Document byaE9666BOggoLMLnX1Deedby

Telephone: PAUL E. HERRELL Lawyer 7493 East Five Rivers Road Tidewater# Oregon 97390 <503) 528-7151 Telefax: Via Voiceline September 11# 1991 Stuart Calwell# Esquire^ Calwell# McCormick & Peyton# L. C. 405 Capitol Street# Suite 908 Charleston# West Virginia 25321 VIA TELEFAX (304) 344--3684 Re: Adkins# et al v. Monsanto Company Dear Stuart: I am writing to track on the present status of the discovery materials in this matter involved in the Greenpeace motion for an order modifying the Court's prior protective order. About the time you informed me that the Court was expected to lift the protective order the same day (see your attached correspondence)# I had a minor tiff with Greenpeace and had no communications with them for several months. I assumed that you had sent the ma terials directly to Pat Costner of Greenpeace and that was the reason I hadn't heard from you again. Greenpeace and I recently mended our fences and I learned from Pat Costner that she had never received the discovery materials and assumed I had them. Recently# it became urgent to obtain the materials because one of the Monsanto researchers has filed a libel action against the editor of an environmental newsletter. See attached article from Corporate Crime Reporter. I am also advised that Monsanto has filed a similar lawsuit in Australia. Do you have any record of whether the materials ever went out# and if so# to whom? Or could you copy them again? Greenpeace would be happy to pay copying costs. I don't know if you still have any interest in dioxin issues# but I'd enjoy visiting with you at the citizen's dioxin conference on September 21-22 in Chapel Hil1# N.C.# if you can attend. I enclose regis-- Stuart Calwel1 September 11# 1991 Page 2 tration materials. It looks to be one of the more important events in dioxin history., Except for Friday of this week# I'm going to be traveling until SeptembjBr 25# and my office will be closed from September 20-24. If you have time for a quick phone call or fax before September 20# I'd appre ciate it. Sincerely# PEM: pern cc: P. Costner enc. PAUL E. MERRELL CALWELL, McCORMICKLAW OFFICES & PEYTON, L.C. JSetrueamrtiaChalFw.eMll cCormick JMHoaahrrnvyeSMykcDaQg.guPsaeinyton ChaTTreloelFleslAt4poF0hXnrP5oe,:.neOCSW(e:3u:a.01ipet(B4-sie38)tto0o09x34Vl00)4-S8i148r3t1g-7r433ei63n6e--i85t4a45322295332-1 October 24, 1990 NTietlreo2p,6h0WPo2.nOeeFs.:tir(BVs3to0ixr4Ag)7vin71e5i5na5u-2e85116413 FAX: (304) 755-8739 Paul E. Merrell ALDER HILL ASSOCIATES 7493 East Five Rivers Road Tidewater, Oregon 97390 Re: Adkins, et als vs. Monsanto Company Dear Paul: Enclosed for your information is a copy of ORDER MODIFYING PROTECTIVE ORDER in the Monsanto case which will be entered today. