in animals and found that they die 23 A. I don't know the details of the charges or 23 not cause cancer in animals. 24 the basis of the conviction. 24 Q. Who are those other people? 25 Q. (By Mr. Stewart) So he was indicted for 25 A. There have been a number of studies done 26 28 1 falsifying tests at IBT; correct? 1 testing various PCBs that have reported negative 2 MR. MILLER: Object to the form. No 2 results. 3 foundation. Lack of -- well, lack of foundation. 3 Q. Hmm. Isn't it true, sir, that every 4 Calls for speculation. 4 governmental agency that has looked at PCBs and 5 A. Well, I think it goes back to the Calandra 5 whether they cause cancer in animals has concluded 6 discussion. I think he was indicted for improper usi : 6 that PCBs cause cancer in animals? 7 of the U.S. Mails. 7 MR. MILLER: Object to the form. 8 Q. (By Mr. Stewart) And when he was indicted. 8 A. As far as I know, that's correct. 9 he was back at Monsanto doing research for Monsanto 9 Q. (By Mr. Stewart) So let's turn to the topic 10 true? 10 of "The Key to Departmental Codes Listed for Monsanto 11 A. I don't know what his duties were at that 11 Personnel on Internal Monsanto Documents." 12 time. 12 A. Okay. 13 Q. He was back at Monsanto as a Monsanto 13 Q. You know of what I am referring; yes? 14 employee as a scientist; true? 14 A. Ido. 15 A. Yes. As a toxicologist. 15 Q. Okay. So there is a code that appears on 16 Q. And Monsanto paid for his criminal defense; 16 some Monsanto documents, internal documents that 17 true? 17 includes alphabetical letters and numbers. Can you 18 A. To my understanding. 18 explain that code to me, please? 19 Q. And he was convicted by a federal jury; 19 A. I can. 20 correct? 20 Q. Please do. 21 A. It's my understanding. 21 A. The Monsanto world headquarters buildings 22 Q. And he went to prison; right? 22 was a complex of a number of buildings. Each of thos 23 A. Yes. 23 buildings had a letter name assigned to it. So that's 24 Q. And while he was at -- he was at IBT during 24 the letter, the first letter, A, B, C, whatever it 25 the same period of time that Monsanto had hired IBT fi i 25 might be. U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT - DALLAS, TEXAS 214-741-6001 d776cd24-2094-4ef9-b521-0b23bed1ffd4 HARTOLDMONOOQ4553 EDWARD COLELLA v. MONSAN Deposition of: ROBERT KALEY 11/18/2011 8 (Pages 29 to 32) 29 31 1 The second digit or place in those codes is 1 Subject to that, you can answer. 2 a number, a numeric number. That is the floor in that 2 A. Under the conditions of those tests, 3 particular building, and the last either one or two 3 Monsanto has no reason to believe that those results 4 letters in the name designate the mail drop in that 4 aren't as reported. 5 floor. So NE would be the northeast mail -- mail 5 Q. (By Mr. Stewart) All right. Well, my 6 drop. The NW would be northwest. C would be centei . 6 question was, does Monsanto believe that the PCBs 7 So it was basically where the -- a code for where the 7 cause cancer in those animals? 8 mailing department should deliver the mail. 8 MR. MILLER: Object to the form. Exceeds 9 Q. How far back does that code go? 9 the scope. 10 A. As far as I know, Monsanto moved into World 10 A. Yes. I think that's a fair judgment, yes. 11 Headquarters -- part of Monsanto moved into World 11 Q. (By Mr. Stewart) Are you aware -- is 12 Headquarters in the mid 1950s. I don't know for sure, 12 Monsanto aware of public statements that it has made 13 but I assume that's when that code was developed. 13 regarding whether PCBs can cause cancer of any type in 14 Q. Based on all the testing that has done -- 14 people? 15 been done on PCBs causing cancer in animals, is 15 A. I believe there's such statements have been 16 Monsanto's position that PCBs don't cause cancer of 16 made. l7 any type in animals? 17 Q. All right. Can you tell me what you believe 18 MR. MILLER: I'm going to object to the form 18 those statements have been? 19 of the question. It exceeds the scope of your notice. 19 A. Well, the one that springs clearest to mind 20 Subject to that, Dr. Kaley, you can answer 20 is a paper presented and then eventually published in 21 if you know. 21 a book or reviewed by a Monsanto epidemiologist aboi 22 A. No. 22 1980 that reviewed the status of the understanding 23 Q. (By Mr. Stewart) "No," what? 23 of -- it was later than that. Had to be later than 24 A. "No" in answer to your question. 24 that -- maybe 1983 that looked at the status of PCB, 25 Q. Okay. Let me try it again. Based on all of 25 both toxicology and epidemiology at that time. 30 32 1 the studies that have been done studying whether PCBs 1 Q. Okay. And what's the title of that book? 2 cause cancer in animals, does Monsanto believe that 2 A. As I sit here, I don't remember. 3 PCBs cause cancer of any type in any animal? 3 Q. Who is the author of that book? 4 MR. MILLER: Object to the form. Same 4 A. I don't remember. It was a proceeding -- it 5 objections. 5 was a book that reported the proceedings of the 6 Go ahead. 6 conference, as I recall. 7 A. Well, that's the reverse of the question you 7 Q. What was the name of the conference? 8 asked, but -- so the answer to that question is "yes." 8 A. It was something about PCBs in the Great 9 Q. (By Mr. Stewart) What types of cancer does 9 Lakes or something similar to that. 10 Monsanto believe that PCBs cause in animals? 10 Q. Are there any other public statements that 11 MR. MILLER: Same objection. 11 have been made by Monsanto with regard to whether PCB 12 A. The primary cancer reported in the studies 12 are capable of causing cancer of any type in people? 13 that have found cancer in animals is typically liver 13 A. In people? 14 cancer. There have been other types of, I believe, of 14 Q. Yes. 15 throat cancers or some others. I don't have them all 15 A. I suspect there are statements of one sort 16 memorized. There are a number that have been reporte 1 16 or another in press releases or possibly quotes from 17 in this study or that study. 17 newspapers where Monsanto has expressed their view i 18 Q. (By Mr. Stewart) And Monsanto -- 18 the carcinogenicity of PCBs in people, yes. 19 A. But it's primarily, liver cancer. 19 Q. And Monsanto's view is PCBs don't cause 20 Q. I'm sorry. 20 cancer in people; right? 21 And Monsanto believes the content of those 21 MR. MILLER: Object to the form of the 22 studies and that they are an accurate reflection of 22 question. It exceeds the scope of your notice. 23 what PCBs can do to animals; correct? 23 A. I think that's an oversimplification of the 24 MR. MILLER: Object to the form. Exceeds 24 statement, but I think that's basically correct, yes. 25 the scope of the notice. 25 Q. (By Mr. Stewart) Okay. Well, when you say U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT - DALLAS, TEXAS 214-741-6001 d776cd24-2094-4ef9-b521-0b23bed1ffd4 HARTOLDMONOOQ4554 EDWARD COLELLA v. MONSAN Deposition of: ROBERT KALEY 11/18/2011 9 (Pages 33 to 36) 33 35 1 it's an oversimplification of it, why don't you tell 1 Q. How about the 1940s? Did the Environmental 2 me what Monsanto's position is on whether or not PCBs 2 Protection Agency exist? 3 cause cancer in people. 3 A. No. 4 MR. MILLER: Same objection. 4 Q. The 1950s, did the Environmental Protection 5 A. I would -- and these are more my words than 5 Agency exist? 6 Monsanto's -- but I would say that under the 6 A. No. 7 conditions in which PCBs have -- conditions in whicl 7 Q. In the 1960s, did the Environmental 8 people have been exposed to PCBs, the study of thosi 8 Protection Agency exist? 9 people has not produced any consistent or convincin; ; 9 A. No. 10 evidence that PCBs cause cancer in humans. 10 Q. So during the entire time that Monsanto made 11 Q. (By Mr. Stewart) Has Monsanto made any 11 PCBs in the '30s, the '40s, the '50s, and the '60s, 12 public statements with regard to whether PCBs are 12 there was no Environmental Protection Agency; correct 13 capable of causing non-Hodgkin's lymphoma? 13 A. During those decades, that's correct. 14 A. Not that I'm aware of. 14 Q. Uh-huh. And during the '30s, the '40s, the 15 Q. Are you aware of Monsanto's position as to 15 '50s, and the '60s, were there any state environmental 16 whether PCBs are capable of causing non-Hodgkin's 16 agencies in either Illinois or Alabama? 