Document jmQmwK3YxbQ4bjvBxmb93416Z

4 IJ V ) I c c IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS BEAUMONT DIVISION CECIL SCOTT, ET AL VS. MONSANTO COMPANY * * * * CIVIL ACTION * NO. B--84-1103-CA * * ********************** SEPTEMBER 3, 1987 VOLUME XIV ********************** / BEFORE THE HONORABLE JOE J. FISHER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE, AND A JURY REPORTED BY: C. FRANK MCMILLAN FEDERAL COURT REPORTING CO. P. O. BOX 2664 BEAUMONT, TEXAS 77006 (409) 839-2518 ------- c -- 1 A P ? SA RA NC S 2 3 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS: 4 M R . DAVID M. LACEY MR. MICHAEL A. POHL 5 MS. SUSAN BAKER GILPIN, POHL & BENNETT 6 1300 POST OAK BOULEVARD HOUSTON, TEXAS 77056 7 M R . THOMAS HENDERSON B MR. ANTONIO PYLE HENDERSON & GOLDBERG 9 1030 FIFTH AVENUE PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA 15219 10 MR. BENTON MUSSLEWHITE 11 609 FANNIN, SUITE 517 12 HOUSTON, TEXAS 77002 13 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT: 14 MR. ROBERT A. HALL MR. ROBERT A. JONES 15 MR. JONATHAN SHOEBOTHAM WOODARD, HALL & PRIMM 16 4700 TEXAS COMMERCE TOWER HOUSTON, TEXAS 77002 17 MR. TANNER T. HUNT, JR. 18 MS. CHERYL D. OLESEN MR. WALTER CRAWFORD 19 MR. MARK FREEMAN WELLS, PEYTON, BEARD, GREENBERG, 20 HUNT & CRAWFORD P. O. BOX 3708 21 BEAUMONT, TEXAS 77056 22 ALSO PRESENT: 23 MR. WILLIAM PAPAGEORGE, CORPORATE 24 REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE MONSANTO CHEMICAL COMPANY. 25 ( 1 2 C INDEX : 3 WITNESS DR. PAUL WRIGHT 4 READING FROM DEPOSITION 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PAGE 2176  C-- 2176 1 still true today, is it not ? 2 A Y e s , a s much as it can be, you know, living 3 900 miles apart. 4 5 MR. CRAWFORD: Thank you. Your Honor, 6 we have a few exhibits to offer if we could. 7 We have got 2811C, which are the 8 records of Dr. Spencer. We have got 2821A, 9 which are the Bloomington Hospital records. 10 We have got 2827A, which is a report from 11 the National Jewish Hospital on April 13th 12 and then we would also offer these three 13 exhibits which we have just made reference 14 to and that's 2397A, B and C. 15 THE COURT: All right. Any further 16 questions? 17 MR. CRAWFORD: Thank you. 18 MR. POHL: No, Your Honor. 19 THE COURT: All right. Mr. Toon, you 20 may stand down. 21 Ladies and gentlemen, the Court is 22 going to instruct the jury in regard to the 2 3 testimony by video depositions and 24 depositions of Dr. Wright, Dr. Paul Wright. 25 The Court made a ruling yesterday after C ------------------------------------------------- 1 the plaintiffs had attempted to offer the 2 deposition of Dr. Paul Wright over the 3 objections of the defendant that it would be 4 admitted. 5 Then during the offering of the 6 deposition it appeared that Dr. Wright was 7 taking what is known as the Fifth Amendment, 8 that he refused to give testimony. 9 So, the Court could not see any purpose 10 in continuing that deposition after 11 inquiring of counsel if his answer to all of 12 the questions that they had asked, which was 13 some six or seven or eight questions, I 14 don't remember how many it was, maybe less 15 than that, but several questions. 16 The Court then reversed his ruling and 17 said that we would sustain the defendant's 18 objections to the offering of this testimony 19 by Dr. Wright and would grant their request 20 to suppress the deposition. 21 Out of an abundance of fairness, the 22 Court has been advised that there was some 23 testimony given by the witness to which he 24 did not assert a Fifth Amendment right and 25 gave some testimony. C -----------------------------c -------------------- TT7 8 1 The Court feels that although the 2 deposition may not be of too much 3 significance, that the jury should be able 4 to weigh and consider the deposition for 5 whatever it might be worth in regard to this 6 case. 7 And the deposition as the Court 8 understands offered by the plaintiffs over 9 the objections of the defendant for the 10 purpose of showing Dr. Wright's relationship 11 to Monsanto and the knowledge that Monsanto 12 had as to the test work which Dr. Wright had 13 done. 1 4 So, we are going to permit the 15 plaintiffs to reoffer or offer such 16 deposition testimony of Dr. Wright by video 17 or question and answer as they wish to 18 offer. 