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please give me a call. Very truly yours, SCjks Enclosure s t ^ - u y - i y y i i y : i s i- kuh t . k . i-. IU Sk3^ Siti YISI IN THIS ISSUE Journalist Reporting on Dioxin Studies Sued for Libel by Scientist. Critics Say Suit is M eant to Intimidate Nevada prosecutors Considering Criminal Charges against PUNT FOR CHLORINE RELEASE Public Citizen Calls for Criminal Prosecution of Smtthkune FOR ILLEGAL PROMOTION OF DRUGS North Carolina Launches Investigation into Chicken Plant fir ma e that Killed nslaughter C 25 ha . r gCeosm. FpaendyO, SrHesAp,oNnsoirbtlhe Officers, Carolina COoSuHlAd Face at Odds westtnghouse Accuses Law firms of Violating protective Order Covering internal Company Documents in Order to "Stir Up and Fo m en t Litigation BENNETT, FlSKE, RAUH READY TO DEFEND CLIFFORD AND ALTMAN this w eek before House Banking Committee Du Pont Tested freon 113 Hair Cleaner on Humans in 1960s, Leading to Death of secretary, N ewspaper Reports v. AanlcyhesokraagEemDpaliouytsNDewirstyreTporrictkss Against Oil Industry Critic, Events Notable and quotable In Brief INTERVIEW WITH MARK C. HANSEN, PARTNER, JOHNSON & GlBBS, WASHINGTON, D.C. At a glance; Incidents resulting in m ost w orkplace Fatalities since 1987 1 5 6 6 8 9 10 11 12 12 13 18 22 [Corporate Crime Reporter is published by American Communications and Publishing Co., Inc. 48 times a year. ISSN Number 0897-4101. Principal Editorial Offices: 132218th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036. Telephone: pCWi(n2ao0HymU2aA)b.mSTl4eu.2Sna9Otino-cE6:da9VtCiC2oEo8naR.rnspEaoIdaSdranai.dFtteo$OrP9CRu9RrBb5iumlIsiDEssehelDsliRelnEwgeMNphooCeWkrroteheI.i,rTb(,AHeIPnriO.c.rO.AUM.sTAsaBoLiElocLXixDaPtRee1RlI8iEEGv3eSd8HrSi4etT,odPS)rWE. DRRPasaaMEhvySiiaIndESbgRSlLteoIVaOnpiEn,pND.DaFS.d'.RCuvRbaO.EnsM2ccPr0eRi0pCOi3tniO6Do.PnUUY.ICSnR.TfCIocIGroOumHprNryaTetrniioIOgcNnhyW:t. $ANbM7yNE9aRY5kAe.p]mFecerOhreyiRcceaMkansr ,2 CORPORATE CRIME REPORTER MONDAY SEPTEMBER 9 19! id - id rriuji c . r Iu PUBLISHED WEEKLY VOLUME 8 HUMBER 34 lfOHUAT SEPTEMBER 9.1991 CORPORATE CRIME REPORTER JOURNALIST REPORTING ON DIOXIN ISCNTRTUIITDMIICEIDSSASSTAUEYEDSUFIOTRISLIMBEEALNBTYTSOCIENTIST. The long-running battle over the carcinogenic effects coraeoftnijtrtoheruoedrvncMeahrlesoiimsnatsliacnawltcohhdoeCimooxhi.ciansascl.iienwnteTrtniihststteeiffniieleddedisxlpaatesultntiebsmievolecnsleytunhitteworasngh!aeintnohsnaet MinvoensstaignatotiodniobxyinthsetuEdnivesirothnamt eanretanl oPwrottehcetisounbAjegcteoncfya'ns OffWiceilloiafmCrimRi.nalGIanfvfeeyst,igaationfso.rmer scientist, and epidemiologist for Monsanto, last month sued Dr. Peter DM.oCn.-tabgauseed, aEjonuvrinroanlimsteanntadl dRireescetoarrcohf tFhoeuWndaasthioinng, tofonr, libel because of an article Montague wrote in the March chG7oa,anvIfed1nfee9ym9ibn0eanteelesnridsvosiuectshwreuieetsidocltfaahMwliRsosoaunwfcitteahsteg,ehkulec',esh'MsaMHroogoarningzntasaagarngdniutztoheoauatatsiodntnidhWo.exoaitssnhtueeirtssNtuisewdwihaesnos. adtitoexminptstautdiienst.imidating and silencing criticism of the dismBuistsedGafthfeey chaanrdgeshisofatitnotrinmeiyd,atiNone,alsaCyi.ngStothuatt, Gaffey's reputation suffered because of Montague's article, which they said accused Gaffey personally of fraud. suit",I" bMeloienvtaegutheatsatihdislaisst aweceleka.rSaLttAemPPpst,aotraStSrLatAegPiPc LbyawsinuditisvAidguaailnsstoPrubilnicstPitaurttiiocnipsatiwonit,harethleawsinutietsntfileodf ssmaqeiude.alncdhindgenoyppmoysitFioinrs.t"AIt'ms eancdlemaernatttreimghptst,t"o iMntoimntiadgautee Gaffey denied working in conjunction with any i