Document nmvzzQvB4G4gN8rxw89e9Bz0G

S ch e d u le 13 - Page 9 0004063. 00- 0004066.00 0004067.00 0004068.00 0004069.00 0004070.00 0004071.00 0004072.00 0004073.00 0004074.00 0004075.00 0004076.00 0004078.00 0004079.00 0004080.00 0004081.00 0004082.00 0004083.00 0004084.00 0004085. 00- 0004086.00 0004087.00 0004088.00 0004089. 00- 0004133.00 0004134. 00- 0004182.00 0004183.00 0004184. 00- 0004185.00 0004186.00 0004187.00 0004188.00 0004189.00 0004190.00 0004191.00 0004196. 00- 0004197.00 0004198. 00- 0004199.00 0004200.00 0004201.00 0004202.00 0004203.00 0004204.00 0004205. 00- 0004244.00 0004245. 00- 0004247.00 0004248.00 0004249. 00- 0004290.00 0004291.00 0004292.00 0004293.00 0004294.00 0004295. 00- 0004296.00 0004297.00 9287 S c h e d u le 13 - Page 10 0004298.00 0004299. 00- 0004302.00 0004303. 00- 0004304.00 0004305.00 0004306. 00- 0004310.00 0004311. 00- 0004312.00 0004313. 00- 0004409.00 0004410.00 0004411. 00- 0004413.00 0004414.00 0004415.00 0004416.00 0004417.00 0004418.00 0004419.00 0004420.00 0004421. 00- 0004422.00 0004423.00 0004453.00 0004454. 00- 0004468.00 0004469. 00- 0004535.00 0004536. 00- 0004577.00 0004578.00 0004579.00 0004580.00 0004581.00 0004582.00 0004583.00 0004584. 00- 0004585.00 0004586.00 0004587.00 0004588.00 0004589. 00- 0004590.00 0004593.00 0004594.00 0004595.00 0004596.00 0004597.00 0004598.00 0004599.00 0004600.00 0004601. 00- 0004606.00 0004607.00 0004608. 00- 0004609.00 0004610.00 0004611.00 0004612.00 0004613.00 3288 S ch e d u le 13 - Page 11 0004614.00 0004615. 00- 0004616.00 0005681.00 0005682. 00- 0005683.00 0005684. 00- 0005685.00 0005686. 00- 0005687.00 0005688.00 0005689.00 0005690.00 0005691. 00- 0005692.00 0006008.00 0006009. 00- 0006010.00 0006011.00 0006012.00 0006013.00 0006014.00 0006015.00 0006016.00 0006017. 00- 0006018.00 0006019.00 0006020. 00- 0006067.00 0006068. 00- 0006110.00 0006111.00 0006112.00 0006113.00 0006114.00 0006115.00 0006116.00 0006117.00 0006118.00 0006119.00 0006120. 00- 0006122.00 0006122.01 0006122.02 0006123.00 0006124.00 0006125.00 0006126.00 0006127.00 0006128.00 0006129. 00- 0006130.00 0006131.00 0006133.00 0006134.00 0006135.00 0006136.00 0006137.00 0006138. 00- 0006139.00 3289 S ch e d u le 13 - Page 12 0006144.00 0006145.00 0006146.00 0006147. 00- 0006186.00 0006187. 00- 0006250.00 0006251. 00- 0006252.00 0006253. 00- 0006262.00 0006263.00 0006263.01 0006264.00 0006265.00 0006266.00 0006267.00 0006268.00 0006269.00 0006270.00 0006271.00 0006272.00 0006273.00 0006274. 00- 0006275.00 0006276.00 0006277. 00- 0006343.00 0006344. 00- 0006345.00 0006346.00 0006347.00 0006348. 00- 0006354.00 0006355. 00- 0006356.00 0006357. 00- 0006399.00 0006400.00 0006401. 00- 0006402.00 0006403. 00- 0006404.00 0006405.00 0006406.00 0006407.00 0006408.00 0006409.00 0006410.00 0006411.00 0006412. 00- 0006414.00 0006415.00 0006416.00 0006417.00 0006418.00 0006419.00 0006420.00 0006421.00 0006422.00 0006423. 00- 0006424.00 8290 S c h e d u le 13 - Page 13 0006425.00 0006442.00 0006443.00 0006444.00 0006445. 00- 0006446.00 0006447.00 0006448.00 0006449.00 0006450.00 0006451.00 0006452.00 0006453.00 0006454.00 0006455.00 0006456.00 0006457.00 0006458.00 0006459.00 0006460.00 0006461.00 0006462.00 0006463.00 0006464.00 0006465.00 0006466. 00- 0006469.00 0006470.00 0006471.00 0006472.00 0006473.00 0006474.00 0006475.00 0006476.00 0006477.00 0006478.00 0006479.00 0006480. 00- 0006481.00 0006482.00 0006483.00 0006484.00 0006485.00 0006486.00 0006487.00 0006488.00 0006489.00 0006490.00 0006491.00 0006492.00 0006493.00 S ch e d u le 13 - P age 14 0006494.00 0006495.00 0006496.00 0006497.00 0006498.00 0006499.00 0006500.00 0006501.00 0006502. 00- 0006503.00 0006504.00 0006505. 00- 0006506.00 0006507.00 0006508.00 0006509. 00- 0006510.00 0006515.00 0006516. 00- 0006517.00 0006518.00 0006519.00 0006520.00 0006521.00 0006522. 00- 0006523.00 0006524. 00- 0006526.00 0006527. 00- 0006528.00 0006529.00 0006530.00 0006531. 00- 0006533.00 0006534. 00- 0006535.00 0006540.00 0006541.00 0006542.00 0006543.00 0006544.00 0006552.00 0006553.00 0006554.00 0006555.00 0006557.00 0006558.00 0006559.00 0006560.00 0006560.01 0006561.00 0006562.00 0006563.00 0006564. 00- 0006565.00 0006566.00 0006567.00 0006569. 00- 0006571.00 9292 S c h e d u le 13 - Page 15 0006572. 00- 0006574.00 0006575.00 0006576.00 0006577.00 0006578.00 0006579.00 0006580.00 0006581.00 0006582.00 0006583.00 0006584.00 0006585.00 0006586.00 0006587.00 0006590.00 0006591.00 0006592.00 0006593.00 0006594. 00- 000660.00 0006601.00 0006602.00 0006603.00 0006604.00 0006605.00 0006606. 00- 0006607.00 0006608.00 0006609.00 0006610.00 0006611. 00- 0006612.00 0006613. 00- 0006614.00 0006615.00 0006616.00 0006617.00 0006618.00 0006619.00 0006621.00 0006622.00 0006623.00 0006624.00 0006625.00 0006626.00 0006627. 00- 0006634.00 0006635.00 0006636.00 0006637. 00- 0006639.00 0006640.00 0006641. 00- 0006683.00 0006684.00 9293 S c h e d u le 13 - Page 16 0006685.00 0006686.00 0006687.00 0006688.00 0006689. 00- 0006695.00 0006696. 00- 0006771.00 0006772. 00- 0006773.00 0006774.00 0006775. 00- 0006776.00 0006777.00 0006778.00 0006779.00 0006780. 00- 0006781.00 0006782. 00- 0006784.00 0006785.00 0006786.00 0006787. 00- 0006855.00 0006856.00 0013007. 00- 0013009.00 0013012.00 0013013.00 0013014. 00- 0013015.00 0013016.00 0013017. 00- 0013019.00 0013026.00 0013027.00 0013028.00 0013029. 00- 0013075.00 0013076.00 0013077.00 0013078. 00- 0013079.00 0013080.00 0013081.00 0013082.00 0013083.00 0013084.00 0013085.00 0013086. 00- 0013089.00 0013091.00 0013092.00 0013093. 00- 0013094.00 0013095.00 0013099. 00- 0013100.00 0013101. 00- 0013102.00 0013104.00 0013105.00 0013106.00 0013107.00 S ch e d u le 13 - Page 17 0013108.00 0013109.00 0013110.00 0013111.00 0013112.00 0013113.00 0013115.00 0013116.00 0013117.00 0013118.00 0013119. 00- 0013120.00 0013122.00 0013123. 00- 0013125.00 0013126. 00- 0013127.00 0013128.00 0013129.00 0013130.00 0013131.00 0013132.00 0013135.00 0013136.00 0013137.00 0013140. 00- 0013143.00 0013144. 00- 0013159.00 0013160. 00- 0013171.00 0013184. 00- 0013185.00 0013202.00 0013203.00 0013204.00 0013205. 00- 0013219.00 0013220.00 0013221. 00- 0013232.00 0013233. 00- 0013237.00 0013238. 00- 0013253.00 0013254. 00- 0013257.00 0013258.00 0013259. 00- 0013262.00 0013262. 01- 0013263.00 0013264.00 0013265. 00- 0013271.00 0013272. 00- 0013273.00 0013275. 00- 0013282.00 0013285. 00- 0013286.00 0013287.00 0013288.00 0013289.00 0013290.00 0013291.00 9295 S c h e d u le 13 - Page 18 0013292.00 0013293.00 0013294.00 0013295.00 0013296.00 0013297.00 0013298.00 0013299. 00- 0013301.00 0013302. 00- 0013304.00 0013365. 00- 0013376.00 0013375.00 0013377.00 0013378.00 0013379. 00- 0013380.00 0013381.00 0013382. 00- 0013383.00 0013390. 00- 0013404.00 0013405. 00- 0013418.00 0013419. 00- 0013457.00 0013458.00 0013459.00 0013460. 00- 0013461.00 0013462.00 0013463.00 0013464.00 0013465.00 0013466.00 0013467.00 0013468.00 0013469.00 0013470.00 0013471.00 0013472.00 0013473.00 0013474. 00- 0013475.00 0013476. 00- 0013477.00 0013485. 00- 0013486.00 0013487.00 0013488.00 0013489.00 0013490.00 0013491.00 0013492. 00- 0013493.00 0013494.00 0013495.00 0013496.00 0013497.00 0013498.00 3296 S ch e d u le 13 - Page 19 0013499.00 0013500.00 0013501.00 0013503.00 0013504.00 0013505.00 0013506.00 0013507.00 0013508.00 0013510. 00- 0013547.00 0013548. 00- 0013572.00 0013574.00 0013575.00 0013578.00 0013579.00 0013581.00 0013582.00 0013583.00 0013585.00 0013586.00 0013591.00 0013595.00 0013596. 00- 0013615.00 0013617. 00- 0013622.00 0013623.00 0013624.00 0013625.00 0013626.00 0013627.00 0013628.00 0013629.00 0013630. 00- 0013638.00 0013639.00 0013640.00 0013641.00 0013642.00 0013643.00 0013644. 00- 0013681.00 0013683. 00- 0013684.00 0013686. 00- 0013723.00 0013724.00 0013725. 00- 0013726.00 0013727.00 0013728.00 0013729.00 0013730.00 0013731.00 0013732.00 oO A9* <qJ nj S ch e d u le 13 - Page 20 0013733.00 0013734.00 0013735.00 0013735.00 0013737.00 0013738. 00- 00137400. 0 0013741.00 0013742.00 0013743.00 0013744.00 0013745.00 0013745.00 0013747.00 0013748. 00- 00137490. 0 0013750. 00- 00137820. 0 0013784. 00- 00137850. 0 0013786.00 0013787.00 0013788.00 0013789.00 0013790. 00- 00137910. 0 0013792.00 0013793.00 0013794.00 0013795.00 0013796. 00- 00137970. 0 0013798.00 0013799.00 0013800.00 0013801. 00- 00138020. 0 0013803.00 0013804.00 0013805.00 0013806.00 0013807.00 0013808.00 0013809.00 0013810.00 0013811.00 0013812.00 0013813.00 0013814.00 0013815.00 0013816.00 0013817.00 0013818.00 0013819.00 0013820.00 r S c h e d u le 13 - Page 21 0013821.00 0013822.00 0013998.00 0013999.00 0014000.00 0014001. 00- 0014002.00 0014005.00 0014006.00 0014007. 00- 0014062.00 0014063. 00- 0014105.00 0014106.00 0014107.00 0014108.00 0014109.00 0014110. 00- 0014111.00 0014112. 00- 0014113.00 0014114.00 0014115.00 0014116. 00- 0014117.00 0014118.00 0014119.00 0014120.00 0014121.00 0014122.00 0014123. 00- 0014124.00 0014127.00 0014128.00 0014129.00 0014130.00 0014491.00 0014493.00 0014494.00 0014495.00 0014496.00 0014497.00 0014498.00 0014499.00 0014500.00 0014501.00 0014502.00 0014503.00 0014503.01 0014504.00 0014505.00 0014506.00 0014507.00 0014508.00 0014509.00 9299 0014509. 01 0014510. 00 0014513. 00 0014514. 00 0014515. 00 0014518. 00 0014519. 00 0014520. 00 0014523. 00 0014524. 00 0014525. 00 0014526. 00 0014527. 00 0014535. 00 0014536. 00 0014537. 00 0014538. 00 0014540. 00 0014541. 00 0014542. 00 0014543. 00 0014544. 00 0014545. 00 0014545. 01 0014546. 00 0014547. 00 0014548. 00 0014550. 00 0014551. 00 0014552. 00 0014554. 00 0014555. 00 0014556. 00 0014557. 00 0014558. 00 0014559. 00 0014560. 00 0014561. 00 0014562 . 00 0014563. 00 0014564. 00 0014565. 00 0014566. 00 0014568. 00 0014569. 00 0014570. 00 0014571. 00 0014572. 00 S c h e d u le 13 - Page 22 0014573. 00 0014574. 00 0014575. 00 0014578. 00 0014579. 00 0014580. 00 0014581. 00 0014582. 00 0014584. 00 0014585. 00 0014587. 00 0014588. 00 0014589. 00 0014590. 00 0014591. 00 0014592. 00 0014593. 00 0014594. 00 0014595. 00 0014596. 00 0014597. 00 0014598. 00 0014599. 00 0014600. 00 0014601. 00 0014603. 00 0014604. 00 0014605. 00 0014606. 00 0014607. 00 0014608. 00 0014609. 00 0014610. 00 0014611. 00 0014612. 00 0014613. 00 0014614. 00 0014616. 00 0014617. 00 0014618. 00 0014619. 00 0014620. 00 0014621. 00 0014622. 00 0014623. 00 0014624. 00 0014625. 00 0014626. 00 0014627.00 0014628.00 0014629.00 0014630.00 0014631.00 0014632.00 0014634.00 0014635.00 0014636.00 0014637.00 0014639.00 0014641.00 0014642.00 0014643.00 0014644.00 0014645.00 0014646.00 0014647.00 0014648.00 0014649.00 0014650.00 0014651.00 0014652.00 0014653.00 0014654.00 0014655.00 0014656.00 0014657.00 0014658.00 0014659.00 0014660.00 0014661.00 0014662.00 0014664.00 0014665.00 0014666.00 0014667.00 0014668.00 0014672.00 0014673.00 0014674.00 0014675.00 0014676.00 0014677.00 0014678.00 0014679.00 0014680.00 0014681.00 S c h e d u le 13 - Page 24 p p0 r\ o J^ S ch e d u le 13 - Page 25 0014683. 00 0014684. 00 0014685. 00 0014686. 00 0014687. 00 0014688. 00 0014690. 00 0014691. 00 0014692. 00 0014693. 00 0014694. 00 0014695. 00 0014696. 00 0014697. 00 0014698. 00 0014699. 00 0014701. 00 0014702. 00 - 0014703.00 0014704. 00 0014705. 00 0014706. 00 0014709. 00 0014710. 00 0014711. 00 0014712. 00 0014713. 00 0014714. 00 0014715. 00 0014716. 00 0014717. 00 0014718. 00 0014719. 00 0014720. 00 0014721. 00 0014722. 00 - 0014723.00 0014724. 00 0014725. 00 0014726. 00 0014727. 00 0014728. 00 0014729. 00 0014730. 00 0014731. 00 0014732. 00 0014733. 00 0014734. 00 0014735. 00 0014736. 00 9303 S ch e d u le 13 - Page 26 0014737.00 0014738.00 0014740.00 0014741.00 0014742.00 0014743.00 0014744.00 0014745.00 0014746.00 0014747.00 0014748.00 0014749. 00- 0014750.00 0014751.00 0014752.00 0014753.00 0014754.00 0014757.00 0014759.00 0014760.00 0014761.00 0014762.00 0014763.00 0014764.00 0014765.00 0014773.00 0014775.00 0014776.00 0014777.00 0014778.00 0014779.00 0014781.00 0014782.00 0014783.00 0014784.00 0014785.00 0014786.00 0014787.00 0014788.00 0014790.00 0014791.00 0014792.00 0014793.00 0014794.00 0014795.00 0014796.00 0014797.00 0014798.00 0014799.00 0014800.00 0014801.00 0014802.00 0014803.00 0014805.00 0014806.00 0014807.00 0014808.00 0014810.00 0014812.00 0014813.00 0014814.00 0014815.00 0014816.00 0014817.00 0014818.00 0014819.00 0014820.00 0014821.00 0014822.00 0014823.00 0014824.00 0014825.00 0014826.00 0014827.00 0014828.00 0014829.00 0014830.00 0014834.00 0014836.00 0014839.00 0014840.00 0014842.00 0014843.00 0014844.00 0014845.00 0014846.00 0014847.00 0014849.00 0014850.00 0014851.00 0014852.00 0014853.00 0014854.00 0014855.00 0014856.00 0014857.00 0014858.00 S c h e d u le 13 - P age 27 Jo 0 0014859. 00 0014860. 00 0014861. 00 0014862. 00 0014863. 00 0014865. 00 0014866. 00 0014868. 00 0014869. 00 0014870. 00 0014873. 00 0014874. 00 0014875. 00 0014876. 00 0014877. 00 0014878. 00 0014879. 00 0014880. 00 0014881. 00 0014882. 00 0014883. 00 0014884. 00 0014885. 00 0014886. 00 0014887. 00 0014888. 00 0014889. 00 0014891. 00 014892. 00 0014893. 00 0014895. 00 0014896. 00 0014897. 00 0014898. 00 0014899. 00 0014900. 00 0014901. 00 0014902. 00 0014903. 00 0014904. 00 0014905. 00 0014906. 00 0014907. 00 0014908. 00 0014909. 00 0014910. 00 0014911. 00 0014912. 00 S c h e d u le 13 - P age 28 0014913. 00 0014914. 00 0014915. 00 0014916. 00 0014917. 00 0014918. 00 0014920. 00 0014921. 00 0014922. 00 0014923. 00 0014924. 00 0014925. 00 0014926. 00 0014927. 00 0014928. 00 0014929. 00 0014930. 00 0014931. 00 0014932. 00 0014933. 00 0014935. 00 0014936. 00 0014937. 00 0014938. 00 0014939. 00 0014940. 00 0014941. 00 0014942. 00 0014943. 00 0014944. 00 0014945. 00 0014946. 00 0014950. 00 0014951. 00 0014953. 00 0014954. 00 0014956. 00 0014957. 00 0014958. 00 0014959. 00 0014960. 00 0014964. 00 0014965. 00 0014967. 00 0014968. 00 0014971. 00 0014973. 00 0014974. 00 S ch e d u le 13 - Page S c h e d u le 13 - Page 30 0014975.00 0014976.00 0014977.00 0014978.00 0014979. 000014981.00 0014982.00 0014983.00 0014990.00 0014991.00 0014992.00 0014993.00 0014997.00 0014998.00 0014999.00 0015000.00 0015002. 000015008. 000015032.00 0015033.00 0015036.00 0015038.00 0015040.00 0015041.00 0015044.00 0015047.00 0015049.00 0015050.00 0015051.00 0015052.00 0015053.00 0015055.00 0015056.00 0015057.00 0015058.00 0015059.00 0015063.00 0015066.00 0015068.00 0015069.00 0015071.00 0015073.00 0015075.00 0015076.00 0015078.00 0015080.00 0015081.00 0015082.00 0014980.00 0015004.00 0015014.00 0 MIS S ch e d u le 13 - Page 31 0015083.00 0015085.00 0015087.00 0015088.00 0015089.00 0015091.00 0015092.00 0015093.00 0015094.00 0015095.00 0015096.00 0015097.00 0015098.00 0015099.00 0015100.00 0015101.00 0015102.00 0015103.00 0015104.00 0015105.00 0015106.00 0015107.00 0015108.00 0015110.00 0015111.00 0015112.00 0015113.00 0015116.00 0015117.00 0015118.00 0015119.00 0015120. 00- 0015121.00 0015122.00 0015123.00 0015124.00 0015125.00 0015125.01 0015126.00 0015131.00 0015132.00 0015133.00 0015134.00 0015135.00 0015136.00 0015137.00 0015138.00 0015140.00 0015141.00 *.j 0 3 0015142. 00 0015144. 00 0015145. 00 0015147. 00 0015148. 00 0015152. 00 0015153. 00 0015154. 00 0015155. 00 0015156. 00 0015157. 00 0015159. 00 0015162. 00 0015163. 00 0015164. 00 0015165. 00 0015168. 00 0015169. 00 0015170. 00 0015171. 00 0015172. 00 0015173. 00 0015174. 00 0015176. 00 0015180. 00 0015181. 00 0015182. 00 0015184. 00 0015185. 00 0015186. 00 0015187. 00 0015190. 00 0015191. 00 0015192 . 00 0015199. 00 0015203. 00 0015205. 00 0015207. 00 0015208. 00 0015209. 00 0015211. 00 0015212. 00 0015213. 00 0015214. 00 0015215. 00 0015216. 00 0015217. 00 0015219. 00 S c h e d u le 13 - Page 32 S c h e d u le 13 - Page 33 0015220.00 0015221.00 0015222.00 0015224. 000015226.00 0015227.00 0015229.00 0015230.00 0015232.00 0015234. 000015236.00 0015237.00 0015238.00 0015239.00 0015240.00 0015241.00 0015242.00 0015248.00 0015249.00 0015250.00 0015251.00 0015252.00 0015253.00 0015254.00 0015255.00 0015256.00 0015257.00 0015258.00 0015259.00 0015260.00 0015261.00 0015262.00 0015263.00 0015264.00 0015265.00 0015266.00 0015267.00 0015268.00 0015270.00 0015271.00 0015273. 000015275.00 0015276.00 0015277.00 0015279.00 0015280.00 0015282.00 0015283.00 0015225.00 0015235.00 0015274.00 `r. ij x j O' -i. . S ch e d u le 13 - Page 34 0015284.00 0015285.00 0015286.00 0015287.00 0015288.00 0015289.00 0015290.00 0015291.00 0015292.00 0015294.00 0015295.00 0015296.00 0015297.00 0015298.00 0015299.00 0015300.00 0015301.00 0015302.00 0015303.00 0015304.00 0015305.00 0015306.00 0015307.00 0015308.00 0015309.00 0015310.00 0015311.00 0015312.00 0015313.00 0015314. 00- 0015315.00 0015316.00 0015317.00 0015319.00 0015320.00 0015321.00 0015322.00 0015324.00 0015325.00 0015328.00 0015330.00 0015331.00 0015332.00 0015333.00 0015334.00 0015335.00 0015336.00 0015337.00 0015338.00 S c h e d u le 13 - Page 35 0015339. 00 0015342. 00 0015343. 00 0015344. 00 0015345. 00 0015345. 00 0015347. 00 0015348. 00 0015349. 00 - 0015350.00 0015351. 00 0015352. 00 0015353. 00 0015354. 00 0015355. 00 015356. 00 0015357. 00 0015359. 00 - 0015360.00 0015351. 00 0015352. 00 0015363. 00 0015364. 00 0015364. 01 0015365. 00 0015366. 00 0015367. 00 0015368. 00 0015370. 00 0015371. 00 0015372. 00 0015373. 00 0015375. 00 0015376. 00 0015377. 00 0015378. 00 0015379. 00 0015380. 00 0015381. 00 0015382. 00 0015383. 00 0015384. 00 0015384. 01 0015385. 00 0015386. 00 0015387. 00 0015388. 00 0015389. 00 0015390. 00 0015391. 00 S c h e d u le 13 - Page 36 0015391.01 0015392.00 0015394.00 0015395.00 0015396.00 0015397.00 0015399. 00- 0015400.00 0015401.00 0015402.00 0015403.00 0015404.00 0015406.00 0015407. 00- 0015408.00 0015409.00 0015410.00 0015411.00 0015412.00 0015413.00 0015414.00 0015415.00 0015416.00 0015417.00 0015418.00 0015419.00 0015420.00 0015421.00 0015422.00 0015423.00 0015424.00 0015425.00 0015426.00 0015426.01 0015428. 00- 0015429.00 0015430.00 0015433.00 0015435.00 0015436.00 0015437.00 0015438.00 0015443. 00- 0015444.00 0015445.00 0015446.00 0015447.00 0015448.00 0015449.00 0015449.01 0015450.00 0015451.00 8314 S c h e d u le 13 - P age 37 0015452.00 0015453.00 0015454.00 0015455.00 0015455.00 0015457.00 0015458. 0Q- 0015475.00 0015484.00 0016364. 00- 0015481.00 0016482. 00- 0016600.00 0016619.00 0016622. 00- 0016623.00 0016624. 00- 0016628.00 0016630.00 0016632. 00- 0016633.00 0016634.00 0016637. 00- 0016640.00 0016641.00 0016642.00 0016643.00 0016644.00 0016646.00 0016648.00 0016649.00 0016650.00 0016651.00 0016652.00 0016653.00 0016654.00 0016655.00 0016656.00 0016657.00 0016658.00 0016659.00 0016660. 00- 0016699.00 0016700.00 0016701. 00- 0016740.00 0016741. 00- 0016744.00 0016745.00 0016746. 00- 0016747.00 0016748.00 0016749.00 0016750.00 0016751.00 0016752. 00- 0016753.00 0016754.00 0016755.00 0016756.00 0 S ch e d u le 13 - Page 38 0016757.00 0016758.00 0016759.00 0016760.00 0016761.00 0016762.00 0016763.00 0016764. 00- 0016766.00 0016767. 00- 0016769.00 0016770.00 0016771.00 0016772.00 0016773.00 0016774.00 0016775. 000016777.00 0016778.00 0016779.00 0016780. 000016782.00 0016783.00 0016784.00 0016785.00 0016786.00 0016787.00 0016788.00 0016789.00 0016790.00 0016791.00 0016792.00 0016793.00 0016794.00 0016795.00 0016796.00 0016797.00 0016798.00 0017099.00 0017100.00 0017101.00 0017102.00 0017103.00 0017104.00 0017105.00 0017106.00 0017107. 000017109.00 0016765.00 0016768.00 0016776.00 0016781.00 0017108.00 S ch e d u le 13 - Page 39 0017110.00 0017111.00 0017112.00 0017113.00 0017114.00 0017115.00 0017116. 00- 0017118.00 0017119.00 0017120.00 0017121. 00- 0017159.00 0017160.00 0017161.00 0017162.00 0017163.00 0017164.00 0017165.00 0017166.00 0017167.00 0017168.00 0017169.00 0017170.00 0017171.00 0017172.00 0017173.00 0017174.00 0017175.00 0017176.00 0017177.00 0017178. 00- 0017179.00 0017180. 00- 0017181.00 0017182. 00- 0017193.00 0017194.00 0017195. 00- 0017198.00 0017199.00 0017200. 00- 0017215.00 0017216. 00- 0017219.00 0017220. 00- 0017223.00 0017224. 00- 0017258.00 0017259. 00- 0017260.00 0017261. 00- 0017363.00 0017365.00 0017366.00 0017367. 00- 0017375.00 0017376. 00- 0017435.00 0017436. 00- 0017438.00 0017439.00 0017440.00 0017441.00 3317 S ch e d u le 13 - Page 40 0017442. 00- 0017466.00 0017467. 00- 0017483.00 0017484.00 0017485.00 0017486.00 0017487. 00- 0017490.00 0017491.00 0017492. 00- 0017497.00 0017498. 00- 0017503.00 00 7504. 00- 0017506.00 0017507. 00- 0017508.00 0017509.00 0017510.00 0017511.00 0017512.00 0017513.00 0017514.00 0017515.00 0017516. 00- 0017517.00 0017518.00 0017519. 00- 0017521.00 0017522.00 0017523.00 0017524.00 0017525.00 0017526.00 0017527.00 0017528.00 0017529.00 0017530.00 0017533.00 0017537. 00- 0017538.00 0017539. 00- 0017555.00 0032334.00 0033303. 00- 0033313.00 0033328. 00- 0033331.00 0033332.00 0033333.00 0033334.00 0033335.00 0033336.00 0033337.00 0033338.00 0033339.00 0033340.00 0033343.00 0033344.00 0033345.00 931 S c h e d u le 13 - Page 41 0033362.00- 0033364.00 0033365.00 0033372.00- 0033376.00 0033377.00 0033379.00 0033380.00 0033384.00- 0033388.00 0033389.00 0033390.00 0033391.00- 0033392.00 0033393.00 0033395.00 0033396.00- 0033398.00 0033400.00- 0033402.00 0033403.00- 0033407.00 0033418.00- 0033443.00 0033444.00 0033445.00 0033446.00 0033447.00- 0033450.00 0033451.00 0033452.00 0033453.00 0033475.00 0033553.00 0033554.00 0033555.00 0033556.00 0033557.00 0033558.00 0033559.00 0033560.00 0033561.00 0033562.00 0033563.00 0033564.00 0033565.00 0033566.00 0033567.00- 0033568.00 0033569.00 0033570.00- 0033572.00 0033573.00 0033574.00 0033575.00 0033576.00 0033577.00 0033578.00 0033579.00 9313 S ch e d u le 13 - Page 42 0033580.00 0033581.00 0033583.00 0033590.00 0033591.00 003363 1.0 0- 00336360. 0 0040535.00 0040539.00 00 4 1376.0 0- 00414190. 0 0041420.00- 0041493 0.0 00 41494.00- 00415550. 0 004 15 56.0 0 - 00416510. 0 00416 52.00 - 00417340. 0 0 0 4 1 7 3 5 .0 0 - 00418130. 0 0041814.00 0041815.00 0041816.00 0041817.'00-0041818. 00 0041819.00 0041820.00 0041821.00 0041822.00 0041823.00 0041824.00 0041825.00 0041826.00 0041827.00 0041828.00 0041829.00 0041830.00 0041831.00 0041832.00 0041833.00 0041834.00 0041835.00 0041836.00 0041837.00 0041838.00 0041839.00 0041840.00 0041841.00 0041842.00 0041843.00 0041844.00 0041845.00 0041846.00 0041847.00 0041848.00 9320 S c h e d u le 13 - Page 43 0041849. 00 0041850. 00 0041851. 00 0041852. 00 0041853. 00 0041854. 00 0041855. 00 0041856. 00 0041857. 00 0041858. 00 0041859. 00 0041860. 00 0041861. 00 0041862. 00 0041863. 00 0041864. 00 0041865. 00 0041866. 00 0041867. 00 0041868. 00 0041869. 00 0041870. 00 0041871. 00 0041872. 00 0041873. 00 0041874. 00 0041875. 00 0041876. 00 0041877. 00 0041878. 00 0041879. 00 0041880. 00 0041881. 00 0041882. 00 0041883. 00 0041884. 00 -0 04 18 91 .00 0041892. 00 -0041895.00 0041896. 00 0041897. 00 -00 41901.0 0 0041902. 00 -0041909.00 0041910. 00 004 1911. 00 - 004 1 91 2 .0 0 0041916. 00 0041917. 00 -004 1919.0 0 0041920. 00 0041924. 00 0041925. 00 0041926. 