19 And we will also permit counsel to 20 state the number of questions that they have 21 asked Dr. Wright and the questions. 22 You may read the questions to which he 23 asserted his constitutional right of not 24 answering. 25 All right. You may proceed. ..r~ K 1 The record will reflect that the 2 defendant has made objections to this 3 testimony and they have a running objection. 4 All right. i 5 MR. MUSSLEWHITE: Your Honor, to save 6 time, I'm simply going to say that we will 7 not rerun the video portion that we ran 8 yesterday. The jury has already seen it >.* 9 about his background, when he went with 10 Monsanto then went with IBT and then back 11 with Monsanto. 12 There's no reason to repeat that and we 13 are just going to ask two questions and read 14 the answers and that.'s it. Your Honor. 15 THE COURT: All right. 16 17 MR. MUSSLEWHITE: "QUESTION: You knew 18 at the time you were a manager of toxicology 19 at Monsanto that Monsanto was continuing to 20 use the IBT test results that pertained to 21 Monsanto's Aroclor products in an effort by 22 Monsanto to forestall various government 23 regulations designed to limit the discharge 24 of PCBs into the environment? 25 "ANSWER: On my attorney's advice, I C ------------------ C -------------- TT51 1 hereby invoke the rights secured to me by 2 the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the 3 U .S . Constitution and respectfully refuse to 4 answer that question on the grounds that any 5 information I give in response may tend to 6 incriminate me. 7 "QUESTION: Dr. Wright, when you had an interchange with the EPA about causing them 9 to forestall their regulations limiting the 10 discharge of PCBs into the environment, you 11 knew at that time that the IBT Aroclor 12 studies both understated and misrepresented 13 the toxic effects of PCBs on rodents; isn't 14 that true? 15 "ANSWER: On my attorney's advice, I 16 hereby invoke the rights secured to me by 17 the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the 18 U.S. Constitution and respectfully refuse to 19 answer that question on the grounds that any 20 information I give in response may tend to 21 incriminate roe." 22 23 MR. MUSSLEWHITE: That concludes it, 24 Your Honor. 25 THE COURT: All right. What else do r T T TS 1 you have? Do you have something to add? 2 MR. JONES: Yes, sir, Your Honor. 3 THE COURT: All right, Mr. Jones. 4 MR. JONES: Your Honor, in light of the 5 Court's ruling, I would like to read at 6 least a small portion of Paul Wright's 7 deposi t ion. 8 "That portion which begins on Page 18, 9 line 20. And this was an objection that I 10 made as counsel for Monsanto, prior to, 11 right after the first invocation of the 12 Fifth Amendment by Paul Wright. 13 MR. KUSSLEWHITE: Excuse me, Your 14 Honor. May I interpose this? He's about to 15 read an objection, not a question. And we 16 object to him reading his objections. I 17 don't mind him making the objection to His 18 Honor; but to read it from the deposition 19 seems superfluous. 20 THE COURT; I think that's appropriate. 21 No need of you reading your objection. 22 MR. JONES: Your Honor, the only thing 23 that I was going to state in connection with 24 that deposition was that I as counsel for 25 Monsanto requested Dr. Wright to truthfully C - - - -- - - - - - - *-- C- - - - - - - - - - 7T 1 and honestly and completely answer all 2 questions that Mr. Pohl or I may ask at the 3 deposition because so far as Monsanto was 4 aware, -there was -- 5 THE COURT: The Court will accept that 6 statement. 7 MR. JONES: Okay* Thank you, Your 8 Honor. 9 Your Honor, I would like to read one 10 other additional portion and that's on Page 11 63 where I asked the question: Page 63, 12 line 10. 13 14 "QUESTION: Dr. Wright, for the past 15 hour and a half, you have been asserting 16 your Fifth Amendment privilege against 17 self-incrimination in the Constitution of 18 the United States. 