Document a42D0RR5m0Qng6Oxk4VVpjDdB

1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF ILLINOIS 2 ST. CLAIR COUNTY 3 FRANCES E. KEMNER, et. al. ) ) 4 Plaintiffs , ) ) 5 VS. ) NO: 30-L-970 ) 6 MONSANTO COMPANY, ) ) 7 Defendant. ) 3 9 10 REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS 11 Before the HON. RICHARD P. GOLDENHERSH 12 JURY TRIAL 13 April 15, 1985 (morning session) 14 15 APPEARANCES: 16 Mr. Rex Carr 17 Mr. Jerome Seigfreid On Behalf of the Plaintiffs; 13 Mr. John Musgrave 19 Mr. Joseph Nassif 20 On Behalf of the Defendant. 21 22 23 24 Debra M. Musielak, CSR, CM Official Court Reporter 1 1 2 3 WITNESSES CALLED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF: 4 1. PHOCION PARK (2-1102) 5 Cross E x a m i n a t i o n .......................... 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 2 1 BE IT REMEMBERED, that on the 15th day of April, 2 1985, the same being one of the regular judicial days of said 3 court, the above-styled cause came on regularly for hearing 4 before the HONORABLE RICHARD P. GOLDENHERSH, one of the 5 Judges at the St. Clair County Building, 10 Public Square, in 6 the City of Belleville, County of St. Clair, State of 7 Illinois. Whereupon the following proceedings were had: 8 COURT CONVENED: 9 10 EflQCIQfl .BASK 11 (being called as a witness on behalf of the Plaintiff, under 12 Section 2-1102, having been previously sworn, having resumed 13 the stand, continued to testify as follows) 14 CROSS E X A M INATION 15 BY MR. REX CARR 16 Q. Doctor, I have left with you a copy of Plaintiff's 17 Exhibit 1275, didn't I? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. And that is the m e m o r a n d u m that you wrote relative 20 to the T S C A meeting that you held and relative to the memo 21 that you had written on May 14th, 1979, isn't that correct, 22 sir? 23 A. Let's see, meetings were held on May 11 and Hay 22, 24 and this was subsequent to a memo dated May 14. 2 1 Q. Now, Mr. Park, the conclusions that your committee 2 reached at that time, the number one conclusion reached as 3 reported here for your May 22nd meeting, was that the 4 information that you had received does not support a 5 conclusion that the 2,4-dichlorophenol presents a substantial 6 risk of injury to health or the environment, and that in 7 order to prevent possible misuse of the product by a 8 customer, it is recommended that the responsible business 9 group send a letter to its customers for this product. Is 10 that correct, sir? 11 A. It does say the information evaluated was actually 12 something published in the F e d e r a l R e g i s t e r . 13 Q. Now, what misuse did the committee consider that 14 this 2 , 4-dichlorophenol might be put to by its customers? 15 A. I's sorry, I cannot recall specifically what it 16 would have been. I think they just felt that even though 17 this study had been published in the Federal Register which 18 is the official publication of government documents that it 19 would be well to inform customers about that information that 20 had been in the Federal R e g ist e r . 21 Q. Vieil, I take it the meaning of this is that there 22 was some misuse that the product could be put to even though 23 you may not recall just what the misuse is at this time, is 24 that correct, sir? 3 1 A. I guess it's always possible for a product to be 2 misused. 3 Q. My question, Mr. Park, you considered that there 4 were possible misuses to which this product might be put, did 5 you not, by you, I mean this committee? 6 A. I can't recall the extent to which we would have 7 considered the possibility that a customer would have 8 specifically misused the product. 9 Q. Well, it was important enough that it was one of 10 the two final conclusions or recommendations that you 11 reached, isn't that correct, sir? 12 A. Right, well, the second conclusion was that -- 13 Q. My -- 14 A. The customers be informed. 15 Q. My question it was one of the two conclusions or 16 recommendations that your committee reached, isn't that 17 correct, sir? 18 A. The recommendation that customers be informed, yes. 19 Q. Answer to my question is yes, it was one of your 20 two conclusions? 21 A. Well, I'm concerned about did you say it was one, 22 the recommendation that the customers be informed was one of 23 our two conclusions. 24 Q. That's what I've asked you. And, Mr. Park, it was 4 1 important enough that you believed that the customers should 2 be notified, isn't that correct, sir? 3 A. Well, again, we recommended -- 4 Q. Could you answer that question, Mr. Park? 5 A. I cannot go beyond the recommendation. 6 Q. Responding to my questions? 7 A. lie recommended that you say be notified, I don't 8 understand quite what you mean, you are not using the words 9 that we used in this memorandum, Mr. Carr. 10 Q. You made a conclusion and your conclusion was that 11 you should prevent possible misuse of the product by a 12 customer, that's a conclusion reached, was it not, sir? 13 A. No, that's not how it's stated, Mr. Carr. 14 Q. Did you reach the conclusion that there could be 15 possible misuse of the product by a customer? 16 A. That's not stated either. 17 Q. Excuse me, my question is did you reach the 18 conclusion that there could possibly be misuse of the product 19 by a customer? 20 A. I don't recall such a conclusion. The conclusion 21 22 Q. Excuse me, did you not say that the May 22nd 23 meeting ended with the following conclusions and 24 recommendations? 5 1 A. That's correct. 2 Q. And that number two was in order to prevent 3 possible misuse of the product by a customer it is 4 recommended so forth and so on? 5 A. That is correct. 6 Q. And you, therefore, did you not, it follows, did it 7 not, that you concluded that there was a possibility that a 8 customer might misuse this product? 9 A. VJas that a statement, Mr. Carr, or a question? 10 Q. No, Mr. Park, that's a question. 11 A. I don't recall that specific conclusion. This 12 appears to be a recommendation. 13 Q. Mr. Park, I'm not asking you to recall. 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Your specific -- because you stated you have no 16 memory, I'm asking you to interpret this document that you 17 wrote in -- on June 6th, 1979? And did you not reach a 13 conclusion in that meeting, that it was possible that 19 customers could misuse the product and you wanted to prevent 20 it? 21 A. I don't read this as indicating that conclusion, 22 Mr. Carr. 23 Q. Did you recommend that something be done to prevent 24 possible misuse? 6 1 A. Yes, we did. 2 Q. Then why would you recommend that something be done 3 to prevent possible misuse if you had not concluded that that 4 was something that needed to be prevented? 5 A. I thought that was an appropriate recommendation. 6 Q. Could you answer that question, please, Mr. Park? 7 A. Yes, we felt it was an appropriate recommendation 8 to make. 9 MR. CARR: Your Honor, would you direct the witness 10 to answer the question as I posed it to him. 11 THE COURT: Mr. Park, you have to answer the 12 question as it's posed, you are so directed. 13 A. Your Honor, I felt that I had. 14 THE COURT: I don't believe that you have. Now 15 answer the question, please. 16 A. Well, your question was how did we come to this 17 recommendation? 18 MR. CARR: Could you read the question to him, 19 please? 20 COURT REPORTER: "Then wh y would you recommend 21 that something be done to prevent possible misuse if you had 22 not concluded that that was something that needed to be 23 p r e v e n t e d . " 24 A. (pause) My answer is this seemed like an 7 1 appropriate recommendation to make to our customers. 2 Q. And why, sir? 3 A. Information that' could be of use to them in ' 4 preventing -- 1 5 Q. Why, sir? 6 A.' Misuse of the product. 7 Q. Then you did conclude that there could be a misuse 8 of the product? 9 A. Mr. Carr, I don't see a conclusion to the extent of 1 10 the conclusion in Paragraph 1 of the memorandum. 11 Q . I'm talking about Paragraph 2, numbered 2, Mr. 12 Park. 13 A. That's correct. 14 Q. You know I'm talking about paragraph number 2. I'm 15 not talking about paragraph number 1. Direct your attention, 16 please, to paragraph number 2, sir. r 17 A. Paragraph 2 -- 18 Q. You wanted to prevent possible misuse, did you rot, 19 sir? 20 A. That's correct. 21 Q. And what possible misuse is it that you wanted to 22 prevent? - I 23 A. I cannot recall any misuse. 24 Q. What possible misuse could there possibly be, 8 1 possibly? 2 A. X cannot recall, 3 Q. To what use -- well, then, at least there was a 4 misuse, could be a misuse of this product, isn't there, sir? 5 A. There could be a misuse of any product, 6 Q. And the misuse, what is this product used for, 'this 7 2,4-dichlorophenol? 8 A, I don't^know, Mr, Carr, that's not in my line, 9 Q. Do you not consider that, sir, when you determine 10 whether or not it should be reported to the EPA? 11 A, Yes, we do. 12 . Q, And did you riot consider it at that time, sir? 13 A. I'm sure we did. 14 Q. And are you telling this jury that you do not know 15 a single use to which-2,4-dichlorophenol is put by your 16 customers and the ultimate use of 2,4-dichlorophenol 17 products? 18 A, .Mr, Carr, there is an earlier memorandum that's 19 referred to here. I think the earlier memorandum may have 20 described some of the uses of the product. 21 Q. Would you direct the witness to answer that 22 question. . 23 THE COURT: Please answer the question that was 24 posed to you. That was not an answer to the question. I'm 9 1 directing you to answer the question posed to you. 2 A. May I refresh my memory by looking at theother 3 memorandum? 4 Q. Mr. Park, are you telling the jury at this point in 5 time that you have no knowledge of what uses, 2,4-dichlorophenol is put without looking for a memoranda to 7 refresh your memory? Is that what you are telling this jury, 3 Mr. Park? 9 A. "Mr. Carr, those meetings took place five years ago. 10 Q. Mr. Park, is that what you are telling this jury? 11 A, Let me respond to your question, please. 