17 lymphoma? 17 A. I don't know. 18 MR. MILLER: Object to the form. It exceeds 18 Q. You're not aware of there being state 19 the scope of your notice. 19 regulatory agencies that regulated the environment in 20 Subject to that, if you have an opinion. 20 the 1930s, the '40s, the '50s, or the '60s in either 21 express it. 21 Illinois or Alabama; correct? 22 A. As -- as what Monsanto believes today? I 22 MR. MILLER: Object to the form. It exceeds 23 don't really -- I mean, I believe they believe what I 23 the scope of your notice. 24 just said about cancer in general, that there's no 24 A. I agree with that. 25 clear and convincing evidence that PCBs cause 25 Q. (By Mr. Stewart) And you're not aware in the 34 36 1 non-Hodgkin's lymphoma on any of the available 1 '30s, the '40s, the '50s, the '60s of any 2 literature. 2 environmental regulatory agency monitoring what 3 Q. (By Mr. Stewart) Okay. Well, do they 3 Monsanto was doing at either its Anniston, Alabama, 4 believe there is evidence that shows more likely than 4 plant or its Sauget, Illinois, plant; true? 5 not that PCBs cause non-Hodgkin's lymphoma? 5 MR. MILLER: Object to the form. Are you 6 A. No. 6 just talking about with respect to environmental 7 MR. MILLER: I'm going to object -- 7 discharges or any aspect of the plant? 8 THE WITNESS: Sorry. 8 Q. (By Mr. Stewart) You can answer my question. 9 MR. MILLER: -- object to the form. Exceeds 9 MR. MILLER: I'll object as vague and 10 the scope of the notice. 10 ambiguous. 11 A. No. 11 A. Well, I think you said environmental. To 12 Q. (By Mr. Stewart) Okay. Sir, back to the 12 the extent that that's what you said, yes, I think 13 topic of Monsanto's standards of conduct. Does 13 that's true, as far as I know. 14 Monsanto believe it bears some responsibility for the 14 Q. (By Mr. Stewart) And you would agree that 15 fact that PCBs have contaminated the environment? 15 there was no one in the '30s, the '40s, the '50s, or 16 MR. MILLER: Object to the form of the 16 the '60s in the state of Illinois government who knew 17 question. That exceeds the scope of the notice. 17 more about PCBs and what they could do than the folks 18 A. I don't know. 18 at Monsanto; right? 19 Q. (By Mr. Stewart) I want to turn to the topic 19 A. I don't know. 20 of "The History of Legal and Regulatory Standards 20 MR. MILLER: Object to the form of the 21 Governing Monsanto's Conduct in the Production and 21 question. It exceeds the scope of your notice. Calls 22 Marketing of PCBs." 22 for speculation. 23 Now, in the 1930s when Monsanto began making 23 A. I don't know. 24 PCBs, did the Environmental Protection Agency exist? 24 Q. (By Mr. Stewart) Were you aware of any 25 A. No. 25 governmental or regulatory agency that knew more aboi 1 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT - DALLAS, TEXAS 214-741-6001 d776cd24-2094-4ef9-b521-0b23bed1ffd4 HARTOLDMONOOQ4555 EDWARD COLELLA v. MONSAN Deposition of: ROBERT KALEY 11/18/2011 10 (Pages 37 to 40) 37 39 1 PCBs than Monsanto in the 1930s? 1 but that wasn't your question. 2 A. I'm not aware of any. 2 Q. Okay. So now my question is, more likely 3 Q. How could there be any? 3 than not, isn't it true that there was no one in the 4 MR. MILLER: Object to the form. Calls for 4 1930s who knew more about PCBs and what they could dt 5 speculation. There's no foundation. Exceeds the 5 than Monsanto? 6 scope of your notice. 6 MR. MILLER: Object to the form. What do 7 Subject to that. 7 you mean by "what they could do"? 8 A. I lost the train of your question. I'm 8 Q. (By Mr. Stewart) You can answer. 9 sorry. 9 A. Well, with regard to the manufacturing, I 10 Q. (By Mr. Stewart) How could there be any? 10 would agree with that. With regard to what they could 11 Was anyone else making PCBs in the 1930s? 11 do, I don't know the answer to that. There were other 12 MR. MILLER: That's two different questions. 12 people that were using PCBs during that time frame. 13 Object to the form. 13 They may very well have known more about what PCE 14 Q. (By Mr. Stewart) Go ahead. 14 could do and whatever you mean by what they could d( i 15 A. I'd like -- if it's all right with you, I'd 15 I mean, those companies were using them as 16 like to go back to the, like, the two previous 16 functional fluids for various reasons, so they knew 17 questions where this started. 17 what they could do. 18 Q. We can do that. 18 Q. So now let's go back to officials in the 19 A. I don't remember what your original questior 19 state of Illinois and officials in the state of 20 was that started this. 20 Alabama, the two states that Monsanto was making PCBs 21 Q. Sure. We can do that. 21 in. Is Monsanto aware of any officials in the state 22 Is Monsanto aware -- I'll just reask it. 22 of Illinois, the state of Alabama that knew as much or 23 A. Okay. 23 more than Monsanto about PCBs in any way? 24 Q. Is Monsanto aware of anyone in the 1930s who 24 A. No. 25 was involved in regulations or governmental agencies 25 MR. MILLER: Object. I'll just show an 38 40 1 in the 1930s that knew as much about PCBs as Monsantc 1 objection to form. Exceeds the scope of the 2 did? 2 deposition notice. There's no foundation. 3 MR. MILLER: Object to the form. Exceeds - 3 Q. (By Mr. Stewart) What is the name of the 4 exceeds the scope of your notice and calls for 4 first governmental entity that attempted to regulate 5 speculation. 5 PCBs? 6 A. I'm not aware that Monsanto knew of anyone 6 A. I'm hesitating because my initial answer 7 that -- such as you described. 7 would be the FDA, but actually, the U.S. Department o 8 Q. (By Mr. Stewart) I'm asking, is Monsanto 8 Transportation probably had regulations governing th 9 aware of anyone -- let me -- let me strike that. 9 shipment of PCBs prior to that. 10 It's true, isn't it, sir, that in the 1930s 10 Q. And when do you believe that occurred? 11 no one knew more in the United States about how to 11 MR. MILLER: Object to the form. It's 12 make PCBs and what they could do than Monsanto; righi ? 12 outside the scope. 13 MR. MILLER: Object to the form. Exceeds 13 A. I -- I don't know. It's with regard to 14 the scope. It's vague and ambiguous. 14 the -- I'm sorry. With regard to the Department of 15 A. I don't know. 15 Transportation, I don't know. If that was your 16 Q. (By Mr. Stewart) Monsanto doesn't know if 16 question. 17 there was anyone in the United States who knew more 17 Q. (By Mr. Stewart) So you don't know when it 18 than them about making PCBs in the 1930s? 18 was that they started doing that? 19 A. I would say that's correct. There may very 19 A. No, I don't. 20 well have been. 20 Q. Can you give me a decade? 21 Q. You think it's more likely true than not 21 A. I really can't. 22 that there may very well have been someone who knew 22 Q. Then why did you pick them? 23 more about making PCBs than the only maker of PCBs i: l 23 A. Because I know that there were labels that 24 the United States? 24 required for shipment of materials prior to when I 25 A. I don't know that it's more likely than not, 25 believe the FDA first instituted regulations or U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT - DALLAS, TEXAS 214-741-6001 d776cd24-2094-4ef9-b521-0b23bed1ffd4 HARTOLDMONOOQ4556 EDWARD COLELLA v. MONSAN Deposition of: ROBERT KALEY 11/18/2011 11 (Pages 41 to 44) 41 43 1 recommendations with regard to PCBs. i Q. So are you telling me that throughout this 2 Q. And when did the FDA first step in with 2 deposition you have answered questions that might not 3 respect to PCBs. 3 have been more likely true than not -- 4 A. That would have been 1973. 4 MR. MILLER: Object to the form. 5 Q. So prior to 1973, you're not aware of any 5 Q. (By Mr. Stewart) -- when you said them, your 6 other governmental entity that was attempting to 6 answers? 7 regulate PCBs; correct? 7 MR. MILLER: It's overly broad. 8 MR. MILLER: Object to the form with respect 8 Q. (By Mr. Stewart) Let me rephrase the 9 to "attempting to regulate." It's beyond the scope of 9 question. Have you given me answers during this 10 the notice. 