19 "Do you intend to continue to assert 20 your Fifth Amendment privilege to the ' 21 questions that I may ask concerning the 22 subject matter of this lawsuit?" 23 24 MR. JONES: Wherein Mr. Wright's 25 counsel said: "Assuming that your questions < --- -- -- - - - - c - rrsz 1 intend to as* Dr. Wright that as to each and 2 every question you pose that would touch 3 upon the same subject matter as Mr. Pohl's 4 questions to which Dr. Wright has invoked 5 his constitutional rights on behalf of Dr. 6 Wright, I would state that, yes, he intends 7 to invoke the same rights he invoked all 8 along during Mr. Pohl's questions." 9 At that point, I did not ask any 10 further questions and pass the witness. 11 12 THE COURT: All right. What do you .13 have next? 14 MR. POHL: We call Phil Smith as our 15 next witness. 16 THE COURT: Have a seat in the witness 17 chair. You may proceed. 16 19 20 21 2 2 23 24 25 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 3 OFFICIAL REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 4 5 6 I , FRANK MCMILLAN, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER FOR 7 THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN 8 DISTRICT OF TEXAS,*DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE ABOVE AND 9 FOREGOING PAGES CONSTITUTE A TRUE, CORRECT AND COMPLETE 10 TRANSCRIPT OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE ABOVE STYLED AND 11 NUMBERED CAUSE. 12 WITNESS MY OFFICIAL SIGNATURE IN THE CITY OF 13 BEAUMONT, TEXAS, ON THE DAY O F v _* V Z ' I 14 15 16 17 ( . C. FRANKMCMILLA1 18 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 19 EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 20 21 22 23 24 25 Scott Trial Testimony S e p t e m b e r 2, 1987 --- -------------------------------------------T3T5 1 from Joseph Calandra whose deposition we 2 just heard, president of IBT to George J. 3 Levinsksas whose deposition we will read and 4 summarize later today. 5 6 This document is dated August 4, 1975, 7 and it's addressed to the enviromental 8 assessment and toxicology department at 9 Monsanto. Dr. Calandra notes in Paragraph 10 No. 1 of that letter: 11 "We will amend our statement in the 12 last paragraph on Page 2 of the Aroclor 1254 13 report" -- 14 Which is the same report that Dr. 15 Francher referred to in the earlier exhibit. 16 17 -- "to reads 'Does not appear to be 18 carcinogenic' in place of 'slightly 19 tumorogenic' as requested.'' 20 21 And, Your Honor, we would then read 22 short excerpts from the summary of the 23 deposition of Robert E. Shirley, who was 24 director of personnel at Monsanto. 25 The witness is Robert E. Shirley 183 0 1 employed by Monsanto for the past 22 years. 2 Mr. Shirley is manager of the 3 personnel -- manager of personnel for 4 technical staff and is responsible for 5 hiring and firing employees who work on the 6 enviromental policy staff, medicine 7 enviromental health, patent and corporate 8 research staffs. 9 Mr. Shirley also reviewed merit reward 10 for employees whose conduct benefited 11 Monsanto. Dr. Wright was the toxicology 12 manager of the medicine and enviromental 13 health departments and in 1976 received -- 14 and in 1976 received a cash bonus for 15 forestalling EPA's promulgation for 16 unrealistic regulations to limit discharges 17 of polychlorinated biphenyls. 18 Dr. Wright subsequently received 19 another-merit award and pay raise, all in 20 less than one year. The merit award for the 21 EPA-PCB matter was recommended by Dr. 22 Levinsksas and approved by Dr. Roush. 23 Subsequently Dr. Wright was indicted 24 and convicted of criminal actions. During 25 the period of time between investigation, IUT 1 indictment and conviction, Monsanto, one, 2 paid for Dr. Wright's attorneys' fees in the 3 amount.of $1,400,000; was still paid to 4 prepare technical safety papers for Monsanto 5 products at regular pay; was eventually 6 given a pay leave of absence through the 7 conclusion of the trial; was terminated in 8 February,of 1984, for "engaging in 9 activities detrimental to Monsanto's 10 interest." 