Document n9JnagXB4X9x1e45Ndzn4Mbqa

1 Dr. Roush? 2 A I d o n 1t know. 3 Q Do you have any knowledge that they have been told that, 4 sir? 5 A It Is my Impression that some of them have been. 6 Q What you know Is that a policy started in 1984-85 you 7 have been telling them about tetrathol, haven't you, sir? 8 A I know that has been-- 9 Q Yes, but that's Just a policy that you started with t e t : 10 thol. You d i d n 1t tell any of your customers before that, did 11 you, sir? 12 A I d o n 't k n o w . 13 Q You had no knowledge that you did ? 14 A That's not In m y , would be coming across my desk. 15 Q Oh, Doctor, Indeed it would. You get requests all the 16 time. It is your function, you are to consult with your 17 marketing and tell them what they should tell the customers as 18 to the toxicity of your products, that Is your function, Is it 19 not, sir? 20 A Yes, sir. 21 MR. CARR: Your Honor, I'm at four o'clock. 22 THE COURT: Ladles and gentlemen, we will adjourn for 23 now. We will start up tomorrow morning. As I told you earlier, 24 at 10:30 Instead of 9:00. I would remind you as I do for any 1 overnight break that you are not to read, listen to, or watch 2 anything about this case In particular or subject matter In 3 general In any of the media, print or electronic. Thank you 4 for .your attention and cooperation. Court Is adjourned. 5 (At this time Court adjourned for the day and 6 the following proceedings were held in chambers.) 7 THE COURT: You want to make a motion? 8 MR. HEINEMAN: Yes, your Honor. The Monsanto Company 9 would like to move at this time for a mistrial of this cause on 10 the grounds that Mr. Carr has inserted this Rush City informatin 11 in front of the Jury. Dr. Roush never mentioned Rush City. 12 Mr. Carr knows that Rush City, there is a suit outstanding again 13 Monsanto Company out of the Rush City incident, that members of 14 the Jury are very likely to know about the suit, very likely 15 know people that are representatives of the class that's brlngln 16 the suit. The sole purpose of bringing that information In froit 17 of the jury was for Inflammatory and prejudicial purposes. It 18 has no probative value whatsoever, and to the extent even if 19 it could be argued that it did have any probative value, the 20 inflammatory and prejudicial nature of it far outweighs any 21 probative value that could possibly result from it. And 22 therefore it was clearly improper to bring it out in front of 23 the jury, and we objected to it at the time and now that the 24 jury's heard It, there Is no way to erase It from their minds 1 and we move for a mistrial based on i t , 2 MR. CARR: My response is, first of all, X didn't 3 remember. I probably knew once upon a time that there was a 4 suit, but I didn't have it in my mind until Mr. Heineman just 5 mentioned it, and I w a s n 1t aware that it was a class action 6 suit, In any event, and I d l d n 't have it in my mind when I was 7 asking the question, and I of course didn't refer to any suit, 8 because I didn't have it in my mind. But nevertheless, the 9 Rush City was an anology. Jurors are aware of the fact that 10 Rush City and other communities are next to, well, there Is no 11 other community next to Monsanto other than Rush City, but in 12 immediate proximity, and it was a parallel with the Nitro plant , 13 and simply for the purpose to show the witness was insisting 14 that these people that live in the Kanawha Valley don't have IS exposure whereas I knew that in the Monsanto, Sauget incident 16 that the people did live next to it, and did have some reason to 17 be subjected to the harmful effect of those chemicals just like 18 the people in Kanawha Valley, and I used that as an example that 19 I knew about and that I knew the witness would know about in 20 order to attempt to destroy his position that living next to 21 a chemical plant or living in a valley where there are chemical 22 plants that are not going to cause any problem. 