10 deposition that were not more likely true than not? 11 Go ahead. 11 MR. MILLER: Object to the form. That's 12 A. Okay. And then as I sit here, OSHA was 12 overly broad. Is there something that you can refer 13 created about 1971,1 believe; and upon the creation 13 to? 14 of OSHA, they adopted the ACGIH threshold limit value 5 14 Q. (By Mr. Stewart) You can answer. 15 for occupational exposure to a whole variety of 15 A. Well, I think all of the questions I've 16 chemicals among which was PCBs, so that would predate 16 answered were more -- the answers were more like! 17 even the FDA. 17 true than not. That's because they were true. 18 Q. (By Mr. Stewart) So now if I understand you, 18 Q. Okay. And so now I'm asking you, sir, with 19 the first entity that you're aware of that attempted 19 respect to the State of Illinois, isn't it true, more 20 to regulate PCBs was OSHA in 1971? 20 likely than not -- 21 A. Yes. With the proviso that the U.S. 21 A. Thank you. 22 Department of Transportation may have had shipping 22 Q. You're welcome. -- that the State of 23 regulations prior to that. 23 Illinois did not know nearly as much about PCBs as 24 Q. But you don't know when? 24 Monsanto did in the 1930s? 25 A. I don't know when, as I sit here, no. 25 MR. MILLER: Object to the form. It's 42 44 1 Q. Now, in 1971, how old of an institution was 1 outside the scope of the notice. Calls for 2 OSHA? 2 speculation. There's no foundation. 3 A. It was newly created. 3 A. I would say that's probably true, yes. 4 Q. Right. OSHA didn't exist in the '30s or the 4 Q. (By Mr. Stewart) Yes. And in the 1930s, 5 '40s or the '50s or the '60s; correct? 5 isn't it true, more likely than not, that the State of 6 A. That's correct. 6 Missouri didn't know nearly as much about PCBs as 7 Q. In the 1930s, the state of Illinois didn't 7 Monsanto; tme? 8 know more about PCBs than Monsanto; true? 8 MR. MILLER: Objection. Same objections. 9 MR. MILLER: Object to the form. Exceeds 9 A. I would agree with that. 10 the scope of the notice. There's no foundation. 10 Q. (By Mr. Stewart) And isn't it tme that in 11 Calls for speculation. 11 the 1930s the State of Alabama didn't know nearly as 12 A. I don't know. 12 much about PCBs as Monsanto; tme? 13 Q. (By Mr. Stewart) Do you think it's possible. 13 MR. MILLER: Same objections. 14 more likely than not, that the State of Illinois knew 14 A. I would agree with that. 15 more about PCBs in the 1930s than Monsanto? 15 Q. (By Mr. Stewart) Isn't it tme that in the 16 MR. MILLER: Object to the form. Same 16 1930s the State of California or the State of New York 17 objections. 17 or any state in the United States didn't know nearly 18 A. I don't think it's more likely than not, no. 18 as much about PCBs as Monsanto did? 19 Q. (By Mr. Stewart) Okay. Well, the questions 19 MR. MILLER: I'll object to the form of the 20 I'm asking you today are based on what's more likely 20 question. Same objections. 21 true than not true; okay? 21 A. I would agree with that. 22 A. I'd prefer not to assume that. If that's 22 Q. (By Mr. Stewart) Uh-huh. And that would be 23 the question, I think, frankly, I would prefer that 23 tme for the 1940s and the 1950s and the 1960s; 24 you state that in the question so I know what I'm 24 correct? And when I say that. I'm saying that there 25 answering. 25 was no state in the union who knew more or -- strike U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT - DALLAS, TEXAS 214-741-6001 d776cd24-2094-4ef9-b521-0b23bed1ffd4 HARTOLDMONOOQ4557 EDWARD COLELLA v. MONSAN Deposition of: ROBERT KALEY 11/18/2011 12 (Pages 45 to 48) 45 47 1 that. 1 10:09. 2 It would be true, more likely than not, that 2 Q. (By Mr. Stewart) Sir, those are all the 3 in the 1930s, the '40s, the '50s, the '60s that there 3 questions I have for you at this time. 4 was no state in the union that knew nearly as much 4 (Defendants Exhibit 34 was marked for 5 about PCBs as Monsanto; correct? 5 identification.) 6 MR. MILLER: Object to the form of the 6 EXAMINAT ION 7 question. 7 BY MR. MILLER 8 A. As far as I know, that's true. 8 Q. Dr. Kaley, good morning. 9 Q. (By Mr. Stewart) Has Monsanto ever tried to 9 A. Good morning. 10 determine when it was manufacturing and selling DDT 10 Q. I'm going to hand you what we've marked as 11 which of its employees made DDT? Ever try and 11 Exhibit No. 34. Dr. Kaley, you're certainly familiar 12 identify those employees? 12 with this article, are you not? 13 MR. MILLER: Object to the form. 13 A. Yes, lam. 14 A. I believe other than to the extent that 14 Q. Can you read the title of the article? 15 those people may be named on the standard operatin ? 15 A. The title of the article is "The Problem of 16 procedures, but I'm not aware of any effort to 16 Systemic -- I'm sorry. "The Problem of Possible 17 identify those people. 17 Systemic Effects From Certain Chlorinated 18 Q. (By Mr. Stewart) Explain that to me. How 18 Hydrocarbons." 19 would that -- how would that work where they would be 19 Q. And where was this article published? 20 named on the standard operating procedures? 20 A. It was published in the Journal of 21 A. Well, they would probably have been authors 21 Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology. 22 of them. I can't recall, as I sit here, what those 22 Q. And what was the date of its publication. 23 operating procedures say, but in my rec-- my 23 Doctor? 24 recollection would be that usually people involved in 24 A. September 1937. 25 the manufacture of or the process of manufacturing 25 Q. Who is Dr. Cecil Drinker? 46 48 1 particular chemical, whether it was DDT or anything 1 A. He was a physician on the staff at Harvard 2 else, were the authors of those standard operating 2 Medical School -- or School of Public Health, I'm 3 procedures, so their names would be on those as 3 sorry. 4 authors. 4 Q. Was the article that we've marked as 5 Q. Have you seen Monsanto's standard operating 5 Exhibit No. 4 [sic] prepared by Dr. Drinker and others 6 procedure for the manufacturer of DDT? 6 at the Harvard School of Public Health? 7 A. Yes. It's one of the references, I believe, 7 A. Yes, it was. 8 to the exhibit. I don't remember the exhibit number 8 Q. And Dr. Kaley, are you familiar with this 9 but the exhibit for Question 1. May have been 9 article? 10 Exhibit 4. I don't know. 10 A. Yes, I am. 11 Q. So you're talking about the six references 11 Q. The article includes not only the findings 12 that are found in Exhibit 4? 12 of Dr. Drinker with respect to certain animal toxicity 13 A. Yes. Other than -- well, there's probably 13 studies that he ran, but it also includes the summary 14 no reference that had a piece of paper that actually 14 of proceedings that were held at a conference in which 15 corresponds with Reference 4. 15 these findings were presented; is that correct? 16 Q. Understood. 16 A. That is correct. 17 A. But other than that, yes. Those process 17 Q. And you were asked some questions this 18 descriptions or reports, my understanding, as I sit 18 morning regarding governmental agencies or 19 here today, would be that they were written by peopl ; 19 organizations through time that knew certain things 20 familiar with the process. 20 about PCBs. And I wanted to go through with you the 21 MR. STEWART: Let's take a break. 21 list of some of the folks who are identified as having 22 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Going off the record at 22 attended these proceedings. Is that all right with 23 9:53 a.m. 23 you? 24 (A short break was taken.) 24 A. Yes. 25 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Back on the record at 25 Q. If you turn to page 300. U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT - DALLAS, TEXAS 214-741-6001 d776cd24-2094-4ef9-b521-0b23bed1ffd4 HARTOLDMONOOQ4558 EDWARD COLELLA v. MONSAN Deposition of: ROBERT KALEY 11/18/2011 13 (Pages 49 to 52) 49 51 1 A. Yes. 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. What we've marked as Exhibit No. 34. Are 2 Q. Were there industries using polychlorinated 3 some of the attendees at the conference and 3 biphenyls in industry in Massachusetts during this 4 proceedings identified? 