00 -0041927.00 S c h e d u le 13 - Page 44 0041928.00 0041929.00 0041930.00- 0041935.00 0041936.00- 0041937.00 0041938.00 0041939.00- 0041940.00 0041941.00- 0041942.00 0041943.00 0041944.00- 0041948.00 0041949.00 0041950.00 0041951.00 0041952.00 0041953.00 0041954.00 0041960.00 0041961.00 0041962.00- 0041963.00 0041964.00- 0041965.00 0041966.00- 0041970.00 0041976.00- 0041977.00 0041978.00- 0041980.00 0041981.00- 0041993.00 0041994.00- 0041995.00 0041996.00- 0042001.00 0042002.00- 0042019.00 0042020.00- 0042025.00 0042026.00- 0042029.00 0042030.00- 0042034.00 0042035.00- 0042041.00 0042042.00- 0042044.00 0042045.00- 0042046.00 0042047.00 0042048.00 0042049.00 0042050.00- 0042051.00 0042052.00 0042052.01 0042053.00 0042054.00- 0042056.00 0042057.00- 0042058.00 0042059.00 0042091.00- 0042093.00 0042094.00 0042095.00- 0042096.00 0042105.00- 0042106.00 0042107.00 0042108.00 S c h e d u le 13 - Page 45 0042109.00 0042168.00- 0042169.00 0042246.00 0042247.00 0042248.00 0042249.00 0042250.00 0042251.00 0042252.00 0042253.00 0042254.00 0042255.00 0042256.00 0042257.00 0042259.00 0042260.00 0042261.00 0042262.00 0042263.00 0042264.00 0042265.00 0042266.00 0042267.00 0042268.00 0042269.00 0042270.00 0042271.00 0042272.00 0042273.00 0042274.00 0042275.00 0042277.00 0042278.00- 0042285.00 0042286.00- 0042311.00 0042315.00 0042316.00 0042317.00- 0042318.00 0042319.00 0042320.00 0042321.00- 0042322.00 0042323.00 0042324.00 0042325.00 0042326.00 0042327.00 0042328.00 0042329.00 0042330.00 nyozj 9n ^^ S c h e d u le 13 - Page 46 0042331.00 0042332.00 0042334.00 0042335.00 0042336.00 0042337.00 0042338.00 0042339.00 0042340.00 0042341.00 0042342.00 0042343.00 0042344.00 0042345.00 0042346.00 0042347.00 0042348.00 0042349.00 0042350.00 0042351.00 0042352.00 0042353.00 0042354.00- 0042355.00 0042356.00- 0042382.00 0042383.00 0042384.00 0042385.00 0042391.00- 0042393.00 0042395.00 0042403.00 0042404.00 0042408.00 0042409.00- 0042410.00 0042411.00 0042412.00- 0042413.00 0042414.00 0042415.00- 0042416.00 0042417.00- 0042431.00 0042432.00 0042433.00 0042434.00- 0042435.00 0042436.00 0042437.00- 0042438.00 0042439.00 0042440.00- 0042441.00 0042442.00 0042443.00- 0042444.00 0042445.00 qvjtoU,9 4* S c h e d u le 13 - Page 47 0042446.00- 0042447.00 0042448.00 0042449.00- 0042450.00 0042451.00 0042452.00- 0042453.00 0042454.00 0042455.00- 0042456.00 0042457.00 0042458.00- 0042459.00 0042460.00 0042461.00- 0042462.00 0042463.00 0042464.00- 0042465.00 0042466.00 0042467.00- 0042468.00 0042469.00 0042470.00- 0042471.00 0042472.00 0042473.00- 0042474.00 0042475.00 0042476.00- 0042477.00 0042478.00 0042479.00- 0042480.00 0042481.00 0042482.00- 0042483.00 0042484.00 0042485.00- 0042486.00 0042487.00 0042488.00- 0042489.00 0042490.00 0042491.00- 0042492.00 0042493.00 0042494.00- 0042495.00 0042512.00 0042516.00- 0042518.00 0042519.00 0042524.00- 0042526.00 0047757.00- 0047758.00 0047759.00 0047760.00 0047761.00- 0047763.00 0047778.00- 0047780.00 0047781.00- 0047782.00 0047783.00 0047784.00 0047785.00 0047786.00 0047787.00 9325 S ch e d u le 13 - P age 48 0047788.00 0047795.00- 0047796.00 0047797.00- 0047798.00 0047799.00- 0047840.00 0047841.00- 0047882.00 0047883.00- 0047886.00 0047887.00 0047888.00 0047889.00 0047890.00- 0047892.00 0047892.01 0047893.00 0047894.00- 0047895.00 0047896.00- 0047897.00 0047898.00 0047899.00 0047901.00- 0047950.00 0047951.00 0047952.00 0047953.00 0047954.00- 0047955.00 0047956.00- 0047957.00 0047958.00 0047959.00 0047960.00 0047961.00- 0047999.00 0048000.00- 0048002.00 0048002.01 0048002.02 0048003.00 0048004.00 0048005.00 0048006.00 0048007.00 0048008.00 0048009.00 0048010.00 0048011.00- 0048012.00 0048013.00 0048015.00 0048016.00 0048017.00 0048018.00- 0048019.00 0048020.00- 0048021.00 0048022.00- 0048069.00 0048070.00- 0048123.00 0048124.00 0048125.00 o- o'.J S ch e d u le 13 - Page 49 0048126.00- 0048127.00 0048128.00 0048129.00- 0048130.00 0048131.00- 0048132.00 0048140.00 0048142.00 0048143.00 0048144.00 0048145.00 0048146.00 0048147.00 0048148.00 0048149.00 0048156.00 0048157.00 0048158.00 0048159.00 0048160.00 0048161.00 0048162.00 0048163.00- 0048166.00 0048167.00 0048168.00 0048169.00 0048170.00 0048171.00- 0048212.00 0048213.00- 0048285.00 0048286.00 0048287.00 0048288.00 0048289.00 0048290.00 0048296.00 0048297.00 0048298.00 0048299.00 0048300.00 0048301.00 0048302.00 0048303.00 0048304.00 0048305.00 0048306.00 0048307.00 0048308.00- 0048309.00 0048310.00 0048311.00- 0048312.00 0048313.00- 0048356.00 Q .OQr9C7f S ch e d u le 13 - Page 50 0048357.00 0048358.00 0048359.00 0048360.00 0048361.00 0048362.00 0048363.00 0048364.00- 00483650. 0 0048366.00 0048368.00 0048369.00 0048370.00 0048371.00 0048372.00 0048373.00 0048374.00- 00483950. 0 0048396.00- 00484150. 0 004 84 16.00 - 00484530. 0 0048454.00 0048455.00 0048456.00 0048458.00 0048459.00 0048460.00 0048461.00 0048462.00 0048463.00 0048464.00 * 0048465.00 0048466.00 0048467.00 0048468.00- 00484690. 0 0052852.00 0052853.00 0052855.00 9328 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK X In Re IIAGENT ORANGE" Product L ia b ility L itigatio n X V E R I E R fflAXEMEN-TP.M....... - D efen da nt Monsanto Company ( " M o n s a n t o " ) , by i t s undersigned attorneys, submits th is V erified Statement pursuant t o P r e t r i a l Order No. 33, P a r t IX, P aragr ap h 3, and in a cc o rd a n ce w ith P l a i n t i f f s ' S ta te m e n t o f U nderstanding and D e f i n i t i o n o f "Agent O r a n g e ," d a te d March 12, 1982 ( h e r e i n a f t e r "P la in tiffs' Statement"). Monsanto su p p lied to the United S t a t e s Government under c o n t r a c t some o f e a c h o f th e f o l l o w i n g "phenoxy c o m p o u n d s a s that term is defined in P l a i n t i f f s ' Statement: (1) a h e r b ic id e composed of approxim ately 50 p e r c e n t by volume o f t h e n - b u t y l e s t e r o f 2 , 4 , 5 - t r i c h l o r o p h e n o x y a c e t i c a c id ( " 2 , 4 , 5 - T " ) and 50 p e r c e n t by volume o f t h e n - b u t y l e s t e r o f 2 ,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid ("2,4-D "), sometimes referred to as "Herbicide Orange" or "Agent Orange"; (2) a h e r b i c i d e composed o f a p p r o x i m a t e l y 30 p e r c e n t by volume o f t h e n - b u t y l e s t e r o f 2 , 4 , 5 - T , 50 p e r c e n t by volume o f t h e n - b u t y l e s t e r o f 2 ,4 -D and 20 p e r c e n t by volume o f t h e i s o - b u t y l e s t e r o f 2 . 4 . 5 - T, sometimes re fe r re d to as "H erbicide Purple" or "Agent P u r p l e " ; and (3) a h e r b i c i d e composed o f a p p r o x i m a t e l y 60 p e r c e n t by volume o f t h e n - b u t y l e s t e r o f 2 , 4 , 5 - T and 40 p e r c e n t by volume o f the i s o - b u t y l e s t e r o f 2 . 4 . 5 - T, sometimes re fe rre d to as "H erbicide Pink" or "Agent Pink." Monsanto la ck s inform ation s u f f i c i e n t to enable i t to s t a t e what amount, i f any, o f each o f the above-described "phenoxy compounds" so su p p lie d by i t to the United S t a t e s Government was used by the Government in S o u th ea st Asia during the period 1961 through 1974. On i n f o r m a t i o n and b e l i e f , and e x c e p t a s s t a t e d a b o v e , Monsanto s u p p l i e d no o t h e r "phenoxy compounds" f o r use by th e United S ta te s Government in Southeast Asia during the period 1961 through 1974. However, Monsanto re s e rv e s the r ig h t to amend or su pplem en t t h i s V e r i f i e d S t a t e m e n t i f a p p r o p r i a t e i n the l i g h t o f f a c t s or in fo rm a tio n h e r e a f t e r d is c o v e r e d by Monsanto. D ated: New Y o r k , New York A p r il 9, 1982 TOWNLEY & UPDIKE By. / y John C. Sabetta At/orneys for Defendant "^ M o n s a n t o Company 405 L e x i n g t o n Avenue New Y o r k , New York 10174 (212) 682-4567 C VERIFICATION STATE OF MISSOURI ) COUNTY OF ST. LOUIS) SS Dr. W illia m M c C a r v il l e , being d u ly sworn, deposes and s a y s t h a t he i s D i r e c t o r o f Environm ental A f f a i r s of d e fe n d a n t Monsanto Company, a c o r p o r a t i o n ; t h a t he has read the f o r e g o i n g V e r i f i e d Statem ent and i s f a m i l i a r w ith the c o n t e n ts t h e r e o f ; and t h a t based upon i n f o r m a t i o n and b e l i e f and t o the b e s t o f deponent's knowledge the contents of the V e r ifie d Statement are true. Sworn t o b e f o r e me t h i s /.fc day of A p r i l , 1982. .IM 1 M L & - Dr. WilLi^m M cC arville ;o ;j ! c o . ,t,i co.vv, : : : c :-: i&s ;x-:i 21 1954 - 3 - 9331 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAIL STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) ss. : COUNTY OF NEW YORK) ISABELLE GANS, b e i n g d u l y sworn, d e p o se s and s a y s : deponent i s not a p a r ty to the a c t i o n , i s over 18 y e a r s o f age and r e s i d e s a t 2134-72nd S t r e e t , B r o o k l y n , New Y o r k . On the 9th day o f A p ril , 19 8 2, dep on en t s e r v e d t h e w i t h i n V e r i f i e d S t a t e m e n t o f Monsanto Company upon the f o llo w in g a tto r n e y (s ) in t h i s a c tio n : William Krohley, Esq. Kelley Drye & Warren 350 Park Avenue New York, New York 10022 Michael M. Gordon, Esq. Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft One Wall Street New York, New York 10005 Leonard Rivkin, Esq. Rivkin, Lef f, Sherman & Radler 100 Garden City Plaza New York, New York 11530 Judge Morton Silberman Clark, Gagliardi & Miller 99 Court Street White Plains, New York 10601 John M. Fitzpatr ick , Esq. Dilworth, Paxson, Kalish & Levy 2600 The F i d e l i t y Bldg. Philadelphia, PA 19109 Themas Beck, Esq. Arthur, Dry & Kalish 1230 Ave._ of the Americas New York, New York 10020 Dennis Rothman, Esq. Lester Schwab Katz & Dwy 120 Broadway New York, New York 10005 Paul V. Esposito, Esq. Lewis, Overbeck & Furman 135 South LaSalle Street Suite 1060 Chicago, I l l i n o i s 60603 David R. Gross, Esq. Budd, Lamer, Kent, Gross, P i c i l l o & Rosenbaum 33 Washington Street Newark, New Jersey 07102 Victor J. Yannacone, Esq Yannacone & Yannacone Post Office Drawer #109 Patchogue, New York 1177 Michael V. Corrigan, Esq. Simpson, Thacher & B art lett One Battery Park Plaza New York, New York 10004 a t the above address(es) designated by said attorn ey(s) fo r t h a t p u rp o s e by d e p o s i t i n g a t r u e copy o f same e n c l o s e d i n a p o s tp a id p r o p e r ly addressed wrapper in an o f f i c i a l d e p o s it o r y under the e x c lu s iv e care and custody o f the United S ta te s P o s t a l S e r v i c e w i t h i n t h e S t a t e o f New Y o r k . Sworn t o b e f o r e me t h i s day o f April , 198 2- ISABEL; t HfffcMEvlublic N o ta ry Public, State of N ew Y ork . N o, 470908* Q ualified io N ew York C o u n ty T erm Expires M arch 30, 1983 If u. s. 1 ' APR ' S i ! - Ly ; N . t I I -- ^ ` IN CLERK'S OFFICE ' i9^-s-c^ trictcourte-d-n-y- APR #1982 TIME A.M---------------- J P.M UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT TIME A.M............................... P.M EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK in re AGENT ORANGE Product Liability Litigation MDL No. #381 Call cases) Victor John Yannacone, Jr. YANNACONE & ASSOCIATES Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel Post Office Address Post Office Drawer #109 Patchogue, New York. 11772 (area code 516) 654-2299 PLAINTIFF'S PROPOSED SCHEDULE for DISCOVERY and DEPOSITION with PROCEDUREAL SUGGESTIONS and EXHIBIT * Plaintiff's have made a number of requests to take the oral depositions of certain employees, or contractors concerning the manufacture, formulation, advertising, promotion, marketing, and sale of phenoxy herbicide to the United States Government during the period of 1961 through 1971. These issues are all directly relevant and material to adjudication of the government contractor defense, albeit plaintiff veterans and their families contend they are decisive on the issue of the defendants' "fault" as well. At the conclusion of such depositions and after review of the documents by the witnesses, plaintiffs intend to move for summary judgment dismissing the affirmative defense of government contractor immunity. If the plaintiffs are successful on their motion all that will remain for determination by the Court and a jury are the issues of cause-in-fact or generic causation. To wit, were the materials manufactured, formulated, advertised, marketed and sold by the corporate defendant war contractors for use in Southeast Asia during the period 1961 through 1971 capable of causing the physiological effects and genetic damage claimed by the plaintiff veterans and their families? The corporate defendant war contractors apparently intend to embark upon a hunting and fishing expedition among the government documents in an effort to spin a web of obfuscation from which a jury might infer some mutuality of knowledge as to the contamination of phenoxy herbicides with toxic synthetic organic chemicals such as 2, 3, 7, 8-tetrachloro dibenzo p-dioxin (TCDD or "dioxin") of government knowledge of the toxicity of chemicals commensurate with that enjoyed by employees of the chemical companies. Perhaps that is a 3334 legitimate litigation strategy. However, such a strategy does not justify any further delay in plaintiffs' depositions of employees and former employees of the corporate defendants. Plaintiffs have been prepared to conduct such depositions since April, 1979. Yet, every effort to conduct them has been frustrated by the corporate defendants insistance upon some presumed right to poke through government documents in an effort to fabricate a defense at law where no such defense exists on the merits. Since it is obvious that the corporate defendants have retained enormous quantities of the trivial effluxia of their business operations, it should be presumed that documents which involve information critical to the health, and safety of more than 2 million American servicemen and their allies, would also be retained if such documents ever existed. We believe no such documents ever existed and have repeatedly called upon the corporate defendants, individually and collectively, to produce them if they do exist, or produce witnesses with direct personal knowledge of the substance of such documents as an alternative. The kinds of documents that would clearly raise a government contractor immunity issue are those which would at this time be in the possession of at least some of the corporate defendants. Nevertheless, assuming that procedural due process requires corporate defendants to depose the United States and review still more government documents, such discovery and depositions must not interfere with plaintiffs' oral depositions of employees of the corporate defendants. In view of the juxtaposition in early April of two significant and solemn religious observances common to the Judeo-Christian calendars, we suggest that depositions of the corporate defendants' commence on April 12, 1982, the Monday following Passover and Easter and continue on a daily basis until they are 9335 concluded. Depositions of all the corporate defendants' witnesses of interest can be completed by Labor Day, September 6, 1982, assuming, that the Court implements by order some of the procedural suggestions which follow. (Upon completion of the depositions of corporate defendants, plaintiffs intend'to move for summary judgment dismissing the affirmative defense of the government contractor immunity if indeed the evidence solicited during the depositions supports- such a motion. Plaintiffs are prepared to make such a motion on September 20, 1982, returnable Wednesday, October 6, 1982. If the Court wishes to conduct a hearing on the merits of that motion, or, in the alternative, reserve decision thereon and proceed with the trial of the affirmative defense, then such a trial or hearing could start on Monday, November 1, 1932. Assuming pretrial marking of all documents and exhibits, and the kind of trial management that this Court has already demonstrated in other complex litigation of national significance, plaintiffs estimate that such hearing or trial, could be completed before Thanksgiving, November 25, 1982. Motions following such a hearing or trial could be filed and served on or before Friday, December 3, 1982 and argued on Wednesday, December 15, 1982. The Court could start the New York, 1983, with its decisLon. Should the corporate defendants fail in their efforts to establish government contractor immunity as an affirmative defense co the claims of the plaintiff veterans and their families then second wave discovery on the issue of "fault" could commence. Relevant would be information tending to answer the following questions: 1. Did the corporate defendants manufacture "Agent Orange"? 2. Was the "Agent Orange" manufactured by the corporate defendant war contractors, contaminated with toxic synthetic organic chemicals such as- 2r 3, 7, 8-tetrachloro dibenzo p-dioxin (TCDD or "Dioxin")? 3. What was the extent of the knowledge of the corporate defendant war contractors, their officers, managers, and employees about such contamination? Qtijl ^< 3 3 4. What was the extent of the knowledge of the corporate defendant war contractors, their officers, managers, and employees of the toxicity of the contaminated "Agent Orange"? DOCUMENTS PRODUCTION, STORAGE, INDEXING, and RETRIEVAL 1. A s u b s ta n tia l volume of documents is o b v io u sly going to be involved in the d is c o v e r y phase r e l a t i n g to the government c o n t r a c t immunity d e f e n s e i s s u e . P r i m a r i l y , we can a n t i c i p a t e the production of documents concerning communications between the government and the d e f e n d a n t s . Moreover, t h e r e i s a l s o the l i k e lih o o d th a t th ere w i l l be d i s c o v e r y o f the knowledge o f the d e fe n d a n t s and the government o f the d a n g e rs o f th e phenoxy h e r b i c i d e s and o f the d io x in co n tam inants. This documentation cannot be pro duced as a s i n g l e bundle i f t h i s case is to be p ro ces sed with any ki nd o f d i s p a t c h . There must be some ki nd o f g r o u p i n g o f docu ments. P l a i n t i f f s do not in t e n d to be c a t e g o r i c a l about what t h e s e g r o u p i n g s must be, s i n c e i t i s the d e f e n d a n t s who know what documents t h e r e a r e , b u t c l e a r l y i t must be so mething more i n t e l l i g i b l e than, "the f i l e s from warehouse 3 ". 2. Almost as important as a proper grouping of the docu mentation is a useable index to the documents being produced. In o r d i n a r y l i t i g a t i o n , each s i d e would p r e p a r e i t s own in d e x . The d u p lic a t io n of e f f o r t is accepted becuase i t is f i n i t e in dimen s io n . Given the volume of documentation in t h i s c a s e , the sp e c tre o f so many p a r t i e s summarizing and in d e x i n g so many s e p a r a t e docu ments is unthinkable. A c co rd in g ly , p l a i n t i f f s su ggest th a t each p a r t y index the documents th a t i t i s prod u cin g. For the most 82-03-17 8 p a r t , t h i s w i l l mean n o t h i n g more than " l e t t e r from J o n e s to Smith d a t e d such and such re p i n w h e e l s . " As s i m p l e as i t i s , h ow e ver, t h a t job is too e x t e n s iv e to be d u p lic a te d p a r ty by p a r ty . As a c o r o l l a r y to t h i s in d e x in g , p l a i n t i f f s are i n t e r ested in' having the index in a form capable of computer p ro ce ss i n g . Thus, i f th e name Smith comes up i t would be u s e f u l t o s e arch the index to fin d a l l o f the documents o r i g i n a t e d by Smith. T h is can be accomplished e i t h e r by having the in dexes a v a i l a b l e b o th in hard copy and m ag n etic d i s c form, or a t l e a s t by h a vin g them in "machine read ab le" form where a p h o t o - o p t i c a l scanner can r e c o r d them on computer t a p e . 3. L a s tly , i t is noted that the government has produ i t s docu m e ntati on on m i c r o f i l m . As t h i s c a s e and the e v i d e n c e a s s o c i a t e d w i t h i t bloss om s and b u l g e s , i t i s c l e a r t h a t i t w i l l be impossible to maintain even a s e le c t io n of the relev an t docu ments in hard copy form at the courthouse or in law o f f i c e s . I t i s t h e r e f o r e suggested th a t each p a r ty be r e s p o n s ib le fo r the m i c r o f i l m i n g o f t h e i r own r e c o r d s . M ore ove r, t h e r e are a number o f sy st em s on th e market t h a t make a u t o m a t i c r e t r i e v a l o f m ic r o f ilm e d rec o rd s a r e l a t i v e l y simple t a s k . The r e c o r d s so micro film e d (or s i m i l a r l y m icro -re c ord e d ) should be ca p a b le o f p r o c e s s in g by at l e a s t one o f the a v a i l a b l e s y s t e m s , to be agree d upon by the p arties. These s u g g e s t i o n s are made by p l a i n t i f f s not o n l y be cause they b e lie v e th at i t w i l l s im p lify the document handling 82-03-17 r e q u i r e m e n t s o f t h i s c a s e , b u t , in d e e d , w i l l make the p r o c e s s i n g of case related documentation possible at a l l . 82-03-17 o 40 PROCEDURAL SUGGESTIONS: COMPUTERS There is a pressing need aC this time for a uniform means of identifying government documents. We presume that such a document identification program would carry over to the identification of documents produced by any of the other parties to the "Agent Orange" litigation. Such identification and designation programs should be consistent with the information retrieval systems maintained by the major parties to the litigation. In order to bring this case to trial before the end of this year at least on the issues raised by the government contractor immunity defense, we believe that the Court should impose on all parties a common computer data processing and infor mation retrieval system or, at the very least, insist on compatability as far as document coding for identification purposes is concerned. The maintenance of such large masses of data in machine readable form, and as part of a common data base accessable to all the parties, is in the interests of justice and in the best interest of all the parties to the litigation. The improvements, efficiency and reductions in the cost of managing this extraordinarily complex litigation which would necessaril follow such, an order could serve as a model for the entire multidistrict litigation process throughout the nation. In addition to our suggestions about maintaining a common docket, and the identification of each document therein by date of origin, date of filing, and an exclusive numerical document designation, we suggest that all further transcripts of testimony, hearings and of the trial be furnished in machine readable form for loading as a computer full-text data base. Counsel for the plaintiff veterans and their families do not have an army of temporary typists to "rekey" all of these transcripts into our computer, r> a nor do we have legions of paralegals to abstract and code the transcripts. Even if such were available, there is serious question whether your Honor could reasonably allow such expenses as charges against thetEcovery of the plaintiff veterans since much less expensive and much more convenient methods are available. We respectfully request the Court to direct the court reporters to type the transcript in machine readable form utilizing an OCR typing element in their typewriters. Alternatively they could key their transcription directly through a remote terminal into one or another of the computer systems maintained by the parties. Subsequent distribution could be made in industry standard format such as nine track magtape. The Court could assure equitable compensation for the court reporters' efforts and the parties could bear their own costs of re production and distribution of the magnetic medium containing the data. Dated at Patchogue, New York the 17th day of March, 1982. Victor John Yannacone, Jr. YANNACONE & ASSOCIATES Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel Post Office Address Post Office Drawer //109 Patchogue, New York 11772 (area code 516) 654-2299 9342 /' UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK COURT E.D.N.Y. In re & MAR 1 91982 ' "Agent Orange" Product L ia b ility L itigatio n : MDL No. 381 I Wvic A. >V1---------- _ _ _ _ _ : P.M______-- x DEFENDANTS' PHASE I DISCOVERY PROPOSALS RECEIVE D CHAMBERS OF GEORGE C. PRATT !> *-7 r-\ J MAR 4 .4 [(J . __ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------------- x In re "Agent Orange" Product L ia b ility L itigation x MDL No. 381 (A ll Cases) DEFENDANTS' PHASE I DISCOVERY PROPOSALS The u n d e r s ig n e d d e f e n d a n t s submit t h i s memorandum p u r s u a n t to P r e t r i a l Order No. 33, d ate d F e b r u a r y 24, 1982, requiring the defendants to submit a proposed timetable for d is c o v e ry of the Government C ontract Defense. I SUMMARY OF PROPOSALS The u n d e r s i g n e d d e f e n d a n t s make the f o l l o w i n g s p e c i f i c p r o p o s a l s to be completed in c h r o n o l o g i c a l o r d e r , f o r the d i s c o very required to prepare for the Phase I t r i a l . 