23 MR. HEINEMAN: Well, your Honor, there have been 24 newspaper articles all over the place about the Rush City 1 incident, the Rush City lawsuit, and I can't imagine that 2 Hr. Carr didn't have any idea that there was such a Rush City 3 lawsuit. 4 MR. CARR: Well, imagine it, because I didn't. 5 THE COURT: Well, 1 don't think it makes any difference. .6 I think it was an appropriate analogy. It was not brought up 7 in a prejudicial manner. The fact that a lawsuit exists does 8 not bar it from being used as an anology, just as 1 have 9 previously ruled that the plaintiff and the defendant could use 10 matters from the Nltro situation and the Agent Orange situation 11 besides, regardless of the fact that there were lawsuits in 12 existence and that were in existence in fact prior to the 13 institution of this trial, and therefore the Rush City lawsuit, 14 if my memory serves me correctly, was filed by an attorney not IS in Mr. Carr's firm after the beginning of this litigation and 16 during the time in which the jurors have been admonished not to 17 read anything in any of the media about the subject matter in 18 general or this case in particular. Just as it's not 19 prejudicial to refer to these other mutters, it was not 20 prejudicial and was in fact proper to refer to the Rush City 21 situation as an anologous situation. So on all those bases 22 and incorporating all my reasons on the Nltro litigation and thi 23 Agent Orange litigation, I am denying your motion for a 24 mistrial. 1 MR. CARR: Has there been a class action filed? 2 THE COURT: There's been a class action filed by 3 Jack Norton on behalf of some residents down there, I don't kno 4 If It Is a class action or not. 5 MR. MASSIF: It Is a class action. 6 MR. CARR: Filed on behalf of everybody In Rush City? 7 MR. MASSIF: He put 435, 435 people. 8 MR. CARR: But named as plaintiffs per se? 9 MR. NASSIF: Named a large group of people to be 10 representatives of that class, and It was filed on behalf of 11 several ministers. 12 MR. HEINEMAN: You do want this on the record? 13 MR. CARR: I want to know, you said It was a class 14 action and I want to know whether It was. 15 MR. MASSIF: It Is. I don't know If it still Is today, 16 but It was when It came In. 17 THE COURT: I haven't even seen the Complaint, I really 18 don't know. 19 MR. MASSIF: I think there Is two groups, two attorneys 20 MR. CARR: You mean two separate lawsuits filed? 21 MR. MASSIF: Maybe, but there Is at least two attorneys 22 two attorney groups. I think it was farmed out from the 23 attorney that initially filed it with another attorney. 24 THE COURT: I know Norton filed it, and that was the 1 one that was mentioned In the papers 2 MR. HEINEMAN: That's the one I know, that's the only 3 one I know. 4 MR. NASSIF: X think there might be somebody else 5 Involved. 6 THE COURT: He may have co-counsel on It* Okay. 7 (At this time the ln-chambers conference 8 adjourned.) 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 STATE OF ILLINOIS ) ) SS. 2 COUNTY OF ST. CLAIR ) 3 4 5 6 7 I, Patricia A. Gandy, CSR, RPR, Official Court 8 Reporter In and for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, and the 9 Official Court Reporter who transcribed the above-styled cause 10 had on July 25, 1985, do hereby certify that the foregoing 11 transcript of proceedings Is a true, correct and complete 12 transcript of the proceedings had on said date. 13 DATED this 2nd day of August, 1985. 14 15 16 PATRICIA A. GHD*, 17 Official Court Reporter 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 I STATE OF ILLINOIS ) ) SS. 2 COUNTY OF ST. CLAIR ) 3 4 5 6 7 I, RICHARD P. GOLDENHERSH, Circuit Judge, in and for 8 the Twentieth Judicial Circuit hereby certify that the above is 9 a true and correct transcript of the proceedings had in the IO case captioned: FRANCES E. REMNER, et a l ., v. MONSANTO COMPANY, 11 Cause No. 80-L-970, heard on July 25, 1985. 12 DATED this 2nd day of August, 1985. 13 14 ENTER: 15 16 RICHARD P; GOLDENHERSH, Circuit Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24