11 With regard to Paul Wright's criminal 12 indictment and the payment of his attorneys' 13 fees, the manager of personnel said -- and I 14 will read the questions if I could get Mr. 15 Henderson to read the answers. It's a very 16 short offer. 17 18 {Reading from video deposition) 19 Q Are you. aware that Monsanto paid for D r . 20 Wright's attorneys' fees? 21 A Yes. 22 Q Are you familiar with the amount that 23 Monsanto paid for Dr. Wright's criminal lawyers? 24 A No, I'm not. 25 Q Do you know of any other incident since you -------------- - 1B22 1 have been employed by Monsanto where Monsanto has 2 paid the attorneys' fees for the criminal lawyer 3 hired to represent an individual? 4 A I'm not, personally. 5 Q No other incident that you can recall? 6 A That I recall. 7 Q When did you first learn that Monsanto had 8 actually hired or paid for the lawyers that 9 represented Dr. Wright in his criminal trial? 10 A Direct information that I can swear to? 11 Q Yes. 12 A I don't know it, yet. 13 Q When did you first learn about it 14 indirectly? 15 A In the -- i.n the last week or so. 16 Q And you learned for the first time that 17 Monsanto had paid for Dr. Wright's criminal 18 defense sometime during the month of June of 19 1987? 20 A Yes. 21 Q Within the lastweek or so before your 22 deposition here today? 23 A That's correct. 24 Q Did anyone tellyou the amount that Monsanto 25 had spent to criminally defend Dr. Wright? 1833 1 A No, they did not. 2 (End of reading) 3 4 MR. POHL: Regarding the termination of 5 Dr. Wright's employment, Mr. Shirley 6 testified as follows: 7 8 (Reading from video deposition) 9 Q And the actual decision to terminate Dr. 10 Wright was made at a level in the company that 11 was higher than your level; is that correct? 12 A That's correct. 13 Q Even though you were the manager of 14 personnel for the technical staff? 15 A Yes. 16 Q And would it be fair to say that what 17 happened with regard to hiring a criminal lawyer 18 for Dr. Wright, paying $1,400,000 in connection 19 with Dr. Wright's criminal defense, putting Dr. 20 Wright on a paid leave of absence, all of those 21 were decisions that you either didn't know about 22 or weren't asked about? 23 A Totally. 24 Q Is that correct? 25 A That's correct. " T834 I 1 Q With regard to some of those matters, you 2 didn't find out about it until about a week 3 before your deposition? 4 A Part of what you have just said I have found 5 out now. 6 Q All right. You didn't know, for example, 7 until I just told you, that your company had paid 8 $1,400,000 to help sustain Dr. Wright's defense 9 fund? 10 A That's correct. 11 (End of reading) 12 13 MR. POHL: The decisions to pay Dr. 14 Wright's attorneys' fees and paying the 15 leaving of absence occurred at levels higher 16 than Mr. Shirley. Mr. Shirley was not aware 17 of other instances in which Monsanto hired 18 or paid for an employee's criminal attorney? 19 And this concludes our summary offer 20 from the deposition of Robert E. Shirley. 21 MR. COURT: Do you have any portion of 22 that you wish to offer, Mr. Shoebotham. 23 MR. SHOEBOTHAM: Your Honor, we have a 24 very brief offer from this deposition. 25 Mr. Hunt will read the answers. 1835 1 MR. SHOEBOTHAM: Beginning at Page 16 2 of the deposition, line 7. 3 4 (Reading from video deposition) 5 Q Okay. Tell the court and jury what the 6 criteria are at Monsanto for receiving a merit 7 award? 8 A I'm going to confine my answer to the merit 9 budget that is appropriate to the level of the. 10 individual that we are talking about. 11 Q Sure. 12 A If that's your intent. 13 Q And let's, for the purposes of this 14 question, let's assume it's somebody at the level 15 of Paul Wright in the 197Q's. 16 A Dr. Paul Wright was a member of select 17 management within Monsanto. Approximately one 18 third of the managers in select management each 19 year would receive an award that might be as 20 little as a thousand dollars, or as much as six 21 weeks pay for an event that is clearly above and 22 beyond expected performance. This might be 23 unusually good results. It might be something 24 that has saved the company money. 25 (End of reading) 18 Jb 1 2 MR. SHOEBOTHAMs To Page 23, line 11. 