12 Q. I'm asking you, are you telling this jury that you \ 13 cannot respond in your mind, you have nothing in your mind 14 that lets you know or makes you think of what possible uses 15 or to what uses 2,4-dichlorophenol is put, are you saying 16 that, sir? 17 A. Mr. Carr, there are very few products that I have 18 familiarity with on a continuing basis. 19 MR. CARR: Your Honor, would you direct the witness 20 to answer? 21 THE COURT: Mr. Park, answer the question that's 22 asked of you. 23 A. Off the top of my head at this moment I cannot 24 recall the uses that this product was put -- 10 '1 Q. Not a single use, is that correct, Mr. Park? 2 MR. MUSGRAVE: Object, he's asked a question and 3 the witness has answered it. Now he's continuing to ask the 4 same question. The witness said -- 5 JMR. CARR: He said uses, I want to see if there is 6 a single use that he can recall. 7 THE COURT: Okay, your objection is overruled. Go 8 ahead. 9 A. I guess-I- cannot recall a single use at this time. 10 Q. And, you understand, Mr. Park, that you are under 11 oath and you are telling this jury that you have forgotten 12 the uses that we discussed just last Friday and you didn't 13 have any memo and you didn't need to refer to a memo then? 14 Have you forgotten what we discussed just last Friday as to 15 the uses to which 2,4-dichlorophenol is put by the customer, 16: is that what you are telling this jury, Mr. Park? 17 A. No, I'm not telling the jury that, Mr. Carr. 18 Q. Then, if you haven't forgotten it, if you are not 19 telling the jury then, then you have not forgotten, have you, 20 sir, you do indeed remember the uses to which, or some of the 21 uses or one of the uses to which 2,4-dichlorophenol is put, 22 don't you, sir? 23 A. Mr. Carr, what I tried to say -- 24 Q. Mr. Park, you do indeed remember some uses to which 11 '1 2.4- dichlorophenol is put, don't you? 2 A. ,At this. moment I'm sorry I cannot remember the ' 3 uses. 4 Q. You have forgotten all of those uses, can't recall 5 a single use that we discussed last Friday, is that what you 6 are saying, Mr. Park? - 7 A. Uses we discussed last Friday, those .described in 8 the other memorandum, Mr. Carr. 9 Q. Is what what you are saying to the jury? 10 A. No, Mr. Carr. 11 Q. Then please use your memory, use the resources that 12 you have in your mind to think back on what the uses of 13 2.4- dichlorophenol are, sir? 14 A.' You won't allow me to look at my other memorandum? 15 Q. That's correct, Mr. Park, because I don't believe 16 you are. telling us the.truth. That's the reason I won't let 4 17 you look at that memo. 18 MR. MUSGRAVE; Object to counsel's statement, ask 19 the jury be instructed to disregard it. It's improper. 20 THE COURT; Overruled,, it was in response to the 21 witness' request for clarification. 22 A. Mr. Carr, I'm sorry I cannot recall now the uses to 23 which this product was put. 24 Q, You said uses again, I'm asking you you cannot 12 1 recall a single use? 2 A. I cannot recall a use, any use. 3 Q. A single use? 4 A. 1Yes. 5 Q- And, Mr, Park, does Monsanto -- has Monsanto known 6 in the past that your memory, that you cannot remember things 7 from Friday until Monday? 8 MR. MUSGRAVE: Object to that totally improper 9 question. 10 Q. Is this something new that has come up since this 11 case started, your faulty memory? 12 MR. MUSGRAVE: Object to that again for the same 13 reason, as also badgering the witness. 14 THE COURT: No, I don't think so, objection is 15 overruled. I think it's proper cross examination. 16 A. Mr. Carr, unlike you, I didn't study this just 17 before we started today. My memory I think is at least 18 average, hopefully in general it might be -- 19 Q. Then what you are displaying today is not something 20 new. This is the way you have been since you went through 21 law school, X take it? 22 MR. MUSGRAVE: I object to that also, Your Honor, 23 may my objection to this entire lining of questioning about 24 commenting on Mr, Park's memory be a continuing objection? 13 1 2 noted. THE COURT: It may be a continuing objection. So 3 Q. Is this the kind of memory that you had in law 4 school, Mr. Park? 5 A. Mr. Carr, I found I have so many things to 6 remember, that if I write them down then I need not remember 7 them, then I refer to my notes. 8 Q. Mr. Park, when you take an examination in law 9 school, you are not allowed to refer to notes, are you, sir? 10 When you passed the bar exam, you weren't allowed to refer to 11 notes? 12 A. No, that's correct. 13 Q. You remembered at that time things you had learned 14 in the first year of law school, didn't you, sir? 15 A. That's right. 16 Q. And you passed the examination in Missouri and 17 Texas, didn't you, sir? 18 A. Yes, I did. 19 Q. Nov/, has your memory failed since you passed the 20 bar exam in Missouri and Texas? 21 A. No, it hasn't, Mr. Carr. 22 Q. Mr. Park, then you know we discussed a number of 23 uses to which 2 , 4-dichlorophenol is put, didn't we, sir, just 24 Friday, did we not discuss it, sir? 14 1 A. I don't recall that discussion in depth, Mr. Carr. 2 Q. Notwithstanding what we discussed then and I didn't 3 ask you about in depth, notwithstanding the number of years 4 that you served on this TSCA committee, notwithstanding the 5 things you discussed with the toxicologists, notwithstanding 6 the requirement that you have to know the uses to which the 7 product is put, if by your definition you are going to meet 8 TSCA, you are telling this jury today that you have forgotten 9 all of the uses to which 2,4-dichlorophenol can be put by 10 your customers and by their customers, is that what you are 11 saying, Mr. Park? 12 MR. MUSGRAVE; .Object, this has been asked several 13 times now, Your Honor. It's been answered. 14 THE COURT: It has-been asked and answered. 15 Sustained. 16 Q. Now, Mr. Park, notwithstanding-your present lack of 17 knowledge, your committee at least knew that there were uses 18 to which it might be put by a customer, is that correct, sir? 19 A. That's correct. 20 Q. And it considered that if they misused it that 21 might create a hazard to the customer, did they not, sir? 22 A. That's correct. IL k 23 Q. And that hazard would be based'upon the content of 24 the trichlorophenol as you understood it at that time, isn't 15 1 that correct, sir? 2 A. Both the government study and the 3 2,4,6-trichlorophenol content. 4 Q. And it was based upon that that your committee 5 believed that there could be hazards to the customer, what 6 kind of hazards could there be to your customers, if they 7 misused 2,4-dichlorophenol? i 3 A. There could be exposure to customers or the 9 environment as the general rule. 10 Q. No, I'm asking the hazard -- 11 A. But Mr. Carr, I've already stated that. 12 Q. I want to know the result of the exposure, sir, 13 what hazards you considered might result from being exposed 14 to 2,4-dichlorophenol? 15 A. You never want a customer to misuse a product. 16 Q. Would you answer that question, Mr. Park? 17 A. I can't recall the specific uses or misuses. 18 Q. I know you can't. I'm not asking you that. 19 A. That were discussed five years ago. 20 Q. I'm not asking you that now, Mr. Park, what I'm 21 asking you is about the hazard. The hazard that you wanted 22 the customers to avoid by not misusing the product. I've 23 left the uses of it. I'm now discussing with you the 24 hazard. What hazards were involved to the customers if they 16 i 1 misused the product?! 2 A. Mr. Carr, I can't now recall the specific hazards- 3 but there is always concern about hazards to the customers. 4 Q. You recall.the only hazard that the committee 5 discussed in May of 1979? \i 6 A. I assume'it would relate to exposure but I cannot 7 rule -- i 8 Q. Exposure is not a hazard, exposure is the means by \ 9 which the hazard develops, Mr. Park, and you know it. The 10 hazard is the health -effect. That's the hazard involved, 11 isn't that correct, Mr, Park? *, , i 12 A. No, the hazard would be exposure. 13 Q. .What would result from the exposure? 14 h. Health effects. 15 Q. That's what we are talking about. Now, what 16 hazards would result from exposure to 2,4-dichlorophenol that 17 your committee considered? 18 A. Well, it wasn't the effects, it would have been 19 possible misuse resulting in exposure. 20 Q. , And, well exposure by itself is meaningless. You 21 could be exposed to water, you can swim in water all day 22 long, there is no hazard unless you drown, unless you get in 23 your over head. You are not discussing swimming in 24 2,4-dichlorophenol. You are discussing at that time, Mr. 17 1 Park, the health effects from exposure to 2 2,4-dichlorophenol. Nov;, I want to know what health effects 3 was it that your committee considered might result from 4 exposure through misuse of the product by the customer? 5 A.- I cannot recall without some notes or something, 6 Mr. Carr. 7 Q. You don't recall that we discussed at length, Mr. 8 Park, the single health effects that your committee 9 discussed? 10 A. Can I see a memorandum or note to that effect? 11 Q. You don't recall that it was cancer and we 12 discussed it for hours last week, your committee had cancer 13 and you related the 2,4-dichlorophenol to one part per 14 billion of 2,3,7,8 as far as carcinogenic effects, you recall 15 that, Mr. Park? Surely you do recall that? 16 A.. In our. discussion, or your discussion with other 17 witnesses, Mr. Carr? 18 Q. Our discussion, Mr. Park? f 19 A. I could remember our discussing cancer. 