1 . Immediate d ep o sitio n by defendants of the custodians o f the records for each Government agency which generated records relevan t to th is l it ig a t i o n . 2. Immediate production by the Government o f i t s rem aining documents and ongoin g r e v ie w by d e f e n d a n t s . * Simultaneously, in extremis depositions of i l l or infirm Government w itn esses. * The Government s h a l l proceed immediately to take s t e p s to r e v ie w a l l documents claim ed to be p r i v i l e g e d or c o n f i d e n t i a l . 3. D eposition s o f su b sta n tiv e Government w itn esses a f t e r completion o f Government document p r o d u c tio n .* 4. P ro d u ctio n o f documents by the ch em ical companies. 5. S u b s t a n t i v e d e p o s i t i o n s o f ch e m ic a l company w i t nesses . 6. A s p e c i a l master to be app ointed to r u l e on a l l discovery-related disputes. I I . DISCUSSION 1 . SEQUENCE OF DISCOVERY On J a n u a r y 1 5 , 1 9 8 1 , in c o m p l i a n c e w i t h P r e t r i a l Order No. 26, the d e f e n d a n t s f i l e d a memorandum o u t l i n i n g D e f e n d a n t s ' Proposals Concerning Phase I Discovery ("Defendants' January 15 Proposal"). At t h a t time we p r o p o se d a "two s t a g e " app ro ach to d i s c o v e r y on the m e r i t s : " [T ]h e s c h e d u l e f o r d i s c o v e r y should r e q u i r e f i r s t the p r o d u c t io n o f documents, to be f o l lo w e d by depositions that are prepared for with the benefit of informa t i o n d i s c l o s e d by those documents." D efendants' January 15 P ro p o s a l a t 4. * A procedure s h a l l be adopted whereby the Government, alth ou gh a n o n - p a r t y , w i l l make w i t n e s s e s a v a i l a b l e w i t h o u t th e need f o r subpoenas. A lte rn a tiv e ly , i f subpoenas are re q u ire d ,a ll motions t o quash s h o u ld be heard in the E a s t e r n D i s t r i c t o f New Y o r k . -2- 9345 Defendants r e a f f i r m and readopt th a t "two s t a g e " approach-- p r o d u c t io n and re v ie w o f documents f o llo w e d by d e p o s i t i o n s -- w ith the f o l l o w i n g a d d i t i o n s and m o d i f i c a t i o n s r e g a r d in g the sequence of discovery as between the p a r tie s . a . TWO STAGE DISCOVERY-- DOCUMENT PRODUCTION FOLLOWED BY DEPOSITIONS In the D e f e n d a n t s ' J a n u a r y 15 P r o p o s a l , we s e t f o r t h the rea so n s fo r p ro ceed in g w ith and com pleting document p rod u ction and document rev ie w p r i o r to commencing any d e p o s i t i o n s on the m erits of the case. B r i e f l y , i f d e p o sitio n s were conducted p rio r to the com pletion o f document p ro d u ctio n , t h i s procedure would undoub te d ly re s u lt in le s s than thorough examinations, require the re examination of w itn esses as a d d itio n a l documents are produced, and i n c r e a s e s i g n i f i c a n t l y th e amount o f time needed to com p lete a ll discovery proceedings. Moreover, u n t i l document production has been completed we c a n n o t know w i t h any c e r t a i n t y th e i d e n t i t y o f t h o s e w i t n e s s e s whose testim ony w i l l be r e q u ir e d . b . IN EXTREMIS DEPOSITIONS One e x c e p t i o n t o our two s t a g e d i s c o v e r y p r o p o s a l r e l a t e s to d e p o sitio n s o f in extrem is Government w itn e s s e s .* * The second e x c e p t io n , d e p o s it io n s o f cu s to d ia n s o f Government r e c o r d s i s d is c u s s e d i n f r a a t 8 and 9. -3 - 334 r* t> The f a c t s to- be t r i e d in th e Phase I t r i a l i n v o l v e e v e n t s t h a t o c c u r r e d some t w e n ty y e a r s a g o . Im p ort ant Government w i t n e s s e s may be i l l or i n f i r m . We p r o p o s e t h a t the C o u r t o r d e r the Government to prepare a l i s t o f w itnesses with knowledge of events r e l a t i n g to the is s u e s r a is e d by the Phase I t r i a l who, due t o i l l n e s s or advanced a g e , may be u n a v a i l a b l e f o r d e p o s i t i o n s when document p r o d u c t i o n and r e v i e w a r e c o n c l u d e d . In extrem is d e p o s it io n s of these Government w itn e s se s should be p e r m i t t e d t o go forw ard w i t h o u t d e l a y , and w it h o u t f u r t h e r C ourt o r d e r . Of c o u r s e , the d e f e n d a n t s would have the r i g h t to r e examine t h o s e w i t n e s s e s who s u r v i v e once document p r o d u c t i o n by the United S ta te s has been completed. c . PRIORITY OF DISCOVERY AS BETWEEN THE PARTIES D e f e n d a n t s pr o p o se t h a t d i s c o v e r y o f the Government com mence f i r s t , to be f o l lo w e d by d i s c o v e r y o f the d e fe n d a n t chemi c a l com panies. P l a i n t i f f s and d e f e n d a n ts a l i k e r e q u i r e produc t i o n o f Government documents and Government w it n e s s e s in order to conduct the Phase I t r i a l . The Government's f i l e s are p l a i n l y v i t a l to e s ta b lis h in g the Government Contract Defense. Document p r o d u c t i o n and d e p o s i t i o n s o f the c h e m i c a l com p a n i e s s h o u ld f o l l o w the two s t a g e Government d i s c o v e r y p r o c e s s . d . TIMETABLE FOR COMPLETING PHASE I DISCOVERY ON THE MERITS Due to the c u r r e n t s t a t u s o f the G o v e rn m e n t's v o l u n t a r y document p r o d u c t i o n , d e f e n d a n t s a r e u n a b l e to p r e d i c t when Phase I d o c u m e n t .p ro d u c t io n and r e v ie w w i l l be co m pleted and d e p o s i t i o n s can commence. Ms. B e r n o t t , who a g r e e s w i t h defendants' two-stage discovery plan, estim ates that the Government w i l l re q u ire s i x months to complete i t s document pro d u c t i o n . See March 1 1 , 1982 l e t t e r to Ms. B e r n o t t a t t a c h e d h e re to as E x h ib it A. The Government commenced v o l u n t a r y p r o d u c t i o n o f docu ments in December, 1980 i n r e s p o n s e t o Dow's F i r s t Rule 34 Request For The P r o d u c t io n o f Documents to the United S t a t e s dated January 16, 1980. T h e re a fte r, in compliance with P r e t r i a l Order No. 26, d e f e n d a n t s s e r v e d Phase I F i r s t Wave I n t e r r o g a t o r i e s to the United S t a t e s on January 1 5 , 1981. Those i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s sought the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f documents and w itn e s s e s r e l e v a n t to the is s u e s r a is e d by the Phase I p r o c e e d in g s . For i t s response to those In te rro g a to rie s the United S ta te s essen t i a l l y continued with i t s v o lu n tary document p ro d u ctio n , without regard to Phase I issues or defendants' In te rro g a to rie s. As a r e s u l t , n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g d e f e n d a n t s r e p e a t e d re q u e s ts to the Government to l i m i t document prod u ction to m aterial relevant to Phase I issu es, the m ajority of the docu ments produced to date by the United S t a t e s have nothing what s o e v e r to do w ith t h o s e i s s u e s , and are u s e l e s s to d e f e n d a n t s in p r e p a r a t i o n f o r th e Government C o n t r a c t D e f e n s e . * M o r e o v e r , we * The Government has produced a pp ro xim ately 300,000 pages o f documents to date. -5- have sp e n t much o f th e p a s t y e a r c u l l i n g , r e v i e w i n g and p r o ce ssin g documents t o t a l l y i r r e l e v a n t to Government Contract D efen s e i s s u e s . C o n s e q u e n t l y , o n l y r e c e n t l y have we been a b l e to begin to analyze in-depth Government documents responsive to Phase I in te rro g a to rie s . Moreover, i t appears th at the Government has y e t to pro duce m illio n s of pages of documents re le v a n t to Phase I is s u e s . The Government informs us t h a t a p p ro x im a te ly f i v e m i l l i o n pages o f U.S. Department of A g r ic u ltu r e documents r e la t in g to phenoxy h e rb ic id e s have not y et been reviewed for production nor have one m illion pages in the f i l e s of the Environmental Protection Agency been r e v i e w e d . Numerous o t h e r a s p e c t s o f th e G o vernm ent's p r o d u ctio n are s t i l l in c o m p le te . See E x h i b i t A. Once the p r o d u c t io n and r e v ie w o f Government documents has been completed, the defendants w i l l undertake to conduct d ep o sitio n s of Government w itn esses as w ell as w itn esses from the p r i v a t e s e c t o r whom we a r e a b l e t o i d e n t i f y as p o s s e s s i n g knowledge relevan t to Phase I is s u e s .* We c a n n o t y e t know how many Government w i t n e s s e s we must depose-- th at d e c is io n aw aits com pletion o f document production and the e a s e w i t h which we i d e n t i f y , e a r l y on, t h o s e w i t n e s s e s who can e s ta b lis h Government knowledge equal to that o f the defendant * P o t e n tia l p r iv a t e se cto r w itn esses include in d iv id u a ls or o r g a n i z a t i o n s who c o n d u c t e d r e s e a r c h or t e s t i n g c o n c e r n i n g ph e noxy h e r b i c i d e s on the Government's b e h a l f . -6 - O: '4 ' c h e m i c a l c o m p a n ie s. On the o t h e r hand, s e e k i n g o u t t h o s e w i t n e s s e s w ith knowledge may r e q u i r e an e x h a u s t i v e s e a r c h . At t h i s t i m e , p r i o r t o c o m p l e t i o n o f document p r o d u c t i o n , we s i m p l y c a n n ot b e g i n t o p r e d i c t the number o f w i t n e s s e s we w i l l d e p o s e . D o u b t l e s s , i t i s to our b e n e f i t to i d e n t i f y and depose the w i t n e s s e s who can p r o v e Government knowledge as q u i c k l y as p o s s i b l e . 2. SUPERVISION OF DISCOVERY S i n c e the Government i s no l o n g e r a p a r t y to t h i s l i t i g a t i o n , we a r e u n c e r t a i n as t o how to p r o c e e d a t t h i s time to a s s u r e prompt, com plete and thorough d i s c o v e r y o f Government documents and w i t n e s s e s . As noted above, in l i g h t o f t h i s u n c er t a i n t y , a com m ittee o f d e f e n s e c o u n s e l met w ith Ms. B e r n o t t in Washington on March 4, 1982; a l e t t e r to Ms. B e r n o t t r e f l e c t i n g the d iscu ssions that took place at that meeting is attached as E x h i b i t A. The f o l l o w i n g a r e some o f the problems f a c i n g the d e f e n dants in connection with d iscovery again st the Government: Whether the d e fe n d a n ts w i l l be r e q u ir e d to se rv e subpoenas a l l o ver the c o u n t r y to a s s u r e t h a t Government employees and r e t i r e e s can be d e p o se d ; how t o o b t a i n r u l i n g s w i t h r e s p e c t t o the G overnm ent's c l a i m s o f p r i v i l e g e and c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y r e g a r d in g th o u san d s o f p a g e s o f Government documents; and how to a s s u r e that the Government's search for responsive documents has been thorough and co m p lete. -7 o"^0 In order to assure th at fu rth er d iscovery proceeds smoothly, defendants propose the following procedures. a . PRODUCTION OF GOVERNMENT WITNESSES The C o u r t s h a l l r e q u e s t the Government to make w i t n e s s e s a v a ila b le without the need for subpoenas. I f subpoenas are req u ired , the Court should (1) request that the appropriate Government agencies waive any a d m in is tra tiv e re g u la tio n s to the c o n t r a r y and p r o v i d e the J u s t i c e Department w ith the a u t h o r i t y to a c c e p t s e r v i c e o f subpoenas f o r each a g e n c y , and (2) d i r e c t t h a t a l l m oti on s t o quash be hea rd in the E a s t e r n D i s t r i c t o f New York where the t r i e r w i l l be f a m i l i a r with the f a c t s and can most e f f e c t iv e ly deal with the issues raised. b . DEPOSITION OF CUSTODIANS OF GOVERNMENT RECORDS Defendants' independent in v e s tig a to ry e f f o r t s have tu r n e d up documents r e s p o n s i v e t o Phase I i s s u e s n ot y e t produce d by the Government through v o lu n tary d is c o v e r y or i d e n t i f i e d in i t s r e s p o n s e to i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s . Ms. B e r n o t t i s aware o f t h i s problem and a g r e e s t h a t the G o vernm ent's p r o d u c t i o n i s incomplete. A c c o rd in g ly , defendants propose t h a t , w hile document discovery proceeds, defendants depose the custodians of the records for each Government agency id e n t if ie d as holding docu ments r e l e v a n t to t h i s l i t i g a t i o n on a s p e c t s o f the a g e n c i e s ' -8- 3ai o r g a n i z a t i o n and r e c o r d k e e p i n g . We can then a s c e r t a i n t h a t each agency has conducted a thorough se a r c h fo r a l l r e l e v a n t and responsive documents.* C . REVIEW OF PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS ____ D e f e n d a n t s r e q u e s t t h a t Your Honor o r d e r the Government to immediately review the thousands of pages of documents the Government has i d e n t i f i e d as p r i v i l e g e d and c o n f i d e n t i a l . I t i s our u n d e r s t a n d i n g , from Ms. B e r n o t t , t h a t a motion t o compel p r o duction would a u to m a tica lly tr ig g e r a review of those documents. We c a n n o t u n d e r s ta n d why d e f e n d a n t s ' Phase I I n t e r r o g a t o r i e s have not served that purpose, but apparently the review procedure has not yet begun. A motion to compel simply to prod the Government to rev iew documents fo r d e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n purposes seems a cumbersome procedure bound to cause unnecessary d e l a y . d. APPOINTMENT OF A SPECIAL MASTER Defendants propose th a t a s p e c i a l master be appointed, p u rsu a n t to Rule 53 o f the F e d e r a l R u le s o f C i v i l P r o c e d u r e , to * T h i s p r o c e d u r e was d e s c r i b e d in S tan d ard O i l Co. v . FTC, 475 F . Supp 1266 (N.D. Ind. 1 9 7 9 ) , where the FTC deposed o i l com pany employees on re c o rd k e e p in g and o r g a n i z a t i o n p r i o r to docu ment p r o d u c t i o n , f o llo w e d by d e p o s i t i o n o f o i l company o f f i c i a l s and employees on s u b s t a n t i v e m a t t e r s . -9- 9352 r u l e on th e many it em s t h a t w i l l r e q u i r e r e s o l u t i o n w h i l e d i s c o v e r y p r o c e e d s . The master would hear o b j e c t i o n s to d e p o s i t i o n q u e s t i o n s , r u l e on i s s u e s o f p r i v i l e g e and c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y , d e c id e motions to quash and d e c id e such other d is c o v e r y i s s u e s a s may a r i s e . The ap p oin tm en t o f a s p e c i a l m aster would e x p e d i t e the e n tir e d iscovery process. In p a r t ic u la r , i t would r e lie v e th is Court of the burden of in volvin g i t s e l f in every step of the discovery proceedings. As a l l p a r t i e s would b e n e f i t from the appointment o f a s p e c i a l m a s t e r , we recommend t h a t the c o s t be s h a re d e q u a l l y by p l a i n t i f f s and d e fe n d a n ts , o n e - h a l f to be borne by the thousands o f p l a i n t i f f s and the o th e r h a l f to be borne by a l l o f the d e f e n dan t c h e m ic a l companies, each c h e m ic a l company to bear a pro r a t a share of the defendants' portion of the costs. A d d i t i o n a l l y , the master should be a u t h o r i z e d to impose c o s ts a g a in st the Government as a sanction in the event the master determines that the Government's responses or objections to requests for production o f documents or w itnesses are f r i v o lo u s, d ila to ry or otherwise o b stru ctiv e. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reaso n s, the undersigned defendants request that the Court adopt the proposals set forth herein. D a t e d : Garden C i t y , New York March 16, 1982 -10- > >\~f * Respectfully submitted, RIVKIN, LEFF, SHERMAN & RADLER Attorneys for Defendant The Dow C h em ica l Company CADWALADER, WICKERSHAM & TAFT Attorneys for Defendant Diamond Shamrock C o r p o r a t i o n KELLEY DRYE & WARREN Attorneys for Defendant Hercules Incorporated TOWNLEY & UPDIKE Attorneys for Defendant Monsanto Company CLARK, GAGLIARDI & MILLER Attorneys for Defendant T H A griculture & N utrition Co. Inc. ARTHUR, DRY & KALISH Attorneys for Defendant Uniroyal, Inc. BUDD, LARNER, KENT, GROSS, PICILLO & ROSENBAUM Attorneys for Defendant Thompson C h e m i c a ls C o r p o r a t i o n -11- ^* STATE OP NEW YORK ) ) COUNTY OP NASSAU ) ss MONA KLAFTER b e in g d u ly sworn, deposes and s a y s : That deponent is not a party to th is action , is over 1 y e a r s o f age and r e s i d e s in Westbury, N.Y. That on the 16th day o f March, 1982 the w ith in phase i discovery proposals , deponent serv upon the a t t o r n e y s below s e t f o r t h r e p r e s e n tin g the p a r t i e s , as in d ica te d , a t the addresses shown, said addresses being d e s ig nated by said a tto rn eys fo r th a t purpose, by d ep ositin g a true copy of same, enclosed in a postpaid p rop erly addressed wrapper in an o f f i c i a l d e p o s it o r y under the e x c l u s i v e ca re and c u sto d y t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s P o s t O f f i c e D e p a r t m e n t w i t h i n t h e S t a t e o f Ne York* Sworn t o b e f o r e me t h i s day o f March , 1982. NOTARY" PUBLIC CAROL (CANTOR Notary Public, State at New York No. 39 4732766 Naeaau County Commission Expires March 3 0 ,1 8 62 Horton B. Silberman, Esq. Clark, Gagliardi & Miller The Inns of Court 99 Court Street White Plains, NY 10601 Joan Bemott, Esq. Department of Justice Safeway Building Room 904D Washington, D.C. 20530 Wendell B. Alcorn, Jr., Esq. Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft One Wall Street New York, NY 10005 Roy L. Reardon, Esq. Simpson, Thacher & Bartlett One Battery Park Plaza New York, NY 10004 John Sabetta, Esq. Townley & Updike 405 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 Paul Esposito, Esq. Lewis, Overbeck & Furman 135 South LaSalle Street Suite 1060 Chicago, IL 60603 Bud Holman, Esq. William Krohley, Esq. Kelley, Drye & Warren 350 Park Avenue New York, NY 10022 Howard Lester, Esq. Lester, Schwab, Katz & Dwyer 120 Broadway New York, NY 10271 John M. Fitzpatrick, Esq. Dilworth, Paxson, Kalish, Levy & Kauffman 2600 The Fidelity Building Philadelphia, PA 19109 David R. Gross, Esq. Budd, Larner, Kent, Gross, Picillo & Rosenbaum 33 Washington Street Newark, NJ 07102 na oo o Victor J. Yannacone, Jr., Esq. Yannacone & Yannacone P.O. Box 109 Patchogue, NY 11772 Les J. Weinstein, Esq. McKenna & Fitting 1230 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Thomas A. Beck, Esq. Arthur, Dry & Kalish, P.C. 1230 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 The Counsel of Vietnam Veterans 329 Eighth Street, N.E. Washington, NY 20002 Patricia D. Howard Chief of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation 1120 Vermont Avenue, N.W. Suite 1002 Washington, D.C. 20005 A PA R T N E R SH IP IN CLU D IN G P R O F E SSIO N A L C O R P O R A T IO N S $ r ie i$a iSbee J& r d r ,. J if t y . S 5 32/^ur. Us) &0S-70 CABLC a d d r e s s : l a b e l l u m t e l e x : iiA/e7A6S RAPIFAX: (XIZ) Z68-Z 3Z1 x e r o x : (XIX) 7B S-1 63 0 March 1 1 , 1982 Joan M. B e r n o t t , E s q . Torts Branch, C iv il D ivision U.S. Department of J u s tice S a f e w a y B u i l d i n g , Room 904D 521 12 t h S t r e e t , N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 Re: In r e "A gent Orange" Prod uct L i a b i l i t y L i t i g a t i o n , MDL No. 381 Dear Joan: This l e t t e r confirms the subject of our discussions in Washington, D.C. on March 4, 1982. A lso in a tten d a n ce were Barbara Rivkind o f your o f f i c e , William Krohley o f K elley Drye & Warren, and L e s l i e B e n n e tt and M a r j o r ie Feldheim o f R i v k i n , L e f f , Sherman & R a d le r . 1. U.S. Department of A gricu ltu re documents. You a d v i s e d us t h a t a p p r o x i m a t e l y f i v e m i l l i o n p a g e s o f USDA documents p e rtain in g to phenoxy h erb ic id e s have never been reviewed in connection with e ith e r the Government' s voluntary document production or the p rep a ra tio n of the Government' s R e sp o n s e t o d e f e n d a n t s ' P h a s e I F i r s t Wave I n t e r r o g a t o r i e s . At o u r r e q u e s t , you h a v e now a g r e e d t o r e v i e w t h e f i l e s o f t h e USDA' s A g r i c u l t u r a l R e s e a r c h S e r v i c e , as w e l l as t h e f i l e s o f a l l USDA f a c i l i t i e s l o c a t e d i n B e l t s v i l l e , M ary la nd. I r e f e r you to page A-2 o f d e fe n d a n ts' I n te r r o g a to r ie s fo r c e r ta in d i v i s i o n s and o p e r a t i o n s o f t h e ARS which d e f e n d a n t s b e l i e v e w i l l be p a r t i c u l a r l y im p o r ta n t s o u r c e s o f i n f o r m a t i o n . You have a ls o agreed to determine to what extent the p e stic id e r e g is t r a tio n m aterials referen ced at page 2 of your Notice to A ll C o u n s e l d a te d F e b r u a r y 13 1981 have been i n c l u d e d in th e G o v e r n m e n t ' s document p r o d u c t i o n . Any USDA f i l e s r e l a t i n g t o the Advisory Committee on 2 ,4 ,5 -T (not discussed during our m eeting) should a l s o be review ed f o r documents r e s p o n s iv e to defendants' Interrogatories. 9358 J o a n M. B e r n o t t , E s q . -2- March 11, 1982 Based on your d e s c r i p t i o n s o f th e t y p e s o f documents c o n t a i n e d i n t h e f i l e s o f o t h e r d i v i s i o n s o f t h e USDA, d e f e n d a n ts have agreed to hold o f f f o r the time being on fu r th e r r e q u e s t s f o r USDA d ocu m e nts. We o f c o u r s e r e s e r v e our r i g h t t o r e q u e s t p r o d u c t i o n o f a d d i t i o n a l USDA documents (and t h o s e o f any other agency) th at appear relevan t to Phase I issu es. D u r i n g our m e e t i n g , we e x p r e s s e d our c o n t i n u i n g i n t e r e s t in t h e f i l e s o f t h e F o r e s t S e r v i c e and the S c i e n c e and Education A dm in istration . 2. E n v i r o n m e n ta l P r o t e c t i o n Agency f i l e s . The Government s t a t e d a t page 19 o f i t s Response t o d e f e n d a n t s ' I n t e r r o g a t o r i e s t h a t t h e EPA had n o t p a r t i c i p a t e d in th e p r e p a r a t i o n o f t h a t Response, and t h a t i t s answers would be provided by Supplement. Defendants, however, s t i l l have r e c e i v e d no r e s p o n s e from th e EPA. You s t a t e d a t our m eetin g t h a t a p p r o x i m a t e l y one m i l l i o n p a g e s o f EPA documents need t o be r e v i e w e d . D e f e n d a n t s r e q u e s t e d a d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e EPA f i l e s , with p a rticu lar atten tion to p esticid e reg istra tio n m a t e r i a l s t r a n s f e r r e d from t h e USDA. 3. M i l i t a r y A s s i s t a n c e Command Vietnam d o c u m e n t s . At our re q u e s t, you agreed to r e t r i e v e the documents d escribed i n t h e '' F i r s t L i s t " o f MACV docu me nts s e n t to you by Sandy M a t t i n g l y on December 5 , 1980, and a d v i s e d us t h a t you w i l l r e q u i r e t h r e e to fo u r months to respon d . You have a ls o a g re e d , i n o r d e r t o e x p e d i t e any f u r t h e r r e v i e w o f th e MACV m a t e r i a l s t h a t may be n e c e s s a r y , t o a t t e m p t t o i d e n t i f y t h o s e p e r s o n s most f a m i l i a r w i t h th e c o n t e n t s , o r g a n i z a t i o n and s t o r a g e o f t h e MACV c a r t o n s . We u n d e r s t a n d t h a t t h e r e i s someone p r e p a r i n g a h i s t o r y o f t h e V ietn a m c o n f l i c t who has a c q u i r e d e x t e n s i v e k n o w le d g e o f t h e MACV d o c u m e n t s , and s u g g e s t t h a t you co n tact him. . I n v e n t o r i e s r e c e iv e d by th e Department o f the Army i n r e s p o n s e t o i n q u i r i e s s e n t t o w o r l d w i d e Army i n s t a l l a tion s . Defendants are in the process o f reviewing the inven t o r i e s re fe r e n c e d in your A p r il 15, 1981 N otice to A l l Counsel. We e x p e c t t o c o m p l e t e t h a t r e v i e w w i t h i n t h e n e x t s e v e r a l days and w i l l a d v i s e you s h o r t l y o f which documents a r e to be p r o duced . 