3 4 (Reading from video deposition) 5 Q Okay. When you -- when your department 6 receives a document, like Levinsksas Exhibit 30, 7 recommending someone like Paul Wright for a merit 8 award, did you read the text of the document? 9 A Not usually. 10 Q Okay. What do you look at on the document? 11 A I look at the individual's current salary, 12 compare that to the amount requested. Since 13 these all process across my desk, 1 have a good 14 feel for whether the amount is appropriate. If 15 it is, I pass it through for payroll action. 16 (End of reading) 17 18 MR. SHOEBOTHAM: Go to Page 24, line 9. 19 20 (Reading from video deposition) 21 Q Do you know what Dr. Roush's budget was for 22 merit awards in 1976? 23 A Not especially. It's based upon the number 24 of people within his unit, their monthly salaries 25 totaled, and a percentage applied to that. It's TBT7 1 a rather small budget. 2 Q And did anyone else in Dr. Roush's 3 department receive a merit award in 1976 besides 4 Dr. Wright, that you can recall? 5 A From specific knowledge, I can't answer 6 that. But X can tell you that he had a budget 7 adequate to reward about one third of his people 8 in that employment classification. It would be 9 most unusual for him to have not spent some other 10 dollars. 11 (End of reading) 12 MR. POHLj To Page 28, line 1. 13 14 (Reading from video deposition) 15 Q Okay. So, during that same 12-month 16 period -- I may be confused -- did he receive yet 17 another merit award or did he receive just a pay 18 increase? 19 A It's a normal merit increase. Normally most 20 Monsanto employees are reviewed on an annual 21 basis and might receive a merit increase between 22 11, 12, 13 months, perhaps longer. And that will 23 be determined by their goals document and the 24 results review that's performed once a year. 25 Now, the results reviews do take place in 1838 1 1 February-March of each year. 2 (End of reading) 3 4 MR. SHOEBOTHAM: To Page 31, line 17. 5 6 (Reading from video deposition) 7 Q Okay. What about with regard to the amount 8 of attorneys' fees that were paid to the lawyer 9 who represented Dr. Wright? Would that have come 10 through your department? 11 A No, it would not. 12 Q Would the fact that a lawyer was retained to 13 represent Dr. Wright have been a fact that was 14 communicated to your department? 15 A Not at the time. 16 Q At any time? 17 A I have only recently heard that that was the 18 case. 19 (End of reading) 20 21 MR. SHOEBOTHAM: Page 33, line 22. 22 23 (Reading fnom video deposition.) 24 Q Okay. Well, was he on leave for the entire 25 length of his criminal trial? 1839 1 A I don't know when that started and when it 2 stopped, but my recollection is that he was not 3 on a paid leave more than a few months. 4 Q Okay. And how many months is a "few"? 5 A A "few" months, four, six months, perhaps. 6 (End of reading) 7 8 MR. SHOEBOTHAM: To Page 35, line 8. 9 10 (Reading from video deposition) 11 Q Has there ever been another situation that 12 you're familiar at Monsanto where an employee was 13 given a paid leave of absence for a period of 14 months in connection with a criminal trial? 15 A For a period of time, yes. 16 Q How long? 17 A Weeks. Possibly into months. This was 18 probably a longer one. 19 (End of reading) 20 21 MR. SHOEBOTHAM: To line 21. 22 23 (Reading from video deposition) 24 Q Okay. And are you certain that he was only 25 on paid leave of absence for a period of months? " T3TQ 1 Or could he actually have been on leave of 2 absence for much longer than that? 3 A No. I 'm certain that it was a period of 4 months. 5 Q Okay. And how did you obtain that 6 knowledge? 7 A Just being the personnel person responsible 8 for that department/ I know when he was there and 9 when he was not there. 10 (End of reading) 11 12 MR. SHOEBOTHAMS To Page 37, line 22. 13 14 (Reading from video deposition) 15 Q What is the function of the reports or forms 16 that Dr. Wright would be doing in this capacity? 1'7 A What is the function? 18 Q Yes. What is their service? 