4 time period? 5 A. Yes, they are. 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Is a Dr. W.F. von Oettingen identified? 6 Q. Who is Mr. F.R. Kaimer, K-A-I-M-E-R? 7 A. Yes. 7 A. He was apparently, as it says here, an 8 Q. Who is Dr. von Oettingen? 8 assistant to the manager of the York Wireworks, 9 A. He was, as it says here, the director of the 9 Division of General Electric Company. 10 Haskell Laboratory of Industrial Toxicology in 10 Q. Is it your understanding that Mr. Kaimer was 11 Delaware. That was the toxicology laboratory of 11 attending the proceedings of Dr. Drinker as a 12 DuPont Corporation. 12 representative of the General Electric Company? 13 Q. Was Dr. von Oettingen attending the 13 A. Yes. 14 proceedings as a delegate of DuPont? 14 Q. Was General Electric Company using 15 A. I presume that would be. I don't know for 15 polychlorinated biphenyls in its industry during the 16 sure. 16 time period in which the proceedings were held. 17 Q. Okay. Who was Dr. R.R. Sayers? 17 convened? 18 A. As it says, he's the chief of the Division 18 A. They were either using PCBs or 19 of Industrial Hygiene from the National Institute of 19 polychlorinated naphthalenes or a mixture of those 20 Health, the U.S. Public Health Service. 20 materials. It's not clear from his comments which 21 Q. And was -- is there any question in your 21 specifically they were using. 22 mind as to whether Dr. Sayers attended the proceeding : 22 Q. In any event, you understand. Dr. Kaley, 23 in his capacity as chief of the Division of Industrial 23 that General Electric became a substantial customer of 24 Hygiene, National Institute of Health, U.S. Public 24 Monsanto's PCBs sometime in the -- after the 1930s? 25 Health Service, Washington, D.C. 25 A. During the -- yeah. Certainly, during the 50 52 1 A. No. I'm sure he did. 1 1930s, they were one of the original customers. 2 Q. Was an Albert S. Gray also in attendance at 2 Q. And who was Mr. Warren A. Cook? He appears 3 these proceedings? 3 on page 305 of Exhibit -- that we've marked as 4 A. Yes. 4 Exhibit 34? 5 Q. And who was Dr. Albert S. Gray? 5 A. I'm sorry. He's identified as the chief of 6 A. He is identified as the director, Bureau of 6 Industrial Hygienist from the Bureau of Occupationa 7 Occupational Diseases from the state of Connecticut. 7 Diseases in the state of Connecticut. 8 Q. Were there industries in Connecticut that 8 Q. Was Mr. Warren, to your understanding. 9 were using PCBs during this time period? 9 attending the proceedings on behalf of the Bureau of 10 A. Judging from his comments, yes. There must 10 Occupational Diseases, State of Connecticut Department 11 have been. 11 of Health? 12 Q. Okay. And was Dr. Gray in attendance at 12 A. Yes. 13 these proceedings in this capacity as the director of 13 Q. And if you turn to page 306 of what we've 14 the Bureau of Occupational Diseases, State of 14 marked as Exhibit 34, Dr. Kaley, there appears to be a 15 Connecticut Department of Health? 15 reference to a Mr. Hervey B. Elkins? 16 A. Yes. 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. And who was Mr. Manfred Bowditch, 17 Q. And would you tell us with whom Mr. Elkins 18 B-O-W-D-I-T-C-H? 18 was employed at the time? 19 A. He was director of Divisional Occupational 19 A. He was with the Division of Occupational 20 Hygiene, the Massachusetts Department of Labor an 1 20 Hygiene in the state of Massachusetts. 21 Industries. 21 Q. And were there industries within the state 22 Q. And was Mr. Bowditch in attendance at 22 of Massachusetts that were using PCBs in its industry 23 Dr. Drinker's proceeding in his official capacity as 23 at that time? 24 director of the Division of Occupational Hygiene, 24 A. Yes. General Electric had a facility there. 25 Department of Labor and Industries of Massachusetts? 25 Q. And of course. Dr. Emmett Kelly was in U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT - DALLAS, TEXAS 214-741-6001 d776cd24-2094-4ef9-b521-0b23bed1ffd4 HARTOLDMONOOQ4559 EDWARD COLELLA v. MONSAN Deposition of: ROBERT KALEY 11/18/2011 14 (Pages 53 to 56) 53 55 1 attendance? 1 A. Yes, it was. 2 A. That is correct. 2 Q. Was it, to your knowledge. Dr. Kaley, one of 3 Q. And if you turn to page 308, Dr. Kaley, 3 the premiere journals of industrial hygiene at the 4 there's a reference to a Louis Schwartz? 4 time? 5 A. Yes. 5 A. I couldn't say whether it was the premiere 6 Q. Who is Dr. Schwartz? 6 or not. 7 A. I believe he was -- he's not identified on 7 Q. Would the individuals that we have listed 8 that page. Let me see if he's identified earlier in 8 from the various governmental agencies have a 9 the discussion. I believe he was an occupational 9 substantial amount of information about the acute 10 physician, as I recall, but -- 10 health effects of exposures to PCBs in industrial 11 Q. And is it true that he had consulted with 11 settings provided by Dr. Drinker? 12 both Monsanto and Swann? 12 A. Yes. I believe they would have. 13 A. Yes. That is true, yes. He had done some 13 Q. All right. And anyone who had access to the 14 of the early testing. 14 Journal of Industrial Hygiene would have received tha 15 Q. And if you also look on page 308, there's a 15 same information, would they not? 16 reference to a Dr. Royal Meeker? 16 A. That's correct. 17 A. Yes. 17 Q. For now, those are all the questions I have. 18 Q. And with whom was Dr. Meeker employed at th ; 18 MR. STEWART: I don't have any further 19 time? 19 questions. 20 A. The State of Connecticut Department of 20 THE WITNESS: All right. 21 Labor. 21 MR. MILLER: Dr. Kaley will read and sign. 22 Q. And do you have any doubt in your mind that 22 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: That concludes the 23 Dr. Meeker was attending the proceedings on behalf of 23 deposition. Going off the record at 10:20 a.m. 24 the State of Connecticut? 24 (Whereupon signature was reserved, and 25 A. No. I'm sure that's why he was there. 25 the witness was excused.) 54 56 1 Q. And if you turn to page 310, there's 2 reference to a Dr. Emery R. Hayhurst. Do you see 3 that? 4 A. Yes, I do. 5 Q. Does this reference indicate that a 6 Dr. Emery Hayhurst, a consultant in industrial 7 medicine for the State Department of Health in 8 Columbus, Ohio, was in attendance of Dr. Drinker's 9 proceedings? 10 A. Yes, he was. 11 Q. If you also look on page 310, would you 12 identify Dr. B.L. Vosburgh for us? 13 A. Yes. He was -- he's identified as the 14 medical director of General Electric Company. 15 Q. Would the individuals who we've just 16 identified have received the information that 17 Dr. Drinker imparted to them at these proceedings? 18 A. Certainly. They were present during those 19 presentations. 20 Q. And the Journal of Industrial Hygiene and 21 Toxicology is the journal in which these proceedings 22 were published; is that correct? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Was that a widely disseminated journal of 25 industrial hygiene during the 1930s? 1 COMES NOW THE WITNESS, DR. ROBERT KALEY, a 2 having read the foregoing transcript of the deposition 3 taken on November 18, 2011, acknowledges by signature 4 hereto that it is a true and accurate transcript of 5 the testimony given on the date hereinabove mentioned. 6 7 8 (Dr. Robert Kaley) 9 12 Subscribed to before me this 13 , 2011. 14 15 Notary Public 16 day of 18 19 EDWARD COLELLA, ET AL. VS. 20 MONSANTO CO., ET AL. 21 22 Reporter: Dawn M. Bloemker, CSR, RPR, CCR Date Taken: November 18, 2011 23 24 25 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT - DALLAS, TEXAS 214-741-6001 d776cd24-2094-4ef9-b521-0b23bed1ffd4 HARTOLDMON0004560 EDWARD COLELLA v. MONSAN Deposition of: ROBERT KALEY 11/18/2011 15 (Pages 57 to 60) 57 59 1 REPORTER CERTIFICATE 2 I, Dawn M. Bloemker, Certified Shorthand 3 Reporter, Registered Professional Reporter, and Certified Court Reporter, do hereby certify that there 4 came before me at the law offices of Husch Blackwell, LLP, 190 Carondelet Plaza, Suite 600, St. Louis, 5 Missouri 63105 6 DR. ROBERT KALEY 7 who was by me first duly sworn; that the witness was carefully examined; that said examination was 8 reported by myself, translated and proofread using computer-aided transcription; and the above transcript 9 of proceedings is a true and accurate transcript of my notes as taken at the time of the examination of this 10 witness. 