5. Documents w ith h eld on grounds o f p r i v i l e g e . Government has thus far asserted claim s of p r iv ile g e with re s p e c t to seven d if f e r e n t groups o f documents t o t a lin g se v e ra l thousand pages. During our meeting, you requested that the Government' s a s s e r t i o n s o f p r i v i l e g e be r e s o lv e d by a motion to compel made r e t u r n a b l e b e f o r e Judge P r a t t . You note d t h a t such QO oO KO q J o a n M. B e r n o t t , E s q . -3- March 11, 1982 a motion would q u a l i f y as a r e q u e s t to d e c l a s s i f y and a u t o m a t ic a lly t r i g g e r a review o f the documents sought by defendants. You a l s o s t a t e d t h a t the Government would not o b j e c t to such a m otio n on t h e g r o u n d s t h a t i t i s no l o n g e r a p a r t y t o MDL No. 3 8 1. However, on March 8 you t e l e p h o n e d t o r e q u e s t t h a t d e f e n dants d efer any motion to compel pending fu rth er advice from you as t o t h e most e f f i c i e n t means f o r r e s o l v i n g th e Government' s p rivilege claim s. Notwithstanding defendants' Interrogatories, you s t a t e d t h a t t h e Government has n o t y e t commenced any d e c la s s ific a tio n process or review o f p r iv ile g e claim s. 6. Gaps in productions by a g e n c ie s th a t have ready p a r t ic ip a t e d in the Government' s document p ro d u ctio n . Defendants have become i n c r e a s i n g l y aware o f h i g h l y r e l e v a n t documents l o c a t e d i n Government f i l e s w hich ar*e m i s s i n g from t h e G o v e r n m e n t ' s own document p r o d u c t i o n . Du ri ng our m e e t i n g , defendants stressed th eir concern at the apparent incomplete n e s s o f t h e p r o d u c t i o n s made t o d a t e by t h e p a r t i c i p a t i n g Government a g e n c ie s . You in d ic a t e d th a t you shared our con c e r n , and were aware o f t h i s p r o ble m . You f u r t h e r s t a t e d th a t th ere i s a fo llo w -u p or ch eck in g p ro cess th a t can be implemented by th e a g e n c ie s t o uncover and remedy th e s e gaps , and a c c o r d i n g l y a gree d to attem p t t o f o r m u la t e a p r o p o s a l f o r i d e n t i f y i n g and e l i m i n a t i n g th e gaps in p r o d u c t io n t h a t have o c c u r r e d . At your r e q u e s t , I e n c l o s e s e v e r a l examples o f r e l e v a n t docume nts t h a t we h a v e l o c a t e d i n t h e G o v e r n m e n t's f i l e s , but which were omitted from the Government's production i n MDL No. 381 : (a) S p ecial Report "ZZ" e n title d " C la s s ific a tio n of B u t y l 2, 1 - D i c h l o r o p h e n o x y a c e t a t e , LNA, and B u t y l 2 , 4 , 5 - T r i c h o l o r o p h e n o x y a c e t a t e , LNB, as BW A n t i c r o p A g e n t s , " d a te d November 5 , 1952, p r e pared by Department o f t h e Army, O f f i c e o f t h e Chief Chemical O ffic e r , Chemical Corps Technical C om m it te e, Army C h e m i c a l C e n t e r , M ary land; (b) M ilita ry S p e c ific a tio n MIL-V-51239B, dated October 27, 1969, f o r "Vegetation Control Agent; Orange;" ( c ) 17 documents p r e p a r e d i n 1963 and 196-4 p e r t a i n ing to the use of h erb icid es in water su p p lies, l o c a t e d i n t h e f i l e s o f t h e Army E n v i r o n m e n t a l Hygiene Agency; and (d) L e t t e r d ate d March 13 1956 from O f f i c e o f th e Surgeon G e n e r a l , Department o f t h e Army, t o Commanding O f f i c e r , Army E n v i r o n m e n t a l H e a l t h L a b o r a t o r y , Army C h e m i c a l C e n t e r , M ary la n d , and a t t a c h e d d r a f t o f t e c h n i c a l b u l l e t i n on h e a l t h h a zard s o f i n s e c t i c i d e s , r o d e n t i c i d e s and h e r b i cides. Q-Ofif) Joan M. Bernott, Esq. -H- March 11, 1982 7. Documents from the "Edgewood H i s t o r i c a l C o l l e c t i o n " . Your N o t ic e to A l l Counsel dated June 10, 1981 s t a t e d t h a t the "Edgewood H i s t o r i c a l C o l l e c t i o n " was b e in g i n v e n t o r i e d f o r m a t e r i a l s r e l a t i n g t o t h i s l i t i g a t i o n , and t h a t an i n v e n t o r y would be c o m p l e t e d a t t h e end o f June 19 8 1. A l t h o u g h y o u r N o t i c e t o A l l C o u n s e l d a t e d Au gu st 20, 1 981 a t t a c h e d an i n d e x t o a l l e g e d l y p r i v i l e g e d documents from the Edgewood H i s t o r i c a l C o l l e c t i o n , no m en tion was made o f an i n v e n t o r y o f n o n - p r i v i l e g e d m a t e r i a ls . At our m eeting, you agreed to check to determine w hether an i n v e n t o r y o f n o n - p r i v i l e g e d m a t e r i a l s was e v e r p r o duced to the p a r tie s . On a r e l a t e d m a t t e r , y o u r N o t i c e t o A l l C o u n sel d a t e d A p r i l 1 5 , 1981 a t t a c h e d an i n v e n t o r y o f 20 f e e t o f h e rb icid e -re la te d , documents th at were apparently generated by a g e n c ie s a t F o rt D e t r i c k . In your June 10, 1981 N o t ic e , how e v e r , you appear to in d i c a t e th a t m a t e r ia ls from th a t inven tory " r e la tin g to the su bject matter of th is l it ig a t i o n " were then s e l e c t e d by you and p l a c e d on m i c r o f i l m . D efendants a r e u n c le a r whether any o f the documents lis t e d in the inventory produced on A p r i l 15 were om itted from the a c t u a l m ic r o film p r o d u c tio n . I f o m iss io n s were made, p l e a s e i d e n t i f y them. 8. C o n t r a c t s , s p e c i f i c a t i o n s and sh ippin g documents. Defendants repeated our request for a complete production o f a l l h e rb ic id e c o n t r a c t s , s p e c i f i c a t i o n s , shipping documents and r e l a t e d m a t e r i a l s in th e Government' s f i l e s . In v iew o f t h e A p r i l 22 , 1982 d e a d l i n e s e t f o r t h i n P r e t r i a l Order No. 33 a prompt and e x h a u s t i v e re sp o n se by the Government i s o b v io u s ly of the greatest importance. 9. D e p o s i t io n s o f p r e s e n t and former Government em ployees. At our re q u e s t, you have undertaken to determine whether the Government w i l l v o l u n t a r i l y produce cu rren t employ ees f o r d e p o s it io n s or r e q u i r e th a t they be subpoenaed. You have taken under advisement d efen d an ts' request th a t Government em ployees be made a v a i l a b l e f o r p r e l i m i n a r y i n t e r v i e w s in o r d e r to expedite d iscovery by avoiding cumulative or unproductive depositions. In a d d itio n , defendants requested th a t you fu rn ish t h e p a r t i e s w i t h th e c u r r e n t o r l a s t known a d d r e s s e s and j o b t i t l e s o f the p r e s e n t and former Government employees i d e n t i f i e d in your Response to defendants' In terro gato ries to f a c i l i t a t e s c h e d u l i n g and p e r m i t prompt s e r v i c e o f any subp oen as t h a t may be r e q u ir e d . You s ta te d th a t you were u n w illin g to provide th is information. 10. T im eta b le f o r d i s c o v e r y . You e stim a ted t h a a p p r o x i m a t e l y s i x months would be r e q u i r e d f o r t h e Government t o r e s p o n d t o o r r e s o l v e t h e r e q u e s t s made d u r i n g our m e e t i n g . Joan M. Bernott, Esq. -5- March 11, 1982 You a l s o e x p r e s s e d your v i e w t h a t d e p o s i t i o n s o f p r e s e n t and f o r m e r Government em p lo yee s s h o u ld n o t commence u n t i l t h e end o f t h a t s i x month p e rio d . D e f e n d a n t s r e i t e r a t e t h a t our March 4 m e e ti n g was a prelim inary attempt to id e n tify areas of the Government's document production in which f u r t h e r responses are required. Undoubtedly, a d d itio n al areas w ill be id e n tifie d as defendants c o n t i n u e t h e i r r e v i e w o f t h e documents th u s f a r produced and p r o c e e d w i t h o t h e r d i s c o v e r y . N e i t h e r our d i s c u s s i o n s on March nor t h i s l e t t e r i s to be co n stru e d in any way as a w aiver o f any defen dan t' s r i g h t to seek to compel discovery from the Govern ment or as a c q u ie s c e n c e in th e manner in which the Government has chosen to respond to defendants' Phase I In te rro g a to rie s. I f t h i s l e t t e r does not a c c u ra te ly summarize the sub s t a n c e o f our d i s c u s s i o n s on March p l e a s e c o n t a c t me a t your e a r lie s t convenience. Very tru ly yours MMG: s l k Enclosures BY COURIER cc: W illiam A. K rohley, Esq. L e s l i e R. B e n n e t t , Esq. John C. S a b e t t a , Esq. Morton B. Silberm an , Esq. Thomas B e c k , E s q. Edwin R. Matthews, Esq. Dennis Rothman, Esq. Micnaei n . uoraon UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the EASTERN DISTRICT o f NEW YORK in re "AGENT ORANGE" Product L ia b ility L itigatio n MDL No. 381 ( a ll Cases) PLAINTIFFS' STATEMENT of UNDERSTANDING and DEFINITION of "AGENT ORANGE" I*" 1 l-- V-- ^ IN CLERK'S OFFICE U . S . DISTRICT COUR! E.D.N.Y it m 191982 * TIME A.M. P.M T h is Master Document su bm itted by P o s t O f f i c e Drawer #109 P a t c h o g u e , New York 1177 2 (area code 516) 65^-2299 YANNACONE & YANNACONE P o st Office D raw er 109 9363 Patchogue, New York 11772 PLAINTIFFS' STATEMENT of UNDERSTANDING and DEFINITION of "AGENT ORANGE" PLEASE TAKE NOTICE t h a t p u r s u a n t to P r e t r i a l Order No. 33, the p l a i n t i f f v e t e r a n s and t h e i r f a m i l i e s submit t h i s statem en t which s h a l l c o n s t i t u t e t h e i r un derstan din g and d e f i n i t i o n o f "Agent Orange" in the "co.ntext o f t h i s l i t i g a t i o n a t t h i s time. The s o u r c e o f p l a i n t i f f s ' i n f o r m a t i o n upon which t h e y r e l y i s a document e n t i t l e d , "Use o f H e r b ic id e s in S o u th ea st A s i a " , a h i s t o r y prepared as an a c t i v e d uty assignm ent by Dorothy A. C r a i g , L t C o l , USAFR, San A n t o n i o A i r L o g i s t i c s C e n t e r , D i r e c t o r a t e o f Energy Management, K e l l y A ir Force Base, Texas, dated 1 August 1975, and subm itted as an e x h i b i t by the p l a i n t i f f s on 2 June 1980 as MDL 381 d o c k e t document # 284. For the purpose of th is l i t i g a t i o n , the p l a i n t i f f veterans and t h e i r f a m i l i e s u n d e r s ta n d t h a t the term "Agen t Orange" means and i s t h e r e b y d e f i n e d as r e f e r i n g g e n e r i c a l l y to any and a l l phenoxy compounds d e s ig n e d , d e v e lo p e d , m anufactured, fo r m u la te d , and pr oduced by th e c o r p o r a t e d e f e n d a n t war c o n t r a c t o r s f o r use as herbicides or chemical d efo lia n ts in Southeast Asia during the period 1961 through 1971. Included in the term "phenoxy compounds" are the s e v e r a l e s t e r s o f 2 , 4 , 5 - t r i c h l o r o p h e n o x y a ce tic a c i d ( 2 ,4 ,5 - T ) and 2 , 4 - d i c h l o r o p h e n o x y a c e tic a c id 336 YANNACONE & YANNACONE P ost O ffice D raw er 109 Patchogue, New Y ork 11772 (2 ,4 -D ), any o f which were used as h e r b ic id e s in Southeast Asia during the period 1961 through 1971. P l a i n t i f f s a lso include in the term "Agent Orange" ce rta in toxic syn th etic organic chemicals such as 2 ,3 ,7 ,8-tetrachloro d i b e n z o p - d i o x i n (TCDD or " D i o x i n " ) which c o n tam inated s p e c i f i c r+ herbicide formulations. PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE t h a t to th e e x t e n t th e d e s i g n , manufacture, production,, or form ulation o f "Agent Orange" included chemical in g re d ie n ts such as te trach lo ro b en zen e, which may have c o n t r i b u t e d t o th e human t o x i c i t y o f "Agent Orange" or which may have l e d to c o n t a m i n a t i o n o f t h e h e r b i c i d e s with t o x i c synth etic organic chemicals such as polychlorinated dibenzo p - d i o x i n s (PCDDs) o r p o l y c h l o r i n a t e d d i b e n z o f u r a n s (PCDFs), then such chemical in g re d ie n ts are encompassed in the term "Agent Orange". PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE t h a t a t t h i s time no i n f o r m a t i o n has been f u r n i s h e d by t h e c o r p o r a t e d e f e n d a n t war c o n t r a c t o r s as to the p r e c is e chem ical d e s ig n a tio n , names, formulae or s p e c i f i c in g r e d ie n t s o f the s e v e r a l "phenoxy compounds" su pplied to the United States Department of Defense for use as herbicides in South east Asia during the pe rio d 1961 through 1971. Such information is wholly within the control of the corporate d e f e n d a n t s who have n o t y e t made m e a n i n g f u l r e p l i e s to p l a i n t i f f s demands f o r such i n f o r m a t i o n in i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s a l r e a d y f i l e d and YANNACONE & YANNACONE P o st Office D raw er 109 Patchogue, New Y ork 11772 s e r v e d . T h e r e f o r e , p l a i n t i f f v e t e r a n s make t h i s s t a t e m e n t in conformity with the Court' s order, but reserve the rig h t to su bm it a s u p p l e m e n t a l amended s t a t e m e n t to conform to s p e c i f i c d e t a i l s o f chem ical compounds, fo rm u la e , and methods o f production concerning the products g e n erica lly designated "Agent O ra n g e " , which may be made a v a i l a b l e to the p l a i n t i f f s and th e Court during discovery in th is lit ig a t i o n . DATED a t P a t c h o g u e , New Y or k , 12 March 1982. V ic t o r John Yannacone, j r . YANNACG.VE & ASSOCIATES Lead Counsel for a ll P lain tiffs O ffice & P.0. Address P o s t O f f i c e Drawer #109 P a t c h o g u e , New York 11772 (area code 516) 654-2299 A0 O n>A YANNACONE & YANNACONE Go AO 1 O A Po! Post Office Drawer 109 Patchogue, New York 11772 II ft r t lo f 1n 1 M An _m n o !1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK IN RE "AGENT ORANGE" PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION c i p ... .-.'` ''.T 1 9, nr( ^ x TIME ......... " P .NI............. MDL No. 381 x MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF DOW'S MOTION FOR AN ORDER PERMITTING THE DISPOSAL OF CERTAIN CATEGORIES OF DOCUMENTS R E C E I V ED .HAMSEKS O f GoC 1 cel 1 R ivkin. Left & S herman At t o r n e y s a n d C o u n s e l l o r s at Law iO O Ga r d e n C ity P l a z a . G a r o e n C ity N Y. 1 1 5 3 0 <0 We su bm it t h i s memorandum o f law on b e h a l f o f The Dow Ch em ic al Company ("Dow") in s u p p o r t o f Dow's motion f o r an o r d e r p e r m i t t i n g Dow t o p r o c e e d w i t h t h e d i s p o s a l o f c e r t a i n c a t e g o r i e s o f documents in accordance with Dow's document r e t e n tion program. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT The r e l e v a n t f a c t s a r e s e t f o r t h in the accompanying a f f i d a v i t of Leonard L. R ivkin, to which th is Court is re sp e c t fully referred. B r i e f l y , in response to an e x t r a o r d i n a r i l y broad Rule 34 document r e q u e s t s e r v e d by p l a i n t i f f s , Dow has c o l l e c t e d and is sto rin g m illio n s of pages of documents which, although r e s p o n s i v e to p l a i n t i f f s ' r e q u e s t , have no b e a r in g a t a l l on the Agent Orange c o n t r o v e r s y . As o f January 1 , 1981, th e s e i r r e l e v a n t docu ments, which have been broken down i n t o 32 c a t e g o r i e s , became e l i g i b l e f o r d i s p o s a l in accordan ce w ith Dow's r e g u l a r l y maintained document r e te n tio n program. This motion merely seeks an o r d e r which would r e l i e v e Dow o f th e o b l i g a t i o n o f c o l l e c t i n g and s t o r i n g such o b v i o u s l y i r r e l e v a n t m a t e r i a l by p e r m i t t i n g Dow to proceed with i t s document r e t e n tio n program to the e x te n t of d i s p o s i n g o f t h e documents c o m p r i s i n g t h e above 32 c a t e g o r i e s . As i t i s not Dow's i n t e n t i o n to deny any p a r t y to t h i s l a w s u i t a c c e s s to t h e s e docu m e nts, Dow w i l l n ot commence w i t h the d i s p o s a l o f s a i d documents u n t i l 90 da ys a f t e r an o r d e r g r a n t i n g t h i s motion is entered. 9358 S i g n i f i c a n t l y , t h i s motion has no b e a r i n g on the many page s o f r e l e v a n t documents which Dow has c o l l e c t e d , r e v i e w e d , s o r te d and s t o r e d . ARGUMENT I t i s f i r m l y e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t management o f d i s c o v e r y , including re so lu tio n of rela ted motions, is within the broad d iscretio n ary powers of the t r i a l court. Lewis v. Texaco In c., 527 F .2 d 9 2 1 , 926 (2nd C i r . 1 9 7 5 ) ; Swanner v . United S t a t e s , 406 F .2 d 7 1 6 , 719 (5th C i r . 1 9 6 5 ) ; and Community S a v i n g s and Loan A s s o c i a t i o n v . F e d e r a l Home Loan Bank B o a r d , 68 F .R .D . 378, 381 (E .D .W is. 1 9 7 5 ) . The a u t h o r i t y t o manage d i s c o v e r y i s o f s p e c i a l s i g n i f i c a n c e in l e n g t h y and complex c a s e s such as the Agen t Orange l i t i g a t i o n . Dolgow v . A n d e r s o n , 53 F . R . D . 6 6 1 , 664 (E.D.N.Y. 1 9 7 1 ) . The power o f the Court to provide a p arty with r e l i e f from an u n n e c e s s a r ily burdensome d is c o v e r y req u e st, in clu d in g the power to l i m i t d is co v e ry to m atters o ccu rrin g w ith in a p a rtic u la r period of time, is w ell s e ttle d . See gen erally 8 W r ig h t and M i l l e r , F e d e r a l P r a c t i c e and P r o c e d u r e 2040 (197 0 ). See a l s o Wyly Corp. v . American Telephone and T e l e g r a p h C o . , [19 8 0 -1] Tr ade C a s . , T| 63,204 (D.D.C. Dec. 1 2 , 1979) , in which the Court, in the context of a discovery m otion, r e c o g n ize d and approved o f document d i s p o s a l under a p a r t y ' s document r e t e n t io n program. Q j 1O 3s.s As in d ica te d above, th is motion seeks to provide Dow w ith r e l i e f from p l a i n t i f f s ' e x t r a o r d i n a r i l y and unne c e s s a r i l y broad Ru le 34 d i s c o v e r y n o t i c e , w h i c h , as i t now s t a n d s , r e q u i r e s Dow t o c o l l e c t and s t o r e m i l l i o n s o f p age s o f t o t a l l y i r r e l e v a n t documents. There i s no j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r imposing t h a t o b l i g a t i o n on Dow, and, i n l i g h t o f the f o r e g o i n g , we r e s p e c t f u l l y su bm it t h a t t h i s C o u r t i s empowered t o e n t e r an o r d e r p e r m i t t i n g Dow to d i s p o s e o f t h o s e documents in a c c o r d a n c e with Dow's r e g u l a r l y maintained document r e te n tio n program. CONCLUSION For a l l o f the f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , we r e s p e c t f u l l y r e q u e s t t h a t our motion be granted in i t s e n t i r e t y . Respectfully submitted, RIVKIN, LEFF & SHERMAN A t t o r n e y s f o r Dow 100 Garden C i t y P l a z a Garden C i t y , NY 11530 (516) 746-7500 Dated: Garden C i t y , New York September , 1981. q. o 7 n \ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK IN RE "AGENT ORANGE" PRODUCTS LIABILITY x x MDL No. 381 REPLY MEMORANDUM OF OCCIDENTAL AND HOOKER IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUBGfi FACTUAL BACKGROUND Defendants, O c cid e n ta l Petroleum Corporation and Hooker C h e m i c a l s & P l a s t i c s C o r p . , h ave f i l e d a Motion f o r Summary Judgment directed at P l a in t if f s ' complaints asserting lia b il it y against Occi d e n ta l and Hooker on the b a s i s o f a l l e g a t i o n s t h a t they manufactured Agent Orange; and a t com plaints a l l e g i n g as a b a s is f o r l i a b i l i t y th a t Hooker manufactured te tra c h lo ro b e n ze n e . Opposing a f f i d a v i t s and memoranda have b een f i l e d by a l l d e f e n d a n t s and by p l a i n t i f f s i n C l a r k e t a l v s . Dow e t a l , CV 81-995 and Gibbs e t a l v s . Dow e t a l , CV 8 1-6 6 2 . D e f e n d a n t s ' Motion f o r Summary Judgment i s opposed on three grounds. A ll of the defendants take the position that the m oti on must be d e n i e d b e c a u s e Hooker p r o d u ce d TCP w h i c h , a c c o r d i n g to the a f f id a v it of Alexander P. Vandersar submitted by Uniroyal, was u t i l i z e d by U niroyal in the manufacture o f Agent Orange so ld to the United S t a t e s . U n ir o y a l a l s o t a k e s th e p o s i t i o n as do p l a i n - -2- t i f f s in Clark and Gibbs th a t Hooker can be held l i a b l e fo r having produced Tetrachlorobenzene which is said to be a precursor o f 2, 4, 5-T and may have been used i n t h e p r o d u c t i o n o f A g e n t Orange so ld to the United S t a t e s . P l a i n t i f f s in Clark and Gibbs a ls o note th at Hooker's motion does not s p e c i f i c a l l y address i t s e l f to the laws o f Georgia and F lo rid a . S i g n i f i c a n t l y , no p a r t y has subm itted any a f f i d a v i t s or otherwise contested defendants' factual assertions that neither O ccidental or Hooker produced any Agent Orange or other product used as a h e r b ic id e in S o u th e a st A s ia . Nor has any p a r ty subm itted anything to su ggest th a t the Tetrachlorobenzene produced by Hooker co n ta in e d any d io x in or fu ran s o r was a d e f e c t i v e p ro d u ct. ARGUMENT 1 . TRICHLOROPHENOL (TCP) Hooker does not d isp u te the a ss e rtio n s o f defendants th a t i t p r o d u ce d some q u a n t i t y o f T r i c h l o r o p h e n o l (TCP). Hooker d i d p r o duce TCP a t t h e d i r e c t i o n o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Government f o r s a l e to a s u b s id ia r y o f U niroyal. Hooker does not have any knowledge as t o w h e t h e r o r n o t any o f t h i s TCP was a c t u a l l y u t i l i z e d i n t h e p r o d u ctio n o f Agent Orange to which any o f the p l a i n t i f f s were exposed. However, Hooker does n o t a t t e m p t t o c h a l l e n g e , by t h i s summary j u d g ment motion, any claim by any defendant f o r c o n t r ib u t io n o r indemnity 9372 -3- b a s e d on i t s p r o d u c t io n o f TCP. The motion i s a d d r e s s e d t o P l a i n t i f f s ' complaints and to the e x t e n t th a t they attempt to a s s e r t t h a t O c cid e n ta l or Hooker i s l i a b l e on the b a s is o f a l l e g a t i o n s t h a t e i t h e r o f them manufactured Agent Orange or T etrach lorob en zen e The f a c t t h a t O c c i d e n t a l o r Hooker may be l i a b l e o v e r t o one o r more o f t h e d e f e n d a n t s does n o t a f f e c t i t s r i g h t s t o summary judgment against groundless a lle g a tio n s in P l a i n t i f f s ' complaints. S c h r o e t e r v s . Ralph W i l s o n P l a s t i c s , I n c . , 49 FRD 323 (S .D . N.Y. 1969), Axton-Fisher Tobacco Co., Inc, vs. Z e ffrin Truck Lines/ Inc. 36 F Supp. 777 (W.D. KY 1 9 4 1 ) , Fed. R. C i v . P r o c . 5 6 ( d ) . 