19 A They are required by law -- but when I say 20 that, I have said about all I know about that. 21 (End of reading) 22 23 MR. SHOEBOTHAM: Page 39, line 20. 24 25 (Reading from video deposition) 1841 1 Q Okay. Did the personnel department. Have 2 to concur in the decision to re-assign Dr. Wright 3 to a different job function, to put him on leave 4 of absence, to hire and pay for criminal 5 attorneys? 6 A No. 7 Q Okay. 8 A I did not have to do that. 9 Q And to your knowledge, no one else in your 10 department? 11 A To my knowledge. 12 (End of reading) 13 14 MR. SHOEBOTHAM: Page 42, line 19. 15 16 (Reading from video deposition) 17 Q Did you understand though that the guts of 18 the charge against Dr. Wright with regard to the 19 animal testing was that he participated in the 20 falsifying of test data? 21 A No, I did not. 22 Q Would that have been important, or would 23 that have been a consideration to Monsanto in 24 assigning Dr. Wright the task of completing the 25 MSDS forms that pertain to product safety? TWTZ 1 A The company policy in dealing with the 2 employees who might have been accused of a crime 3 is that we will await the outcome of that 4 proceeding before taking harsh decisions as to 5 whether the employee is continuing to work or 6 what he is to work with. 7 Q But at least in Dr. Wright's case, the 8 decision was made that he shouldn't continue in 9 his prior employment, there should be a change in 10 his job function to what you've described as a 11 clerical or technical function? 12 A My opinion is, that was more and 13 accommodation because of his demands on his time 14 than anything else. 15 (End of reading) 16 17 MR. SHOEBOTHAM: To Page 48, line 23. 18 19 (Reading from video deposition) 20 Q Okay. Who filled in the blank? 21 A That's not my writing. As I recall, a clerk 22 who has since retired in the -- in the 23 department -- had filled that in. 24 (End of reading) 25 1843 1 MR. SHOEBOTHAM: To line 7. 2 3 (Reading from video deposition) 4 Q Okay. What were the interests of Monsanto 5 that Dr. Wright's activities harmed? 6 A Well/ Dr. Wright had been found guilty of a 7 criminal offense. Employees found guilty of such 8 offenses are normally terminated. 9 Q Well -- 10 A It's considered detrimental to our -- to our 11 best interest. 12 Q Well, what type of criminal offense results 13 in an'employee's termination at Monsanto? 14 A Are you look for examples or -- 15 Q Sure. 16 A -- or what? Any serious charge an employee 17 might have. Forget traffic offenses and that 18 sort of thing. If an employee is found guilty of 19 a crime serious enough to result in serving time, 20 generally that wo.uld be reason for discharge. 21 (End of reading) 22 23 MR. SHOEBOTHAM: To Page 51, line 5. 24 25 (Reading from video deposition) TBTT 1 Q So, the interest of Monsanto that is 2 referred to in the text of Shirley Exhibit No. 4 3 is what? 4 A That's a rather broad statement. My 5 interpretation of, quote, "the interest of 6 Monsanto," close quote, is that as a good citizen 7 company, it's not our intent to employ convicted 8 criminals. 9 (End of reading) 10 11 MR. SHOEBOTHAM: To Page 64, line 8. 12 13 (Reading from video deposition) 14 Q There has been an indication in the 15 depositions that we have taken that nobody asked 16 Dr. Wright any questions whatsoever about his 17 employment at IBT. 18 A Dh-huh. 19 Q Do you know or have any knowledge as to why 20 no one at Monsanto would have asked Dr. Wright 21 anything about IBT in connection with his 22 re-employment by Monsanto? 23 A A short answer is, quote, "no," close quote. 24 However, I would comment to you that he was a 25 prior employee and was a proven asset, when he TSTS 1 left on his good accord. He was seeking to come 2 back. We tend to be less investigative on 3 re-hires than we do on original hires. 4 (End of reading) 5 6 MR. SHOEBOTHAM: To Page 65, line 19. 7 8 (Reading from video deposition) 9 Q In a rehire situation where someone such as 10 Dr. Wright had previously been employed by 11 Monsanto, would the company still want to know 12 from the perspectives of the personnel department 13 the type of job performance that your former 14 employee had achieved while employed by another 15 company? 