corporation. Donna Vandiver, a Monsanto spokesperson, said the company had no comment on Gstuafdfye,y"*sshleaswasidu.it nWe stand by the validity of our otGMshifmaaofGhGtnpfiDeataslayyffrgfsf.ecetsuMuyoayediu''oadsyslln.d.stalo"aUinrIbgtdopieudcetloeelnnelcihes.eiutarddIeidetntahtdadhactcitathenchtegnugahotsteaeeMrrwfdsstoiuoicrmtenolhaedtenoa,upntgoMttueuwrmueaoso'nonsbrdnetepaaesarrgarpltcorluoiyaucefngltoserrcweef,ara.pfri""strohIiaotcsuensisadsomiw,n1"f aonsetusednyteoncfewthoartkJeursditwh hAo, Zhaacdk baenednGaexffpeoysecdondtoucttehde dioxin-contaminated herbicide 2,4,5-T, by comparing tuhneexhpeoasletdh woofrktehres. eMxpoonsteadguewtohreknerqsuototedaalgleroguatpionosf magaadinestinMoconusarnt tod.ocuments in a class action lawsuit Montague wrote, "According to court documents kaaAntntgdoaecwnthocienyodg]klytfmooouetmmrhewiot,toEerdP'kZAea5rcskd[Uweaa.hStnoh.dshEafGndrovambifrfeoeenytnhmedeexenelpxtiaobplseoersPadertdoealtnyegdcrtoaipoununpdt cthoeusrese,wtoordkeecrsreainse tthhee duenaetxhproasteedingtrhoeupex, psoesrevdinggr,ouopf Zathnaedcki/nnGceraxeftafesyeptsahtreuadgdyreaaaptshh,"rafrtaMeuiodnuntltheaengtuu,e"necxirtpienofgeserardesdghriostuospo/u"rthcInee the same court documents. meCmaote rJeefenrkriends, taon iEnPAMosnctiaegnuties'ts wahrtoiclaeu,thsoariedd sthhee bkenloiweviendglyt"hautseZdacthke afanldse Gdaaftafeyin "tdheeliirbesrtuatdeyly. "aIfnd1 thought there was no intent, I wouldn't have brought it ItonvesthtiegatiaotntesntCioennterof[ofthEePAN'satiOonffailce EonffoCrrciemminenalt JInenveksintisg'atiomnse]m,"oshedsisacidu.ssSeismilathr eto M"ofrnatuadguea'sllaergteicdlley, committed by Monsanto in conducting its 'research' on its TwwoorkeMrsoenxspanotsoedsttuoddieiosxainnsd."another study by the eGnevrimroannmentcahliesmts icaalslo alfliergme toBbAeSdFecep--tive winhiciths findings - are the basis for EPA regulations governing dioxin. The two Monsanto studies looked at workers finrom19a49cheamn iceaxlpflaocstioorny ionccNuirtrreod, Wtheastt Vexirpgoinseiad, wmhaenrye woTrkheers ftiorstthestuddioyx,inc-aclolendtamthineatZedachke-Srbuisckidined2,4st,u5d-Ty,. looked at the cancer rates of the workers acutely exposed to the chemical during the Nitro plant explosion. The Zack-Gaffey study was intended to look at the long-term chronic effects of dioxin exposure, according to Gaffey. Scientists have complained of errors in both studies. eOaeuxxcnncpaeeimoxdsopepeofnldestt.eh, dTteioshktochehsoyiaegntchtstrrhaoimetlleiccveiogeswmlmrsoopsuroakponfefyrttsfhhso-eceu-ireZicdnhaetwceinskmott-isrfiGkciieenaadrlfcsflbeuinyydwetsthhdthuoeeiidnryw1bt,h9ierfe4troih9err dhaetaelsth, srteacrotirndgs d-a-ywoefreeminpcllouydmedenint atthtehZe apclakn-St uasnkdinthdeir (See DIOXIN, page three) 3D4---kD3?