11 I further certify that I am neither attorney nor counsel for nor related nor employed by any of the 12 parties to the action in which this examination is taken; further, that I am not a relative or employee 13 of any attorney or counsel employed by the parties hereto or financially interested in this action. 14 15 Dated November 25,2011. 16 17 18 19 Dawn M. Bloemker, CSR, RPR, CCR 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER AND STATEMENT OF DEPOSITION COSTS 2 EDWARD COLELLA, ) 3 Plaintiff, ) ) 4 vs. ) ) Cause No. 09SL-CC01972 5 ) Division No. 7 ) MONSANTO CO., ET AL., ) NOTICE OF DEPOSITION 7 Defendants. ) ) 8 MISSOURI CIRCUIT COURT TWENTY-FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT 9 ST. LOUIS COUNTY 10 LIVINGSTON HAMPTON, MAGGIE ) MOOYMAN, and RUSSELL ABBER, ) 11 Plaintiffs, 12 ) ) ) vs. ) Cause No. 10SL-CC03428 13 ) Division 17 MONSANTO CO., ET AL., ) 14 ) Defendants. ) 15 ....................................................................................... MISSOURI CIRCUIT COURT 16 TWENTY-FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT ST. LOUIS COUNTY 17 NISHIDA, NICHOLAS WHITE, ) 18 INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SURVIVOR ) OF MARK WHITE, DECEASED, ) 19 AND ALISON TUCKER, ) 2 0 Plaintiffs, ) ) 21 vs. ) ) Cause No. 09SL-CC01964 ) Division No. 13 22 MONSANTO CO., ET AL., ) ) NOTICE OF DEPOSITION 23 Defendants. ) 24 25 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI 2 LIVINGSTON HAMPTON, MAGGIE ) 3 MOOYMAN, and RUSSELL ABBER, ) 4 Plaintiffs, ) ) 5 vs. ) )Cause No. 4-1 l-CV-01662 ) 6 MONSANTO CO., SOLUTIA, INC., ) PHARMACIA CORP., AND PFIZER, ) 7 INC., ) 8 Defendants. ) ) 9 I, Dawn M. Bloemker, hereby certify 10 that the original deposition of DR. ROBERT KALEY, taken on November 18, 2011, is in the custody of Allen 11 Stewart, P.C., 325 N. St. Paul Street, Suite 2750, Dallas, Texas 75201. 12 13 TAXED IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFFS 14 Total: $ 15 FOR: Allen Stewart, P.C., 325 N. St. Paul Street, Suite 2750, Dallas, Texas 75201. 16 17 TAXED IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS 18 Total: $ FOR: Husch Blackwell, LLP, 190 Carondelet Plaza, 19 Suite 600, St. Louis, Missouri 63105. 20 21 22 23 24 25 58 60 1 Upon delivery of transcript, the above charges had no 2 been paid. It is anticipated that all charges will be 3 paid in the normal course of business. 4 5 6 I have hereunto set my signature on 7 November 25, 2011. 8 9 Dawn M. Bloemker, CSR, RPR, CCR 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT - DALLAS, TEXAS 214-741-6001 d776cd24-2094-4ef9-b521-0b23bed1ffd4 HARTOLDMONOOQ4561 EDWARD COLELLA v. MONSAN Deposition of: ROBERT KALEY 11/18/2011 1 A abber 1:11 2:4 4:11 5:3 58:10 59:3 acceptable 10:4 access 55:13 accurate 30:22 56:4 57:9 accused 23:9 acgih41:14 acknowledges 56:3 action 57:12,13 acute 55:9 adam 5:18 6:21 administered 7:7 adopted 41:14 age 7:5 agencies 35:16,19 37:25 48:18 55:8 agency 28:4 34:24 35:2,5,8,12 36:2,25 agree 9:22,24 10:5,13,20,22 11:6,17 12:4 13:3,15,23 14:22 35:24 36:14 39:10 44:9,14 44:21 agreed 6:1 agreeing 24:23 agreement 6:7 agrees 13:12 ahead 15:25 23:4 25:22 30:6 37:14 41:11 al 1:6,14,23 4:6,14,23 5:16 6:13,14,20 56:19 56:20 58:6,13,22 alabama 35:16,21 36:3 39:20,22 44:11 albert 50:2,5 alison 1:20 4:20 58:19 alien 5:16,17 59:10,15 alphabetical 28:17 ambiguous 17:5 36:10 38:14 amount 8:11,23 55:9 ani 17:15 animal 30:3 48:12 animals 16:12,16 17:10,22 18:5 19:3,12 20:7 20:21,25 21:5,9,15,21 27:1,7,12,15,18,22,23 28:5,6 29:15,17 30:2,10,13,23 31:7 anniston 36:3 announced 12:23 answer 11:22 13:9 15:25 17:3 19:9 20:13,16 23:2,3 24:2 29:20,24 30:8 31:1 36:8 39:8,11 40:6 43:14 answered 19:14,15 20:10 43:2,16 answering 42:25 answers 43:6,9,16 anticipated 60:2 apparently 51:7 appears 28:15 52:2,14 applicable 10:2 applied 10:1,16 appropriate 10:4,10,11 25:3 approximately 7:23 8:12 arent31:4 article 47:12,14,15,19 48:4,9,11 asked 19:10,13 30:8 48:17 asking38:8 42:20 43:18 aspect 36:7 assigned 28:23 assistant 51:8 associated 18:19 assume 8:25 14:10 29:13 42:22 assuming 19:16 attached 3:20,22 attempted 40:4 41:19 attempting 41:6,9 attendance 50:2,12,22 53:1 54:8 attended 48:22 49:22 attendees 49:3 attending 49:13 51:11 52:9 53:23 attorney 57:11,13 author 32:3 authors 45:21 46:2,4 available 17:13,14,17 18:2 20:11 34:1 average 8:15 aware 16:13 21:20 27:10 31:11,12 33:14,15 35:18,25 36:24 37:2,22,24 38:6,9 39:21 41:5,1945:16 B b3:7 28:24 52:15 54:12 back26:5,9,13 29:9 34:12 37:16 39:18 46:25 based 29:14,25 42:20 basically 29:7 32:24 basis 25:24 bears 34:14 becoming 8:22 began 11:23 21:11 34:23 behalf2:17 5:10 6:21,23 52:9 53:23 behaved 16:9 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT - DALLAS, TEXAS 214-741-6001 HARTOLDMON0004562 EDWARD COLELLA v. MONSAN Deposition of: ROBERT KALEY 11/18/2011 2 believe 10:2,9,17 13:1 15:5,6,14 16:7 18:7,10 19:15,21,22 21:10 22:3,9 27:3,4 30:2,10,14 31:3,6,15,17 33:23,23 34:4,14 40:10,25 41:13 45:1446:7 53:7,9 55:12 believed 10:17 believes 30:21 33:22 best 7:15 beyond 41:9 biotest 22:1 biphenyls 51:3,15 blackwell 5:11,19,22 6:17 57:4 59:18 bloemker 2:22 5:12 6:4 56:22 57:2,19 59:9 60:9 book 31:21 32:1,3,5 bowditch 50:17,18,22 break 46:21,24 broad 43:7,12 broke 9:17 brought 9:5 building 29:3 buildings 28:21,22,23 bureau 50:6,14 52:6,9 business 12:24 60:3 C c 5:15,17 28:24 29:6 49:25 59:11,15 calandra 22:4,5,12 23:9 26:5 calandras 23:1 California 44:16 call 22:25 calls 11:20 14:18,18 25:13,19 26:4 36:21 37:4 38:4 42:11 44:1 cancer 16:12,16 17:10,15,19,22,23 18:5 19:3 19:6 20:7,21,25 21:5,9,15,21 27:1,7,12,15 27:18,22,23 28:5,6 29:15,16 30:2,3,9,12,13 30:14,19 31:7,13 32:12,20 33:3,10,24 cancerous 19:12 cancers 16:18 30:15 cant 40:21 45:22 capable 16:17,18 32:12 33:13,16 capacity 49:23 50:13,23 carcinogenicity 32:18 carefully 57:7 carol 5:21 6:23 carondelet 5:12,19,22 57:4 59:18 category 3:9 cause 1:5,13,22 2:6 4:5,13,22 5:5 6:14 16:12 17:10,15,22,23 18:5 19:3 20:7 21:15,21 27:1,6,11,15,18,23 28:5,6 29:16 30:2,3,10 31:7,13 32:19 33:3,10,25 34:5 58:4,12,21 59:5 caused 16:16 20:21,25 21:4,8 27:22 causing 17:19 29:15 32:12 33:13,16 ccr 2:22,24 56:22 57:19 60:9 cecil 47:25 center 29:6 central 5:24 certain3:16 47:17 48:12,19 certainly 47:11 51:25 54:18 certificate 57:1 58:1 certified 5:12,13 6:4 57:2,3 certify 57:3,11 59:9 charge 22:9 charges25:23 60:1,2 charts 9:3,6,12,14 chem 21:4 chemical 9:24 10:20,23 11:6,17 20:6 46:1 chemicals 13:20 17:14,18,21,22,25 18:23 20:6 21:841:16 Chicago 21:24 chief49:18,23 52:5 chlorinated 3:1647:17 chose 19:18 circuit 1 4,1,8,9,16,17 4:1,1,8,9,16,17 58:8,8 58:15,16 clear 16:3 33:25 51:20 clearest 31:19 closely 17:24 coaching 16:24 code 28:15,18 29:7,9,13 codes 28:10 29:1 colella 1:3 4:3 5:16 6:12 56:19 58:2 columbus 54:8 comes 56:1 comments 50:10 51:20 commission 56:17 companies 23:24 39:15 company 2:13 6:12,13,14 18:13 20:6 51:9,12 51:14 54:14 complex 28:22 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT - DALLAS, TEXAS 214-741-6001 HARTOLDMON0004563 EDWARD COLELLA v. MONSAN Deposition of: ROBERT KALEY 11/18/2011 3 computeraided 57:8 concept 10:3 11:10 concepts 14:11 concluded 28:5 concludes 55:22 conclusion 11:20 14:18 conditions 31:2 33:7,7 conduct 9:19 14:22 34:13,21 conducted 21:23 conference 32:6,7 48:14 49:3 confused 24:24 confusing 16:1 Connecticut 50:7,8,15 52:7,10 53:20,24 connection 9:1 conscious 19:21 consideration 21:10 considered 10:4 11:11 14:9 consistent 33:9 constraints 10:3,18 13:19 14:2,7 15:3,8,13 constructs 13:19 consultant 8:8,22 54:6 consulted 53:11 contaminated 34:15 content 30:21 convened 51:17 convicted22:17,19 23:5,10 24:11,17 25:17 26:19 conviction 25:24 convincing 33 9,25 cook 52:2 corp2:7 5:6 59:6 corporate 2:13 corporation 16:8 49:12 corporations 16:9 23:10,12 correct 9:19,20 12:12,15 13:13 18:16,21 19:12,16,19 20:8,18,19,22,23 21:1,2,5 24:13 24:16,19 25:9,12 26:1,20 27:3,12,19 28:8 30:23 32:24 35:12,13,21 38:19 41:7 42:5,6 44:24 45:5 48:15,16 53:2 54:22 55:16 corresponds 46:15 costs 