2. TETRACHLOROBENZENE Only U n iro yal and p l a i n t i f f s Clark and Gibbs oppose defen d a n t s ' motion on the b a s i s o f Hooker's pro d uctio n o f T e t r a c h l o r o b e n z e n e . None o f t h e s e p a r t i e s have s u b m i t t e d any a f f i d a v i t s s u g g e s t i n g t h a t Hooker's T etrachlorobenzene was d e f e c t i v e . U niroyal suggests only that Hooker's Tetrochlorobenzene "could conceivably" be found to have been a d e fe c tiv e product. I t does not s e t fo rth any f a c t u a l b a s i s f o r t h i s p o s s i b i l i t y . On t h e c o n t r a r y , E x h i b i t A t o U n i r o y a l ' s o p p o s i t i o n p a p e r s shows c l e a r l y t h a t TCDD ( d i o x i n ) , the substance which P l a i n t i f f s consider to be the to x in causing the i n j u r i e s , i s formed o n ly durin g the pro d u ctio n o f TCP, not in the f o r m u l a t i o n o f T e t r a c h l o r o b e n z e n e . T h a t same e x h i b i t a l s o demon- fS -4- stra tes that the chemical Tetrachlorobenze undergoes a basic molecu l a r change in the manufacturing p ro cess. I t i s not a component or an i n g r e d i e n t o f Agent Orange. I t i s not p r e s e n t a t a l l in Agent Orange or 2, 4, 5-T. I t i s a raw m a te ria l which i s changed sub s t a n t i a l l y and b a s i c a l l y in the s e v e r a l m anufacturing p ro cesses leading to the production o f Agent Orange. Not only have the opposing p a r t ie s f a i l e d to produce any factual material tending to establish a basis for a finding that Tetrachlorobenzene i s d e f e c t iv e , they f a i l to c i t e any case or o th e r l e g a l a u t h o r it y f o r the p r o p o s itio n th a t Hooker can be held lia b le for se llin g a non-defective product. Hooker's Tetrachlorobenzene is not d efectiv e. I t did not cause any o f the a lle g e d in ju r ie s sustained by p l a i n t i f f s . There i s s i m p l y no b a s i s f o r h o l d i n g Hooker l i a b l e t o any p a r t y f o r i t s having produced and sold Tetrachlorobenzene. Hooker, th e r e fo r e , i s e n t i t l e d t o summary judgm en t on t h i s i s s u e a t t h i s t i m e . 3. THE LAW OF FLORIDA AND GEORGIA P l a i n t i f f s in C lark and Gibbs a s s e r t t h a t s i n c e - t h e i r c a s e s a r e b a s e d on d i v e r s i t y , summary judgment c a n n o t be g r a n t e d sin ce Hooker did not address i t s e l f s p e c i f i c a l l y to the law o f th e s e forum j u r i s d i c t i o n s . P l a i n t i f f s do n o t , however, o f f e r any -5- a u t h o r i t y from th o se two s t a t e s i n d i c a t i n g t h a t the a p p l i c a b l e law i s c o n t r a r y t o th e p r i n c i p l e s s e t f o r t h i n D e f e n d a n t s ' Memorandum i n S u p p o r t o f t h e Summary Judgment M o t io n . They do n o t , i n f a c t , s e t fo rth any cases from any ju r is d ic t io n to co n test the defendants' c o n t e n t io n t h a t a p ro d u ct must be shown to be d e f e c t i v e in o r d e r to form th e b a s i s o f a p r o d u c t s l i a b i l i t y c l a i m . While d e fe n d a n ts do n o t agree t h a t F l o r id a and G eorgia law n e c e s s a r i l y apply to the C lark and Gibbs cases r e s p e c t i v e l y , o r th a t defendants are req uired to s p e c i f i c a l l y c i t e cases from those ju r i s d i c t i o n s to support non l i a b i l i t y , i t is c le a r that the law of those states is in accord w i t h t h e p r i n c i p l e s s e t f o r t h i n d e f e n d a n t s ' s u p p o r t i n g memorandum. Both F lo r id a and Georgia have in d ic a te d approval o f 402A o f th e American Law I n s t i t u t e R e s t a t e m e n t o f T o r t s 2d. In West C a t e r p i l l a r T r a c t o r Company, I n c . , 336 So. 2d. 80 (S. C t . F l a . 1 9 7 6 ), the Supreme Court o f F l o r i d a answered a q u e s tio n c e r t i f i e d to i t by the United States Court of Appeals for the F ifth C irc u it re q u e stin g an opinion as to whether under F lo r id a law a manufac t u r e r may be h e l d l i a b l e on a t h e o r y o f s t r i c t l i a b i l i t y i n t o r t . In answering th is question in the a ffirm a tiv e, the Court stated: "In order to hold a manufacturer l i a b l e on the theory o f s t r i c t l i a b i l i t y in t o r t , the user must e s t a b li s h the manufacturer's relationship to the product in -6- q u e s tio n , the d e f e c t and unreasonably danagerous co n d itio n o f the product and the e x is te n c e o f the proximate causal connection between such co n d itio n and the u s e r 's i n j u r i e s or damages. We add opt t h e d o c t r i n e o f s t r i c t l i a b i l i t y as s t a t e d by the ALI Restatement (Second) o f To rts 402A . " (336 So. 2d a t 8 7 ) . The Supreme Court o f G eorgia has h e ld t h a t the law o f Georgia provides a cause of action for s t r ic t l i a b i l i t y in to rt under s e c t i o n 105-106 Code Ann. p r o v id in g t h a t th e m anufacturer i s l i a b l e i f h is product was "not merchantable and reasonably s u i t e d f o r t h e u s e i n t e n d e d . " C e n t e r Chem ic al Company v s . P a r z i n e , 218 SE 2d 580 (S. C t . Ga. 1 9 7 5 ) . The C o u r t found t h a t t h i s language was used in the c o n t e x t o f s t r i c t l i a b i l i t y c i t i n g 402A o f the R e s ta t e m e n t o f T o r t s , 2d and h o l d i n g : "A ll of the authorities supporting the doctrine of s t r i c t l i a b i l i t y in to r t have recognized the neces s i t y th a t the p l a i n t i f f e s t a b l i s h th a t th ere was a defect in the defendant's product" ** * " A c c o r d i n g l y , we c o n s t r u e t h e p h r a s e ' n o t m e r c h a n t a b l e and re a so n a b ly s u it e d to the use in ten d ed ' as used i n Code Ann. 105 -10 6 t o mean t h a t p l a i n t i f f must show t h a t the m a n u fa c t u r e r 's p ro d u ct when s o l d by the m anufacturer was d e f e c t i v e ." -7- The e x i s t e n c e o f a d e f e c t in th e m an u fa ctu re r's product is the basic element in a p la i n t i f f 's cause of action for product l i a b i l i t y . A manufacturer is not lia b le absent proof that the p ro d u ct i n q u e s t i o n was d e f e c t i v e o r dangerous a t a time when the d e f e n d a n t had p o s s e s s i o n o r c o n t r o l o f i t , o r when th e p r o d u c t l e f t the d e f e n d a n t ' s p r o s s e s s i o n o r c o n t r o l , o r when th e d e f e n d a n t was otherwise responsbile for it s condition with respect to the defect o r d a n g e r , 63 Am. J u r . 2d, P r o d u c t s L i a b i l i t y 20, 10. Th er e has been no a t t e m p t t o show, o r even an a l l e g a t i o n o f, the e x i s t e n c e o f a d e f e c t i n H o o k e r's T e t r a c h l o r o b e n z e n e . There i s no f a c t u a l i s s u e t o be t r i e d i n t h i s r e g a r d and d e f e n d a n t i s e n t i t l e d t o a summary judgment on t h i s i s s u e a t t h i s time as a m atter o f law. Markwell v s . G e n e r a l T i r e and Rubber Company, 367 F 2d 748 (7 th C i r . 1 9 6 6 ) , Amik v s . Gooding Amusement Company, 248 F. Supp 782 ( S .C . 1 9 6 6 ) . CONCLUSION O c cid e n ta l and Hooker have submitted a f f i d a v i t s and answers to i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s d em o n stra tin g t h a t n e i t h e r company m anufactured any q u a n tity o f Agent Orange or any other product used as a h e r b i cide in the Vietnam c o n f l i c t . They have a lso s e t fo rth a f f i d a v i t s demonstrating th at the substance a lle g e d to be cause of the p la in t i f f s ' i n j u r i e s in t h i s l i t i g a t i o n was not p resen t in any T e t r a c h l o r o b e n z e n e m a n u fa c tu r e d by Hooker. No p a r t y has o f f e r e d any f a c t u a l data to c o n t e s t d e fe n d a n ts ' a s s e r t i o n s r e g a r d in g th e s e two 9377 -8- p r o d u c t s . Defendants submit t h a t t h e r e a re no f a c t u a l i s s u e s to be t r i e d with r e s p e c t .t o l i a b i l i t y o f e it h e r O ccid en tal or Hooker on the b a s is o f the P l a i n t i f f s ' a l l e g a t i o n s th a t they produced T e t r a c h l o r o b e n z e n e . Hooker does n o t , a t t h i s t i m e , s e e k summary judgment on any a l l e g a t i o n s o f l i a b i l i t y on the b a s i s o f Hooker's p r o d u c t io n o f TCP. Respectfully submitted, DILWORTH, PAXSON, KALISH. & LEVY Chemicals & P la s tic s Corp. 2600 The F i d e l i t y B u i l d i n g P h ila d e lp h ia , Pennsylvania 19109 (215) 546-3000 9o ^ o tt UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK IN RE "AGENT ORANGE" PRODUCT LIABILITY LITIGATION x MDL NO. 381 (All Cases) x AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE JOHN M. FITZPATRICK, h a v i n g been d u l y sw orn , d e p o se s and says th a t he i s a P artn er o f the law firm o f D ilw orth , Paxson, K a l i s h & Levy and t h a t on May 1 5 , 1 9 8 1 , c o p i e s o f t h e f o r e g o i n g R e p ly Memorandum o f O c c i d e n t a l and Hooker In S u p p o r t o f T h e i r Motion For Summary Judgment, and R e p ly A f f i d a v i t o f John M. F i t z p a t r i c k were served on each person l i s t e d on the a tt a c h e d s e r v i c e l i s t by f i r s t class mail, postage prepaid. SWORN TO BEFORE ME this Ml day o f M #Y n , 1981. / Notary Public, Phila., Phila. Co. My Commission Expires Nov. 28,1982 i 5 SERVICE LIST Leonard L. Rivkin Rivkin, Leff <5cSherman 100 Garden City Plaza Garden City, NY 11530 Morton B. Silberman Clark, Gagliardi & Miller The Inns of Court 99 Court Street White Plains, NY 10601 Wendell B. Alcorn, Jr. Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft One Wall Street New York, NY 10005 Philip Pakula Townley & Updike 405 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 William H. Sanders, Blackwell, Sanders, Matheny, Weary & Lombardi Five Crown Center 2480 Pershing Road Kansas City, MO 64108 Baker & McKenzie THOMPSON-HAYWARD (Co-Counsel) Prudential Plaza, Suite 2800 Chicago, IL 60603 William A. Krohley Kelley, Drye & Warren 350 Park Avenue New York, NY 10022 David Gross Budd, Larner, Kent, Gross, Picillo <5c Rosenbaum 33 Washington Street Newark, NJ 07102 Joan Bernott Department of Justice for THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT USA Safeway Building, Room 904D Washington, D.C. 20530 -1- r-' * Ruben Koolyek Assistant U.S. Attorney United States Courthous 225 Cadman Plaza East Brooklyn, NY 11201 Armand E. Capanna Lewis, Overbeek & Furman 135 South LaSalle Street Suite 1060 Chicago, IL 60603 Thomas A. Beck Arthur, Dry, Kalish, P.C. 1230 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Lester, Schwab, Katz & Dwyer 120 Broadway New York, NY 10271 Counsel For Amicus Curiae, THE COUNSEL OF VIETNAM VETERANS 329 Eighth Street, N.E. Washington, D.C. 20002 Victor J. Yannacone, Jr. Yannacone & Yannacone P.O. Box 109 Patchogue, NY 11772 Clerk of the Panel Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation 320 Executive Building 1030 15th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20002 Michael V. Corrigan Simpson, Thacher & B artlett One Battery Park Plaza New York, NY 10004 Robert Taylor, Jr., Esquire Ashcraft <5c Gerel Suite 700 2000 L Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20037 V. James Facciolo, Esquire Searcy & Facciolo 1002 Blackstone Building Jacksonville, FL 32202 -2- 9381 William L. Ducker, Esquire P.O. Box 217 Purvis, MS 39475 Marvin Oates, Esquire Oates <5c Houston P.O. Box 426 Bay Springs, MS 39422 Kenneth H. Molberg, Esquire Law Offices of James C. Barber 5217 Ross Avenue, Suite 318 Dallas, TX 75206 Francis P. Witham, Esquire Witham, Amabile 6c Takvorian 312 Warren Avenue Hohokus, NJ 07423 Jack E. London, Esquire Mills, Hodin 6c London, P.A. One Biscayne Tower, Suite 2250 Two S. Biscayne Blvd. Miami, FL 33131 Gerald W. Nelson, Esquire Casper, Bergmann <3c Newcomer, P.A. 4950 W. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 603 Tampa, FL 33609 Steven W. Steinle, Esquire Barnard, Hilleren 6c Spates 1327 Pacific Avenue Benson, MN 56215 Daniel G. Wall, Esquire 416 Roseville Professional Center 2233 Hamline Avenue North Roseville, MN 55113 Logan N. Foreman, E , Esquire Eckman, Strandness 6c Egan 501 Butler Square West 100 North Sixth Street Minneapolis, MN 55403 Frank T. Mabley, Esquire 416 Roseville Professional Center 2233 Hamline Avenue North Roseville, MN 55113 Michael E. Shelton, Esquire Schechter <k Shelton, Inc. 525 Webster Street Houston, TX 77002 Devine <k Morris, Esquire Four Piedmont Center, Suite 111 3565 Piedmont Road, N.E. Atlanta, GA 30305 Byron Neal Fox, Esquire Gary K. Hoffman Brown and Fox City Center Square - Suite 1500 1100 Main Kansas City, MO 65105 Richard Niederhauser, Esquire Caenen and Niederhauser 401 Mission State Bank Bldg. 5201 Johnson Drive Mission, KS 66205 Phil M. Cartmell, Jr., Esquire Gage <5cTucker 2345 Grand Avenue P.O. Box 23428 Kansas City, MO 64141 Leonard W. Schroeter, Esquire J. Kathleen Learned, Esquire Schroeter, Goldmark <5c Bender, P.S. 540 Central Building Seattle, WA 98104 Jeffrey M. Stopford, Esquire Litvin, Blumberg, Matusow <3c Young 210 W. Washington Sq. - Fifth Floor Philadelphia, PA 19106 Dante Mattioni, Esquire 330 Market Street East Suite 200 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Alvin G. Greenwald, Esquire Dorothy Thompson, Esquire 6300 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90048 Don S. Willner, Esquire Willner, Bennett, Bobbitt c Hartman 1 S.W. Columbia Portland, OR 97258 Del Steiner, Esquire Smith & Steiner 508 Eighth Street Lewiston, ID 83501 Irvin W. Schermer, Esquire Schermer, Schwappach, 3orkon <5c Ramstead 485 Plsbury Buding 608 Second Avenue South MinneapoHs, MN 55402 Thomas A. Nash, Jr., Esquire Fortson, Bentley and Griffin P.O. Box 1744 Athens, GA 30613 Alan S. Adelson, Esquire John C. Emery, Esquire 26211 Central Park Blvd. Suite 616 Southfield, MI 48076 John McKnight, Esquire P.O. Box 1414 Brunswick, GA 31511 Gary E. Clary, Esquire Han, Daniel, Winter <5c Clary P.O. Box 249 Gaffney, SC 29340 Nancy J. Ruhl, Esquire 413 South President S treet Suite 208 Jackson, MS 39201 Daniel Shapiro, Esquire Ortega & Snead, P.A. P.O. Box 2226 Albuquerque, NM 87103 Michael Rosenfield, Esquire Reiselt <Jc Rosenfield P.O. Box 40012 Albuquerque, NM 87106 -5- Victor L. Marcello, Esquire Talbot, Sotile, Carmouche, Marchand 6c Marcello P.O. Drawer 669 Donaldsonville, LA 70346 David A. Johns, Esquire Faraci, Guadagnino, Lange 6c Johns 309 Times Square Building Rochester, NY 14614 Benton Musslewhite, Esquire 3506 Travis Houston, TX 77002 Newton B. Schwartz, P.C. 609 Fannin Building Suite 700 Houston, TX 77002 Robert M. Salzman, Esquire Pfeffer, Becker, Gabric 6c Cerveny, Ltd. 79 West Monroe Street Chicago, ILL 60603 William L. Swan, Esquire Langstaff, Campbell 6c Plowden P.O. Box 1306 Atlanta, GA 31702 Anne E. Meroney, Esquire Four Piedmont Center, Suite 111 3565 Piedmont Road, N.E. Atlanta, GA 30305 Donald E. Grincewicz, Esquire Suite 214 6900 S. Orange Blossom Trail Orlando, FL 32809 Richard L. Powell, Esquire Powell 6c Snelling P.O. Box 1371 Augusta, GA 30903 Philip H. Magner, Jr., Esquire Garvey, Magner 6c Love 1725 Statler Building Buffalo, NY 14202 Stephen J. Schlegel, Esquire Dean M. T rafelet, Esquire One North LaSalle Street, Suite 1313 Chicago, ILL 60602 Cletus E. Amlung, Esquire J. Michael Poole, Esquire 600 Starks Building Louisville, KY 40202 Elliot E. Brown, Esquire 2714 Independence Street Metairie, LA 70002 William T. Jorden, Esquire McClure, Dart, Miller, Kelleher 6c White 501 Marine Bank Building Erie, PA 16501 Ned W. Johnson, Esquire Benckenstein, McNicholas, Oxford, Radford, Johnson & Nathan P.O. Drawer 150 605 San Jacinto Building Beaumont, TX 77704 Allen B. Couch, Esquire P.O. Box 305 Southaven, MS 38671 Charles M. Merkel, Jr., Esquire Holcomb, Dunbar, Connell, Merkel, Tollison 6c Khayat, P.A. P.O. Box 368 Clarksdale, MS 38614 Morris M. Shuster, Esquire 601 Widener Building Philadelphia, PA 19107 David J. Ackerman, Esquire 700 Widener Building Philadelphia, PA 19107 Henry E. Weil, Esquire Ronald S. Canter, Esquire Belli, Weil 6c Jacobs 11300 Rockville Pike One Central Plaza Rockville, MD 20852 Brenda S. Jenkins, Esquire Werner <5c Rusk 3636 San Jacinto Houston, TX 77004 Lawrence M. Ludwig, Esquire Kirby G. Upright, Esquire 200 Bank Towers Scranton, PA 18501 John F. Vecchio, Esquire 711 Louisiana Avenue South Tower Pennsoil Place Houston, TX 77002 Richard C. McLean, Esquire 622 American National Bank Building Denver, CO 80202 Robert F. Stein, Esquire William J. Stradley, Esquire Stradley, Barnett 6c Stein 2919 Allen Parkway, #202 Houston, TX 77019 George J. Tzangas, Esquire Tzangas, Plakas 6c Mannos 454 Citizens Savings Bldg. 110 Central Plaza South Canton, OH 44702 Douglas F. Patrick, Esquire Foster, Covington 6c Patrick P.O. Box 2146 Greenville, SC 29602 Ronald A. Maxwell, Esquire Lybrand, Rich, Cain, Simons 6c Maxwell P.O. Box 939 Aiken, SC 29801 H. Kelly Jones, Jr., Esquire Suite 5, 532 Knox Abbott Drive P.O. Box 561 Cayce, SC 29033 Thomas A. Hart, in Blatt & Fales P.O. Box 365 Barnwell, SC 29812 Pickens M. Lindsay, Esquire Olson, Lindsay & King P.O. Box 1633 Clemson, SC 29631 A.L. Herden 222 Main Plaza San Antonio, TX 78205 Kenneth E. Bigus, Esquire 1005 Grand Avenue 700 Lathrop Building Kansas City, MO 64106 Ernest T. Rossiello & Associates, P.C 180 North LaSalle St. Suite 1407 Chicago, IL 60601 Tornar, Parks, Seliger, Simonoff & Adourian, Esqs. 41 South Haddon Avenue Haddonfield, NJ 08033 Paul L. Pratt, P.C. Route 111 at Airline Drive P.O. Box 179 East Alton, IL 62024 Richard Heideman 835 West Jefferson St. Suite 100 Louisville, KY 40202 Robert P. Schuster Spence, Moriarity & Schuster P.O. Box 548 265 Pearl St. Jackson, WY 83001 John A. Kruse 1590 First National Bldg. Detroit, MI 48226 Russell L. Cook, Jr. Fisher, Rochi & Gallagher 2600 Two Houston Center Houston, TX 77002 Arden C. McClelland McClelland Law Offices 221 North Higgins Avenue P.O. Box 8185 Missoula, MT 59807 Robert D. Gary 446 Broadway Lorain, OH 44052 R. Ben Hogan, in George White, Esquire Hogan, Smith <5c Alspaugh, P.C. 1000 City Federal Bldg. Birmingham, AL 35203 Marshall A. Bernstein Bernstein, Bernstein <Jc Harrison 1521 Locust St. 7th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 Dennis B. Francis Gillenwater, Whelchel & Nichol 6401 Baum Drive Knoxville, TN 37919 9389 -10- UNITED STATES D IST R ICT COURT EASTERN D IST R ICT OF NE "AGENT ORANGE Product L ia b ilit y L itig a tio n ,,-NOTICE TO TAKE DEPOSITION MDL #381 X NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN t h a t , p u r s u a n t t o Ru le s 30 and 45 o f t h e F e d e r a l Ru le s o f C i v i l P r o c e d u r e , t h e d e f e n d a n t s i n the ab ove-en titled action w ill cause to be taken the testimony of WAYLAND JACKSON HAYES, J R . , on t h e 7th day o f A p r i l , 1983, a t 9:30 o ' c l o c k i n t h e forenoon o f t h a t day o r on a date and time t h e r e a f t e r , as s t i p u l a t e d to by counsel f o r defendants and the deponent. Said deposition sh a ll be taken at the United States A t t o r n e y ' s O f f i c e , F e d e r a l C our t House B u i l d i n g , 801 Broadway, Nashville, Tennessee. I f fo r any reason the ta k in g o f the d ep o sitio n i s not completed on th e date i n d i c a t e d , then s a i d d e p o s it io n s h a l l be adjourned from day t o day and from time t o time u n t i l completed. The dep onen t i s h e r e b y n o t i f i e d t o make th e f o l l o w i n g documents a v a ila b le to counsel fo r defendants immediately p r io r t o t h e commencement o f t h e d e p o s i t i o n : 1 . A copy o f your most re c e n t curriculum v i t a e . 2. Any and a l l p e r s o n a l f i l e s i n c l u d i n g , but not l i m i t e d t o , a l l d i a r i e s , l o g s , n o t e s , and memos i n t h e p o s s e s s i o n , custody or control of the deponent regarding 2,4,5-T, the U' h e rb icid e s used in So u th ea st A s ia , and d io x in . RIVKIN, LEFF, SHERMAN & RADLER A t t o r n e y s f o r D e f e n d a n t , THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY O ffic e & P.O. Address 100 Garden C i t y P l a z a Garden C i t y , NY 11530 (516) 746-7500 n3\oJ '9 2 -2- STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF NASSAU ) SS . : JOAN A. LEONOWICZ, b e i n g d u l y sworn, d e p o s e s and s a y s : That deponent i s not a p a r t y t o t h e a c t i o n , i s o v e r 18 y e a r s o f age and r e s i d e s a t U n io n d a l e , New York. That on th e 31st day of March 1983 deponent s e r v e d t h e w i t h i n NOTICE TO TAKE DEPOSITION upon the a t t o r n e y s below s e t f o r t h r e p r e s e n t i n g th e p a r t i e s , as in d ic a t e d , a t the ad d resses shown, s a id ad d resses b ein g d e s ig n a te d by said attorneys for that purpose. ATTORNEYS: L i s t e d on a t t a c h e d s e r v i c e l i s t . by d e p o s i t i n g a t r u e cop y o f same e n c l o s e d i n a p o s t p a i d p r o p e r l y addressed wrapper in an o f f i c i a l d e p o s i t o r y under the e x c l u s i v e ca re and cu stod y o f the United S t a t e s P o st O f f i c e Department w i t h i n th e S t a t e o f New York-; and upon t h e d e p o n e n t , by f o r w a r d i n c a t r u e copy o f same t o t h e d e p o n e n t ' s home a d d r e s s -- 2317 G o l f Clu b Lane, N a s h v i l l e , TN 372 15. Sworn to b e f o r e me t h i s 3 1 s t day o f March 1983 Notary Public 9393 TO: MORTON B. SILBERMAN, ESQ. Clark, Gagliardi & M iller The Inns o f Court 99 C o u rt S t r e e t White P l a i n s , New York 10601 WENDELL B. ALCORN, J R . , ESQ. Cadwalader, Wickersham & T aft One W all S t r e e t New Y o r k , New York 10005 JOHN SABETTA, ESQ. Townley & Updike 405 L e x i n g t o n Avenue New Y o r k , New York 10174 WILLIAM KROHLEY, ESQ. K e l l e y , Drye & Warren 101 Park Avenue New Y o r k , New York 10178 DAVID R. GROSS, ESQ. Budd, L arn er, Kent, Gross, P i c i l l o & Rosenbaum 33 Washington Avenue Newark, New J e r s e y 07102 THOMAS A BECK, ESQ. A rth u r, Dry & K a li s h , P.C. 1230 Avenue o f the Americas New Y o r k , New York 10020 VICTOR J. YANNACONE, J R . , ESQ. Yannacone & Yannacone P.O. Box 109 P a t c h o g u e , New York 11 7 7 2 IRVING LIKE, ESQ. 200 West Main S t r e e t B a b y l o n , New York 11702 ARVIN MASKIN, ESQ. Department of Ju stice Safeway Building Room 904 D W as h in gto n , D.C. 20530 SOL SCHREIBER, ESQ. SPECIAL MASTER Milberg, Weiss, Bershad & Specthrie One P e n n s y l v a n i a P l a z a New Y o r k , New York 10019 HOWARD LESTER, ESQ. L e s t e r , Schwab, Katz & Dwyer 120 Broadway New Y o r k , New York 10271 PAUL ESPOSITO, ESQ. L e w i s , Overbeck & Furman 135 South L a Salle S t r e e t S u i t e 1060 C h i c a g o , I l l i n o i s 60603 j i WAYLAND JACKSON HAYES, J R . , M.D., Ph.D. 2317 G olf Club Lane N a sh v ille , Tennessee 37215 i j j !i HON. GEORGE C. PRATT United States D istr ic t Court E a s t e r n D i s t r i c t o f New York j U n io n d ale Av e. & Hempstead Tpkej U n i o n d a l e , New York 1 15 5 3 j i jI Q^Q4 UNITED STATES D IST R ICT COURT EASTERN D IST R ICT OF NEW YORK IN RE "AGENT ORANGE" PRODUCT LIABILITY LITIGATION x x MDL No. 381 F iL E D IN CLEiK'S OF U. S. ....... '- M.Y. JAN 1 V 19:3 ^t \ TIME A.M.. P.M. SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWERS OF DEFENDANT MONSANTO COMPANY TO PLAINTIFFS' INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANTS (FIRST WAVE) SECOND SET t Tow nley & U pdike CHRYSLER BUILDING 4 0 5 LEXINGTON AVENUE N E W Y O R K , N. Y. 1 0 1 7 4 TELEPHONE (212) 6 6 2 - 4 5 6 7 (Tv u O' Io<U UNITED STATES D ISTR ICT COURT EASTERN D IST R ICT OF NEW YORK IN RE "AGENT ORANGE" PRODUCT LIABILITY LITIGATION x : MDL No. 381 : SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWERS OF DEFENDANT MONSANTO COMPANY : TO PLAINTIFFS' INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANTS (FIRST WAVE) ________ SECOND SET________ x Monsanto Company ( " M o n sa n t o ") , i n a c c o rd a n c e w i t h P r e t r i a l Order No. 33 and M o n s an t o 's F e b ru a ry 1 1 , 1981 Answers to P la in t if f s ' "In terrogatories to Defendants (F irst Wave)," dated January, 1981 ( " P l a i n t i f f s ' I n te r r o g a to r ie s " ) , provides the following supplemental answers to P la in t if f s ' I n t e r r o g a t o r i e s . Like Monsanto's J u ly 9, 1982 "Supplemental Answers" to P l a i n t i f f s ' In terro g a to ries, the supplemental answers h e r e i n c o n s i s