-3?3>l rrcun c . r:. r . u I , KJJj o j J i i o r j-> (DIOXIN, bom page one) cstaundcyera.s exposed to dioxin. These four workers died of "I never compared the people in the two studies," Gaffey said. "There are two different ways of looking apblethevle[iedneli,vooemxsihentnoh]aratett-,xhapactohnusetaeunrleoby.nuogOru-sntteewromvofiuellowedwxpi-tsrloeystvouetrosleaeyxsitpstuohdsaayut r[detah.i]feIfhfeirytgweohnuo-t separately. "Another view is that exposure is exposure no matter wexhpaots,eidn wwhheitchherchaeseisyeoxupowsoeudldacusateylythoart cahrpoenriscolyn oisr both." Gaffey said the two Monsanto studies' incorporated the first view, while those criticizing the studies take the second view. "There's no reason why somebody taking die second view of exposure couldn't do TahdeifMfeorennstanatnoalsytsuidsieesntairreelyth,"ehseubssatiadn. ce behind the Veteran Administration's denial of compensation for many injuries tied to Agent Orange exposure, and'the legal defense of many corporations being sued by employees and citizens for dioxin exposure. How the debate over the carcinogenicity of dioxin is draecasrmoolasvsgeedthaewwicallordudsnettirefyrm,thaiennedMtomhneasnoaynuttoccoosrmtpueodroiaetfsiomanrasenyfparcloaevwelsanurigttoes be fraudulent Dioxin is an important issue in wellkanndowinn pgernodwininggtrniaulms ibnerTsimoefsoBtheearchcaasneds LaorvoeunCdantahle, country. In February of this year, a Mississippi jury awarded $1 million in punitive damages against Georgia Ppraocmifipctefdorpatlhleegr eredsdidioexnitns ctoonstuaemtihneatcioomn p~aanyc.aAsenwdhtihcihs summer a Missouri jury awarded Sl.S million to the family of a truck driver who allegedly died because his. workplace was contaminated with dioxin. Other journalists and scientists have published cmriatdiceisimnsthoef tqhueotZataicokn-GinaffMeyonsttaugduye'ssimairltaicrlet.o Itnhoasen , aaatrutttrihicboleurtienfaatmhseilmJoiVluaarrnnsatSal toterufmPmeenstatintcodidaeaMRttoeofronnrsemayn*toPfoaoruflefixcMaimael.rprliell, I They write, "Dr. George Roush, Medical Director of Monsanto, admitted under extensive cross examination that the conclusions of both the 1983 and 1984 studies sw..tue.drheyad'ginkrocnouorpwreiancngtd,l'yhcoaomdnfiiftrutmerdtihnfeigrveretdhcealaattshsZsifaibecodkmfaotnhudre eexxGppaoofssfeeeddy rwaoterskerins atsheuneexxppoosseedd, ainndorudneerxtpooseeqdualwizoerktehres.deTahthe edxeaptohssedinswteoardkeorfs.thDer9. dReoauthshs raedpmoritteteddb,yhMadon1s8anctaon,caenr onovremr-aalllpcoapnuclaetriodnearathte.r"atMe e6r5rillpaenrcdeVntanhiSghtreurmththaenntghoe on to quote bom the same court documents Montague quo"t1eddo. n't believe that is an accurate reflection of what is in the transcript," Gaffey said of Van Strum and Merrill's article. "There were some people in the first satnuddyinwthheoirwsuebreseeqxupeonsteedmtpolothyme e[1n9t4d9idNniotrtow] oarckciidneannt [dioxin] exposed job. Those turned out to be unexposed by the definition of the second study." Gaffey said the workers included in the exposed group for the study were selected by their work assignments. Gaf"fIefyR] odueslihb'esratetesltyimmoonvyinisg apcecouprlaeteboambouotne[Zgarcokupantdo athneothfierrs,t ksntuodwyi,ngI'dthactaltlheiyt fhraadudbebeencareucsleastshifaite'sd bwohmat needs to be explained in an epidemiological study," RMoeurrsihll'sstaeisdt.im"Tonhye]reb'sutjuthset acboonfuetsseivoenr.y"thing there [in Neil Stout, Gaffey's attorney, said Dr. Roush "would certainly not say that the study is fraudulent." Asked why his article publishing the study didn't note that some of the workers in the unexposed group