58:1 couldnt 55:5 counsel 6:2,2,7,18 57:11,13 county 1:2,9,17 4:2,9,17 58:9,16 couple 9:1 course 52:25 60:3 court 1:1,8,16 2:1 3:20,22 4:1,8,16 5:1,13 6:5 6:25 7:7 57:3 58:8,15 59:1 created 41:13 42:3 creation 41:13 criminal 26:16 csr 2:22,23 56:22 57:19 60:9 custody 59:10 customer 51:23 customers 52:1 1) d 3:1,7 49:25 dallas 5:17,24 59:11,15 data 24:5 date 47:22 56:5,22 dated 57:15 dawn2:22 5:12 6:4 56:22 57:2,19 59:9 60:9 day 5:11 56:12 ddt 45:10,11 46:1,6 debate 16:22 decade 40:20 decades 35:13 deceased 1:19 4:19 58:18 decision 19:21 defendants 1:7,15,24 2:9 3:14,21 4:7,15,24 5:8,18,21 6:3,22,24 47:4 58:7,14,23 59:8,17 defense 26:16 define 11:2 15:21 17:2 delaware49:ll delegate 49:14 deliver 29:8 delivery 60:1 department 29:8 40:7,14 41:22 50:15,20,25 52:10 53:20 54:7 departmental 28:10 depending 11:25 deposes 7:8 deposition 1:6,23 2:12 4:6,23 5:9 6:3,10,16 9:13 14:17 17:12 40:2 43:2,10 55:23 56:2 58:1,6,22 59:10 described 38:7 descriptions 46:18 designate 29:4 details 25:23 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT - DALLAS, TEXAS 214-741-6001 HARTOLDMONOOQ4564 EDWARD COLELLA v. MONSAN Deposition of: ROBERT KALEY 11/18/2011 4 determine 18:5 19:11 20:7,21,25 21:4,8,14 21:20 27:1,17 45:10 develop 11:23 developed 14:12 29:13 didnt7:20 14:13 18:10,14 20:2,17,24 22:5 27:18 42:4,7 44:6,11,17 different 37:12 difficult 9:5 digit 29:1 director49:9 50:6,13,19,24 54:14 discern 17:5 discharges 36:7 discriminately 10:1,16 discussion 26:6 53:9 diseases 50:7,14 52:7,10 dishonest 23:17,23,24 24:5 dispensation 12:2 disseminated 54:24 district 2:1,1 5:1,1 59:1,1 division 1:5,13,22 4:5,13,22 49:18,23 50:24 51:9 52:19 58:5,13,21 divisional 50:19 doctor 11:22 47:23 document 3:14 documents 9:4 28:11,16,16 doesnt38:16 doing 16:17 24:25 26:9 36:3 40:18 domestic 3:9,11 dont7:14 11:2 13:10,11 14:10,15 15:22 16:20 18:13 19:21 22:12,14,15 23:20 24:3,7 25:2 25:15,20,23 26:11 27:3 29:12,16 30:15 32:2 32:4,19 33:1,23 34:18 35:17 36:19,23 37:19 38:15,25 39:11 40:13,15,17,19 41:24,25 42:12,18 46:8,10 49:15 55:18 doubt 53:22 dr 2:12 3:3 5:9 6:3 7:4 15:25 16:2 22:25 23:1 23:3,9 24:10 25:7 29:20 47:8,11,25 48:5,8 48:12 49:6,8,13,17,22 50:5,12,23 51:11,22 52:14,25 53:3,6,16,18,23 54:2,6,8,12,17 55:2,11,21 56:1,8 57:6 59:10 drinker47:25 48:5,12 51:11 54:17 55:11 drinkers 50:23 54:8 drop 29:4,6 duly 57:7 dupont 49:12,14 duties 26:11 E e3:l,l,7,7 5:15,15,19 earlier 11:11,14 53:8 early 53:14 easier 9:6 eastern 2:1 5:1 59:1 edward 1:3 4:3 5:16 6:11 56:19 58:2 effects 3:16 47:17 55:10 effort 45:16 either 17:24 29:3 35:16,20 36:3 51:18 electric 51:9,12,14,23 52:24 54:14 elkins 52:15,17 emery 54:2,6 emmett 52:25 employed 52:18 53:18 57:11,13 employee24:15,18 25:8 26:14 57:12 employees 45:11,12 entire 10:14 35:10 entities 8:22 entity 7:22 8:2,10 21:19 40:4 41:6,19 environment 34:15 35:19 environmental 34:24 35:1,4,7,12,15 36:2,6 36:11 epidemiologist 31:21 epidemiology 31:25 essentially 8:10,23 estimate 7:15 et 1:6,14,23 4:6,14,23 5:16 6:13,13 56:19,20 58:6,13,22 event 51:22 eventually 31:20 evidence 33:10,25 34:4 exact 27:4 examination 3:4,5 7:10 47:6 57:7,9,12 examined 5:10 7:5 57:7 exceeds 14:17 17:11 22:24 29:19 30:24 31:8 32:22 33:18 34:9,17 35:22 36:21 37:5 38:3 38:4,13 40:1 42:9 excuse 17:16 excused 55:25 exhibit 3:8,10,14,21 9:2,3,15,15 46:8,8,9,10 46:12 47:4,11 48:5 49:2 52:3,4,14 exhibits 3:19 9:2,9,10 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT - DALLAS, TEXAS 214-741-6001 HARTOLDMONOOQ4565 EDWARD COLELLA v. MONSAN Deposition of: ROBERT KALEY 11/18/2011 5 exist 34:24 35:2,5,8 42:4 existed 14:13 20:16 expires 56:17 explain 28:18 45:18 exposed 33:8 exposure 41:15 exposures 55:10 express 33:21 expressed 32:17 expressway 5:24 extent 36:12 45:14 I f 3:1,7 49:6 51:6 facility 52:24 fact 17:17,18 22:12 23:7 24:17 34:15 fair 31:10 false 22:21 23:11 falsified 25:11 falsifying 22:17 23:9 24:11 26:1 familiar 46:20 47:11 48:8 far 12:10 28:8 29:9,10 36:13 45:8 favor 59:13,17 fda 40:7,25 41:2,17 federal 23:8,8 26:19 financially 57:13 find 27:18 finding 16:18 findings 48:11,15 firm 5:16,19,21 first 21:7,19 28:24 40:4,25 41:2,19 57:7 floor 29:2,5 fluids 39:16 folks 36:17 48:21 foregoing 56:2 form 11:1,9,19 13:6,17,25 14:16 15:1,11,19 16:15 17:11 18:11,17 19:4,13,20 20:1,9,11 20:15 22:8,23 23:13,18,25 24:8 25:13,18 26:2 28:7 29:18 30:4,24 31:8 32:21 33:18 34:9,16 35:22 36:5,20 37:4,13 38:3,13 39:6 40:1,11 41:8 42:9,16 43:4,11,25 44:19 45:6 45:13 former 24:14 found23:8 27:6,11,14,22 30:13 46:12 foundation 14:19 25:21 26:3,3 37:5 40:2 42:10 44:2 frame 11:25 13:21 15:8,14 18:3,23 19:7 27:4 39:12 frames 10:12 11:12,14 16:6,7,10 frankly 42:23 full 8:3 functional 39:16 further 55:18 57:11,12 G general33:24 51:9,12,14,23 52:24 54:14 gentlemans 22:3 give 7:15 14:8 40:20 given 43:9 56:5 giving 16:21 go 15:25 22:5,7 23:4 25:22 29:9 30:6 37:14 37:16 39:1841:11 48:20 goes 26:5 going 12:23 15:19 16:22 29:18 34:7 46:22 47:10 55:23 good 25:6 47:8,9 governing 34:21 40:8 government 23:8,8 36:16 governmental 28:4 36:25 37:25 40:4 41:6 48:18 55:8 grade 3:11 gray 50:2,5,12 great 32:8 II h 3:7 half 8:13,18,20 hampton 1:10 2:3 4:10 5:2 6:13 58:10 59:2 hand 47:10 harm 18:21 19:1 harvard 48:1,6 haskell 49:10 hayhurst 54:2,6 headquarters 28:21 29:11,12 health 48:2,6 49:20,20,24,25 50:15 52:11 54:7 55:10 held 6:16 48:14 51:16 helping 17:2 hereinabove 56:5 hereto 56:4 57:13 hereunto 60:6 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT - DALLAS, TEXAS 214-741-6001 HARTOLDMONOOQ4566 EDWARD COLELLA v. MONSAN Deposition of: ROBERT KALEY 11/18/2011 6 hervey 52:15 hes49:18 52:5 53:7,8 54:13 hesitating 40:6 hired 26:25 history 34:20 hmm 8:15,21 11:16 16:11 18:4 21:13 22:2,11 22:17 23:23 28:3 honest 23:17,22 hours 5:11 8:5,16 humans 17:16,16,19 18:24 33:10 husch 5:11,19,21 6:16 57:4 59:18 hydrocarbons 3:1647:18 hygiene3:15 47:21 49:19,24 50:20,24 52:20 54:20,25 55:3,14 hygienist 52:6 I ibt 24:12 25:8,11 26:1,24,25 id 10:9 37:15,15 42:22 idea 14:15 identification 9:11 47:5 identified 48:21 49:4,6 50:6 52:5 53:7,8 54:13,16 identify 45:12,17 54:12 ii2:14 5:10 6:11 ill 19:8 24:8 36:9 37:22 39:25 44:19 illegal 22:9 illinois 5:12 35:16,21 36:4,16 39:19,22 42:7 42:14 43:19,23 im 7:16 11:10 12:16 15:19 16:3,13,18,22 24:23 27:10 29:18 30:20 33:14 34:7 37:2,8 38:6,8 40:6,14 42:20,24 43:18 44:24 45:16 47:10,16 48:2 50:1 52:5 53:25 immediately 8:9 imparted 54:17 improper 22:19 26:6 includes 28:17 48:11,13 including 25:1 indicate 54:5 indication 19:23,24 20:2,3 23:21 indications 18:22 indicted 25:25 26:6,8 individually 1:19 4:19 58:18 individuals 54:15 55:7 industrial 3:15 13:20 22:1 47:21 49:10,19,23 52:6 54:6,20,25 55:3,10,14 industries 50:8,21,25 51:2 52:21 industry 51:3,15 52:22 information22:22 23:11 24:11 25:12 54:16 55:9,15 initial 40:6 instigator 21:11 institute 49:19,24 instituted 40:25 institution 21:11 42:1 interested 57:13 internal 9:18 28:11,16 interpreting 15:5 involved 37:25 45:24 isnt 8:18,21 16:14 17:8 28:3 38:10 39:3 43:19 44:5,10,15 ive20:10 23:21 43:15 ____________________ J_____________ jimmy 13:1 joseph 22:3,5,12 journal3:15 47:20 54:20,21,24 55:14 journals 55:3 judging 50:10 judgment 31:10 judicial 1:1,9,17 4:1,9,17 58:8,16 jury 26:19 K kaimer 51:6,6,10 kaley 2:12 3:3 5:10 6:3,11 7:4 9:2,3,13,13 15:25 16:2 22:25 23:3 29:20 47:8,11 48:8 51:22 52:14 53:3 55:2,21 56:1,8 57:6 59:10 keep 14:6 kelly 52:25 kept 8:11 key 28:10 kinds 11:23 17:13 18:3 19:5 knew 18:16,18,21 36:16,25 38:1,6,11,17,22 39:4,16,22 42:14 44:25 45:4 48:19 know 9:21 12:10 13:8,10,11 14:10 23:7,20 24:2,3,4 25:15,20,23 26:11 27:3 28:8,13 29:10,12,21 34:18 35:17 36:13,19,23 38:15 38:16,25 39:11 40:13,15,17,23 41:24,25 42:8,12,24 43:23 44:6,11,17 45:8 46:10 49:15 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT - DALLAS, TEXAS 214-741-6001 HARTOLDMONOOQ4567 EDWARD COLELLA v. MONSAN Deposition of: ROBERT KALEY 11/18/2011 7 knowing 18:25 knowledge 55:2 known 39:13 L 154:12 labels 40:23 labor 50:20,25 53:21 laboratories 22:1 laboratory 21 24 22:2 24:12 49:10,11 lack 26:3,3 lakes 32:9 law5:ll,16,19,21 57:4 lawful 7:5 laws 14:13 left 25:8 legal 5:24 11:20 14:18 23:1 34:20 letter 28:23,24,24 letters 28:17 29:4 license 2:23,24 limit 41:14 lines 23:6 list 48:21 listed28:10 55:7 listen 24:8 literature 18:2 34:2 little 