t o f 13 s c h e d u le s o f a d d i t i o n a l Monsanto documents c o n t a i n i n g i n f o r m a t i o n r e s p o n s i v e t o one o r more o f the interrogatories. Some o f th e documents i d e n t i f i e d h e r e i n a r e s u b j e c t t o a claim of co n fid e n tia lity because they contain medical in form ation concerning p a s t or p resen t Monsanto employees. These documents w i l l be made a v a i l a b l e f o r i n s p e c t i o n and copying upon the en try o f an a p p ro p ria te p r o t e c t i v e order. Documents i d e n t i f i e d h e re in t h a t are not s u b je c t to claims of c o n fid e n tia lity or p riv ile g e have been segregated a c c o r d in g to th e 13 s c h e d u le s and are a v a i l a b l e f o r i n s p e c t i o n and copying a t the o f f i c e s o f Monsanto's a t t o r n e y s , Townley & Updike, upon reason able n o tic e . q Oq' Qu 7i -2- ANSWERS INTERROGATORY NUMBER 2 Provide a table of organization of the answering D e f e n d a n t Company s e t t i n g f o r t h t h e f o l l o w i n g : I n t e r r o g a t o r y 2A A. The name and l o c a t i o n o f ea c h d i v i s i o n o f t h e defendant responsible for or which p articip ated in the design, p r o d u ctio n and s a l e to th e United S t a t e s Government of the h e r b i c i d e known as Age nt Orange f o r us e i n S o u t h e a s t A s i a i n c l u d in g Vietnam d u rin g the p e r io d 1960 through 1971. S u p plem en ta l Answer t o I n t e r r o g a t o r y 2A See a tta c h e d Schedules 1 and 3. INTERROGATORY NUMBER 3 I d e n t i f y by name and l a s t known a d d r e s s , and i f r e t i r e d so s t a t e and s u p p l y t h e l a s t known a d d r e s s o f each and every person, s c ie n t if ic , medical, or otherwise, retained by or known t o t h i s d e f e n d a n t o r known by t h i s d e f e n d a n t t o have been r e t a i n e d by o r known t o any o f t h e o t h e r d e f e n d a n t s who has studied, evaluated, or reported or d ir e c tly or in d ire c tly communicated any f i n d i n g s r e f e r a b l e to whatever e f f e c t s were so found upon a n im a ls or human b e i n g s r e s u l t i n g from exposure , d ir e c tly or in d ire ctly , in the formulation, design, aanufacture and p rod uction o f phenoxy h e r b ic id e s such as 2 , 4 , 5 -T r ic h lo r o phenoxy A lip h a tics containing but not lim ited to the synthetic o r g a n i c c h e m i c a l 2 , 3 , 7 , 8 - T e t r a c h l o r Dibenzo p - d i o x i n (TCDD or "D io xin ") and o th er h e r b i c i d e s c o n t a in in g P o ly c h lo r in a t e d D i b e n z o - p - d i o x i n s (PCDDs) and P o l y c h l o r i n a t e d Dibenzo f u r a n s (PCDFs) i n c l u d i n g t h e u l t i m a t e u s e r s o f t h o s e e x p e c t e d t o be exposed t o same. Supplemental Answer to In te rr o g a to ry 3 See attached Schedule 7. INTERROGATORY NUMBER 4 (FIRST) Provide a ta b le or organ ization as to the United S ta te s Government showing: I n t e r r o g a t o r y 4A ( F i r s t ) A. The d i v i s i o n or u n i t s o f such d i v i s i o n o f th e U n it e d S t a t e s Government w i t h whom D e f e n d a n t s c o n t r a c t e d t o supply the Agent Orange h erbicide to be used in Southeast Asia in clu d in g Vietnam during the perio d 1960 through 1971. Sup plemental Answer t o I n t e r r o g a t o r y 4A ( F i r s t ) See attached Schedule 1. I n t e r r o g a t o r y 4B ( F i r s t ) B. The name, a d d r e s s , t e l e p h o n e number, t i t l e and d uties of every person employed by, under co n tract with or otherwise related to said d iv isio n or units of the United S t a t e s Government w i t h whom t h e D e f e n d a n t s , o r any o f t h e i r agents, servants, or employees d ealt in connection with the n e g o t i a t i o n s and c o n t r a c t f o r the su pply o f th e Agent Orange h e r b ic id e , in c lu d in g t h e .d e s ig n and pro d u ctio n o f such herbicide. Su p p le m e n ta l Answer to I n t e r r o g a t o r y 4B ( F i r s t ) See attached Schedule 1. I n t e r r o g a t o r y 4C ( F i r s t ) C. The name, a d d r e s s , t e l e p h o n e number, t i t l e and d u t i e s o f e v e r y p e r s o n employed by s a i d d i v i s i o n and u n i t s whom Defendants claim were knowledgeable with respect to the following: Interrogatory 4C(i) (First) ( i ) The s t a t e o f the a r t and te ch n o lo gy a t the time the Defendants were under con tract with the United States Government to supply the Agent Orange h e rb ic id e with r e s p e c t to the d e s ig n and method o f p r o c e s s o f p ro d u ctio n in c lu d in g manufacturing pro cess o f the Agent Orange herbicide. Supplemental Answer to In terro g a to ry 4C(i) (F ir st) See a tta ch e d Schedule 3. Interrogatory 4C(ii) (First) ( i i ) The r i s k s o f d i o x i n con tam ination a s s o c i a t e d w ith the d e s ig n and p r o d u c tio n o f the Agent Orange h e r b i c i d e , the methods o f d i o x i n c o n t r o l , r e d u c t i o n or e l i m i n a t i o n and the costs thereof. Supplemental Answer to In te rro g a to ry 4 C (ii) (F ir s t) See a tta ch ed Schedule 4. -5 - In terrogatory 4C(iv) (F irst) ( i v ) The p r o c e s s u t i l i z e d or proposed t o be u t i l i z e d by defendant to manufacture Agent Orange. Supplemental Answer to In te rr o g a to ry 4C(iv) ( F ir s t ) See attached Schedule 3. INTERROGATORY NUMBER 4 (SECOND) I d e n t i f y a l l documents, t h e i r l o c a t i o n and th e name, t i t l e , a d d r e s s and t e lp h o n e number o f th e c u s t o d i a n in p o s s e s s i o n o r c o n t r o l o f , or known t o th e D efen d an ts which rela te to the items 1 through 3 supra, including: I n t e r r o g a t o r y 4A (Second) A. Any and a l l r e s e a r c h , a n a l y s e s , t e s t s , t e s t i n g procedures re la tiv e to the manufacture, advertising, sale, promotion, and m arketing o f phenoxy h e r b ic id e s such as 2 ,4 ,5-Trichlorophenoxy Aliphatics containing but not limited to the sy n th e tic organic chemical 2 , 3 , 7 , 8-Tetracholor Dibenzo p - d i o x i n (TCDD or " D i o x i n " ) and o t h e r h e r b i c i d e s c o n t a i n i n g P o l y c h l o r i n a t e d D i b e n o - p - d i o x i n s (PCDDs) and P o l y c h l o r i n a t e d Dibenzo furans (PCDFs), h e r e i n a f t e r simply "Phenoxy h e r b ic id e s ." S u p plem enta l Answer t o I n t e r r o g a t o r y 4A (Second) See a t t a c h e d Schedule 6. I n t e r r o g a t o r y 4B (Second) B. A n a l y s i s , s t u d i e s , e x p e r i m e n t s , r e s u l t s o f such experiments, in clu d in g but not lim ited to the recommendations concerning the resu lts of experiments re la tiv e to the formulation, production, manufacture, sale, marketing, 1-6- q /$ n Jr \ j prom otion, and a d v e r tis in g o f phenoxy h e r b ic id e s . Sup plemental Answer t o I n t e r r o g a t o r y 4B (Second) See a t t a c h e d Sch e d u le 6. I n t e r r o g a t o r y 4C (Second) C. Anyone a c t i n g by or on b e h a l f o f t h i s defendant or known t o be a c t i n g b y o r on b e h a l f o f any o f t h e o t h e r defendants re la tiv e to the research, testin g, analysis, e v a lu a t io n , and recommendations r e l a t i v e to the manufacture, s a l e , d i s t r i b u t i o n , a d v e r t i s i n g , and promotion o f phenoxy herbicides. Sup plem en tal Answer t o I n t e r r o g a t o r y 4C (Second) See a t t a c h e d Sch e dule 6. I n t e r r o g a t o r y 4P (Second) D. E f f e c t s o f ex p o s u r e o f w h a t e v e r n a t u r e and under whatever circumstances or conditions to phenoxy herbicides. Su p ple m en ta l Answer t o I n t e r r o g a t o r y 4P (Second) See attached Schedule 7. I n t e r r o g a t o r y 4E (Second) E. The d a t e s , p l a c e s and t i m e s o f measuring and te s tin g exposure in animals ( id e n tify by animal) of phenoxy herbicides. Supplem en tal Answer to I n t e r r o g a t o r y 4E (Second) See a t t a c h e d S ch e dule 8. -7 - In te r r o g a to r y 4F (Second) F. The d a t e s , ti m e s , p l a c e s , and r e s u l t s o f exposure t o humans i n w h a t e v e r form o f phenoxy h e r b i c i d e s . Sup plem en tal Answer t o I n t e r r o g a t o r y 4F (Second) See attach ed Schedule 9. I n t e r r o g a t o r y 4G (Second) G. Any s t u d i e s c o n d u c t e d by t h i s d e f e n d a n t or known by t h i s defendant to have been conducted by any of the other defendants or by anyone or by any independent organ ization r e t a i n e d by t h i s d e f e n d a n t or known by t h i s d e f e n d a n t t o have been retained by other defendants with respect to the e ffe c ts , i f any, upon the employees of t h i s defendant or the employees o f o t h e r d e f e n d a n t s known t o t h i s d e fe n d a n t o r t h e i r spouses and c h i l d r e n who were i n any manner, shap e, o r form a s s o c i a t e d w ith or exposed to the m anufacture, p r o d u ctio n and shipment of phenoxy h erb icid es. Su p ple m en ta l Answer t o I n t e r r o g a t o r y 4G (Second) See attached Schedule 10. I n t e r r o g a t o r y 4H (Second) H. Any and a l l a c c i d e n t s i n t h e p r o d u c t i o n and m anufacturing, sh ippin g, and d i s t r i b u t i o n o f phenoxy h e r b ic id e s i n c l u d i n g t h e r e s u l t s o f any i n q u i r y by t h i s d e f e n d a n t or known by t h i s d e f e n d a n t t o h a v e been made b y o t h e r d e f e n d a n t s or any in q uiry by any pu blic or p r iv a te agency r e l a t i v e to such accident or accidents. Q 403 -8- S u p p le m e n ta l Answer t o I n t e r r o g a t o r y 4H (Second) See attached Schedule 11. I n t e r r o g a t o r y 41 (Second) I. I d e n t i f y and s e t f o r t h the pro ce ss u t i l i z e d f o r the manfacture of phenoxy h erb icid es. Supplemental Answer to I n t e r r o g a t o r y 41 (Second) See attached Schedule 3. I n t e r r o g a t o r y 4J (Second) J. I f the p r o c e s s i n res p o n se to the above was changed from time to tim e, i d e n t i f y and s e t f o r t h each and e v e ry p r o c e s s and the d a te s o f changes, i f any, to d a te . Supplemental Answer to I n t e r r o g a t o r y 4J (Second) See a tta ch ed Schedule 3. I n t e r r o g a t o r y 4K (Second) K. The e x i s t e n c e o f D i o x i n i n th e m an u fa c tu re and production of phenoxy h erb icid es. Su p ple m en ta l Answer t o I n t e r r o g a t o r y 4K (Second) See a tta ch e d Schedule 4. I n t e r r o g a t o r y 4L (Second) L. W a r r a n t i e s , r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s , and a s s u r a n c e s , made b y t h i s d e f e n d a n t or known by t h i s d e f e n d a n t t o have been made by other defendants to the United S t a t e s Government in re s p e c t of phenoxy h erb icid es. Su p plem enta l Answer t o I n t e r r o g a t o r y 4L (Second) See a tta ch e d Schedule 2. -9 - I n t e r r o g a t o r y 4M (Second) M. The company's knowledge o f th e e x i s t e n c e o f Dioxin in the production, manufacture, distribution, sale, m arketing, and promotion o f phenoxy h e r b i c i d e s . Su p ple m en ta l Answer t o I n t e r r o g a t o r y 4M (Second) See attached Schedule 4. I n t e r r o g a t o r y 40 (Second) O. N e g o t i a t i o n s be tw ee n t h i s d e f e n d a n t o r known by t h i s defendant to have been undertaken by or on b e h a lf o f the o t h e r d e f e n d a n t s between t h i s and/or t h e o t h e r d e f e n d a n t s and the United S ta te s Government with r e s p e c t to the e x is te n c e of Dioxin in the manfacture, production, marketing, promotion, s a l e , a d v e r t i s i n g , and d i s t r i b u t i o n , on [ s i c ] phenoxy herbicides. Su p plem enta l Answer t o I n t e r r o g a t o r y 40 (Second) See attached Schedule 2. I n t e r r o g a t o r y 4P (Second) P. The m an u factu rin g p r o c e s s from b e g in n in g to end in the production of phenoxy h erb icid es. Su p plem enta l Answer t o I n t e r r o g a t o r y 4P (Second) See attached Schedule 3. I n t e r r o g a t o r y 40 (Second) Q. A l l documents which r e f e r or r e l a t e , d i r e c t l y or i n d i r e c t l y , to any action , in v e s t ig a t io n , a n a ly s is , study, r e p o r t , or sta te m e n ts by or on b e h a l f o f the company or -10- & "V A/ V- r e c e i v e d by th e company o r known by t h i s company i n r e s p e c t o f the other defendants rela tin g to incidents of medical signs, symptoms, and c o n d i t i o n s c l a i m e d , s u g g e s t e d , o r s u s p e c t e d o f being r e la te d to exposure in any form to phenoxy h erb icid e s from in or about 1945 to date in c lu d in g but not lim ite d to a c t i v i t i e s of any treatm ent o rgan izatio n , study organ ization and i t s groups. Su pplem ental Answer t o I n t e r r o g a t o r y 40 (Second) See attach ed Schedule 7. I n t e r r o g a t o r y 4R (Second) R. A l l documents which r e f e r or r e l a t e , d i r e c t l y or i n d i r e c t l y , to claim s f i l e d a g a in st t h i s defendant in any lo c a l, State or Federal Court, agency, board, or any other e n tity estab lish ed to hear such claims for medical conditions claimed to have resu lted or be connected d ir e c t ly or in d ir e c tly to th e fo rm u la tio n , d e s ig n , p r o d u c t io n and manufacture of phenoxy h erb icid es. Supplemental Answer t o I n t e r r o g a t o r y 4R (Second) See attached Schedule 13. I n t e r r o g a t o r y 4S (Second) S. A l l documents r e l a t i v e to s tu d ie s o f the e f f e c t s o f phenoxy h e r b i c i d e s when used i n S o u t h e a s t A s i a i n c l u d i n g Vietnam i n c l u d i n g the d a t e s , t i m e s , and p l a c e s and amounts o f use and c o n d i t i o n s i n c l u d i n g b u t not l i m i t e d to m e t e o r o l o g i c a l c o n d i t i o n s f o r use and any and a l l i n s t r u c t i o n s , d i r e c t i o n s , s u g g e s t io n s , i n d i c a t i o n s , and c o n t r a i n d i c a t i o n s r e l a t i v e to the -11- 406 use o f phenoxy h e r b ic id e s in Southeast A sia from 1960 to 1971. Sup plem en tal Answer t o I n t e r r o g a t o r y 4S (Second) See attached Schedule 12. I n t e r r o g a t o r y 4T (Second) T. Any and a l l such documents r e l a t i n g to any p riva te organizations, conferences, foundations, which have conducted any stu d ie s, experiments, eva lu a tio n s, or analyses e i t h e r i n d e p e n d e n t ly or by and on b e h a l f o f th e answering d e f e n d a n t or known t o have been condu cted by o r on b e h a l f o f the other defendants with resp ect to the e f f e c t s , i f any, of e x p o s u r e t o phenoxy h e r b i c i d e s on a n im a ls and humans and th e c o n c lu sio n s and recommendations drawn therefrom and the action s, i f any, taken in respect thereto by th is defendant or known by t h i s d e f e n d a n t t o have been t a k e n by o t h e r d e f e n d a n t s . Su p ple m en ta l Answer t o I n t e r r o g a t o r y 4T (Second) See attached Schedule 5. I n t e r r o g a t o r y 4U (Second) U. The f u n d i n g b y t h i s d e f e n d a n t or known by t h i s defendant to have been funded by any or a l l of the other defendants o f any o rg a n izatio n s commissioned, encouraged, suffered, and/or d irected to undertake studies re la tiv e to the m edical, g e n e t i c , and s y s te m a tic e f f e c t s and any oth er medical e f f e c t s upon a n im a ls and humans ex p ose d b y w h a t e v e r means under w hatever c o n d i t i o n s and circu m s ta n ce s to phenoxy h e r b i c i d e s . Su p ple m en ta l Answer t o I n t e r r o g a t o r y 4U (Second) See attached Schedule 5. -12- qO' /M. n\) ^i INTERROGATORY NUMBER 5 P r o v i d e an i d e x t o and summary o f each o f s a i d documents and p r o v i d e and i n d i c a t e t h e i r means o f i d e n t i f i c a t i o n such as f i l e number, c a s e , e t c . Supplemental Answer to In te rro g a to ry 5 See attached Schedules. INTERROGATORY NUMBER 6 I d e n t i f y th e name, t i t l e , a d d r e s s and t e l e p h o n e number of those persons employed by or under con tract with, or o t h e r w i s e r e l a t e d t o t h e D e f e n d a n t s , who were a u t h o r s o f s a i d documents and t h o s e p e r s o n s who a r e f a m i l i a r w i t h such documents. Supplemental Answer to In terro g a to ry 6 See attached Schedules. Dated: New York, New Yor k December 30, 1982 TOWNLEY & UPDIKE TO: SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST (Meiisanto Company 405 L e x i n g t o n Avenue New York, New York 10174 (212) 582-4557 -1 3 - VERIFICATION STATE OF MISSOURI COUNTY OF ST. LOUIS SS J. R. Bley, Jr., being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is an assistant secretary of defendant Monsanto Company, a corporation; that he has read the foregoing Supplemental Answers of Defendant Monsanto Company to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories to Defendants (First Wave) Second Set and is familiar with the contents thereof; that deponent is without personal knowledge of the matters stated in the foregoing Supplemental Answers, and is informed and believes that no officer or employee of Monsanto Company has personal knowledge of all such matters; that the foregoing Supplemental Answers have been assembled by authorized employees and counsel of Monsanto Company, who have informed deponent that the foregoing Supplemental Answers are true; and that to the best of deponent's knowledge those Supplemental Answers are true. Sworn to before me this 5 day of January, 1983. T7Jr_' ( \ tC^ui. J. R. Bley, Jr. Notary Public f <r<_c. i. PATRICIA A u FACEA NOTAtt PUBLIC STATI Of M ltK 5T , LOUTS CO . mt commission expmb m $ i o no U .X \ J x j Schedule 1 - Page 1 0000351.00 0001455.00- 0001455.00 0006927.00 0005936.00- 0006938.00 0006940.00- 0006941.00 0006974.00- 0006975.00 0006978.00- 0006979.00 0006980.00- 0006981.00 0006994.00- 0006995.00 0007004.00- 0007006.00 0007007.00 0007008.00 0007009.00- 0007010.00 0007011.00 0007012.00 0007013.00 0007014.00 0007019.00 0007020.00- 0007020.01 0007021.00- 0007023.00 0007024.00 0007038.00 0007057.00- 0007059.00 0007288.00 0007315.00- 0007323.00 0007324.00- 0007332.00 0007333.00- 0007342.00 0007358.00- 0007368.00 0007377.00 0007390.00- 0007401.00 0007402.00 0007403.00 0007404.00 0007405.00 0007406.00 0007415.00- 0007418.00 0007593.00 0007621.00- 0007623.00 0007731.00 0007734.00 0007735.00 0007736.00 0007737.00 0007738.00 0007742.00- 0007744.00 0007745.00- 0007747.00 0007748.00 0007759.00 0007768.00 0007773.00 0007779.00 0007951.00- 0007952.00 0007965.00- 0007966.00 (r*4 $'> ->J, Schedule 1 - Page 2 0008098.00 0008104.00 0008382.00 0008704.00 0008821.00- 0008823.00 0008829.00 0008830.00 0008840.00 0008934.00 0009279.00 0009363.00 0009364.00 0010168.00 0010171.00- 0010173.00 0010175.00 0010176.00 0010177.00 0010178.00 0010179.00 0010180.00 0010181.00 0010235.00- 0010235.01 0010319.00 0010482.00 0010565.00 0010578.00 0010691.00 0010692.00 0010693.00 0010694.00 0010792.00- 0010793.00 0010796.00 0010844.00 0011008.00 0011229.00- 0011237.00 0011268.00 0011269.00- 0011289.00 0011391.00 0012003.00- 0012006.00 0012207.00 0012214.00 0012224.00 0012241.00- 0012248.00 0012321.00- 0012332.00 0012375.00 0012782.00 0 0 1 5 7 7 5 . 0 -0 0 15 7 7 7 .00 0015778.00- 0015780.00 0015865.00 0017783.00 0017784.00 0017785.00 0025011.00 Oo. /j.' A1. Schedule 1 - Page 3 0025024.00- 0025025.00 0025025.00 0025158.00 0025169.00 0025170.00- 0025171.00 0025172.00- 0025173.00 0025174.00 0025193.00 0025194.00 0025195.00 0025241.00 0025254.00 0025273.00- 0025274.00 0025281.00 0025282.00- 0025284.00 0025309.00 0025313.00 0025322.00 0025355.00- 0025357.00 0025373.00 0025375.00 0025376.00 0025377.00- 0025378.00 0025379.00- 0025381.00 0025382.00 0025384.00- 0025390.00 0025391.00- 0025396.00 0025399.00- 0025403.00 0025404.00- 0025406.00 0025407.00- 0025409.00 0025410.00 0025411.00 0025412.00- 0025413.00 0025414.00 0025415.00- 0025416.00 0025417.00 0025418.00 0025419.00- 0025420.00 0025421.00- 0025422.00 0025424.00 0025458.00 0025459.00 0025460.00 0025462.00 0025463.00- 0025464.00 0025465.00 0025467.00 0025468.00- 0025469.00 0025471.00 0025472.00- 0025473.00 0025474.00 0025475.00 0025477.00- 0025478.00 9i'j Schedule 1 - Page 4 0025479.00 0025480.00- 0025481.00 0025482.00 0025483.00- 0025484.00 0025493.00 0025496.00 0025497.00 0025498.00 0025499.00 0025505.00 0025563.00 0025622.00 0025623.00 0025624.00 0025625.00 0025660.00 0025661.00- 0025663.00 0025664.00- 0025666.01 0025667.00 0025670.00 0025671.00 0025672.00 0025674.00 0025675.00 0025676.00 0025681.00 0025682.00 0025683.00 0025750.00- 0025751.00 0025752.00 0025753.00 0025754.00 0025905.00 0025906.00 0025907.00 0025908.00 0025912.00- 0025913.00 0025993.00 0025994.00- 0025995.00 0026070.00 0026071.00- 0026150.00 0026198.00 0026199.00 0026202.00- 0026203.00 0026227.00- 0026229.00 0026230.00- 0026233.00 0026237.00 0026243.00 0026244.00- 0026245.00 0026252.00- 0026254.00 0026256.00 0026257.00- 0026272.00 0026273.00 ftvj *- 'j. X -> Schedule 1 - Page 5 0026274.00- 0026278.00 0026279.00 0026280.00- 0026299.00 0026300.00 0026301.00- 0026306.00 0026317.00 0026320.00- 0026322.00 0026323.00 0026434.00- 0026436.00 0026437.00- 0026439.00 0026440.00 0026441.00 0026442.00 0026443.00- 0026444.00 0026446.00- 0026448.00 0026449.00- 0026450.00 0026558.00- 0026572.00 0026621.00- 0026636.00 0026637.00- 0026668.00 0026669.00 0026676.00- 0026679.00 0026680.00 0026681.00 0026682.00- 0026685.00 0026740.00 0026741.00- 0026745.00 0026754.00- 0026757.00 0026934.00- 0026935.00 0026936.00 0026937.00- 0026938.00 0026941.00 0026977.00- 0027014.00 0027015.00 0027023.00- 0027029.00 0027030.00 0027052.00- 0027053.00 0027076.00- 0027123.00 0027124.00- 0027125.00 0027126.00- 0027213.00 0027214.00- 0027215.00 0027216.00- 0027217.00 0027218.00 0027219.00 0027230.00 0027231.00 0027232.00 0027233.00- 0027234.00 0027287.00- 0027288.00 0027289.00 0027328.00 0027329.00- 0027341.00 0027342.00- 0027344.00 0027757.00 9 Schedule 1 - Page 6 0027758.00 0027759.00- 0027760.00 0027761.00- 0027764.00 0027765.00- 0027766.00 0027767.00 0027769.00 0027770.00- 0027782.00 0027886.00 0027887.00 0027888.00 0027926.00 0027927.00 0027928.00 0027932.00 0027933.00 0027941.00 0027942.00 0027943.00 0027944.00 0027946.00 0027950.00 0028152.00 0030558.00 0030560.00 0030576.00 0030577.00 0030578.00 0030579.00 0030580.00 0030862.00 0030864.00 0031156.00 0031157.00 0031433.00 0032208.00- 0032210.00 0032247.00- 0032249.00 0032250.00- 0032253.00 0032254.00- 0032257.00 0032258.00- 0032260.00 0032263.00- 0032265.00 0032266.00- 0032268.00 0032269.00- 0032271.00 0032272.00- 0032274.00 0032291.00- 0032294.00 0032295.00- 0032298.00 0032299.00- 0032302.00 0032303.00- 0032306.00 0032432.00 0032457.00 0033700.00 0033701.00 0033702.00 0033703.00 Q *1 ^ ,,L l . J Schedule 1 - Page 7 0033704.00 0033705.00 0033706.00- 0033707.00 0033708.00 0033709.00 0033710.00 0033711.00 0033712.00 0033713.00 0033714.00 0033715.00- 0033716.00 0033717.00 0033718.00 0033719.00 0033720.00- 0033721.00 0033722.00 0033723.00- 0033724.00 0033725.00 0033726.00- 0033727.00 0033728.00 0033729.00 0033745.00- 0033746.00 0033793.00 0033999.00 0034577.00 0034578.00 0034579.00 0034580.00 0034581.00 0034582.00 0034583.00 0034584.00 0034586.00 0034587.00 0034588.00 0034592.00 0034593.00 0034594.00 0034595.00- 0034598.00 0034599.00- 0034602.00 0034603.00- 0034606.00 0034607.00- 0034615.00 0034616.00 0034617.00 0034618.00 0034619.00- 0034620.00 0034621.00 0034622.00 0034623.00- 0034625.00 0034626.00 0034627.00- 0034628.00 0034629.00- 0034632.00 0034634.00 A -s tf\ 9 .li Schedule 1 - Page 8 0034646.00 0034647.00 0034648.00 0034766.00- 0034767.00 0034796.00- 0034799.00 0034820.00 0034862.00 0034863.00 0034864.00 0034865.00 0034866.00 0034867.00 0034868.00 0034869.00 0034870.00- 0034873.00 0034900.00 0034901.00 0034902.00- 0034903.00 0034904.00 0034905.00 0034906.00 0034907.00 0034908.00 0034909.00- 0034911.00 0034923.00 0034924.00- 0034925.00 0034926.00 0034927.00 0034928.00 0034929.00 0034930.00 0034931.00 0034932.00- 0034933.00 0034934.00 0034935.00 0034936.00- 0035939.00 0034940.00 0034941.00 0034942.00 0034943.00 0034944.00- 0034945.00 0034946.00 0034947.00- 0034950.00 0034998.00 0035031.00- 0035033.00 0035080.00 0035084.00 0035089.00 0035096.00 0035108.00 0035114.00 0035115.00 0035121.00- 0035122.00 O Ii Schedule 1 - Page 9 0035420.00- 0035421.00 0035432.00 0035453.00 0035460.00 0035461.00 0035462.00 0035491.00 0035498.00 0035504.00 0035509.00 0035533.00- 0035542.00 0035551.00 0035552.00 0035553.00- 0035554.00 0035555.00 0035556.00- 0035558.00 0035724.00- 0035725.00 0037939.00- 0037942.00 0039129.00 0039146.00- 0039151.00 0039153.00- 0039157.00 0039158.00- 0039162.00 0039163.00- 0039166.00 0039167.00- 0039169.00 0039170.00- 0039171.00 0039173.00 0039174.00 0039176.00- 0039178.00 0039179.00 0039180.00 0039183.00- 0039184.00 0039187.00- 0039188.00 0039623.00 0039717.00 0039718.00 0039886.00 0040194.00 0040283.00 0046259.00 0046310.00 0046316.00 0046317.00 0046356.00 0046383.00 0046384.00 0046386.00 0046387.00 0046389.00 0046392.00 0046393.00 0046397.00 0046401.00- 0046402.00 0046421.00 n '~*k 1 53 S ch e d u le 1 - Page 10 0046473.00- 0046474.00 0040476.00 0046483.00- 0046484.00 0046527.00 0046540.00 0046548.00- 0046549.00 0046563.00 0046592.00- 0046593.00 0046594.00 0046607.00 0046621.00 0046645.00- 0046646.00 0046650.00 0046653.00 0046654.00 0046655.00 0046662.00 0046663.00 0046664.00 0046665.00 0046666.00 0046667.00 0046668.00 0046669.00 0046693.00 0046694.00 0046695.00 0046696.00 0046701.00 0046702.00 0046703.00 0046705.00 0046707.00- 0046711.00 0046712.00 0046713.00- 0046713.01 0046714.00 0046747.00 0046748.00 0046756.00 0046864.00 0046865.00 0046867.00- 0046868.00 0046869.00- 0046870.00 0046871.00 0046873.00 0047028.00- 0047031.00 0047082.00- 0047083.00 0047107.00- 0047108.00 0047109.00- 0047111.00 0047307.00 0047309.00 0047311.00-0047312.00 0047314.00-0047315.00 q 1q ^' S c h e d u le 1 - Page 11 0047318.00- 0047342.00 0047343.00- 0047358.00 0047360.00- 0047364.00 0047395.00 0047396.00- 0047397.00 0047398.00- 0047410.00 0047443.00- 0047446.00 0047495.00- 0047496.00 0047497.00 0047498.00 0047499.00 0047500.00 0047502.00 0047503.00- 0047505.00 0047506.00 0047507.00 0047508.00 0047510.00 0047511.00 0047512.00- 0047545.00 0047548.00- 0047549.00 0047550.00 0047551.00- 0047552.00 0047604.00 0047605.00- 0047656.00 0048650.00 0048651.00 0048652.00 0048653.00 0048654.00 0048656.00 0048657.00 0048658.00 0048659.00 0048660.00 0048661.00 0048662.00 0048663.00 0048664.00 0048666.00 0048667.00 0048669.00 0048670.00 0048672.00 0048673.00 0048675.00 0048676.00 0048682.00 0049835.00- 0049849.00 0049901.00 0049902.00 0050876.00- 0050878.00 0051013.00 q,,i1 9,-W 0 S c h e d u le 1 - Page 12 0051016.00 0052633.00- 0052635.00 0053742.00- 0053743.00 0053759.00- 0053766.00 0053773.00- 0053790.00 0053791.00 0059510.00 0062872.00- 0062874.00 0062875.00- 0062877.00 0062878.00- 0062879.00 0062880.00- 0062883.00 0062884.00 0062885.00- 0062887.00 0062888.00 0062889.00- 0062890.00 0062891.00- 0062893.00 0062894.00- 0062896.00 0062897.00- 0062898.00 0062906.00 0062907.00- 0062910.00 0062911.00- 0062912.00 0062913.00- 0062915.00 0062924.00 0062926.00- 0062950.00 0062951.00- 0062975.00 0063001.00- 0063056.00 0063057.00- 0063100.00 0063101.00- 0063211.00 0063212.00- 0063266.00 q0 i &q tJL Schedule 2 - Page 1 0000448.00- 0000449.00 0001009.00- 0001010.00 0001021. 