16 A That would be good information to have; but 17 I'm personally aware of many situations where we 18 have called and ex-employee who is off working 19 for another company aind said, quote, "Hey, we 20 have a spot here that looks great for you. If 21 you are interested, come on down; let's talk 22 about it," close quote. And we have re-hired 23 with a minimum amount of investigation. 24 Q Have you ever re-hired with absolutely no 25 investigation? 1846 1 A Yes. 2 Q Other than in the case of Paul Wright? 3 A Yes. 4 (End of reading) 5 6 MR. SHOEBOTHAM5 Page 71, line 18 -- 7 actually line 20, 8 9 (Reading from video deposition) 10 Q First of all, in the area of merit raise and 11 bonuses that Dr. Wright received that you have 12 discussed with Mr. Pohl with regard to the 13 bonuses, the two bonuses that Dr. Wright 14 received, would that be unusual for an employee 15 of Dr. Wright's level to receive bonuses of that 16 type? 17 A No, it is not. I mentioned earlier that 18 approximately one third of our managers of that 19 level would receive a bonus at any time that he 20 might have done something deserving. 21 Q Would that have been true during the 1975 to 22 1976 time frame? 23 A Yes. That was the process that was in 24 effect at that time. 25 Q Okay. So, between '75 and '76, about one THT7 1 1 third of the managers at Monsanto who would be at 2 Dr. Wright's level would have received a bonus of 3 that type? - 4 A That's true. 5 Q Have you yourself received a bonus of that 6 type while you have been employed at Monsanto? 7 A Yes, I have. Over a period of years, I have 8 received half a dozen such bonuses. 9 Q Is there anything unusual about Dr. Wright 10 receiving a raise during that same time frame? 11 A The two programs are independent. The 12 Monsanto employees -- professional and the 13 nontechnical -- are normally reviewed annually. 14 That timing may go longer than a year; it may go 15 less than a year. Most employees receive a 15 12-month increase. And they do that on a 17 calendar basis. In other words, if -- ideally we 18 would have as many people getting a raise in 19 January as December. 20 Q So, all of the employees at Dr. Wright's 21 level would have at least been reviewed for a 22 raise during the '75 to '76 time frame? 23 A Yes. That's true. 24 Q Let me ask you about the practice at 25 Monsanto concerning an employee who might be TOTS' 1 convicted of a crime. Do you recall answering 2 some questions ofthat type for Mr.Pohl? 3 A Yes, I do. 4 Q What is the practice at Monsanto in the 5 event that an employee should be convicted of a 6 crime that is serious enough that the employee 7 might have to go to jail? 8 A Normally thatemployee is going to be 9 terminated at that point. 10 Q Is that the usual practice at Monsanto, that 11 the employee will be terminated at such time that 12 he is convicted? 13 A Yes, it is. 14 (End of reading) 15 16 MR. SHOEBOTHAM: Page 77, line 6. 17 18 (Reading from video deposition) 19 Q Okay. Have you ever -- have you ever 20 received two merit bonuses within less than 12 21 months? 22 A I have received on 12-month anniversaries -- 23 I have on three occasions, but not within the 12 24 months. 25 Q Okay. You have never received -- ignoring 1849 1 pay raises/ now, okay? 2 A Okay. 3 Q -- you've never received merit awards or 4 merit bonuses over and above pay raises in as 5 close a frequency as those we have talked about 6 today for Paul Wright? 7 A Yes, I have. Because as I pointed out 8 earlier, the programs are independent of each 9 other, as all Monsanto professional employees -- 10 just to stay with that group of people -- are 11 going to get an annual review for salary increase 12 that is independent of any bonus actions. 13 (End of reading) 14 15 MR. SHOEBOTHAM: Thank you. That 16 concludes our offer, Your Honor. 17 THE COURT: All right. Who do you have 18 next? 19 MR.. HENDERSON: We have Dr. Caine, Your 20 Honor. 21 THE COURT: Dr. Caine, come right this 22 way, please. Come this way and come through 23 the gate and stand in front of the bench. 24 Raise your right hand. 25