9:4 14:8 liver 30:13,19 livingston 1:10 2:3 4:10 5:2 6:13 58:10 59:2 lip 5:11,19,22 57:4 59:18 long 16:21 look 53:15 54:11 looked 9:2 27:14,17,21 28:4 31:24 looking 18:2 lost 37:8 lot 8:24 14:9 louis 1:2,9,17 4:2,9,17 5:12,19,22 6:17 53:4 57:4 58:9,16 59:19 lymphoma33:13,17 34:1,5 M m 2:22 3:1 5:11,11,12,16 6:4,10 46:23 55:23 56:22 57:2,19 59:9 60:9 maggie 1:10 2:3 4:10 5:2 58:10 59:2 mail 22:20,22 29:4,5,5,8 mailing 29:8 mails 22:10 23:12 26:7 maker 10:20,23 11:6,17 38:23 making 7:13,23 8:11 24:22 34:23 37:11 38:18 38:23 39:20 manager 51:8 manfred 50:17 manner 10:10 manners 10:10 manufacture 45:25 manufacturer 46:6 manufacturing 39:9 45:10,25 mark 1:19 4:19 9:8 58:18 marked 9:11,13 47:4,10 48:4 49:2 52:3,14 marketed 9:25 10:15 marketing 34:22 massachusetts 50:20,25 51:3 52:20,22 materials 40:24 51:20 matter 6:11 24:17 matters 8:10 mean8:5 11:2,13 14:11 16:4 33:23 39:7,14 39:15 means 15:21 medical 48:2 54:14 medicine 54:7 meeker 53:16,18,23 memorized 30:16 mentioned 56:5 mid 29:12 mike 5:23 miller 3:5 5:19 6:21,21 7:16 11:1,9,19 13:6 13:17,25 14:16 15:1,7,11,19 16:15,22 17:1 17:11 18:11,17 19:4,13,20 20:1,9,15 22:8 22:23 23:13,18,25 24:6,8,21 25:1,5,13,18,21 26:2 28:7 29:18 30:4,11,24 31:8 32:21 33:4 33:18 34:7,9,16 35:22 36:5,9,20 37:4,12 38:3,13 39:6,25 40:11 41:8 42:9,16 43:4,7 43:11,25 44:8,13,19 45:6,13 47:7 55:21 millers 3:22 mind 31:19 49:22 53:22 missouri 1:1,8,16 2:1 4:1,8,16 5:1,12,13,19 5:22 6:17 44:6 57:5 58:8,15 59:1,19 mixture 51:19 money 8:11,23 monitoring 36:2 monsanto 1:6,14,23 2:7,13 4:6,14,23 5:6 6:12 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT - DALLAS, TEXAS 214-741-6001 HARTOLDMONOOQ4568 EDWARD COLELLA v. MONSAN Deposition of: ROBERT KALEY 11/18/2011 6:13,14 7:12,17,19,20 9:21,24 10:5,13,14,20 10:22 11:6,16 12:5,8,11,14,23 13:3,12,15,23 14:23 15:9,17 16:7,11,17 17:9 18:4,13,16 18:20,25 19:2,10,18 20:17,20,24 21:3,7,19 23:24 24:14,18 25:8,8 26:9,9,13,13,16,25 27:6,17,21 28:10,11,16,21 29:10,11 30:2,10 30:18,21 31:3,6,12,21 32:11,17 33:11,22 34:14,23 35:10 36:3,18 37:1,22,24 38:1,6,8 38:12,16 39:5,20,21,23 42:8,15 43:24 44:7 44:12,18 45:5,9 53:12 56:20 58:6,13,22 59:6 monsantorelated 7:22 8:2,9,10,22 monsantos 9:18 10:7 13:5 14:21 21:14 24:5 29:16 32:19 33:2,6,15 34:13,21 46:5 51:24 month 7:13,25 mooyman 1:11 2:4 4:11 5:3 58:10 59:3 morning 47:8,9 48:18 moved 29:10,11 N n3:l,l,l,7 5:15,17,24 59:11,15 name6:18 13:1 22:3 28:23 29:4 32:7 40:3 named 45:15,20 names 46:3 naphthalenes 51:19 national 49:19,24 nature 23:1 ne29:5 nearly43:23 44:6,11,17 45:4 necessarily 16:4 negative 28:1 negligence 14:13 neither 57:11 never 23:21 new 44:16 newly 42:3 newspapers 32:17 nicholas 1:18 4:18 58:17 nishida 1:18 4:18 6:12 58:17 nonhodgkins 33:13,16 34:1,5 normal 60:3 northeast 29:5 northwest 29:6 nos 6:14 notary 56:15 notes 57:9 notice 1:6,23 4:6,23 13:7 14:17 17:12 22:24 29:19 30:25 32:22 33:19 34:10,17 35:23 36:21 37:6 38:4 40:2 41:10 42:10 44:1 58:6 58:22 november 2:18 5:10 56:3,22 57:15 59:10 60:7 number 27:25 28:22 29:2,2 30:16 46:8 numbers 28:17 numeric 29:2 nw29:6 O o 3:1,1,7 oath 7:2,7 object 11:1,9,19 13:6,17,25 14:16 15:1,11,19 16:15,19,20 17:11 18:11,17 19:4,8,13,20 20:1,9,15 22:8,23 23:13,18,25 24:6,8 25:13 25:18 26:2 28:7 29:18 30:4,24 31:8 32:21 33:18 34:7,9,16 35:22 36:5,9,20 37:4,13 38:3,13 39:6,25 40:11 41:8 42:9,16 43:4,11 43:25 44:19 45:6,13 objection 30:11 33:4 40:1 44:8 objections 13:18 16:23 30:5 42:17 44:8,13,20 observed 19:6 occupational 41:15 50:7,14,19,24 52:6,10,19 53:9 occurred 40:10 oettingen 49:6,8,13 offices 5:11 57:4 official 50:23 officials 39:18,19,21 oh 7:18,20 17:7 22:21 ohio 54:8 okay 7:21 9:8,17 17:7 18:25 20:13 21:7 25:6 28:12,15 29:25 32:1,25 34:3,12 37:23 39:2 41:12 42:19,21 43:1849:17 50:12 old 42:1 operating 45:15,20,23 46:2,5 opinion 33:20 opposed 16:21 17:4 organizations 48:19 original 3:19,21 37:19 52:1 59:10 osha41:12,14,20 42:2,4 outside 13:7 27:21 40:12 44:1 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT - DALLAS, TEXAS 214-741-6001 HARTOLDMONOOQ4569 EDWARD COLELLA v. MONSAN Deposition of: ROBERT KALEY 11/18/2011 9 overly 43:7,12 oversimplification 32:23 33:1 P p 5:15,15,17 59:11,15 page48:25 52:3,13 53:3,8,15 54:1,11 paid 26:16 60:2,3 paper 31:20 46:14 part 7:6 14:21 27:5 29:11 particular 29:3 46:1 parties 57:12,13 parts 11:11,14 patterns 11:25 paul 5:17 24:10 25:7 59:11,15 pcb 31:24 pcbs3:9,ll 10:7,14,14,15 12:6,9,12,15,19 13:4,5,16,24 14:24 15:10 16:11 17:10 18:4 18:16,19,21,22 19:1,2,11 20:18,21,25 21:4 21:14,20 23:15,17,22 27:1,6,11,15,18,22 28:1,4,6 29:15,16 30:1,3,10,23 31:6,13 32:8 32:11,18,19 33:2,7,8,10,12,16,25 34:5,15,22 34:24 35:11 36:17 37:1,11 38:1,12,18,23,23 39:4,12,13,20,23 40:5,9 41:1,3,7,16,20 42:8 42:15 43:23 44:6,12,18 45:5 48:20 50:9 51:18,24 52:22 55:10 people 17:23 18:21 19:1 21:14 27:11,14,21,24 31:14 32:12,13,18,20 33:3,8,9 39:12 45:15 45:17,24 46:19 percent 13:4 period 10:21 26:25 50:9 51:4,16 periods 10:19 personnel 28:11 pfizer 2:7 5:6 59:6 Pharmacia2:7 5:6 59:6 phonetic 13:2 physician 48:1 53:10 pick 12:22 40:22 piece 46:14 place 29:1 plaintiff 1:4 4:4 58:3 plaintiffs 1:12,21 2:5,17 3:8,10,19 4:12,21 5:4,10,16 6:2,20 7:6 9:10 58:11,20 59:4,13 plant 36:4,4,7 plaza 5:12,19,22 57:4 59:18 please 6:18 7:1 28:18,20 polychlorinated 51:2,15,19 position 29:16 33:2,15 possible 3:16 42:13 47:16 possibly 32:16 potential 12:1 18:18 potentially 11:20 predate 41:16 prefer 42:22,23 premiere 55:3,5 prepared 48:5 present 5:23 54:18 presentations 54:19 presented 31:2048:15 press 32:16 presume 49:15 previous 37:16 previously 9:2,17 primarily 30:19 primary 11:6,18 13:15,23 14:3,11,23 15:4,10 15:17 16:4,6 30:12 primitive 17:13 prior 40:9,24 41:5,23 prison 22:5,7,13 26:22 probably 7:25 11:15 40:8 44:3 45:21 46:13 problem 3:15 47:15,16 procedure 46:6 procedures 45:16,20,23 46:3 proceeding 32:4 50:23 proceedings 32:5 48:14,22 49:4,14,22 50:3 50:13 51:11,16 52:9 53:23 54:9,17,21 57:9 process45:25 46:17,20 produced 5:10 7:5 12:19 33:9 producer 12:5,9,12,15,22 product 15:21 production 34:21 products 9:24 10:24,24,25 11:7,8,8,18,24 12:1 15:18 professional 5:13 57:3 proofread 57:8 protection 34:24 35:2,4,8,12 provided 55:11 proviso 14:7 41:21 public 10:8 31:12 32:10 33:12 48:2,6 49:20 49:24 56:15 publication 47:22 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT - DALLAS, TEXAS 214-741-6001 HARTOLDMON0004570 EDWARD COLELLA v. MONSAN Deposition of: ROBERT KALEY 11/18/2011 10 published 31:20 47:19,20 54:22 putting 14:6 22:21 23:10 Q question 11:20 13:7 14:1,17 15:2,12,20 16:19 17:4 23:19 24:1,9,22 25:18 29:19,24 30:7,8 31:6 32:22 34:17 36:8,21 37:8,19 39:1,2 40:16 42:23,24 43:9 44:20 45:7 46:9 49:21 questions 15:23 22:24 25:2 37:12,17 42:19 43:2,15 47:3 48:17 55:17,19 quotes 32:16 R r 5:15 49:17,17 51:6 54:2 ran 22:2 48:13 read 9:5,6 47:14 55:21 56:2 reading 18:2 really 14:10 33:23 40:21 reask 3 7:22 reason 18:7,10,14 19:16 23:20 31:3 reasons 39:16 rec 45:23 recall 7:14 9:20 32:6 45:22 53:10 received 54:16 55:14 recollection 22:15 45:24 recommendations 41:1 record 6:9,19 24:23 25:2 46:22,25 55:23 refer 43:12 reference46:14,15 52:15 53:4,16 54:2,5 referenced 9:4 references 46:7,11 referring 28:13 refined 9:6 reflection 30:22 regard 32:11 33:12 39:9,10 40:13,14 41:1 regarding3:15 31:13 48:18 registered 5:13 57:3 regulate 40:4 41:7,9,20 regulated 35:19 regulations 37:25 40:8,25 41:23 regulatory 34:20 35:19 36:2,25 related 17:24 18:23 19:6 57:11 relative 57:12 releases 32:16 remember 32:2,4 37:19 46:8 remind 7:1 rephrase 43:8 reported 28:1 30:12,16 31:4 32:5 57:8 reporter 3:20,22 5:13,13,13 6:5 7:1,7 56:22 57:1,3,3,3 58:1 reports 22:22 23:9 46:18 representative 2:13 51:12 represented 5:16,18,21 representing 5:24 required 40:24 research 26:9 reserved 6:7 55:24 respect 11:21 20:18 36:6 41:3,8 43:19 48:12 responding 7:6 17:6 response 17:5 responsibility 10:23 11:7,18,21 13:16,24 14:4 14:11,24 15:4,10,17,20 16:5,6 34:14 responsible 16:8,9 20:5 responsibly 9:25 responsive 17:4 responsiveness 19:9 results 17:3 22:18 28:2 31:3 retained 3:20,21 retire 7:20 retired 7:12,21 retiring 8:9 reverse 30:7 reviewed 31:21,22 right 8:13 15:7 16:25 17:10 18:10 20:14 21:21 22:22 23:12,14 24:15,18 26:22 31:5 31:17 32:20 36:18 37:15 38:12 42:4 48:22 55:13,20 robert2:12 3:3 5:9 6:3,11 