00- 0001022.00 0002353.00 0007027.00- 0007028.00 0007029.00- 0007030.00 0007259.00- 0007285.00 0007289.00- 0007299.00 0007390.00- 0007401.00 0007405.00 0007620.00 0007658.00- 0007661.00 0007812.00 0007813.00 0007814.00- 0007815.00 0007824.00 0007829.00 0007831.00 0007832.00 0007833.00 0007834.00 0007835.00 0007837.00 0007838.00 0007839.00- 0007840.00 0007843.00 0007844.00 0007845.00 0007850.00 0007856.00 0007857.00- 0007858.00 0007859.00- 0007862.00 0007863.00- 0007864.00 0007865.00 0007866.00 0007867.00 0007868.00 0007869.00 0007870.00 0007871.00 0007872.00 0007873.00 0007874.00 0007875.00 0007877.00 0007878.00 0007879.00 0007880.00 0007881.00 0007882.00 0007883.00 0007884.00 O O9 Schedule 2 - Page 2 0007885.00 0007886.00 0007887.00 0007888.00 0007889.00- 00078900. 0 0007891.00 0007892.00 0007893.00 0007894.00- 00078950. 0 0007896.00 0007903.00- 00079040. 0 0007905.00 0007906.00 0007907.00- 00079110. 0 0007912.00 000 7913 .0 0- 00079140. 0 0007915.00 0007916.00 0007917.00 0007918.00 0007919.00 0007920.00 0007921.00 0007922.00 0007923.00 0007924.00 0007925.00 0007926.00 0007927.00 0007928.00 0007929.00 0007930.00 0007931.00 0007932.00 0007933.00 0007934.00 0007935.00 0007936.00 0007937.00 0007938.00 0007939.00 0007940.00 0007941.00 0007942.00 0007943.00 0007944.00 0007945.00 0007946.00 0007947.00 0007948.00 0007949.00 0007950.00 Schedule 2 - Page 3 0007951.00- 0007952.00 0007953.00 0007954.00 0007955.00 0007956.00 0007957.00 0007958.00 0007959.00 0007960.00 0007961.00 0007962.00 0007963.00 0007964.00 0007965.00- 0007966.00 0007967.00 0008374.00- 0008380.00 0008381.00 0008382.00 0008383.00- 0008384.00 0008385.00 0008387.00 0008703.00 0008735.00 0008736.00 0008737.00 0008738.00 0008739.00 0008740.00 0008741.00 0008742.00 0008743.00 0008744.00 0008745.00 0008746.00 0008747.00 0008748.00 0008749.00 0008750.00 0008870.00 0008871.00 0008872.00 0008878.00 0008879.00 0008880.00 0008881.00 0008882.00 0008883.00 0008884.00 0008885.00 0008887.00 0008888.00 0008893.00 Schedule 2 - Page 4 0008894.00 0008895.00 0008896.00 0008897.00 0008898.00 0010171.00- 0010173.00 0010175.00 0010176.00 0010177.00 0010178.00 0010179.00 0010180.00 0010181.00 0011229.00- 0011237.00 0011269.00- 0011289.00 0011818.00- 0011841.00 0011879.00- 0011900.00 0011901.00- 0011923.00 0011947.00- 0011949.00 0012203.00- 0012208.00 0012209.00- 0012217.00 0012218.00- 0012224.00 0012225.00- 0012231.00 0012232.00- 0012240.00 0012321.00- 0012332.00 0015627.00 0015684.00 0015865.00 0015995.00- 0015996.00 0016004.00 0016005.00 0025026.00 0025064.00 0025120.00 0025133.00 0025323.00 0025379.00- 0025381.00 0025384.00- 0025389.00 0025391.00- 0025396.00 0025400.00- 0025402.00 0025404.00- 0025406.00 0025407.00- 0025409.00 0025419.00- 0025420.00 0025425.00- 0025428.00 0025429.00- 0025431.00 0025578.00- 0025583.00 0025617.00- 0025620.00 0025755.00- 0025765.00 0025875.00- 0025879.00 0025910.00 0026160.00 0026319.00 .4 Schedule 2 - Page 5 0026326.00- 0026363.00 0026426.00- 0026433.00 0026621.00- 0026636.00 0026637.00- 0026668.00 0026669.00 0026670.00 0026671.00 0027031.00- 0027038.00 0027276.00 0027316.00- 0027325.00 0027886.00 0027887.00 0027888.00 0028242.00- 0028243.00 0029596.00- 0029615.00 0029694.00- 0029706.00 0030368.00 0030369.00- 0030370.00 0030879.00 0030913.00- 0030914.00 0030933.00- 0030938.00 0030939.00- 0030945.00 0030946.00- 0030947.00 0030948.00- 0030950.00 0030951.00- 0030954.00 0030955.00- 0030960.00 0030961.00- 0030966.00 0030969.00- 0030977.00 0030978.00- 0030983.00 0031433.00 0031555.00 0031597.00 0031605.00 0031705.00- 0031708.00 0032247.00- 0032249.00 0032250.00- 0032253.00 0032254.00- 0032257.00 0032258.00- 0032260.00 0032263.00- 0032265.00 0032266.00- 0032268.00 0032272.00- 0032274.00 0032291.00- 0032294.00 0032295.00- 0032298.00 0032303.00- 0032306.00 00 32310 .0.0-0Q32313.00 0032595.00- 0032598.00 0033607.00- 0033615.00 0033845.00 0033846.00 0033848.00 0033852.00 0033853.00 a "... o Schedule 2 - Page 6 0033857.00 0033859.00 0033864.00 0033866.00 0033872.00 0033879.00 0033914.00- 0033915.00 0033917.00- 0033918.00 0034036.00 0034040.00 0034042.00 0034049.00 0034064.00 0034072.00 0034080.00 0034294.00 0034299.00 0034325.00 0034333.00 0034405.00 0034413.00 0034418.00 0034431.00 0034435.00 0034452.00 0034517.00 0034527.00 0034537.00 0034539.00 0034544.00 0034546.00 0034549.00 0034556.00 0034575.00 0034576.00 0034589.00 0034590.00 0034591.00 0034595.00- 0034598.00 0034599.00- 0034602.00 0034603.00- 0034606.00 0034657.00 0034664.00 0034670.00 0034676.00 0034678.00 0034683.00 0034684.00 0034686.00 0034689.00 0034691.00 0034702.00 rO\'aX o& *i"i Schedule 2 - Page 7 0034738.00- 0034740.00 0034741.00- 0034743.00 0034744.00- 0034745.00 0034749.00- 0034752.00 0034811.00 0034812.00 0034814.00 0034821.00 0034822.00 0034824.00- 0034827.00 0034835.00- 0034837.00 0034841.00 0034848.00 0034850.00 0034856.00 0034858.00 0034980.00 0035009.00 0035047.00- 0035049.00 0035081.00 0035100.00 0035230.00 0035244.00 0035252.00 0035260.00 0035267.00 0035273.00 0035275.00 0035276.00 0035278.00 0035283.00 0035287.00 0035290.00 0035291.00 0035293.00 0035295.00 0035296.00 0035301.00 0035302.00 0035309.00 0035310.00 0035315.00 0035316.00 0035321.00 0035322.00 0035330.00 0035332.00 0035353.00 0035363.00 0035382.00 0035383.00- 0035542.00 0035624.00 O Or> .* o Q ..V Schedule 2 - Page 8 0035683.00 0035689.00 0035692.00 0035708.00 0035709.00 0035720.00 0035735.00 0035746.00 0035748.00- 0035749.00 0038231.00- 0038232.00 0038318.00- 0038319.00 0038320.00- 0038321.00 0038322.00- 0038323.00 0038326.00- 0038327.00 0038328.00- 0038334.00 0038388.00- 0038389.00 0038525.00- 0038526.00 0038533.00- 0038534.00 0038569.00- 0038570.00 0038588.00 0039181.00- 0039182.00 0039185.00- 0039186.00 0039693.00- 0039694.00 0039695.00- 0039696.00 0039697.00- 0039698.00 0039802.00- 0039803.00 0039806.00- 0039807.00 0039810.00- 0039811.00 0039935.00- 0039936.00 0041279.00- 0041280.00 0041300.00- 0041300.01 0046175.00- 0046185.00 0046195.00- 0046197.00 0046198.00 0046203.00 0046218.00- 0046220.00 0046280.00 0046498.00 0046499.00 0046500.00 0046542.00- 0046546.00 0046547.00 0046550.00- 0046551.00 0046567.00- 0046568.00 0046568.01- 0046569.00 0046783.00- 0046786.00 0046788.00- 0046789.00 0046828.00- 0046829.00 0046862.00 0047512.00- 0047545.00 0047717.00 0047729.00 uj.A* 0 Q Schedule 2 - Page 9 0047731.00 0048711.00 0048730.00 0048731.00 0048734.00 0048735.00 0048739.00 0048741.00 0048748.00 0048749.00 0048750.00 0048755.00 0048756.00 0048764.00 0048773.00 0048774.00 0048775.00 0050329.00- 0050351.00 0051014.00 0051749.00- 0051750.00 0051751.00- 0051752.00 0053078.00- 0053255.00 0053257.00- 0053315.00 0053316.00- 0053389.00 0053390.00- 0053453.00 0053479.00- 0053509.00 0053510.00- 0053540.00 0053725.00- 0053737.00 0053755.00 0053792.00 0053793.00 0053796.00- 0053807.00 0053808.00- 0053815.00 0053840.00- 0053893.00 0053894.00- 0054042.00 0054043.00- 0054136.00 0054137.00- 0054185.00 0054186.00- 0054213.00 0054214.00- 0054215.00 0054219.00- 0054250.00 0054327.00- 0054385.00 0054386.00- 0054407.00 0054408.00 0054409.00- 0054410.00 0054423.00- 0054424.00 0054425.00 0054426.00 0054427.00- 0054428.00 0054429.00- 0054431.00 0054432.00- 0054433.00 0054434.00 0054435.00- 0054436.00 OA ; i3 O S ch e d u le 2 - P age 10 0054437.00 0054438.00- 0054439.00 0054440.00 0054441.00- 0054442.00 0054449.00 0054450.00- 0054451.00 0054452.00 0054453.00- 0054454.00 0054455.00 0054456.00- 0054457.00 0054458.00 0054459.00- 0054460.00 0054461.00 0054462.00- 0054463.00 0054464.00 0054465.00- 0054466.00 0054467.00 0054468.00- 0054469.00 0054470.00 0054471.00- 0054472.00 0054473.00 0054474.00- 0054475.00 0054476.00 0054477.00- 0054478.00 0054479.00 0054480.00- 0054481.00 0054482.00 0054483.00- 0054484.00 0054485.00 0054486.00- 0054487.00 0054488.00 0054489.00- 0054490.00 0054491.00 0054492.00 0054493.00- 0054494.00 0054495.00 0054496.00 0054497.00 0054498.00- 0054499.00 0054500.00 0054501.00 0054502.00- 0054503.00 0054505.00 0054506.00 0054507.00 0054508.00- 0054509.00 0054514.00 0054515.00 0054516.00- 0054517.00 0054518.00 0054519.00 0054520.00- 0054521.00 % 3431 S c h e d u le 2 - Page 11 0054522.00 0054523.00- 0054524.00 0054525.00 0054526.00- 0054527.00 0054528.00- 0054529.00 0054530.00- 0054532.00 0054533.00 0054534.00- 0054535.00 0054536.00 0054537.00 0054538.00 0054539.00 0054540.00 0054541.00 0054542.00 0054543.00 0054544.00 0054545.00 0054546.00 0054547.00 0054548.00 0054549.00 0054550.00 0054551.00 0054552.00 0054553.00 0054554.00 0054555.00 0054556.00 0054557.00 0054558.00 0054559.00 0054560.00 0054561.00 0054562.00 0054563.00 0054564.00 0054565.00 0054566.00 0054567.00 0054568.00 0054569.00 0054570.00- 0054583.00 0054584.00- 0054599.00 0054600.00- 0054700.00 0054701.00- 0054739.00 0054914.00- 0055025.00 0055026.00- 0055029.00 0055030.00- 0055031.00 0055032.00- 0055033.00 0055034.00- 0055037.00 0055038.00- 0055041.00 OKj, "AjQJ 9 S c h e d u le 2 - Page 12 0055042.00- 0055043.00 0055044.00- 0055047.00 0055048.00- 0055049.00 0055050.00- 0055051.00 0055052.00- 0055063.00 0055064.00- 0055067.00 0055068.00- 0055069.00 0055070.00- 0055077.00 0055078.00- 0055079.00 0055080.00- 0055081.00 0055082.00- 0055085.00 0055086.00- 0055087.00 0055088.00- 0055089.00 0055090.00- 0055093.00 0055094.00- 0055095.00 0055096.00- 0055099.00 0055100.00- 0055103.00 0055108.00- 0055111.00 0055112.00- 0055122.00 0055123.00- 0055126.00 0055127.00- 0055128.00 0055129.00- 0055130.00 0055131.00 0055132.00 0055133.00 0055134.00 0055135.00 0055136.00 0055137.00 0055138.00 0055139.00 0055140.00 0055141.00 0055142.00 0055143.00 0055144.00 0055145.00- 0055146.00 0062923.00 3'*33 Schedule 3 - Page 1 0000144.00 0000208.00 0000331.00 0000333.00 0000334.00 0000344.00 0000679.00- 0000680.00 0000689.00 0001026.00 0001028.00 0001029.00 0001030.00 0001031.00 0001036.00 0001039.00- 0001057.00 0001058.00- 0001060.00 0001064.00 0001065.00 0001069.00 0001070.00- 0001072.00 0001095.00- 0001096.00 0001097.00 0001098.00 0001099.00 0001100.00 0001101.00 0001102.00 0001103.00 0001106.00- 0001107.00 0001108.00 0001109.00- 0001112.00 0001113.00- 0001119.00 0001120. 00- 0001121.00 0001122.00- 0001123.00 0001124.00- 0001129.00 0001130.00- 0001135.00 0001143.00 0001144.00 0001151.00- 0001158.00 0001159.00 0001160.00 0001161.00 0001162.00 0001163.00 0001164.00 0001168.00 0001185.00 0001192.00 0001193.00- 0001194.00 0001196.00- 0001200.00 0001201.00 0001202.00 Schedule 3 - Page 2 0001203.00 0001205.00 0001206.00- 0001214.00 0001218.00 0001232.00 0001236.00 0001238.00 0001239.00 0001250.00 0001254.00- 0001259.00 0001282.00 0001390.00 0001391.00 0001402.00- 0001403.00 0001404.00 0001771.00- 0001773.00 0005024.00- 0005041.00 0005057.00- 0005070.00 0006987.00- 0006988.00 0007547.00- 0007549.00 0007608.00- 0007612.00 0007613.00- 0007615.00 0007616.00- 0007619.00 0007620.00 0007621.00- 0007623.00 0007627.00 0007657.00 0007658.00- 0007661.00 0007777.00 0007824.00 0007831.00 0007897.00 0007903.00- 0007904.00 0007905.00 0007907.00- 0007911.00 0007916.00 0008071.00- 0008090.00 0008307.00 0008308.00 0008829.00 0013571.00 0013586.00- 0013587.00 0013588.00 0013602.00- 0013603.00 0013606.00- 0013606.01 0013610.00- 0013611.00 0013612.00- 0013615.00 0013618.00 0018085.00- 0018111.00 0018112.00 0018113.00- 0018118.01 0018119.00 .T; ,35 Schedule 3 - Page 3 0018120.01 0018121.01 0018122.01- 0018124.00 0018125.01- 0018126.00 0018127.01- 0018128.00 0018129.00 0018130.00 0018131.00 0018132.00 0018133.00- 0018138.00 0018139.00 0018140.00- 0018143.00 0018144.00 0018145.00 0018146.00- 0018151.00 0018152.00- 0018154.00 0018155.00 0018156.00- 0018173.00 0018174.00 0018179.00- 0018184.00 0018185.00 0018186.00 0018187.00- 0018198.00 0018199.00 0018200.00 0018201.00 0018202.00 0018203.00 0018204.00- 0018215.00 0018216.00- 0018217.00 0018221.00- 0018224.00 0018225.00- 0018244.00 0018252.00 0018253.00 0018254.00 0 0 1 8 2 5 5 .0Q 0018256.00 0018264.00 0018272.00 0018273.00- 0018291.00 0018300.00 0018372.00 0018373.00 0018374.00 0018375.00 0018376.00 0018377.00 0018378.00 0018379.00 0018380.00 0018381.00 0018383.00 0018384.00- 0018386.00 3K 3 6 Schedule 3 - Page 4 0018387.00- 0018389.00 0018390.00 0018391.00 0018392.00 0018393.00 0018394.00 0018395.00 0018396.00 0018397.00 0018398.00- 0018399.00 0018400.00- 0018401.00 0018605.00 0018606.00 0018607.00 0018608.00- 0018608.01 0018609.00- 0018611.00 0018843.00 0018844.00 0018845.00 0018846.00 0018847.00 0018960.00- 0018966.00 0020030.00- 0020031.00 0020032.00 0020033.00- 0020034.00 0020061.00 0020062.00 0020063.00 0020064.00 0020135.00- 0020136.00 0020137.00 0020138.00 0020139.00 0020140.00 0020503.00 0020504.00- 0020511.00 0020512.00- 0020513.00 0020849.00- 0020850.00 0020851.00- 0020852.00 0020853.00 0020854.00 0020855.00 0020856.00 0020857.00 0020858.00 0020860.00- 0020861.00 0020864.00 0020865.00- 0020867.00 0020868.00- 0020869.00 0020871.00- 0020876.00 0020877.00 0020879.00 0020880.00- 0020884.00 qijr, , s -a. 0 7 Schedule 3 - Page 5 0020885.00 0020886.00 0020887.00 0020888.00 0020889.00 0020890.00 0020891.00 0020892.00 0020898.00- 0020900.00 0020938.00- 0020941.00 0020942.00 0020943.00 0021011.00 0021020. 00- 0021021.00 0021022.00 0021023.00- 0021024.00 0021025.00 0021026.00 0021027.00- 0021029.00 0021030.00 0021044.00- 0021047.00 0021048.00 0021049.00 0021051.00- 0021054.00 0021055.00 0021056.00- 0021057.00 0021060.00 0021061.00 0021062.00 0021067.00 0021068.00 0021069.00 0021070.00 0021071.00 0021072.00- 0021082.00 0021083.00 0021084.00 0021085.00- 0021090.00 0021091.00- 0021096.00 0021097.00 0021098.00 0021100.00 0021101.00- 0021108.00 0021109.00- 0021110.00 0021111.00- 0021112.00 0021113.00 0021114.00 0021115.00 0021118.00 0021119.00 0021120.00 0021121.00 0021122.00 9438 Schedule 3 - Page 6 0021123.00 0021124.00 0021125.00 0021126.00 0021127.00 0021128.00 0021129.00 0021130.00 0021698.00- 0021700.00 0022066.00- 0022121.00 0022122.00-0022166.00 0022168.00 0025051.00- 0025053.00 0025058.00- 0025063.00 0025293.00 0025397.00- 0025398.00 0025644.00- 0025650.00 0025912.00- 0025913.00 0025914.00 0025915.00- 0025919.00 0025920.00 0025921.00- 0025922.00 0025924.00 0025939.00- 0025940.00 0025941.00 0026200.00- 0026201.00 0026204.00- 0026205.00 0026239.00- 0026242.00 0026244.00- 0026245.00 0026319.00 0026320.00- 0026322.00 0027220.00- 0027229.00 0027232.00 0027233.00- 0027234.00 0027329.00- 0027341.00 0027342.00- 0027344.00 0027768.00 0027953.00- 0027954.00 0028752.00 0028753.00- 0028772.00 0028794.00- 0028810.00 0028811.00- 0028921.00 0028822.00 0028823.00- 0028837.00 0028838.00- 0028843.00 0028844.00 0029452.00- 0029453.00 0029664.00 0029669.00 0029674.00 0029681.00 0029690.00 0029691.00 9439 Schedule 3 - Page 7 0029692. 00-0029693.00 0029968. 00-0029980.00 0029981. 00-0030000.00 0030128. 00-0030132.00 0030476. 00 0030566. 00 0030573. 00 0030746. 00-0030747.00 0030748. 00-0030749.00 0030752. 00 0030753. 00 0031900..00 0 0 3 2 1 9 2 .. 0 0 - 0 0 3 2 1 9 3 . 0 0 0 0 3 2 1 9 4 .. 0 0 - 0 0 3 2 1 9 5 . 0 0 0 0 3 2 1 9 6 .. 0 0 - 0 0 3 2 1 9 8 . 0 0 0 0 3 2 1 9 9 .. 0 0 - 0 0 3 2 2 0 1 . 0 0 0 03 2 2 02 .. 0 0 - 0 0 3 2 2 0 4 . 0 0 003 2 205 .. 0 0 - 0 0 3 2 2 0 7 . 0 0 0032208.. 0 0 - 0 0 3 2 2 1 0 . 0 0 0 0 3 2 2 1 1 .. 0 0 - 0 0 3 2 2 1 3 . 0 0 0 0 3 2 2 1 4 .. 0 0 - 0 0 3 2 2 1 5 . 0 0 0032216..00 0 0 3 2 2 1 7 .. 00 0 0 3 2 2 1 8 .. 0 0 - 0 0 3 2 2 2 0 . 0 0 0 0 3 2 2 2 1 .. 0 0 - 0 0 3 2 2 2 2 . 0 0 0032223..00 003 2 2 2 4 .. 0 0 - 0 0 3 2 2 2 5 . 0 0 0032226 .00 0032227 .00-0032229.00 0032244 .00-0032246.00 0032247 .00-0032249.00 0032250 .00-0032253.00 0032254 .00-0032257.00 0032258 .00-0032260.00 0032263 .00-0032265.00 0032266 .00-0032268.00 0032269 .00-0032271.00 0032272 .00-0032274.00 0032291 .00-0032294.00 0032295 .00-0032298.00 0032299 .00-0032302.00 0032307 .00-0032309.00 0032310 .00-0032313.00 0032314 .00-0032317.00 0032318 .00-0032319.00 0032336 .00-0032337.00 0032346 .00-0032348.00 0032369 .00-0032371.00 0032372 .00-0032375.00 0032376 .00-0032379.00 0032961 .00-0032962.00 0032979 .00-0032982.00 0033061 .00 Schedule 3 - Page 8 0033599.00 0033601.00- 0033606.00 0033619.00- 0033620.00 0033621.00 0033622.00 0034334.00 0034335.00 0034336.00 0034337.00- 0034338.00 0034339.00 0034340.00 0034341.00 0034342.00 0034343.00 0034344.00 0034345.00 0034346.00- 0034347.00 0034348.00- 0034349.00 0034350.00 0034351.00 0034352.00 0034353.00 0034354.00- 0034356.00 0034357.00 0034358.00 0034359.00 0034360.00 0034361.00 0034362.00 0034363.00- 0034364.00 0034365.00 0034366.00 0034367.00 0034368.00- 0034369.00 0034370.00 0034371.00 0034372.00 0034373.00 0034374.00 0034375.00 0034376.00- 0034377.00 0034378.00- 0034380.00 0034381.00 0034382.00 0034383.00 0034384.00 0034385.00 0034386.00- 0034388.00 0034389.00 0034390.00 0034391.00 0034392.00 0034393.00 Schedule 3 - Page 9 0034394.00 0034395.00- 0034397.00 0034398.00 0035897.00 0036343.00- 0036425.00 0036426.00- 0036429.00 0036430.00- 0036432.00 0036433.00- 0036514.00 0036515.00- 0036516.00 0036517.00 0036518.00- 0036520.00 0036521.00- 0036560.00 0036561.00- 0036603.00 0036604.00- 0036607.00 0036608.00 0036609.00 0036610.00- 0036664.00 0036665.00 0036666.00- 0036667.00 0036668.00- 0036703.00 0036704.00- 0036769.00 0036770.00- 0036771.00 0036772.00 0036773.00 0036774.00- 0036783.00 0036784.00- 0036785.00 0036786.00- 0036789.00 0036790.00- 0036794.00 0036795.00- 0036853.00 0036854.00- 0036902.00 0036903.00- 0036933.00 0036934.00- 0036935.00 0036936.00- 0036937.00 0036939.00- 0036940.00 0036941.00- 0036943.00 0036946.00- 0036948.00 0036949.00 0036950.00- 0036952.00 0036952.01- 0037043.00 0037044 . 00-0037048.00 0037049.00- 0037050.00 0037051.00- 0037052.00 0037053.00- 0037055.00 0037056.00 0037057.00 0037059.00 0037062.00 0037063.00 0037064.01- 0037065.00 0037067.01- 0037068.00 0037069.01- 0037072.00 0037073.01 0037076.00 Q 45O(J S c h e d u le 3 - Page 10 0037076.01 0037077.00 0037078.00 0037080.00 0037081.00 0037084.00 0037085.00- 0037088.00 0037089.00- 0037092.00 0037093.00 0037094.00- 0037096.00 0037097.00 0037098.00- 0037102.00 0037103.00 0037104.00- 0037105.00 0037106.00 0037107.00 0037108.00 0037109.00 0037110.00 0037111.00 0037112.00 0037113.00 0037114.00 0037115.00- 0037118.00 0037119.00- 0037120.00 0037121.00- 0037124.00 0037125.00- 0037126.00 0037127.00 0037128.00 0037129.00 0037130.00 0037131.00 0037132.00- 0037133.00 0037134.00- 0037135.00 0037136.00- 0037139.00 0037140.00 0037141.00 0037143.00- 0037145.00 0037146.00 0 0 3 7 1 4 7 . 