20 Q. In relation to this memo and this meeting, can't 21 you, sir? 22 A, Not specifically. Would you give me some 23 specifics, please, Mr. Carr. 24 Q. Mr. Park, do you recall that we had the memo that I 18 1 suggested to you was written by Dr. Wilson and you read it, 2 we read it over and over and over as recently as-Friday in 3 which it said the carcinogenic effects of exposure to 4 2,4-dichlorophenol the amount fed the rats and the mice and 5 the NCI study was equivalent to one part per billion of 6 2,3,7,8-TCDD, you recall that? 7 A. I do recall a discussion of that mmorandum, Mr. 8 Carr. 9 Q. Now,1that's the hazard that you discussed in those 10 meetings, isn't that correct, sir, and you have 1275 in front 11 of you, sir. I've been referring you to it, that's the 12 hazard, the carcinogenic effects, isn't that correct, sir? 13 A. Not that I recall, sir. 14 Q. The hazard is right in front' of you, Mr. Park, 15 would you look at Exhibit 1275, the quote from Dr. Paget? 16 A. Would you like me to read it? 17 Q. Just to yourself, so that your memory can be 18 refreshed with the hazard you all discussed was cancer. Now, 19 is your memory refreshed, Mr. Park? /r 20 A. I'm not prepared to say that the hazard we 21 discussed was cancer. 22 Q. Mr., Park, my question was, is your memory 23 refreshed? 24 A. To the extent of this memorandum, it is, Mr. Carr. 19 1 Q. And cancer was the hazard that you discussed, 2 wasn't it, sir? 3 A. Apparently at this meeting that's written up here, 4 we discussed Dr, Paget's evaluation of this Federal Register 5 notice. 6 Q. Mr. Park, what I'm asking you, cancer was the 7 hazard discussed, wasn't it, sir? 8 A. I'm not prepared to say that, Mr. Carr. 9 Q. What other hazard was discussed except cancer? 10 A. Mr. Carr, I can't remember off the top of my head, 11 but this material may have a, may well have acute toxicity 12 that would have been discussed, 13 Q. Let me show you Plaintiff's Exhibit 1289, see if 14 that refreshes your memory as to the hazards that were 15 discussed? 16 A. Mr. Carr, this is someone's handwritten notes that 17 the author is not known, apparently, nor is it dated. 18 Q. Let me show you 1290, then, which is dated May 19 22nd, '79, and it refers to you at that meeting and we 20 discussed 1290 already, haven't we, sir? 21 A. I recall some discussion of Plaintiff's Exhibit 22 1290. 23 Q. What hazard is discussed in-Exhibit 1290? 24 A. Those are someone's handwritten notes, Mr. Carr, 20 1 and it's not at all clear that the matters mentioned here 2 were discussed at the.meetings. 3 MR. CARR: Your Honor, would you direct the witness 4 to answer the question I posed to him. 5 THE COURT: Mr. Park, that was not responsive to 6 the question. Please answer the question that was posed to 7 you. 8 A. This doesn't indicate whether it was discussed or 9 not. 10 Q. My question what hazard is referred to in that memo 11 1290? 12 A. It does mention that TCP -- 13 Q. My question is what hazard is discussed. 14 A. I can see the word, the words extremely weak 15 carcinogen. 16 Q. And do you recall that the NCI report discussed 17 lymphomas and adnomas, you recall that, sir, you had the 18 exhibit there, I think it's May 11th exhibit, I don't know if 19 you have it now. t 1 20 A. You took-all my copies of exhibits. 21 Q. Exhibit 1288, sir, does that help you, sir, to come 22 to the present memory as to what hazards you discussed at 23 that meeting, the second paragraph of that memo, sir, where 24 you discussed the fact that it was carcinogenic to F344 rats 21 1 inducing lymphomas or leukemias, carcinogenic hepatocellular 2 carcinomas or adnomas, you recall we discussed'that at some 3 length, Mr, Park? 4 A. Yes, that was the subject of -- 5 Q. Were there any hazards other than cancer discussed 6 at that meeting, that you can recall? 7 A, May I read this memorandum, Mr. Carr? 3 Q. To refresh your memory, Mr. Park, yes, 9 THE COURT: What number is that memorandum? 10 MR. MUSGRAVE : 1288. 11 MR. CARR: Let me give you Exhibit 1292, maybe that 12. can help you. 13 A. May I retain this one? 14 Q. Let me see, we have got -- we have got two exhibits 15 that are -- I don't know how it happened, Plaintiff's Exhibit 16 1288, I know how it happeed, 1292 is the one that has your 17 notes to it, sir. 1288 and 1982 are exactly the same except 18 1292 is 1288 with Mr. Park's notes attached to it, Your 19 Honor. 20 THE COURT: Thank you. * 21 A. The only health effect I see referred to in this 22 would have been this weak carcinogenic effect in the rats or \ 23 mice. 24 Q. And, then, the only hazard then that could be 22 1 referred to in your notes, your memo of June 6th, 1979, would 2 be the risk of cancer, is that correct, sir? 3 A. It's the only one mentioned in the memorandum. 4 Q. And you have no memory of any other hazards, do 5 you, sir? 6 A. .That's correct. 7- Q. Then, the hazard that your committee' wished to 8 avoid insofar as your customers misuse of the product is 9 concerned would be the hazard cancer, is that correct, sir? 10 A. Mr. Carr, there may have been others that I cannot 11 remember. 12 Q. I understand that, but as far as you can remember 13 right now, this is a hazard that you wanted to prevent if 14 there were misuse that,took place, isn't that correct, Mr. 15 Park? 16 A. I don't'really remember, that specifically, the 17 memoranda do speak of the weak carcinogenic effects in test 18 animals from the trichlorophenol. 19 Q. And it was the carcinogenic effects that you were 20 concerned about and that you wanted to prevent, isn't that 21 correct, sir? 22 A. I would say so. 23 Q. And now did you tell the customers that if they 24 misused your product that cancer could result? 23 1 A. I would not have been involved in customer 2 contacts. 3 Q. Do you have any knowledge that any customer of 4 2,4-dichlorophenol was told that if they misused the product 5 cancer could result? 6 A. Mr. Carr, I'm not involved in dealing with 7 customers. 8 MR. CARR: Your Honor, would you direct the witness 9 to answer that question? 10 THE COURT: Mr. Park, you have to answer the 11 question. Your answer was not responsive. 12 A. I'm sorry. / 13 MR. MUSGRAVE: You are asking him personally, Mr. 14 Carr, whether he did? 15 THE COURT; The question is clear. Go ahead and 16 answer the question, Mr. Park. 17 A. Since I am not personally.involved in customer 18 contacts;, I am not personally aware of the manner of customer 19 information. 20 Q. And you, Mr. Park, did not -- well, we have already 21 established that. The EPA v/as not given the notification and 22 you have no knowledge whether or -not the customers were given 23 notification, is that right, sir? 24 A. Yes, there ,was no substantial risk of injury to 24 1 health or the environment here, and so there was no need -- 2 MR. CARR: Your Honor, I fd ask the -- 3 A. You asked me-two questions, Mr. Carr. 4 MR. CARR: -- answer be stricken and jury be 5 instructed to disregard it. ' 6 THE COURT: So ordered, not responsive. The answer 7 is stricken. Jury is ordered to disregard it. You may 8 proceed, Mr. Carr. 9 Q. And, Mr. Park, you had other meetings relating to 10 2,4-dichlorophenol, did you not, sir, and directing your 11 attention specifically, you had meetings in January of 1981 12 discussing 2,4-dichlorophenol, did you not, sir? 13 A. I believe that's correct. I would like to see the 14 memorandum, Mr. Carr, if I may. 15 Q. And I intend to give you that memorandum, as soon 16 as I can find it. It's an exhibit that's already in 17 evidence. You had one Exhibit 1281, I'll give you, it's a 18 memo dated December 30th, 1980. And the other exhibit is , 19 undoubtedly in this stack. Jerry, do you have the number of 20 the January *81 memo? The original must be in with the 21 Clerk. I'll find the blow-up, be easier to find it, Your 22 Honor. It gives the initial number to start with. Would be 23 Exhibit 1241 if you have it. It would be -- start from the 24 front? All right, I've had it all the time, Your Honor. Put 25 1 where it should be. Sorry. 2 THE COURT: That's okay. 3 Q. Mr. Park, referring now to 1241, if you would, it 4 is the report that you wrote relative to the 5 2,4-dichlorophenol that was discussed in a memo dated October 6 the 10th, 1980, which is Plaintiff's Exhibit 1279, which I'll 7 also hand you, sir. Have you had an opportunity now to 8 refresh your memory, Mr. Park? 9 A. Let me have another minute or two, please, Mr. 10 Carr? 11 Q. All right. 12 THE COURT: While you are doing that, gentlemen, 13 could I see you at the bench for a moment? 14 (The following Side Bar conversation was had outside the 15 hearing of the jury.) 16 THE COURT: I don't know about this motion but I'd 17 like to have it argued after court today. 18 MR. MUSGRAVE: Okay. 19 THE COURT: So, whoever, you know, let them know. 20 If it's you congratulations, I'll see you after court. 21 MR. MUSGRAVE: Fine. Thank you. 22 (The following proceedings were had in open court.) 23 A. Okay, I've read through most of it, Mr. Carr. 24 Q. All right. Now, Mr. Park, the product in question 26 1 was 2,4-dichlorophenol, was it not, sir? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. And, you received a memo dated December 30th, 1980' 4 from -- 5 A- Hr. Carr, I'm searching here, I hate to -- it says 6 dichlorophenol, I guess I'm at a little bit of a loss, 7 because of unfamiliarity with the chemistry here, I'm not 3 sure whether that's 2,4-dichlorophenol or whether it isn't, 9 I'm sorry. I don't know if that's significant to your 10 question or not. 11 Q. I've given you the memo dated December 30th, 1980, 12 have I not, sir? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. And have I also given you a memo dated October the 15 10th, 1980? 16 A. Yes, , 17 Q. And, do you see, sir, that the subject matter is 18 2,4-dichlorophenol in those memos, sir, among others? 19 A. I don't yet, 20 Q. Do you know that the numerical system for Monsanto 21 is the 7,000 stands for 2,4-dichlorophenol? 