were exposed to dioxin in the 1949 accident, Gaffey responded, "All we did in the second study was to give iwtfhoethrkdaethfpiisnetirotsirooynnrheocafoderbdxesp,eonasnuedrxep.thoTesyheadct"odninetafitinhnieetdiaocnncoicdiaenmndtei.cabtoiomn Van Strum said, "The workers were chosen [for the Zack/Gaffey study] not on the basis of any health criteria, but simply by some strange selection method based on employment records that furthermore excluded the very years when the exposure would probably have been highest at Nitro, between 1948-1955." Gaffey said employment records prior to 1955 weren't used because personnel records prior to that year were incomplete. "Either the study's fraudulent, or the guy's cbahbefasoorgrleuetdteh.ley"yEibnitechgoeamrnp,theotereynthtdeoyicdsnoh'not udelopdihdaaevmleiitoekrlnoaotguwirsent,"trheMasteoatrhrrceilyhl didn't have any unexposed control [group]." sMtwrhyhooiTewnnrhsgeiaenvngetEtoronPtodhAseete'fuysefdfnsJeideaecsintd.kth[iso"nelTfomshpdssepieaoilinxvdmeiensastshneenioxsrecperc,owuwsiiruntrehreredew]s,.lheioTtirpcrhowhperiasnsmtehisaienssly,wtabakboayeruthesst should fall on both sides of the fence." Jenkins added, MONDAY SEPTEMBER 9,1991 CORPORATE CRIME REPORTER 3 i 1yy i 18 ; i y hhajn t . K . h . iu 503 528 7151 P.04 "MAysaksesdesasmboeuntt Gisatfhfaety'tshelirbeewl assuiftraaugdauinlesnt tMinotnetnatg."ue, JMJi[sesehnnogokknowiitnniasnssg]gutssehaut'eoisgdagi,bnrereItsoettgrei'esndasntticmatbehnyiaodtadafttrtaetaehdwmsecipbineltyginbattesithsoletmatadoecSitotthLihxoiAininnngPkdPwlseioikbslmleautieetstbheioainrsdnvt.ydo"e the public fonun. "If Peter Montague is smart, he will edmrabgarriatssmonenta, nbdut i[tattowrinlely'sc]osfet esG,"asffheeysaindo.t only disSputoteutins"asidevetrhaaltcoGmafmfeuynicaatttieomnpstbeedfotroe brerisnoglvineg tthhee ltahwatsuhiet awnrdotiet ctoouMldohnatvageubeeesneeskeitntlgeda."reGtraafcfetiyona,ddbeudt MoMntoangtuaegureefussaeidd,, "shoowI esuveedr, htihma.t" he responded to Gaffey's letter with his own letter inquiring of the exact wsGuoabfrsfdeesqyuGednaitfdlfyney'rtecfreoeiusvpneoddndaobletjeottcetirhoifnsraobmlelet.tGeraM,ffoebnyut'tasgauthtetaotrsnaheiyde telling him to send $150 for Gaffey's attorney's fees, after which a letter would be sent saying exactly what awol"reXdtstfeeGrltaamfsfeiyfwIwhwiacenhrteedIbreseipntregalclbetledadc.komuat ileexda,cstolyI wwrhoatet hmimy pmurniedscleiersasedtlaytnhdteoinreghaidmweraswsohfoytfhIehsbitseuldiseytvu,"eddMy,hoenatnahdgaudeI kseanxiodpw.la"iniAngnelydd I explained to him that because I believed he had rkentorawcitnagnlyy mwiosrldesadI thhaedrewarditetresnoafbhoiustsbtuisdystuIdcyo.u"ld not atheyMesauorm,ntmwaghouenens sthhaeaidtrhehceeefitivhneeadnllyadilcdeoanur'tnrtehdseuaomrffmtrhooemnesx.GaIactftfwweyaosrfdainsr in his article that Gaffey disputed, Montague said. "I have looked into this matter very carefully and 1believe tthrueAewtftaoocrrtdnsseaytnshdaitnthvIeoprlervifemodreeidnIwpcaieenrencaotrstuereehtaoranldcdtdwthifeefrmeer.e"bnatsveidewons on whether a libel suit can be filed for a quote attributed to a court documenL Neil Stout, Gaffey's attorney, said, "It's really black-letter law that repealing