7:4 56:1,8 57:6 59:10 roughly 8:17,18 royal 53:16 rpr 2:22 56:22 57:19 60:9 russell 1:11 2:4 4:11 5:3 58:10 59:3 rutter 5:21 6:23,23 S s 3:7,9,11 5:15,24 22:10,20 26:7 40:7 41:21 49:20,24 50:2,5 sales 3:9,11 sanders 6:17 sauget36:4 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT - DALLAS, TEXAS 214-741-6001 HARTOLDMON0004571 EDWARD COLELLA v. MONSAN Deposition of: ROBERT KALEY 11/18/2011 11 sayers 49:17,22 saying 17:20 23:16 44:24 says 7:8 49:9,18 51:7 school 48:2,2,6 schwartz 53:4,6 scientist 26:14 scope 13:7 14:17 17:12 22:24 29:19 30:25 31:9 32:22 33:19 34:10,17 35:23 36:21 37:6 38:4,14 40:1,12 41:9 42:10 44:1 second 29:1 see 16:12 17:9,21 19:2 27:21 53:8 54:2 seen 23:21 46:5 sell 11:7 selling 45:10 sells 10:24 September 3:14 47:24 service 49:20,25 set 60:6 settings 55:11 shipment 40:9,24 shipping 41:22 short 46:24 shorthand 5:13 6:4 57:2 shouldnt 19:25 20:3 show 39:25 shown 17:15,23 shows 34:4 sic 48:5 sign 55:21 signature6:6 55:24 56:3 60:6 similar 22:20 32:9 sir 7:12 8:21 9:20,21 14:21 17:8 19:10,25 22:7 23:7 28:3 34:12 38:10 43:18 47:2 sit 32:2 41:12,25 45:22 46:18 six 46:11 slack 12:23 small 12:21 sold 10:8 11:18 13:16,24 14:24 15:10,18 sole 12:5,8,11,14 solutia2:7 5:6 7:17,22 59:6 sorry 7:16 12:16 30:20 34:8 37:9 40:14 47:16 48:3 52:5 sort 32:15 sounds 23:14 specifically 51:21 speculate 22:25 speculation 14:19 25:14,19 26:4 36:22 37:5 38:5 42:11 44:2 speech 14:8 16:21 springs 31:19 st 1:2,9,17 4:2,9,17 5:12,17,19,22 6:17 57:4 58:9,16 59:11,15,19 staff 48:1 standard 45:15,20 46:2,5 standards 9:18 14:22 34:13,20 started 37:17,20 40:18 state 6:18 35:15,18 36:16 39:19,19,21,22 42:7 42:14,24 43:19,22 44:5,11,16,16,17,25 45:4 50:7,14 52:7,10,20,21 53:20,24 54:7 statement 13:3 24:22 32:24 58:1 statements 31:12,15,18 32:10,15 33:12 states2:1 5:1 12:6,9,12,15,19 13:4 38:11,17 38:24 39:20 44:17 59:1 status 31:22,24 step 41:2 stewart3:4 5:16,17 6:20,20 7:11,19,21 9:12 11:4,13 12:4 13:11,22 14:6,21 15:16 16:1 16:20,24 17:7,8,20 18:15,20 19:8,10,18,24 20:5,13,17 22:11 23:4,16,23 24:4,10,25 25:4,6,7,16,25 26:8 28:9 29:23 30:9,18 31:5 31:11 32:25 33:11 34:3,12,19 35:25 36:8,14 36:24 37:10,14 38:8,16 39:8 40:3,17 41:18 42:13,19 43:5,8,14 44:4,10,15,22 45:9,18 46:21 47:2 55:18 59:11,15 stewarts 3:20 stipulated 6:1 street 5:17 59:11,15 strike 9:22 38:9 44:25 studies 27:25 30:1,12,22 48:13 study 30:17,17 33:8 studying 30:1 subject 11:22 13:8 15:24 23:2 29:20 31:1 33:20 37:7 subscribed 56:12 substantial 51:23 55:9 suite 5:12,17,19,22,24 57:4 59:11,15,19 summary 48:13 support 5:24 suppose 18:12 sure 11:4,10 16:18 29:12 37:21 49:16 50:1 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT - DALLAS, TEXAS 214-741-6001 HARTOLDMON0004572 EDWARD COLELLA v. MONSAN Deposition of: ROBERT KALEY 11/18/2011 12 53:25 survivor 1:19 4:19 58:18 suspect 32:15 swann 53:12 sworn 5:10 7:5 57:7 systemic 3:16 47:16,17 T 13:1,7 take 10:23 11:6,18 13:15,23 15:20 46:21 taken 2:17 6:4 9:14 15:9,17 46:24 56:3,22 57:9,12 59:10 talking 9:18 36:6 46:11 taxed 59:13,17 tell 13:14 31:17 33:1 52:17 telling 11:16 43:1 term 11:21 16:5 terms 8:5 test 16:11 17:14 18:14 20:6,20,24 21:3,8 22:17,22 23:9 tested 9:25 10:7,9,10 17:9,18,21 18:4 19:2,11 21:14,20 testimony 24:23 56:5 testing 10:11 16:17,18 28:1 29:14 53:14 tests 17:13,14,16 18:3,8 19:17,19,22,23,25 20:10,1621:11,23 23:11,22 26:1 27:8 31:2 texas 5:17,24 12:22 59:11,15 thank 43:21 thats 8:25 9:16,20 12:17,18 13:13 16:24 17:4 18:12 20:19,23 21:2 24:16,19 27:3,20 28:8 28:23 29:13 30:7 31:10 32:23,24 35:13 36:12,13 37:12 38:19 42:6,22 43:11,17 44:3 45:8 53:25 55:16 theres 14:19 25:21 31:15 33:24 37:5 40:2 42:10 44:2 46:13 53:4,15 54:1 things 23:17 25:2 48:19 think 11:23 13:21 14:4 15:22 22:12,15 25:3 25:16 26:5,6 31:10 32:23,24 36:11,12 38:21 42:13,18,23 43:15 thoroughly 9:25 10:7 thought 8:15 threshold 41:14 throat 30:15 time 8:3 10:4,12,14,18,21 11:12,14,25 13:20 14:7 15:8,14 16:6,7,10 18:3,23 19:6 26:12 26:25 27:4,5 31:25 35:10 39:12 47:3 48:19 50:9 51:4,16 52:18,23 53:19 55:4 57:9 tisa 5:23 title 32:1 47:14,15 today 14:9 33:22 42:20 46:19 told 8 :15 topic 28:9 34:13,19 total 59:14,18 toxic 18:16 19:1 toxicities 19:5 toxicity 18:18 48:12 toxicologist 26:15 toxicology 3:15 31:25 47:21 49:10,11 54:21 train 37:8 transcribed 6:5 transcript 3:20,22 56:2,4 57:8,9 60:1 transcription 57:8 translated 57:8 transportation 40:8,15 41:22 tried 12:22 45:9 triggered 17:17 troubles 23:1 true 8:11,21,25 9:15,16 12:6,9,17 16:14 17:8 18:6,12 19:3 24:12 26:10,14,17 27:2,15,20 28:3 36:4,13 38:10,21 39:3 42:8,21,21 43:3 43:10,17,17,19 44:3,5,7,10,12,15,23 45:2,8 53:11,13 56:4 57:9 try 29:25 45:11 trying 16:3 tucker 1:20 4:20 58:19 turn 28:9 34:19 48:25 52:13 53:3 54:1 twentyfirst 1:1,9,17 4:1,9,17 58:8,16 two 29:3 37:12,16 39:20 type 29:17 30:3 31:13 32:12 types 30:9,14 typewriting 6:6 typically 8:7 30:13 U u3:9,ll 5:24 22:10,20 26:7 40:7 41:21 49:20 49:24 uhhuh24:14,20,21,24 35:14 44:22 ultimate 10:23 11:3 12:2 understand 15:22,24 16:4,19 18:13 41:18 51:22 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT - DALLAS, TEXAS 214-741-6001 HARTOLDMON0004573 EDWARD COLELLA v. MONSAN Deposition of: ROBERT KALEY 11/18/2011 13 understanding 10:11 12:18,21 13:20 14:2 16:9 17:25 18:1 26:18,21 31:22 46:18 51:10 52:8 understandings 10:18 11:24 15:13 understood 11:11 12:1 13:21 14:4 15:4 16:5 46:16 undertook 16:8 union44:25 45:4 united 2:1 5:1 12:6,9,12,15,19 13:4 38:11,17 38:24 44:17 59:1 use 11:25 12:3 22:9,19 26:6 usually 45:24 V vague 15:23 16:19,21 17:4 36:9 38:14 values 41:14 vandustries 13:1 variety 41:15 various 28:1 39:16 55:8 videographer 5:23 6:9,25 46:22,25 55:22 videotaped 2:12 5:9 6:10 view 32:17,19 volume2:14 5:10 6:11 von 49:6,8,13 vosburgh 54:12 vs 1:5,13,22 2:6 4:5,13,22 5:5 6:12,12,14 56:19 58:4,12,21 59:5 W w49:6 want 9:21 17:2 34:19 wanted 48:20 warren 52:2,8 Washington 49:25 wasnt 22:17 24:4 39:1 way 10:15 16:24 17:1,3 23:20 39:23 week 8:6,16 welcome 43:22 went 22:13 26:22 weve47:10 48:4 49:2 52:3,13 54:15 whats 32:1 42:20 white 1:18,19 4:18,19 6:12 58:17,18 widely 54:24 wireworks 51:8 witness 3:3 6:6,7 7:1,18 14:20 16:25 34:8 55:20,25 56:1 57:7,10 words 33:5 work 8:19,24 25:8 45:19 worked8:l,13,1625:11 working 8:3 world 28:21 29:10,11 wright 24:10 25:7 written 46:19 wrongfully 25:16 x3:l,l,7,7 X Y yeah 25:5 51:25 year 7:13,23 8:2 york44:16 51:8 youre 15:5 17:20 21:19 23:16 24:22 25:1 35:18,25 41:5,19 43:22 46:11 47:11 Z 0 005:11 6:10 000 7:25 084004554 2:23 09 47:1 09slcc01964 1:22 4:22 6:15 58:21 09slcc01972 1:5 4:5 6:15 58:4 1 146:9 105:11 9:3,15 47:1 55:23 100 5:24 1039 2:24 10slcc03428 1:13 4:13 6:15 58:12 13 1:22 4:22 7:25 58:21 14 7:25 17 1:13 4:13 58:13 182:18 5:10 56:3,22 59:10 190 5:12,19,22 57:4 59:18 1930s 9:23 10:5,21 11:4 12:5 13:14 14:13,22 14:24 16:12 17:9,21 18:6,15,20 19:2,12,19 20:6,11,18 34:23 35:20 37:1,11,24 38:1,10 38:18 39:4 42:7,15 43:24 44:4,11,16 45:3 51:24 52:1 54:25 1937 3:14 47:24 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT - DALLAS, TEXAS 214-741-6001 HARTOLDMONOOQ4574 EDWARD COLELLA v. MONSAN Deposition of: ROBERT KALEY 11/18/2011 14 1940s 9:23 10:6 11:5 12:8 13:22 14:4 15:9 20:20 35:1 44:23 1950s 9:23 10:6 11:5 12:11 15:16 20:24 29:12 35:4 44:23 1960s 9:24 10:6 11:5,15,17 21:3,7 35:7 44:23 196821:12 1970s 10:6 11:5 12:14,17,20 14:12 197141:13,20 42:1 1973 41:4,5 1980 31:22 1980s 14:12 1983 31:24 1990s 14:12 2 205:11 8:16 55:23 2003 7:13,23 8:2 20112:18 5:10 56:3,13,22 57:15 59:10 60:7 25 8:16,20 57:15 60:7 27505:17 59:11,15 _____________________ 6________________ 600 5:12,19,22 57:4 59:19 60s 10:22 35:11,15,20 36:1,16 42:5 45:3 63105 5:12,20,22 57:5 59:19 ____________________ 7 7 1:5 3:4 4:5 58:5 70s 10:22 12:16 752015:17 59:11,15 75206 5:24 8 ____________________ 9 93:8,10 5:11 6:1046:23 99 13:4 ____________________ 3_______ 300 48:25 305 52:3 306 52:13 308 53:3,15 30s 35:11,14 36:1,15 42:4 31054:1,11 323:8,19 9:10,13 3255:17 59:11,15 333:10,19 9:10,13 343:14,21 47:4,11 49:2 52:4,14 ____________________ 4_______________ 446:10,12,15 48:5 40 8:7 40s 10:21 35:11,14,20 36:1,15 42:5 45:3 411cv01662 2:6 5:5 59:5 473:5,14 59:2,15 50s 10:22 35:11,15,20 36:1,15 42:5 45:3 53 46:23 5910 5:24 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT - DALLAS, TEXAS 214-741-6001 HARTOLDMON0004575