22 A. No, I do not. 23 Q. Well, ;is your.memo discussing dichlorophenols then, 24 sir? 27 1 A; .Yes. ,2 Q. And it is also say that Diamond Shamrock uses 3 dichlorophenol to'make 2,4-D? 4- A. Yes. 5 Q. And, you discussed whether or not the TCDD 6 contamination in dichlorophenol was such that required the 7 notification under TSCA to the EPA, isn't that correct, sir? 8 A. Yes, -- I didn't completely hear as you were 9 walking away the first part of your question, you say -- 10 Q. Did you discuss at the January 6th meeting that 11 resulted in your January 7th, 1981 memo, Plaintiff's Exhibit 12 1241, the levels of TCDD found in the dichlorophenol as to 13 whether or not that required a notice to the EPA under TSCA, 14 isn't that correct, sir? 15 A. Yes, sir. t 16 _Q, And what was the level of 17 tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin that was discussed at that 18 meeting in the dichlorophenols? i 19 A. One to three parts per billion with one analysis 20 indicating a higher, level. 21 Q. And what was the higher level-that was discussed?. 22. A. It's not indicated in this memo, Mr. Carr. 23 Q. Well, if you look to the -- you discussed the memo 24 dated October the 10th, 1980, did you not, sir? 28 1 A. Right. Yes. 2 Q, And I've given you that memo, sir,, will you refer ,3 to that memo? 4 A . Yes. 5 Q. And what were the levels of tetras,' TCDD found in 6 the dichlorophenols, sir. I have on the board here Table 2 7 in that exhibit dated October the 10th, 1980, could you turn 8 to Table 2 that I directed you to earlier, Mr. Park? 9 A. It does appear that this sample 7003, I guess there 10 is a question as to what it was, but it could have been 9.5 11 parts per billion, if I'm reading this correctly here. 12 Q. And you discussed that at this meeting and you* 13 concluded that since those low levels are going to be diluted 14 by customers operations that it would'be unlikely to cause r 15 any health environmental hazard, didn't you, sir? 16 A. - That's right. 17 Q. And it-was bn that basis that you determined to not 18 notify the EPA, isn't that correct, sir? i 19 A. Well, that and no one at the meeting was aware of 20 any other possible harm that could have come from the 21 product. 22 Q. Where is the other harm other than the harm that 23 might be connected to TCDD discussed? 24 A. Well, it would have been for any other use, I'm 29 1 just reading the second sentence of that third to last 2 paragraph, Mr. Carr. 3 Q.' It refers to TCDD, doesn't it, sir? 4 A. That's right. 5 Q. It doesn't refer to dichlorophenol, refers to TCDD 6 level in that dichlorophenol, doesn't it, sir? 7 A* Yes. \ 8 , Q. And, that level was one to three parts per billion 9 with one analysis indicating nine and a half parts per 10 billion, is that correct, sir? ll A. ` It is not clear to me whether that means a 12 possibility of four and a half to nine and a half. 13 Q. It has been testified to me that is the nine and a 14 half, that is the part that coelutes with 2,3,7,8 TCDD. The 15 4.5 I think is included in the 9.5, but that's not important 16 at this point in time. That was the level you discussed, 17 wasn't it, sir? 18 A. Well, we discussed the entire analysis. 19 Q. All right. And this entire'analysis, the highest 20 level for the tetras was 9.5, wasn't it, sir? 21 A. According to your chart there. 22 Q. No, according to the memo that you have in front of 23 you dated October 10th, 1980, which you discussed? 24 A. Yes. 30 1 Q. And you determined that that would not constitute a 2 risk particularly when further diluted by customer's 3 operations, did you, sir? 4 A. That's right, 5 Q. You consider that a customer would take the 6 2,4-dichlorophenol and put it in a product where perhaps it 7 would be diluted by a factor of 50 percent or by a factor of 8 90 percent, something of that sort, isn't -- didn't you, sir? 9 A. It would have been diluted to some degree, yes. 10 Q. And you consider that? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. And that was important in your consideration, 13 wasn't it, Mr. Park? 14 A. That was an important factor, yes. 15 Q, And, you decided then that since they are going to 16 perhaps this 9.5 might get as low down to one part per 17 billion or below it, that that wouldn't present a hazard, 18 didn't you? 19 A. The consideration may have even gone beyond that, 20 Mr. Carr. 21 Q. Wow, you are speculating, Mr. Park, aren't you, you 22 are not going to pretend you got a memory for particulars at 23 that meeting when you can't remember what you discussed last 24 Friday, are you, Mr. Park? 31 1 A. If you let me finish occasionally it would be clear 2 what I'm saying. 3' Q. Do you have any memory of that meeting, Mr. Park, 4 any whatsoever? 5' A. Which meeting, Mr. Carr? 6 Q. The meeting we are discussing, Mr. Park? 7` A. I cannot remember the meeting, no, off the top of 8 my head without reference to notes. 9 Q. Mr. Park, you are fully -- you were fully aware 10, when you came to the courtroom that I was going to ask you 11 questions'about that meeting, weren't you, sir? 12 A. No, I was not so aware. 13 Q, You were not, you did not discuss this with your 14 attorneys? , ' 15 A. I discussed certainly my appearance with my 16 attorneys. <' 17 Q. You didn't discuss the subject matter of your 18 appearance? 19 A. We felt it would probably relate to my position as J L, 20 a member of this group that sits down to discuss TSCA Section 21 8(e). 22 Q. And they didn't tell you -or did tell you, I'm sure, 23 that Exhibit 1241 had been admitted into evidence on March . 24 27th. * 32 1 MR. MUSGRAVE: Object to asking questions about 2 conversations with counsel. 3 Q. Three weeks ago. 4 THE COURT: Objection is sustained. 5 A. There are thirteen, hundred Plaintiff's exhibits 6 now, they did not discuss every one of those with me. 7 THE COURT: Viait a second. Gentlemen, could you 8 approach the bench for a minute? j, 9 (The following Side Bar conversation was had outside the 10 hearing of the jury.) 11 THE COURT: When we get into specifics, I think we 12 might be getting into some attorney-client problems. I 13 'sustained your objection at this point as far as the 14 specifics. f 15 MR. CARR: As far as what he's discussed with Mr. 16 Musgrave? 17 THE COURT:. With Mr. Musgrave. 18 . MR. MUSGRAVE; Or any of the attorneys. 19, - MR. CARR: Yeah. 20 'MR. MUSGRAVE: Yeah. 21 22 (The following proceedings were had in open court.) 23 Q. (by mr. Carr) Now, Mr. Park, you w.ere aware of the 24 fact that you had been asked to, and you did produce your 33 1 files relating to the TSCA meetings and dioxin, isn't that 2 correct, sir? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. There has only been about three, isn't that right, 5 sir? Or even two? 6 A. Section 8(e) meetings? , 7 Q. Yes. 3 A. No, we have held a number, I would say, total 9 meetings of any subject? 10 Q. No, Mr. Park, you know what I'm talking about, 11 dioxin content in chlorinated phenols? 12 A. I think there have been, I would guess, four. 13 Q. Four meetings dealing with chlorinated phenols for 14 TSCA? 15 MR. MUSGRAVE: You said dioxin, Mr. Carr, 16 Q. Dioxin in the chlorinated phenols. 17 MR, MUSGRAVE:- Different question.' 18 THE COURT: Overruled. 19 A. I believe that's correct. 20 Q. Sir? 21 A. I believe that's correct, yes. 22 Q,, When were those meetings held, sir? 23 A. 1 I'd have to refer to my notes. 24 Q. Could you please? 34 1 A. Well, I don't have those notes with me, 2 Q. Because the only thing that I have., the only notes 3 that I have would be one for December 1981, and the one for 4 March f79 that we have been discussing, and this one now that 5 we are on for January *81? 6 A. Then there was one, I'm sorry, I forgot the dates 7 you mentioned, but there was one in January of '79, I 8 believe, that related to the Sturgeon spill itself, .9 Q. That was the TSCA meetings? 10 A. Yes, 11 Q. Then there were four indeed then? 12 A, Yes, 13 Q. And no others? 14 A. Relating to dioxin in chlorophenols? 15 Q, "Yes. 16 A. No, I think that's correct. 17 Q. And you knew, didn't you, sir, that I'm going to 18 ask questions about this meeting? 19 A. I didn't know for sure that you would, no. 20 Q. Well, I didn't ask ypu if you knew for sure, you 21 knew that was a topic, didn't you, sir? 22 A. ^ I -- * i 23 Q. You didn't refresh your memoryas to what I might 24 ask you about, the levels, what you discussed? t 35 1 A.1 Mr. Carrf this whole thing v/e are in is kind of a 2 new experience for me. I, frankly, did not know what to 3 expect, sir 4 Q. Mr. Park, would you now refresh your memory as to 5 whether or not you have any memory whatsoever as to what was 6 discussed other than as related in those memos at your 7 meeting of January the 6th, 1981? 8 A. I can't recall anything beyond what is in the 9 memoranda, Mr. Carr. 10 * Q. And, that memorandum refers to the tetra, TCDD i 11 content of the dichlorophenol in question, doesn't it, sir? 12 A. That's correct. 13 Q. And you considered that 9.5 would be diluted when 14 it got to the customer, doesn't it, sir? 15 A, What I was going to say, Mr. Carr -- 16 Q., Mr. Park, could you listen, kind of try to listen 17 to what, and kind of try to answer the question that I'm 18 asking, you? 19 A. Either that or that it may have been a blip, may 20 have been an incorrect reading. 21 Q. And you considered it might have been an incorrect 22 finding1at that time? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Now, is that somewhere in this memo? That's 36 1 something that you remember, isn't it, sir? 2 A. I notice in the December 30th, 1980, memorandum 3 there is some criticism of the, appears to be criticism of 4 the analysis. 5 Q. - Well, did you consider then that it might have been 1i 6 a mistake then when you decided not to notify the EPA? 7 A. Mr. Carr, X can't recall off the, top of my head, 8 I'm trying -- 9 Q. I'm asking you not to do it off the top of your 10 head, Mr. Park, Dig into the bottom of your head, dig into 11 the memos. 