awisrteatneomtepnrtivfirloemgeda, wproivuilldegitesdelfdboeculmibeenl ti,s wlibheiclohusif. Ait re-publisher of a false and libelotis statement is sretastpeomnesinbtlesofmorewhihseroewenlsleib. e.l .ev.eTnhethioduegahishethgaottytohue dwdeoiflnla'mtwaiwtthoaornyuttinslioaambpielroiitnvyei."letgoedpcuobnlitsehxtaansdtattheemneqnutottheaitt aist waRs eqxuoCteadrrb, ythMe oatnttoargnueey, cwahlloesde Satpopuetl'lsatientceorpurrettabtriioenf "absolute nonsense." Cair said, "A statement from a pctdlchoaoaonenrucSgturitptemoiqsutduuerioitosnpncstvotpueaosrfmieerldvisweeeetndoihndttfhatiiientnsMdratafehfrobpaecensioeorlotdrilualttyoueigrg,mtrtuepasaeltrcyci'esotfafirpnoenoa.rnrmriaq".vt"bTuiiclohlylleteaiegaq,t"beoufirdbolohi.vtt.mieyin.ogul.sAafasfrwrlioyodrsmme.wupi"oatbsTasrotnnhatehy'sert purpose of Montague's article was to accuse certain scieOntthisetrssosafipdutbhlaitshreinggardfrlaeussduolfewnthdeathtae.r"a libel suit can bhfaeacvtfe,itlrenudoe,.pi"rfTotbhhleeelmacnagpseuroavdgoienetgshatgthoPeetqtoeurotrt[ieMadlo, snMttaatogenumtea]egniustebisew,iniilngl sued over is totally defensible," Merrill said. "It's puclrneodavererlylnyif"naigcftudoaanltelay"htatrhsuaett.h"heeCshaaarmrdesianaicdhcietshsescastsotea.twemitneenstsceasnanbde [CaiT represents a group of plaintiffs who sued Monsanto for damages allegedly suffered from a spill of chemicals in the town of Sturgeon, Missouri. In the case, Kemncr et al v. Monsanto Co., the jury awarded $th1e6.p2l5ainmtiilflfisononien dpoulnlaitrivine dcoammapgeenss.aItonrya d2a-1mdageceissiaonnd, an Illinois appellate court overturned the award, rweaassoinnisnugffitchiaetntthteoounpehodlodlltahreinpucnoimtipveendsaamtoargyedsaamwaagreds. CSuaprrremhaes Croeucretn.]tly fried an appeal with the Illinois asdanisiddGc.uhasGefsfaeaefddyTvetisyhsaiesiidds ombhneeecinetgihswartieptIpharyleeaisntnegtnhatitehstdiowsrbnhoyeowylSentfotrhouleimtnggaanlMddrfooeJnpeos,ssa".enpht"hoeI G. Nassif of the Missouri firm of Coburn, Croft & XPuetmzenlel.rNcaasses,iafnwda,sacocnoerdoifnMg toontshaenMtoa'sratitntodraniee-yHs uinbbthelel Law Directory, Monsanto Co. is one of the firm's clients. Asked if Gaffey intended to sue other journalists or scientists who have alleged the Monsanto studies were fraudulent. Stout said, "We have the option, of course, to sue other defendants later, which is possible. In fact, athserpeoasrseibsloemedeoftehnedrapnetso.plWe teh'allt I'mveakaelreuapdyosuurggmesitnedd whether to go after other people as time goes on." osmsounomitBnaeettuhwyota,hnttaeGhhtetaairsdfmefiebfiefysee.e.rane.rnleiJftmsil'plymeio,tdntn"doaSoeghtidanodicwnoestiotnmIgDatanrah.nymeyMptheousionsanpitmgnaleggebu,e1emycq.oauyInnedshottaaiwtohvknneee gnoivethnotuhgehmt aatttaelrl.["of adding new defendants to the suit] 4 CORPORATE CRIME REPORTER MONDAY SEPTEMBER 9,1991 * S5P-09-1991 13:19 FROM E.R.F. Montague, who has been a journalist for 36 years and has never been sued before, said he intends to countersue. "We are putting together a team of i; eatatgoernr etyos,hseclipenintistms yanddefpernivseatebeicnavuessetigthatiosrsiswahoclaeraer matter of principle - my First Amendment rights," Montague said. TO 503 528 7151 P.05