12 1 A. ` I am. 13 Q. Now, having dug into the bottom of your head and 14 into those memos, is that one factor that you considered -when 15 you decided not to notify the EPA? 16 A. That that might have been an error. 17 Q. Yes. I would think that would be one factor. 18 Q. Now, if it had been, if it was in fact, if you 19 hadn't had that doubt in there, would that have made a /' 20 difference in you notifying the EPA? 21 A. I don't know, Mr. Carr. 22 Q. Well, think about it, Mr. Park. 23 A. I guess I doubt it. I see here there were 81 24 samples, one had indicated a possibility of 9.5 parts per 37 1 billion. The use of the product being one where in fact it's 2 apparently the major uses as an intermediate product. 3 Assuming that would be a correct reading, I doubt that would 4 have been sufficiently significant to have warranted 5 informing the EPA. 6 ,Q. All right. Then you have a doubt, though,- you are 7 not sure, is that right, sir? 8 A. No, I can't recall the specific discussions, Mr. 9 Carr> that took place,. It's clear that it was concluded that 10 notification was not required, I feel pretty certain that 11 all relevant factors were discussed at the meeting as is 12 generally the case. 13 Q. And, Mr. Park, when you discussed all those 14 relevant factors and you discussed the fact that this might 15 have been an accident, accidental thing, and that all the 16 other findings just showed one to three parts per billion? 17 A . , Yes. 18 Q. Now, if you discovered that it was not an isolated 19 finding,`would that have made a difference, sir, it was not 20 an accident, not an artifact, not a blip? 21 MR, MUSGRAVE: Object, it's been asked and 22 answered, he already testified to that. 23 THE COURT: I think it's in a different context. 24 Overruled. 38 1 A. I don't think that would of made any difference, 2 Q. What level would make a difference, Mr. Park? 3 A. I have no idea. 4 Q. No idea at all? 5 A. No. 6 Q. What about the 250 parts per billion for total 7 dioxin content that we discussed last Friday, would that have 8 made a difference? 9 A, I don't recall that we discussed that, Mr. Carr. 10 Q. You don't recall that we discussed 250 parts per 11 biliion as a total dioxin concentration last Friday in the 12 products? 13 A. I can simply recall you asking me a question. 14 Q. .Mr. Park, you don't recall that we discussed at 15 considerable length the 250 parts per billion average finding 16 and tetra ethyl? 17 A. I can recall -- 18 Q. Of total dioxins, sir? 19 A. I can recall some discussion of that. 20 Q. - All right, then you do have some memory of what we 21 discussed last Friday? 22 A. With regard to the -- 23 Q. Sir? i 24 A. Yes, with regard to the, whatever it was, 250 parts 39 1 per million average.' 2 Q. 250 parts per billion? 3 A. Billion, yeah, average analysis in the tetrathal. 4 Q. And what if you had concluded there were 250 parts 5 per billion not 9.5 for tetra but for total dioxins, that r 6 there were 250 parts per billion of dioxins in this product, 7 sir? 8 MR. MUSGRAVE: Object,' speculation and conjecture. 9 THE COURT: Overruled. 10 A. Mr. Carr, it's important that here we are talking 11 about TCDD and in the tetrathal we are not. 12 Q. And what's"important about that, Mr, Park? 13 ,A. The TCDD is generally held to be far and away the 14 most to^ic of the various dioxins, 15 Q. Yes, and that's important then to take that fnto 16 consideration along with the toxicity of the other dioxins, 17 isn't it, sir? So if you have TCDD's in`the product, that's 18 a level of toxicity`to be concerned and you add to that the 19 concern,that you'd have about total dioxin in the product,, 20 wouldn't you, sir? 21 A. Well, some various dioxins very very low, very 22 little toxicity, I understand. 23 Q. Could you answer my question, please,, sir? 24 A. I'm-sorry,, I guess I thought I did, Mr. Carr, 40 1 toxicity of TCDD. 2 Q. Could you read the question to the witness, 3 please? 4 COURT REPORTER: "And that's important then to take 5 that into consideration along with the toxicity of the other 6 dioxins, isn't it, sir?" 7 A. Recognizing the toxicity is extremely low, if at 8 all in th other ones, the answer is yes. 9 Q. Could you answer my question? 10 A. Yes,. , 11 Q. You do -- it is important to take into effect the 12 toxicity of the other dioxins along with the toxicity of the 13 TCDD dioxins, isn't that correct, sir? 14 A. That's correct. 15 'Q. Because when they are added together, along with 16 the toxicity of the product without a contaminant, you are 17 then -- that's what you consider for total toxicity, that's 18 being shipped out of that Monsanto plant, isn't that correct, 19 sir? f 20 A.- You' are asking me questions now, Mr. Carr, that- 21 really are beyond my realm of knowledge and training; I am 22 not a toxicologist. 23 Q. And when you meet and draw up those, memos and make 24 those recommendations, you are not considering the total 41 1 toxicity of the product including dioxins that's therein, Mr. 2 Park? 3 A. We certainly do. 4 Q. And, Mr. Park, that's what I'm asking you here now, 5 because that's what you consider in your function in this 6 committee and that's exactly what I'm asking you now, not 7 asking you any question different than what you would 8. consider in those EPA notification meetings. Wow, Mr. Patk, 9 it is important that you consider the total toxicity not just 10 of the product without the dioxin content but the toxicity of 11 the product itself, plus the toxicitythat's, added to it by 12 the TCDD component, plus the toxicitythat's added to it by 13 the other dioxin component, isn't that correct, sir? 14 .,A., Mr. Carr, you are trying toput words in my mouth 15 again. The other -- 15 MR. CARR: Your Honor, would you direct the witness 17 to answer that question? I thought it was fairly -- 18 THE COURT: Mr. Park, I think you have to answer 19 the question as posed and your answer was not responsive., 20 A. .Okay. 21 THE COURT: Please answer the question as posed to 22 you. 23 A. We do consider the toxicity of the entire product. 24 Q.-, Is that a yes to my answer, Mr. Park, to my 42 1 question? 2 A. 'To the extent that other dioxins than TCDD have 3 toxicity, that would- be considered. 4 Q. Then that is a yes to my question? 5 Ai On that basis, yes. 6 Q. You consider the toxicity of the product without 7 dioxin content, you consider the toxicity of the product 8 including the TCDD toxicity if it has it therein, you 9 consider the toxicity of that product, plus the toxicity of 10 the TCDD, plus the toxicity of the other dioxins, isn't that 11 correct, sir? 12 A. I think that is correct. 13 Q. Now, Mr. Park, did you make any effort at the 14 January 1st, *81, meeting to consider what other dioxins 15 might be present in some of those products? 16 MR. MUSGRAVE: January 6? 17 Q. January 6th. 18 MR. MUSGRAVE: You said the 1st, I just wanted to 19 be sure what you were talking about. 20 A. I noticed that the the analyses that are attached 21 to the October 10, 1980 memorandum do indicate, as I 1read it, 22 that the analyses included a search for the other dioxins in 23 whether they appear there on the chart. 24 Q. And they had, did they not, for the sample in 43 1 question, 108 parts per billion of tri-dioxin, 553 parts per 2 billion of a di-dioxin, 15 parts per billion of a 3 mono-dioxin, isn't that correct, sir? In addition to the r 4 tetra that we have discussed? 5 A. It does appear on the chart. 6 Q. And, did you consider the toxicity of tri-dioxin? 7 A. Mr. Carr, I can't recall. I would assume that we 3 did. 9 Q. And you, of course, do recall that 10 tribenzo-p-dioxin is nearly as toxic as tetras according to 11 the memo that you have from the, dated May 22nd, 1979 12 meeting, isn't that correct, sir? 13 MR. MSGRAVE: Object, that's a misrepresentation 14 of the evidence, there are many isomers of tri- also, Mr. 15 Carr, you know the references to a specific isomer. 16 MR. CARR: You also know if you can identify it, 17 your company goes by the rule, is to assume it's the most 18 toxic and that's been testified to by a number' of your 19' witnesses. 20 THE COURT: Objection is overruled. Answer the t 21 question, please. 22 < A. I don't recall that, Mr., Carr. 23' Q. Well, would you refresh your memory and look at the 24 May 22nd, 1979 memo, I think you have it in front of you 44 1 Exhibit 1290 2 A. Well, it is not a memorandum, Hr. Carr. 3 Q. The notes of the May 22nd, '79 meeting, Mr. Park? 4 ,A. My notes. 5 Q. What my question referred to? 6 A. ` Those unknown-, those anonymous notes. 7 Q. By some member of your .committee? 8 Q. Not very anonymous, an employee of Monsanto. It 9 appears to be the handwriting of Dr. Wilson? t 10 A. I see a note on his -- this handwritten thing here, 11 Mr. Carr. 12 Q. That's my request referring to you, sir, that the 13 tridibehzo-p-dioxin is nearly as toxic as the 2,3,7,8, 14 according to that note by one of the members of your 15 committee in "79, isn't that correct, sir? 16 A. I cannot add any dignity to this thing beyond what 17 it has on it, Mr. Carr. 18 MR. CARR: Would -- Your Honor, would you direct 19 the witness to -- / 20 THE COURT: Mr. Park, that was not an answer to the 21 question. Answer the question. 22 A. The answer is I don't know. 23 Q. Mr. Park -- 24 A. -This will have to speak for itself,"Mr. Carr. 45 1 MR. CARR: Your Honor, I ask the Court to direct 2 the witness to assume that last week we established that this 3 memo pointed out that trichlorodibenzo-p-dioxin is nearly as 4 toxic as 2,3,7,8 and that this witness last week agreed, yes, 5 that's what the memo said. 6 THE COURT: So ordered. 7 Q. Now, Mr. Park, assuming as the Court has ordered 8 you to assume, this particular batch of dichlorophenol has in 9 it a 108 parts per billion of something that's nearly as 10 toxic as 2,3,7,8, isn't that correct, sir? 11 MR. MUSGRAVE: Object, that's an improper 12 hypothetical. There is no evidence as to what it is. 13 THE COURT: Overruled. 14 A. On the basis of the Court's instruction, it does 15 have that reference. 16 Q. Did you at this meeting consider this meeting on 17 January the 6th, 1981, consider the toxicity of 108 parts per 18 billion of this tridibenzo-p-dioxin? 19 A. I would assume that we had. 20 Q. And, not having any `independent recollection, it is 21 an assumption on your part without,any knowledge, isn't that 22 correct, sir? 23 A. That's correct. 24 Q. Did you discuss the toxicity of 553 parts per 46 1 billion of dichlorodibenzo-p-dioxin? 2 A. Again, I would assume that we did. 3 Q. And again you have no specific memory of it and you 4 don't know, isn't that correct, sir? 5 A. That's correct. 6 Q. Now, Doctor, -- 7 MR. CARR: I'm -- does the Court'-- I note I'm past 8 11. I'll be glad to go on if the Court wants. 9 THE COURT: Okay, I had missed it to. We will take 10 a short break at this time. Ladies and gentlemen, I would 11 admonish you, and this will go for any other breaks that we 12 take today, that you are not to discuss this matter among 13 yourselves, with anyone outside the jury panel or as of yet 14 form any opinions or conclusions about the matters on trial. 15 Court will be in short recess. 16 (Following a recess, these proceedings were had in open , 17 court.) 18 Q. (by Mr. Carr) Mr. Park, May 1979 meeting, the 11th 19 and the 22nd resulted in the June memo, dealt with something ( 20 that was published in the Federal Register, is that correct, 21 sir? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. And, of course, the _ed_er_aJL_Register has been used 24 in the past by the EPA to publish notices as well, has it 47 1 not, we referred to the rules and, or the interpretation and 2 policy that v;ere published in the Federal Register? So they 3 surely presumed to know that which is contained in the 4 Federal Register that they use themselves, is that correct, 5 sir? 4 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. And, Doctor, you testified last week that you need '8 not notify the EPA about things that they know about 9 themselves, that was one interpretation that you put at one 10 point in time upon the TSCA Section 8(e), isn't that correct? 11 A. That's correct. 12 Q. Why did you then meet in May of *79 to consider 13 whether or not notification should take place to the EPA', 14 since obviously it was in the Federal Register, they get the 15 Federal Register, they know of the contents of the Federal 16 Register. why did you even consider you are obligated to 17 meet? 18 A. The meetings are requested by other people. I do 19 not call the meetings myself. And we hold meetings whenever 20 anyone feels that the meeting should be held. 21 Q. My question is why was this meeting held, if the EPA 22 obviously, everybody at that meeting knew that it was in the 23 Federal Register because that's the subject of the meeting, 24 the 1979 meeting. I just can't recall, it may have been that 48 1 for that reason it was actually not necessary to hold the 2 meeting, but we did hold it. * 3 Q. Mr. Park, you know in point of fact simply because 4 the EPA may know something or is in the Federal Register or 5 they may know about a particular chemical, does not excuse 6 you at Monsanto from having those meetings, isn't that 7 correct, sir? 8 , MR. MUSGRAVE: Your Honor, I believe we have been 9 through this same question, has been asked several times 10 before that whole topic of the interpretation of 8(e) and 11 this witness'' interpretation has been gone into at length, iI 12 believe this is repetitive and I object to it. 13 THE COURT: Overruled, I don't think those- Federal 14 Register aspects were gone into before. You may continue, 15 Mr. Carr. 16 A. No, in my opinion it is not necessary or 17 appropriate to hold a meeting to consider 8(e) reporting if 18 the information is already known to the EPA. 19 Q. And is there any law, any policy, any statement put /* 20 out by the Government that agrees with your interpretation of 21 the requirements and the chemical company's? 22 A. I think the law itself does. 23 Q. Point it out, please, sir? 24 A. I don't have it right here, but the law, Section 49 1 8(e) . 2 Q. I want you to point it out, Mr. Park, 3 A. Well -4 Q. Those are in what order from now, they are stacked 5 on top of one other, what order are they in now? 6 THE CLERK: Which exhibit do you need? 7 MR. CARR: Exhibit 880, Monsanto's, and 881. 8 A. Monsanto's policy was in this bunch that was here 9 on the desk Friday. 10 Q. Here's 881. 11 A. Thank you. This is Section 8(e). 12 MR. MUSGRAVE: What exhibit do you have, Mr. Park, 13 please? 14 MR. CARR: 881 I just handed to counsel. And here 15 is Monsanto Exhibit 880. L 16 A. Thank you. In its entirety, Section 8(e) of the 17 Toxic Substances Control Act reads, "Any person who 18 manufactures, processes, or distributes in commerce a 19 chemical substance or mixture, and who obtains information 20 which reasonably supports the conclusion that such a 21 substance or mixture presents a substantial risk of injury to 22 health or the environment, shall immediately inform the 23 administrator of such knowledge, unless such person has 24 actual knov/ledge that the administrator has been adequately 50 1 informed of such information-" 2 Q. All right. Now, do you have actual knowledge, sir 3 4 MR. MUSGRAVE: Mr. Park, I believe you misread 5 that, I think it says "of such information" unless th person 6 has actual knowledge. 7 A, I'm sorry, 8 k MR. MUSGRAVE: "That the administrator has been 9 adequately informed of such information." You said 10 knowledge, I think information is used consistently 11 throughout 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Now, my question is, Mr. Park, do you at Monsanto 14 know, do you have actual knowledge, that the EPA has been 15 informed of those things that's published in the Federal 16 Register? 17 A- This policy statement in Section VII includes a 18 number of sources of information which it is assumed the EPA 19 has knowledge of. 20 Q. Would you direct me to that Section VII of Monsanto 21 Exhibit 880? 22 A. Yes. In the -- 23 Q. Roman numeral VII? 24 A. Yes. J 51 1 Q. All right. Would you point out where it describes 2 the Federal `Registerf sir? 3 A. I don't see a reference to the Federal Register 4 itself in this -- 5 Q. All right. Now, Mr. Park, will you point out to me 6 where the lav/ exempts Monsanto from informing EPA of the fact 7 that a batch of its material has been found to be 8 contaminated with something that it didn't know was there 9 before? 10 A.. We are back to the substantial risk of injury 11 question, Mr. Carr. 12 Q. No, as far as the knowledge of the EPA, you said 13 that they know about 2,4-dichlorophenol, is what you said. 14 They know about it. I'm asking you, sir, you are required to 15 have actual"knowledge that they know that your product 16 contains'dioxin, isn't that correct, sir? 17 A. Well -- 18 Q. ; If dioxin has a substantial health risk? 19 A. If the EPA has knowledge of some information then 20 certainly no reporting obligation exists with respect to that 21 information. 22 Q. And my question is, sit, do they have actual 23 knowledge that the'batch referred to here in January 7th, 24 1981 memo, Exhibit 1241 A, do they have actual knowledge that 52 1 that batch contained nine and a half parts per billion of 2 tetra, 108 parts per billion-of tri-, 553 parts per billion 3 of dichlorophenol dibenzo-p-dioxin? 4 A. So far as I am aware, they don't. 5 Q. And is there any place in the Statute that exempts 6 you from giving that information where you know.they don't 7 have actual information? 8 A. If I understand you correctly, no, the only 9 exception to the obligation is where the EPA has the 10 information. 11 Q. Yes. And you considered in January of *81 the 12 possible exposure, didn't you, sir? 13 A. I just don't recall the exact discussion, Mr. Carr, 14 I would assume that we would. 15 Q. Your memo discusses customer dilution, doesn't it, 16 sir? 17 A. Yes. 18 MR. MUSGRAVE: Your Honor, we have been through all 19 this before. He's-asked him thisquestion two or three times 20 already this morning. He's answered does discuss it. 21 Q. That's exactly the point, it does discuss possible 22 customer dilution and exposure, doesn't it, sir? 23 THE COURT; Objection is overruled. 24 A. It discusses customer dilution. 53 1 Q. And that relates to what they will or will not be 2 exposed to, isn't that correct, sir? 3 A. It doesn't say this, Hr. Carr. 4 Q, . Isn't that the meaning of it, sir?. What difference 5 does it make if it's diluted or not diluted, if they are not 6 going to be exposed to it, you consider risks involved in the 7 exposure of this diluted substance, didn't you, sir, this 3 diluted chemical? 9 A. Mr. Carr, as I stated, I cannot remember the exact 10 discussions that went on. II Q. I didn't ask you to remember the exact discussions, 12 what I'm saying is this memo shows that you on that committee 13 considered the actual exposure that customers might be 14 presented by this low level of TCDD in your product, isn't 15 that correct, sir? 16 A. I don't remember. 17 Q. I'm not asking you to remember, doesn't this memo 18 show that because you concluded that it was going to be 19 diluted that it,refers to customers exposure? 20 A. It doesn't say that, Mr. Carr. 21 Q. . You don't take that to mean that, Mr. Park? 22 A. It says the extremely low levels of TCDD will be 23 further diluted by customer operations. 24 Q. And was particularly when further diluted we would 54 1 be unlikely to cause any health environmental effects, isn't 2 that correct, sir? 3 A. Yeah. 4 Q. Sir? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. So* you did consider and this memo points out that 7 you considered exposure to the customer of this diluted 8 chemical, isn't that correct, sir? 9 A. Mr. Carr, I just cannot remember the discussions. 10 Q. Mr. Park, I am not asking you to remember, I'm U asking you to give me the plain sense of those words that 12 I've just read to you, that you used in your memo of January 13 7th, 1981? 14 A. The plain meaning as I see it is that any levels of 15J TCDD in the dichlorophenol would be so low after customer 16 dilution as to present no hazard. 17 Q. And the exposure would be to say as to present no 18 hazard, isn't that correct? 19 A. I don't see the word exposure. 20 Q. Isn't that the meaning, sir, when you are 21 discussing the customer dilution, the ultimate use of the 22 product? 23 MR. MUSGRAVE: Object to this, Your Honor, the 24 witness has answered the question, he's referred to the 55 1 sentence that Mr. Carr has asked him to, answered it 2 interpreting what he feels it means, referring to levels, and 3 it's very clear what he testified to and Mr. Carr insists 4 upon asking the same question. I object to it, it's 5 repetitive. This is the same topic going over and over 6 again. 7 THE COURT: Overruled. 8 A. I don't know, Mr. Carr. 9 Q. You don't know what the meaning of this paragraph 10 involves considering customer exposure after the chemical has 11 been diluted? 12 A. I assume it. 13 Q, You don't know that, Mr. Park? 14 A, I assume it means just what it says. 15 Q. I'm sorry? 16 A. I assume it means just what it says. 17 Q. VJhat does it say relative to customers health, are 18 they going to be at greater risk because it's diluted or be 19 at lesser risk because it's diluted? 20 A. It doesn't specifically state. 21 Q. Vihat does it state, are they going to be at greater 22 risk or lesser risk after it's diluted, what is the plain 23 meaning of that, Mr. Park? 24 A. It implies that any TCDD levels in the product will 56 1 be reduced v;hen the product is diluted by the customers 2 operations. 3 Q. And that when one is exposed to this reduced or "v 4 diluted TCDD, what does that do wi-th the health risk, does 5 that increase the health risk or decrease the health risk? 6 MR. MUSGRAVE: Object, that's a 7 mischaracterization. It's not reduced TCDD, it's reduced 8 level,,and that's what the witness is testifying to. 9 THE COURT: Overruled. 10 A. It just doesn't state, Mr. Carr. 11 Q. Mr. Park, I'm asking you what this means, are you 12 now swearing in front of this jury that this paragraph does 13 not consider customer exposure to the product? 14 A. No, I'm not so swearing. 15 Q. Then you know this paragraph does consider customer 16 exposure, don't you, sir? 17 A. I think the memorandum should speak for itself, Mr. 18 Carr. 19 Q. Would you answer that question, please, Mr. Park? 20 A. No. 21 MR. CARR: Your Honor, will you direct -- did you 22 answer the question, you simply -- 23 A. No, I'm answering your question. 24 Q. This does not refer to exposure or does it refer to 57 1 2 A. I just don't recall, Mr. Carr. 3 Q. No, Mr. Park, again I'm not asking you to recall, 4 I'm asking you whether or not this paragraph contemplates 5 customer exposure to the product after it's been diluted, and 6, after it's been diluted that exposure it would be unlikely to 7 cause any health problems, did you not of necessity when you 8 considered that paragraph and concluded to put that paragraph 9 in there, did you not of necessity, consider customer 10 exposure to this product in its diluted state? 11 A. Mr. Carr.-- 12 MR. MUSGRAVE: Object, this question has been asked 13 and answered. He has interpreted this sentence for Mr. Carr 14 to the best of his ability about two times now. 15 THE COURT: Object -- 16 MR. MUSGRAVE: I object, this is repetitive* 17 THE COURT: It has been asked, excuse me, I don't 18 think it has been answered and your objection is overruled. 19 It's properly asked again. 20 A. I don't see how I can add to the memorandum, Mr. 21 Carr. 22 Q. Your Honor, would you direct the witness to 23 answer? 24 THE COURT; Mr. Park, you have to answer the 58 1 1 question as directly posed to you. 2 A. I *m sorry. 3 THE COURT: I've ruled it is a proper question. 4 A. Okay, could I impose on your clerk -- 5 THE COURT: What did you say? 6 A. Could I impose to read -- 7 THE COURT: You can read it back to him once. 8 COURT REPORTER: "No, Mr. Park, again, I'm not 9 asking you to recall, I'm asking you whether or not this 10 paragraph contemplates customer exposure to the product after 11 it's been diluted, that exposure, it would be unlikely to 12 cause any health problems. Did you not of necessity when you 13 considered that paragraph and concluded to put that paragraph 14 in there, did you not of necessity consider customer exposure 15 to this product in its diluted state?" 16 A. I don't know. 17 MR. CARR: Your Honor, would you direct the witness 18 to answer this question? 19 j 20 know. 21 MR. MUSGRAVE: He has, Your Honor, says he doesn't i MR, CARR: I think he's contemptuous of the Court. 22 I think the questions that I've asked for the last five 23 minutes admit of only one conclusion and this witness knows 24 that he dare not giye the only conclusion that can be given, 59 1 and I think it's contemptuous that -- I think it's a mockery 2 of the system that I should go around phrasing the question 3 thirty different ways and then the witness comes up and says 4 I don't know that that's the meaning. He has the education, 5 he has the intelligence, he has the background to know that 6 that is the plain meaning of that paragraph. 7 MR. MUSGRAVE: I object, Your Honor, to counsel's 8 speech. I object to counsel's insinuations. I request the 9 Court instruct the jury to disregard them. I ask that the 10 Court admonish Mr. Carr to stop theatrics and stop making 11 inappropriate and improper comments like that. The witness 12 has answered the question when he was asked didn't he 13 consider and he says I don't know. Is there anything wrong 14 with a witness in this court or any court in the United 15 States not being able to answer question because he doesn't 16 know? Just because it doesn't satisfy Mr. Carr. This is 17 totally improper. I object for all of those reasons. 18 THE COURT: Your objections are overruled. I don't 19 think your answer is responsive to the question. The 20 question has been asked of you a number of times. It has 21 been read back once. I am directly ordering you to answer 22 the question posed to you. 23 MR. MUSGRAVE: Are the rest of my requests also 24 overruled for the record? 60 1 1 THE COURT: Yes, they are. They most certainly 2 are. 3 A. Your Honor, are you instructing me that I must 4 ansv/er either yes or no? 5 THE COURT: I most certainly am. 6 A. Even though it contains what I consider to be 7 improper limitations and premises? 8 THE COURT: I have ruled that the answers that you 9 have given are not responsive and that the question posed to 10 you is proper. Answer. 11 A. You will not allow me to answer that I don't know? 12 THE COURT: I will not allow that kind of ansv/er, 13 it does not call, for that kind of answer. 14 A. Then within those constraints, I would respond that 15 along with many other considerations, exposure to the product 16 would probably have been considered. 17 MR. CARR:, Your Honor, that again is not a response 18 ,to my question. My question is as to the plain meaning of 19 this paragraph, not whether probably would have been / 20 considered. He can ansv/er that question that of necessity 21 this paragraph contemplates discussion of, consideration of 22 exposure by customers after the product is diluted, does it 23 not, Mr. Park? 24 A. Among many other things, yes. 61 1 Q- And Mr. Park, that follows because' in the 2 preliminary paragraph to it, you pointed out the uses to 3 which the product is put, did you not, sir? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. And the only reason you would consider the uses' to 6 which it is put, is because you are going to consider the 7 exposure following from such use, isn't that correct, Mr. 8 Park? 9 A. There could be other reasons, Mr. Carr. That would 10 be one. 11 Q. And, you have considered the fact that 12 dichlorophenol is used to manufacture 2,4-D, didn't you, sir? 13 A. I don't remember that. 14 Q. The memo states that you considered that, doesn't 15 it, sir? 16 A. Yes, it does. 17 Q. And you know what 2,4-D is, don't you, sir? 18 A. I'm not well informed on it, I believe it's a 19 .herbicide. 20 Q. It's used on people's lawns to kill weeds and 21 dandelions isn1t it, sir? 22 A. (shrugs shoulder) 23 Q. Don't put your hands up, you know that for a fact, 24 don't you, sir? 62 'i 1 HR. MUSGRAVE : Object, he's arguing with the 2 witness. 3 THE COURT : Overruled. 4 Q. You know that, don't you, Mr. Park? 5 A. I am not well informed on its -- 6 Q. I'm not asking you if you are well informed, you 7. know that 2,4-D is used to kill dandelions on people's lawns, 8 don't you, sir? 9 A. No, I don't, Mr. Carr, particularly. I don't know 10 what the ingredients of this can are that you put up here. 11 Q. And 'I'm not asking you about that can, Mr. Park, 12 I'm asking you about 2,4-D. 13 A. I don't know that people put it on their lawns. I 14 believe I have heard that it is a herbicide. 15 Q. And do you know -- 16 A. Kills vegetation. 17 Q. And do you know if it kills vegetation, it would 18 kill dandelions on people's lav/ns, you know that, don't you, 19 sir? 20 A. I might be afraid it would kill the grass, I don't 21 know, this is beyond my area of expertise. 22 Q. When you discussed -- when this memo discusses that 23 it's being used to manufacture 2,4-D, can you consider at 24 that time what 2,4-D is going to be used for? 63 1 A. Mr. Carr, I cannot recall the discussions that went 2 on during the meeting, the discussions. 3 Q. You pointed out in this memo that in addition to 4 using it for other customers to use it to make 2,4-D, others 5 incorporated into oil well additives, isn't that correct, 6 sir? 7 A. That's correct. 3 Q. And you considered those uses at that time, didn't 9 you, sir? As pointed out by the memo? 10 A. Uh-huh, yes. 11 Q. And, you concluded, did you not, sir, that the 12 exposure in using this product in those methods would not 13 constitute -- would be unlikely, when it's further diluted, 14 would be unlikely to cause any health or environmental 15 hazard? 16 A. Particularly when it's for the -- 17 Q. Now, when you considered that, you did go beyond 18 the restraints of the law, didn't you, sir, the policy set 19 out by the EPA relative to that law, isn't that correct, sir? 20 A. Not at all. 21 Q. Did you consider that there was sufficient evidence 22 of exposure simply because it went into commerce? 23 A. I explained last week, Mr. Carr. 24 Q. Excuse me, my question is did you consider at that 64 1 time at this meeting in January of *81, that there would be, 2 that the mere fact that it went into commerce was sufficient 3 evidence of exposure? 4 A. Mr. Carr, I can't recall the exact discussions that 5 took place, I said that several times now. 6 Q. And did I ask you to recall the exact discussions, 7 my question -- would you read back the question? 8 COURT REPORTER: "Excuse me, my question is did you 9 consider at that time at this meeting in January of *81, that 10 there would be, that the mere fact that it went into commerce 11 was sufficient evidence of exposure?" 12 A. Frankly, I do not recall. 13 Q. Now, Mr. Park, you didn't say that this dilution 14 would not cause a hazard to health, did you, sir? You simply 15 said in your memo after it's diluted it would be unlikely to 16 cause any health problems, didn't you, sir? 17 A. That's correct. 18 Q. That means, did it not, sir, that it's possible 19 that there could be serious health effects by the use of even 20 diluted 2,4-dichlorophenol that contains 9.5 parts per 21 billion of TCDD? 22 A. I don't think so. f 23 Q. And you are saying then that the -- * this means that 24 there is no -possibility of any bad effects or health effects 65 1 if using 9,5 parts per billion of TCDD in a diluted product? 2 A. Not being a toxicologist I would feel it would be 3 extremely unlikely to occur.. 4 Q. You didn't even use the word extremely unlikely, 5 you used the words would be unlikely, didn't you, sir? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q, And that means(that you cannot exclude the 8 possibility that someone would be injured by this TCDD even 9 as it is diluted in the customer's use o,f it, isn't that 10 correct, sir? 11 A. I wouldn't read it that way, Mr. Carr. 12 Q. I 'm sorry? i 13 A. I would not read it that way. 14 .Q. Did you say there is no possibility that it would 15 cause any health or environmental, harm, sir? 16 A. Did not say that. 17 Q. You said it would be unlikely. Unlikely means not 18 likely but certainly possible, doesn't it, sir? 19 A. I would say it means not likely. 20 Q. And not likely means that it could occur, doesn't 21 it, sir? 22 A. Yeah, likely means it probably will occur. 23 Q. Likely means it probably will occur, but you are 24 not even saying for sure that it will occur. Unlikely means 66 1 that it probably won't occur, isn't that correct? 2 A, I don't know, I guess I'd say likely means it will, 3 unlikely, that it won't. 4 Q. Unlikely that it won't, that's a double negative, 5 you are now saying that it will. 6 A. You misunderstood what I said, Mr. Carr, I was 7 trying to give you my impression of the words likely and 8 unlikely. 9 Q. You just said a moment ago that likely means it 10 probably will cause harm? 11 A. Well -- 12 0. Isn't that correct? 13 A. Then I went on to say I guess likely would mean 14 that it will. 15 Q. I thought you said that likely means it probably 16 will? ' 17 A. I did at one time then I said on the other hand 18 maybe likely means that it will cause harm. 19 Q. And now you are changing that because you know, Mr. 20 Park, that likely doesn't mean for sure that it will, but 21 simply that it probably will not a hundred percent sure that 22 it v/ill cause it, but that it's your judgment that it 23 probably will cause this harm, isn't that correct, sir? 24 A. I really don't know, Mr. Carr. 67 1 Q. Can't you equate that if you are going through a 2 .school zone where there are children present and the speed 3 limit says 20 miles per hour and if you go above 20 miles per 4 hour,, 50 miles per hourr it's probable that you are going to 5 cause some harmf likely that you are going to cause harm, 6 isn't that correct, sir, if you speed through a school zone, 7 isn.'t it probable that you will cause harm, if there are 3 children present? 9 A. I don't know, Mr. Carr, it would be a very improper 10 thing to do. 11 Q. Indeed it would., because that 20 mile per hour is a 12 speed limit and you are not supposed to go above that, they 13 set a safe limit, didn't they, sir, what they considered to 14 be safe, isn't that right, sir? 15 A. True, but Mr. Carr -- 16 ;Q. There is no question about that, is there, sir,? 17 A. Right. 18 Q. If you saw a sign that says 20 miles per hour in a 19 school zone when children are present, there^ is no question 20 in your mind but that that is a limit above which you should 21 not go, isn't that correct, sir?. 22 A. That's correct. 23 Q. And there wouldn't be any doubt in the minds, say, 24 of somebody that went to Harvard and had a Ph.D., anybody 68 1 that sees a speed limit sign that says 20 miles per hour in a 2 school zone when children are present, he must interpret that 3 to mean don't go above that because you may cause harm to 4 somebody if you go above that speed, under those 5 circumstances, isn't that correct, sir? 6 A- ' I would assume so. 7 Q. You would assume so, you know so, don't you, sir, 8 that's the purpose of the sign? 9 A. You are supposed to stay within the speed limit. 10 Q. In order to protect the safety of those children 11 that are in that area at that time, isn't that correct, sir? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q- And there is no question about that, is there, 14 sir? Is there, sir? 15 A. No, about staying within the speed limit? 16 Q. That 20 mile per hour is a speed limit that is set 17 for the sake of the safety of the children, isn't that 18 correct, sir? 19 A. To the best of my knowledge, yes. 20 Q. Mr. Park, the mere fact that you use the word 21 unlikely in this memo means that you believe it is not 22 probable that somebody's health is going to be harmed, isn't 23 that correct, sir? 24 A. I would read it to mean that health would not be 69 1 harmed, health nor -- 2 Q. Why didn't' -- then Mr. Park why didn't you say it 3 will not cause any health effects, why didn't you use that 4 word? You are skilled in the use of words, you've been to 5 law school, you use words with precision, you know what the 6 word unlikely means. Unlikely means it's not probable, 7 doesn't it, sir? It doesn't mean won't^ it means not 8 probable, doesn11 It, sir ? 9 1 A. I don't know, Mr. Carr. 10 Q. And did you not know the meaning of the word 11 unlikely when you used it in this memo, sir? 12 A. No, I think I knew the, meaning of the word. 13 Q. And, did your idea of the meaning of that word 14 differ from the ordinary meaning of that, did you have a 15 special meaning to that' word other than what would be in the 16 dictionary, sir? Did you have your own unique meaning? 17 A. No. 18 Q. You used that word the. way others use it, didn't 19 you, sir? 20 MR. MUSGRAVE: Object to counsel,now asking this 21 witness to determine how others might use it in this 22 particular context.L It requires this witness to draw 23 conclusions, speculate as to what others'may or may not do. 24 MR. CARR: " Let me withdraw it. 70 1 Q. You meant this memo to be read by others and- to be 2 interpreted by others, didn't you, sir? 3 A. This memo really describes the conclusions reached 4 by the group that met -- ' 5 MR. CARR: Would you direct the witness, to answer 6 the question. 7 THE COURT: That was not responsive, you'll have to 8 answer the question that's asked of you, Mr. Park. Please 9 answer. 10 A. Yes, it would ultimately be read by others. 11 Q. And you meant to convey to those others particular 12 meanings, didn't you, sir? 13 A. Yes. 14 MR. CARR: Your Honor, it's noon. 15 THE COURT: Okay. Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, we 16 will break for lunch at this time.' We will resume again at 17 1:30. The admonishments that I've given you earlier will 18 apply during this lunch break also. Court is in recess for 19 lunch. / 20 (Following a recess, these proceedings were had in open 21 court.) 22 COURT ADJOURNED: 23 24 71 1 STATE OF ILLINOIS ) ) 2 TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT ) * SS ). 3 COUNTY OF ST. CLAIR ) 4 5 I, DEBRA M. MUSIELAK, certify the foregoing to be a 6 true and accurate transcript of the testimony and'proceedings 7 in.the above-entitled cause. : 8 Dated this I Co day of April, 1985. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 nk. X n > ~ f Q _ 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 72 1 STATE OF ILLINOIS ) ) 2 TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT ) SS ) 3 COUNTY OF ST. CLAIR ) 4 5 I, RICHARD P. G O L D E N H E R S H , one of the J u dges in and 6 for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, do hereby certify that I 7 have examinated the aforesaid transcript of proceedings, and 8 certify the foregoing to be a true and accurate transcript of 9 the testimony and proceedings in the above-styled cause. 10 Dated this ________ day of April, 1985. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 73