0Q 0037148.00 0037149.00- 0037150.00 0037151.00- 0037152.00 0037153.00 0037154.00 0037155.00- 0037158.00 0037159.00- 0037160.00 0037161.00- 0037162.00 0037163.00- 0037169.00 0037170.00- 0037174.00 0037175.00- 0037179.00 0037180.00- 0037186.00 0037187.00- 0037196.00 S ch e d u le 3 - Page 11 0037197.00- 0037198.00 0037199.00- 0037200.00 0037201.00- 0037203.00 0037204.00- 0037216.00 0037217.00- 0037225.00 0037226.00- 0037228.00 0037229.00- 0037230.00 0037231.00- 0037232.00 0037233.00 0037234.00- 0037238.00 0037239.00 0037240.00- 0037242.00 0037243.00 0037244.00 0037245.00- 0037247.00 0037248.00- 0037254.00 0037355.00- 0037360.00 0037361.00- 0037496.00 0037497.00 0037498.00- 0037500.00 0037501.00- 0037502.00 0037503.00- 0037507.00 0037508.00- 0037510.00 0037511.00- 0037513.00 0037514.00- 0037520.00 0037521.00 0037522.00 0037523.00 0037524.00 0037525.00 0037526.00- 0037528.00 0037529.00- 0037530.00 0037531.00 0037532:00 0037533.00- 0037534.00 0037535.00- 0037537.00 0037538.00- 0037539.00 0037540.00 0037541.00- 0037542.00 0037543.00- 0037544.00 0037545.00- 0037546.00 0037547.00 0037548.00 0037549.00- 0037550.00 0037551.00 0037552.00 0037553.00- 0037554.00 0037555.00- 0037557.00 0037558.00- 0037562.00 0037563.00- 0037566.00 0037567.00- 0037569.00 0037570.00- 0037571.00 0037572.00- 0037574.00 O 'L44 S ch e d u le 3 - Page 12 0037575.00- 0037577.00 0037578.00- 0037581.00 0037582.00- 0037586.00 0037587.00- 0037594.00 0037595.00- 0037605.00 0037606.00- 0037612.00 0037613.00- 0037629.00 0037630.00- 0037632.00 0037633.00- 0037638.00 0037642.00- 0037649.00 0037650.00- 0037659.00 0037660.00- 0037668.00 0037669.00- 0037688.00 0037689.00- 0037692.00 0037693.00- 0037699.00 0037700.00- 0037703.00 0037704.00- 0037742.00 0037743.00- 0037745.00 0037746.00 0037747.00- 0037751.00 0037752.00- 0037794.00 0037795.00 0037796.00- 0037798.00 003 7799.00-0037801.00 0037802.00 0037803.00- 0037804.00 0037805.00- 0037879.00 0037880.00 0037885.00 0037886.00- 0037909.00 0037910.00- 0037911.00 0037912.00 0037913.00 0037914.00 0037915.00- 0037918.00 0037919.00 0037920.00 0037921.00 0037922.00 0037923.00 0037924.00 0037925.00 0037926.00 0037927.00 0037928.00 0037929.00 0037930.00 0037931.00 0037932.00 0037933.00 0037934.00 0037935.00 0037936.00 S ch e d u le 3 - P age 13 0037937.00- 0037938.00 0037939.00- 0037942.00 0037943.00 0037944.00 0037945.00 0037946.00- 0037949.00 0037950.00 0037951.00 0037952.00- 0037956.00 0037957.00- 0037960.00 0037961.00 0037962.00- 0037967.00 0037968.00 0037969.00 0037970.00- 0037973.00 0037974.00- 0037977.00 0037978.00- 0037985.00 0037986.00- 0037992.00 0037993.00- 0038002.00 0038003.00- 0038007.00 0038008.00- 0038027.00 0038028.00- 0038038.00 0038039.00- 0038045.00 0038046.00- 0038053.00 0038054.00- 0038058.00 0038059.00- 0038071.00 0038072.00- 0038087.00 0038088.00 0038089.00- 0038102.00 0038103.00- 0038112.00 0038113.00- 0038123.00 0038124.00- 0038137.00 0038138.00- 0038141.00 0038142.00- 0038148.00 0038149.00- 0038154.00 0038155.00- 0038221.00 0038388.00- 0038389.00 0038402.00- 0038523.00 0038586.00 0038587.00 0039099.00- 0039103.00 0039123.00 0039129.00 0039130.00 0039131.00 0039132.00 0039133.00 0039134.00 0039135.00 0039137.00 0039138.00 0039139.00 0039140.00 S44S S c h e d u le 3 - Page 14 0039141.00 0039142.00 0039143.00 0039144.00 0039146.00- 0039151.00 0039152.00 0039153.00- 0039157.00 0039158.00- 0039162.00 0039163.00- 0039166.00 0039167.00- 0039169.00 0039170.00- 0039171.00 0039172.00 0039173.00 0039175.00 0039176.00- 0039178.00 0039179.00 0039180.00 0039181.00- 0039182.00 0039183.00- 0039184.00 0039187.00- 0039188.00 0039189.00- 0039190.00 0039665.00- 0039669.00 0039670.00- 0039674.00 0039675.00- 0039679.00 0039680.00- 0039684.00 0039685.00- 0039686.00 0039687.00- 0039690.00 0039691.00- 0039692.00 0039693.00- 0039694.00 0039695.00- 0039696.00 0039699.00 0039700.00 0039701.00 0039702.00- 0039704.00 0039705.00 0039706.00 0039715.00 0040319.00 0041279.00- 0041280.00 0046404.00 0046406.00 0046496.00 0046497.00 0046524.00 0046792.00 0046793.00- 0046802.00 0046805.00- 0046807.00 0047117.00- 0047120.00 0047604.00 0047605.00- 0047656.00 0047680.00 0047681.00 0047714.00 S ch e d u le 3 - Page 15 0047715.00 0047715.00 0047724.00 0047732.00 0047735.00 0047735.00 0047737.00 0047738.00- 0047740.00 0047741.00 0047742.00 0047743.00- 0047744.00 0047745.00 0047792.00 0048626.00 0048645.00 0048682.00 0048683.00 0048817.00 0048852.00 0048853.00 0048854.00 0048855.00- 0048856.00 0048857.00 0048858.00- 0048859.00 0048860.00 0048861.00- 0048862.00 0048863.00 0048864.00 0048865.00 0048866.00 0048867.00 0048868.00- 0048869.00 0048870.00 0048871.00 0048872.00 0048873.00 0048874.00 0048875.00- 0048878.00 0048879.00 0048880.00 0048881.00 0048882.00 0048883.00 0048884.00 0048885.00 0048886.00 0048887.00 0048888.00 0048889.00 0048890.00 0048891.00- 0048892.00 0048893.00- 0048894.00 0048895.00 9443 S c h e d u le 3 - Page 16 0048896.00 0048897.00 0048898.00 0048899.00 0048900.00 0048901.00 0048902.00- 0048911.00 0048912.00- 0048929.00 0048930.00- 0048938.00 0048939.00- 0048940.00 0048947.00 0048948.00 0048949.00- 0048951.00 0048952.00- 0048961.00 0048962.00 0048963.00 0048964.00- 0048967.00 0048968.00- 0048969.00 0048970.00- 0048976.00 0048977.00 0048978.00 0048979.00 0048980.00- 0049032.00 0049033.00 0049034.00- 0049035.00 0049036.00- 0049037.00 0049038.00 0049039.00 0049040.00 0049041.00 0049299.00- 0049303.00 0049386.00- 0049390.00 0049391.00- 0049393.00 0049581.00- 0049582.00 0049855.00 0049859.00 0049860.00 0049861.00- 0049862.00 0049867.00 0049869.00 0049891.00 0049893.00- 0049900.00 0050317.00- 0050321.00 0050329.00- 0050351.00 0050876.00- 0050878.00 0052882.00- 0052912.00 0052913.00- 0052914.00 0052915.00- 0052916.00 0052917.00- 0052981.00 0053591.00- 0053616.00 0053617.00- 0053631.00 0053632.00- 0053693.00 0053694.00- 0053708.00 9449 S ch e d u le 3 - Page 17 0054891.00- 0054905.00 0054906.00- 0054913.00 0055515.00 0056116.00 0056328.00 0056339.00 0056342.00 0056349.00 0056360.00 0056371.00 0056372.00 0056379.00 0056409.00 0056424.00 0056466.00 0056491.00 0056504.00 0056516.00 0056527.00 0056580.00 0056603.00 0056690.00 0056799.00 0056805.00 0056824.00 0056831.00 0056859.00 0056866.00 0056867.00 0056878.00 0056879.00 0056906.00 0056907.00 0056930.00 0056931.00 0056934.00 0056955.00 0056957.00 0056960.00 0056971.00 0056985.00 0057325.00. 0057543.00 0057805.00 0057808.00 0057838.00- 0057839.00 0059510.00 0059554.00- 0059617.00 0059619.00- 0059668.00 0059678.00- 0059680.00 0059682.00- 0059706.00 0059712.00 0060153.00 S ch e d u le 3 - Page 18 0060230.00 0061847.00 0062889.00- 0062890.00 0062899.00 0062926.00- 0062950.00 0062951.00- 0062975.00 0063001.00- 0063056.00 0063057.00- 0063100.00 0063101.00- 0063211.00 0063212.00- 0063266.00 0063274-00-63275 0063276.00 0063308.00- 0063322.00 0063449.00- 0063654.00 0063655.00- 0063671.00 0063673.00- 0063687.00 0063692.00- 0063694.00 0063696.00- 0063700.00 0063702.00- 0063715.00 0063719.00- 0063721.00 0063726.00- 0063741.00 .0063743.00 0063747.00- 0063750.00 0063753.00- 0063769.00 0063771.00- 0063778.00 0063780.00- 0063915.00 0063917.00- 0064397.00 0064398.00- 0064586.00 0064587.00- 0064882.00 0064883.00- 0064920.00 0064921.00- 0064954.00 0064955.00- 0065037.00 0065243.00- 0065314.00 0065420.00- 0065548.00 0065549.00- 0065618.00 0065640.00- 0065644.00 0065659.00- 0065667.00 0065671.00- 0065682.00 0065687.00- 0065727.00 0065728.00- 0065733.00 0065734.00- 0065743.00 0065744.00- 0065756.00 0065757.00- 0065761.00 0065765.00- 0065771.00 0065773.00- 0065776.00 0065777.00 0065778.00- 0065797.00 0065798.00- 0065802.00 0065803.00- 0065804.00 0065820.00- 0065841.00 0065842.00- 0065854.00 0065855.00-0065945.00 0065946.00- 0066103.00 9451 Schedule 4 - Page 3 0057411. 00 -0057412.00 0057420. 00 0057539. 00 0057554. 00 0057557. 00 0057563. 00 0057573. 00 0057577. 00 0057579. 00 0057582. 00 0057707. 00 0057718. 00 0057721. 00 0057725. 00 0057730. 00 0057739. 00 0057747. 00 0057749. 00 0057761. 00 0057762. 00 0057769. 00 0057770. 00 0057774. 00 0057776. 00 0057786. 00 0057838. 00 -0057839.00 0057864. 00 -0057865.00 0057884. 00 0057969. 00 0057971. 00 0057972. 00 0057974. 00 0057975. 00 -0057976.00 0057977. 00 0057978. 00 0057981. 00 0057982. 00 0058368. 00 0058369. 00 0058370. 00 -0058371.00 0058372. 00 0058373. 00 -0058374.00 0058375. 00 0058376. 00 -0058377.00 0058378. 00 0058379. 00 0058380. 00 -0058381.00 0058382. 00 0058383. 00 0058384. 00 3452 Schedule 4 - Page 4 0058385. 00 0058386. 00 0058387. 00 0058388. 00 0058389. 00 0058390. 00 0058391. 00 0058393. 00 0058394. 00 0058395. 00 0058396. 00 0058397. 00 0060149. 00 0064883. 00 '-0064954.00 0065045. 00 '-0065084.00 0066601. 00 -0066747.00 0067686. 00 -0067707.00 0067813. 00 -0067823.00 0067907. 00 -0067931.00 0068566. 00 -0068652.00 0069535. 00 -0069540.00 0069562. 00 -0069564.00 0069566. 00 S ch e d u le 3 - Page 19 0066112.00- 0066517.00 0066601.00- 0066747.00 0066748.00- 0066779.00 0066780.00- 0066818.00 0066819.00- 0066860.00 0066861.00- 0066977.00 0066978.00- 0067069.00 0067077.00- 0067081.00 0067086.00- 0067092.00 0067120.00- 0067167.00 0067168.00- 0067184.00 0067185.00- 0067191.00 0067198.00- 0067201.00 0067202.00- 0067203.00 0067204.00- 0067221.00 0067225.00- 0067230.00 0067231.00 0067232.00 0067233.00- 0067235.00 0067236.00- 0067297.00 0067300.00- 0067303.00 0067304.00- 0067685.00 0067686.00- 0067707.00 0067708.00- 0067812.00 0067813-00-0067823.00 0067824-00-0067833.00 0067907-00-0067931.00 0067941.00- 0067981.00 0067982.00- 0067990.00 0067991.00- 0067998.00 0067999.00 0068100.00- 0068103.00 0068106.00- 0068110.00 0068111.00-0068112.00 0068113.00- 0068116.00 0068117.00- 0068119.00 0068120.00- 0068147.00 0068148.00 0068149.00- 0068150.00 0068151.00- 0068155.00 0068156.00- 0068165.00 0068166.00- 0068169.00 0068170.00- 0068176.00 0068177.00- 0068191.00 0068192.00- 0068216.00 0068217.00- 0068219.00 0068220.00- 0068248.00 0068249.00 0068250.00- 0068291.00 0068294.00- 0068307.00 0068323.00 0068336.00- 0068559.00 0068560.00- 0068565.00 3454 S c h e d u le 3 - P age 20 0068566.00- 0068652.00 0068653.00- 0068659.00 068661.00-0068738.00 0068739.00- 0068741.00 0068742.00- 0068770.00 0068772.00- 0068774.00 0068775.00 0068776.00- 0068813.00 0068815.00- 0068826.00 0068828.00 0068830.00- 0068841.00 0068843.00- 0068878.00 0068880.00- 0068882.00 0068884.00- 0068938.00 0068941.00- 0069302.00 0069304.00- 0069305.00 0069307.00- 0069321.00 0069323.00- 0069346.00 0069348.00- 0069470.00 0069472.00- 0069491.00 0069493.00- 0069534.00 0069535.00- 0069540.00 0069541.00- 0069561.00 0069562.00- 0069564.00 0069565.00 0069566.00 0069567.00- 0069621.00 0069623.00- 0070196.00 0070197.00- 0070198.00 0070199.00- 0070453.00 0070459.00- 0070461.00 0070470.00- 0070558.00 0070559.00- 0070588.00 0070590.00- 0070648.00 0070199.00- 0070558.00 0070590.00- 0070648.00 0070650.00- 0070652.00 0070655.00- 0070697.00 0070699.00- 0070701.00 0070704.00- 0070740.00 0070742.00- 0070827.00 0070829.00- 0070830.00 0070832.00- 0070844.00 0070846.00- 0070855.00 0070857.00- 0070869.00 0070871.00- 0070891.00 0070893.00 0070895.00- 0071116.00 0071118.00- 0071193.00 0071194.00- 0071222.00 0071223.00- 0071385.00 0071386.00- 0071411.00 0071412.00-0071659.00 0071660.00- 0071714.00 3 'V5 5 S c h e d u le 3 - Page 21 007172 1. 00-0071730.00 00 7 1731. 00-0071733.00 0071734. 00 -0071756.00 0071789. 00-0071795 .00 0071796. 00-0 07 181 3.00 0071814. 00-0071864.00 0071865. 00 -0071867.00 007191 7. 00 -0071924.00 Qf t * S* Schedule 4 - Page 1 0001431.00 0001455.00- 0001456.00 0001469.00- 0001470.00 0001559.00 0001564.00- 0001569.00 0001593.00 0002469.00- 0002470.00 0002473.00 0002481.00- 0002489.00 0002604.00 0005938.00- 0005959.00 0007625.00 0015684.00 0015822.00- 0015828.00 0015829.00 0016343.00 0021786.00- 0021788.00 0021811.00- 0021814.00 0022122.00- 0022166.00 0025263.00 0030879.00 0046195.00- 0046197.00 0050387.00- 0050389.00 0051731.00- 0051735.00 0051736.00- 0051737.00 0053617.00- 0053631.00 0053793.00 0055300.00 0055301.00 0055302.00- 0055303.00 0055304.00 0055305.00 0055307.00 0055308.00 0055326.00- 0055329.00 0055331.00- 0055335.00 0055338.00- 0055342.00 0055377.00 0055379.00 0055380.00- 0055381.00 0055388.00 0055389.00- 0055390.00 0055391.00 0055392.00 0055393.00 0055394.00 3457 Schedule 4 - Page 2 0055395.00 0055397.00 0055399.00 0055400.00 0055401.00 0055402.00 0055405.00- 0055407.00 0055408.00 0055409.00- 0055410.00 0055411.00- 0055419.00 0055424.00 0055429.00 0055462.00 0055467.00- 0055469.00 0055515.00 0055521.00 0055670.00- 0055671.00 0055672.00- 0055674.00 0055675.00- 0055677.00 0055679.00- 0055680.00 0055682.00- 0055683.00 0055688.00 0055689.00 0055691.00- 005692.00 0055697.00 0055698.00 0055703.00 0055705.00- 0055706.00 0055708.00- 0055710.00 0055712.00- 0055713.00 0055714.00- 0055716.00 0055726.00- 0055727.00 0055728.00- 0055729.00 0055730.00- 0055732.00 0055750.00- 0055751.00 0057099.00 0057162.00 0057305.00- 0057306.00 0057325.00 0057327.00 0057330.00 0057332.00 0057333.00 0057336.00- 0057337.00 0057341.00 0057344.00 0057345.00 0057346.00 0057400.00 0057409.00- 0057410.00 Schedule 5 - Page 3 0038583.00 0038584.00 0038585.00 0038586.00 0038587.00 0038588.00 0038589.00 0038606.00 0038620.00 0040586.00- 0040591.00 0041036.00- 0041039.00 0041300.00- 0041300.01 0044438.00 0046385.00 0046472.00 0046828.00- 0046829.00 0046830.00- 0046833.00 0047738.00- 0047740.00 0047768.00 0050436.00- 0050443.00 0052995.00- 0053006.00 0053473.00- 0053475.00 0053477.00 0053478.00 0053510.00- 0053540.00 0053632.00- 0053693.00 0053709.00- 0053710.00 0053711.00- 0053715.00 0053717.00- 0053722.00 0053725.00- 0053737.00 0053794.00- 0053795.00 0053840.00- 0053893.00 0054386.00- 0054407.00 0055389.00- 0055390.00 0059167.00 0065120.00- 0065121.00 0065122.00- 0065134.00 0065619.00- 0065639.00 0065809.00- 0065813.00 0065814.00- 0065815.00 0065816.00- 0065817.00 0065818.00- 0065819.00 0066104.00- 0066111.00 0067982.00- 0067990.00 0067991.00- 0067998.00 0068111.00- 0068112.00 0068151.00- 0068155.00 0068166.00- 0068169.00 0068177.00- 0068191.00 0068217.00- 0068219.00 0068739.00- 0068741.00 9459 Schedule 5 - Page 1 0000179.00 0000342.00 0000448.00- 0000449.00 0005938.00- 0005959.00 0006858.00- 0006925.00 0006989.00 0006993.00 0007575.00 0011228.00 0013317.00- 0013318.00 0013321.00- 0013322.00 0013323.00 0013324.00 0015627.00 0015684.00 0015686.00 0015813.00 0015814.00- 0015816.00 0015822.00- 0015828.00 0015830.00- 0015833.00 0016343.00 0025311.00 0025748.00- 0025749.00 0025911.00 0026003.00 0026004.00 0026005.00 0026018.00 0026319.00 0027326.00- 0027327.00 0027938.00 0027942.00 0027943.00 0027944.00 0027945.00 0027946.00 0027947.00 0027948.00 0027949.00 0028171.00 0029707.00 0030128.00- 0030132.00 0030368.00 0030369.00- 0030370.00 0030879.00 0031722.00- 0031729.00 0031904.00- 0031910.00 0031992.00- 0032014.00 0033158.00- 0033169.00 3 SO Schedule 5 - Page 2 0033170.00- 0033179.00 0033180.00- 0033185.00 0033186.00- 0033202.00 0033212.00 0033607.00- 0033615.00 0038222.00 0038229.00- 0038230.00 0038233.00 0038234.00- 0038246.00 0038316.00- 0038317.00 0038318.00- 0038319.00 0038320.00- 0038321.00 0038322.00- 0038323.00 0038347.00 0038366.00 0038367.00- 0038368.00 0038370.00 0038372.00 0038373.00- 0038374.00 0038375.00 0038380.00 0038381.00- 0038384.00 0038385.00 0038386.00- 0038387.00 0038391.00 0038392.00- 0038393.00 0038394.00 0038535.00- 0038544.00 0038545.00 0038546.00 0038547.00 0038548.00 0038549.00 0038550.00 0038561.00 0038562.00- 0038563.00 0038564.00- 0038565.00 0038569.00- 0038570.00 0038571.00 0038572.00 0038573.00 0038574.00 0038575.00- 0038576.00 0038577.00- 0038578.00 0038579.00- 0038580.00 0038581.00 0038582.00 3401 Schedule 6 - Page 1 0000448.00- 0000449.00 0001218.00 0001431.00 0001455.00- 0001456.00 0001467.00 0001469.00- 0001470.00 0001559.00 0001564.00- 0001569.00 0001771.00- 0001773.00 0002208.00 0005024.00- 0005041.00 0005042.00- 0005056.00 0005057.00- 0005070.00 0007046.00- 0007047.00 0007343.00 0007369.00 0007372.00 0007373.00 0007625.00 0008098.00 0008372.00- 00008373.00 0011228.00 0011229.00- 0011237.00 '0011269.00-0011289.00 0012003.00- 0012006.00 0015775.00- 0015777.00 0015778.00- 0015780.00 0015822.00- 0015828.00 0015829.00 0015859.00- 0015861.00 0018960.00- 0018966.00 0020503.00 0020512.00- 0020513.00 0021012.00 0021013.00 0021014.00 0021015.00 0021016.00- 0021019.00 0021097.00 0021130.00 0021786.00- 0021788.00 0021805.00- 0021809.00 0021811.00- 0021814.00 0021819.00 0021820.00 0021821.00 0021822.00- 0021824.00 0022122.00- 0022166.00 0022168.00 0022169.00-0022170.00 Q A ? O Schedule 6 - Page 2 0022171.00 0025221.00 0025223.00 0025235.00 0025236.00 0025311.00 0025312.00 0025578.00- 0025583.00 0025673.00 0025848.00 0026002.00 0026004.00 0026005.00 0026018.00 0026199.00 0 0 2 7 9 3 9 . 0 0027940.00 0027941.00 0028118.00 0028191.00 0028229.00 0028230.00 0028231.00 0028267.00 0028793.00 0028794.00- 0028810.00 0028811.00- 0028821.00 0028823.00- 0028837.00 0028838.00- 0028843.00 0028844.00 0029450.00- 0029451.00 0029452.00- 0029453.00 0029596.00- 0029615.00 0029616.00 0029617.00- 0029618.00 0029619.00- 0029620.00 0029621.00 0029622.00- 0029626.00 0029658.00- 0029663.00 0029664.00 0029673.00 0029968.00- 0029980.00 0029981.00- 0030000.00 9463 Schedule 6 - Page 3 0030105.00- 0030115.00 0030125.00- 0030127.00 0030162.00- 0030163.00 0030369.00- 0030370.00 0030452.00 0030480.00 0030558.00 0030573.00 0030746.00- 0030747.00 0030748.00- 0030749.00 0030752.00 0030753.00 0030899.00 0030903.00 0031433.00 0031900.0.0 0031901.00- 0031903.00 0033600.00 0033601.00- 0033606.00 0035095.00 0035786.00- 0035796.00 0037567.00- 0037569.00 0038008.00- 0038027.00 0038227.00 0038228.00 0038231.00- 0038232.00 0038233.00 0038256.00 0038257.00 0038258.00 0038259.00 0038260.00 0038261.00 0038316.00- 0038317.00 0038342.00- 0038343.00 0038344.00- 0038345.00 0038346.00 0038349.00 0038350.00 0038351.00- 0038352.00 0038353.00 0038354.00- 0038358.00 0038359.00- 0038363.00 0038371.00 0038378.00 0038390.00 0038524.00 0038545.00 0038568.00 '01ft: Schedule 6 - Page 4 0041279.00- 0041280.00 0041281.00- 0041282.00 0041289.00 0041290.00 0044438.00 0045608.00- 0045611.00 0045631.00- 0045632.00 0046175.00- 0046185.00 0046195.00- 0046197.00 0046380.00 0046421.00 0046477.00 0046487.00 0046496.00 0046508.00 0046509.00 0046513.00 0046826.00 0046828.00- 0046829.00 0047305.00 0047306.00 0047307.00 0047308.00 0047309.00 0047310.00 0047311.00- 0047312.00 0047313.00 0047314.00- 0047315.00 0047318.00- 0047342.00 0047343.00- 0047358.00 0047359.00 0047360.00- 0047364.00 0047396.00- 0047397.00 0047398.00- 0047410.00 0047443.00- 0047446.00 0047495.00- 0047496.00 0047497.00 0047498.00 0047499.00 0047500.00 0047502.00 0047503.00- 0047505.00 0047506.00 0047507.00 0047508.00 0047509.00 0047510.00 Schedule 6 - Page 5 0047511.00 0047512.00- 0047545.00 0047548.00- 0047549.00 0047550.00 0047551.00- 0047552.00 0047553.00- 0047603.00 0047604.00 0047605.00- 0047656.00 0047680.00 0047681.00 0047682.00 0047683.00 0047684.00 0047685.00 0047686.00 0047687.00 0047688.00 0047689.00 0047690.00 0047691.00 0047692.00 0047693.00 0047694.00 0047695.00 0047696.00 0047697.00 0047698.00- 0047700.00 0047701.00 0047702.00 0047703.00 0047704.00 0047705.00 0047706.00 0047707.00 0047708.00 0047709.00 0047710.00 0047711.00 0047712.00 0047713.00 0047714.00 0047715.00 0047716.00 0047717.00 0047718.00 0047719.00- 0047723.00 0047724.00 0047725.00 0047726.00 0047727.00 Schedule 6 - Page 6 0047728.00 0047729.00 0047731.00 0047732.00 0047733.00 0047734.00 0047735.00 0047736.00 0047737.00 0047738.00- 0047740.00 0047741.00 0047742.00 0047743.00- 0047744.00 0047745.00 0048658.00 0049038.00 0049039.00 0049040.00 0049299.00- 0049303.00 0049386.00- 0049390.00 0049391.00- 0049393.00 0049581.00- 0049582.00 0049851.00 0049852.00 0049861.00- 0049862.00 0049867.00 0049868.00 0049869.00 0049871.00 0049874.00- 0049876.00 0049878.00- 0049880.00 0059881.00- 0049883.00 0051749.00- 0051750.00 0053591.00- 0053616.00 0053617.00- 0053631.00 0053744.00- 0053746.00 0053747.00- 0053754.00 0054505.00 0054600.00- 0054700.00 0055190.00 0055192.00- 0055193.00 0055216.00- 0055222.00 0055234.00 0055236.00- 0055240.00 0055242.00- 0055245.00 0055247.00 0055248.00- 0055249.00 0055250.00 0055251.00 0055252.00- 0055253.00 9487 Schedule 6 - Page 7 0055254.00 0055255.00 0055256.00 0055257.00 0055258.00 0055259.00 0055261.00 0055262.00 0055263.00 0055264.00 0055265.00 0055266.00 0055268.00 0055270.00 0055271.00 0055300.00- 0055301.00 0055302.00- 0055303.00 0055304.00 0055305.00 0055306.00 0055307.00 0055308.00 0055309.00- 0055310.00 0055311.00- 0055312.00 0055313.00 0055314.00 0055315.00- 0055316.00 0055317.00 0055318.00 0055319.00- 0055322.00 0055323.00- 0055324.00 0055325.00 0055326.00- 0055329.00 0055330.00 0055331.00- 0055335.00 0055336.00 0055337.00 0055338.00- 0055342.00 0055374.00 0055375.00 0055377.00 0055378.00 0055379.00 0055380.00- 0055381.00 0055382.00 0055388.00 0055389.00- 0055390.00 0055391.00 0055392.00 0055393.00 Schedule 6 - Page 8 0055394.00 0055395.00 0055396.00 0055397.00 0055398.00 0055399.00 0055400.00 0055401.00 0055402.00 0055403.00 0055404.00 0055405.00- 0055407.00 0055408.00 0055409.00- 0055410.00 0055411.00- 0055419.00 0055424.00 0055425.00- 0055428.00 0055429.00 0055448.00 0055449.00 0055450.00 0055451.00 0055452.00 0055453.00 0055454.00 0055455.00 0055456.00 0055457.00 0055458.00 0055459.00 0055460.00 0055461.00 0055462.00 0055463.00 0055464.00 0055465.00 0055466.00 0055467.00- 0055469.00 0055470.00 0055472.00 0055473.00 0055474.00 0055475.00 0055476.00 0055477.00 0055478.00 0055479.00- 0055480.00 0055481.00 0055482.00 0055483.00 Schedule 6 - Page 9 0055484.00 0055485.00- 0055486.00 0055487.00- 0055488.00 0055489.00- 0055490.00 0055491.00 0055492.00 0055493.00- 0055494.00 0055495.00 0055496.00- 0055497.00 0055498.00- 0055500.00 0055501.00- 0055502.00 0055503.00 0055504.00 0055505.00 0055506.00- 0055510.00 0055511.00 0055512.00 0055513.00 0055514.00 0055515.00 0055516.00- 0055518.00 0055519.00 0055520.00 0055521.00 0055522.00 0055523.00 0055524.00 0055525.00- 0055527.00 0055529.00- 0055530.00 0055531.00 0055532.00 0055533.00 0055534.00 0055535.00 0055536.00 0055537.00 0055538.00 0055539.00 0055540.00 0055541.00. 0055542.00 0055543.00 0055544.00 0055670.00- 0055671.00 0055672.00- 0055674.00 0055675.00- 0055677.00 0055678.00 0055679.00- 0055680.00 0055681.00 0055682.00- 0055683.00 9470 S ch e d u le 6 - Page 10 0055684.00 0055685.00 0055686.00 0055687.00 0055688.00 0055689.00 0055690.00 0055691.00- 0055692.00 0055693.00 0055694.00 0055695.00 0055696.00 0055697.00 0055698.00 0055699.00 0055700.00 0055701.00 0055702.00 0055703.00 0055704.00 0055705.00- 0055706.00 0055707.00 0055708.00- 0055710.00 0055711.00 0055712.00- 0055713.00 0055714.00- 0055716.00 0055717.00 0055718.00 0055719.00- 0055720.00 0055721.00 0055722.00 0055723.00 0055724.00 0055725.00 0055726.00- 0055727.00 0055728.00- 0055729.00 0055730.00- 0055732.00 0055733.00 0055734.00 0055735.00 0055736.00 0055737.00 0055738.00 0055739.00 0055740.00 0055741.00 0055742.00 0055743.00 0055744.00 0055745.00 S c h e d u le 6 - Page 11 0055746.00 0055747.00 0055748.00 0055749.00 0055750.00- 0055751.00 0055752.00 0055753.00 0055754.00 0055755.00 0055756.00 0055757.00 0055758.00 0055759.00 0055760.00 0055761.00 0055762.00 0055763.00 0055764.00 0055765.00 0055766.00 0055767.00 0055768.00 0055769.00 0055790.00 0055877.00 0055878.00 0056053.00- 0056054.00 0056055.00 0056056.00 0056057.00- 0056058.00 0056059.00 0056060.00 0056061.00 0056062.00 0056063.00 0056064.00 0056065.00- 0056066.00 0056067.00 0056068.00- 0056069.00 0056070.00 0056071.00 0056072.00 0056098.00 0056099.00 0056100.00 0056516.00 0056971.00 0057099.00 0057100.00 0057101.00 <5 a r? % ty S c h e d u le 6 - Page 12 0057102.00 0057103.00 0057104.00 0057105.00 0057106.00 0057161.00 0057162.00 0057163.00 0057164.00 0057165.00 0057173.00 0057305.00- 0057306.00 0057313.00 0057325.00 0057327.00 0057330.00 0057332.00 0057333.00 0057336.00- 0057337.00 0057339.00 0057341.00 0057344.00 0057345.00 0057346.00 0057395.00 0057396.00 0057397.00 0057398.00 0057399.00 0057400.00 0057401.00 0057402.00- 0057403.00 0057404.00- 0057405.00 0057406.00 0057407.00 0057408.00 0057409.00- 0057410.00 0057411.00- 0057412.00 0057413.00 0057414.00 0057415.00- 0057416.00 0057417.00 0057418.00 0057419.00 0057420.00 0057421.00 0057537.00 0057538.00 0057539.00 0057543.00 S ch e d u le 6 - Page 13 0057544.00 0057545.00 0057546.00- 0057547.00 0057548.00- 0057549.00 0057550.00- 0057551.00 0057552.00 0057553.00 0057554.00 0057555.00 0057556.00 0057557.00 0057558.00 0057559.00 0057560.00- 0057561.00 0057562.00 0057563.00 0057564.00- 0057565.00 0057566.00 0057567.00- 0057568.00 0057569.00 0057570.00 0057571.00 0057572.00 0057573.00 0057574.00 0057575.00 0057576.00 0057577.00 0057578.00 0057579.00 0057580.00 0057581.00 0057582.00 0057583.00 0057584.00 0057585.00 0057586.00- 0057587.00 0057588.00 0057693.00 0057694.00 0057695.00 0057696.00 0057697.00 0057698.00 0057699.00 0057700.00 0057701.00 0057702.00 0057703.00 0057704.00 O3 '* "A4 S ch e d u le 6 - Page 14 0057705.00 0057706.00 0057707.00 0057708.00 0057709.00 0057710.00 0057711.00 0057712.00 0057713.00 0057714.00 0057715.00 0057716.00 0057717.00 0057718.00 0057719.00 0057720.00 0057721.00 0057722.00 0057723.00 0057724.00 0057725.00 0057726.00 0057727.00 0057728.00 005772900 0057730.00 0057731.00 0057732.00 0057733.00 0057734.00 0057735.00 0057736.00 0057737.00 0057738.00 0057739.00 0057740.00 0057741.00 0057742.00 0057743.00 0057744.00 0057745.00 0057746.00 0057747.00 0057748.00 0057749.00 0057750.00 0057751.00 0057752.00 0057753.00-0057754.00 0057755.00 u S c h e d u le 6 - Page 15 0 0 5 7 7 5 6 . .00 0057757. 00 0057758.,00 0057759. 00 0057760.,00 0 0 5 7 7 6 1 . . 00 0057762. 00 0057763.,00 0057764..00 0 0 5 7 7 6 5 . , 00 0057766..00 0 0 5 7 7 6 7 . . 00 0057768..00 0057769..00 0057770., 00 0057771.. 00 0057772..00-0057773.00 0 0 5 7 7 7 4 . . 00 0 0 5 7 7 7 5 . . 00 0057776.. 00 0 0 5 7 7 7 7 . . 00 0057778..00 0057779.. 00 0057780..00 0057781.. 00 0057782..00 0057783..00 0057784..00 0057785..00 0057786.. 00 0057787..00 0057788..00 0057789.. 00 0057790 .00 0057791,.00 0057792,. 00 0057793 .00 0057794 .00 0057805,.00 0057806 .00 0057808,. 00 0057809 .00 0057813 . 00 0057836 .00 0057837.00 0057838.00-0057839.00 0057841 .00 0057842 .00 0057843 .00 0057844,.00 O $ -H* K-7d S c h e d u le 6 - Page 16 0057845.00 0057846.00 0057847.00 0057848.00 0057849.00 0057850.00 0057851.00 0057852.00 0057853.00 0057854.00 0057855.00 0057856.00 0057857.00 0057858.00 0057859.00 0057860.00 0057861.00 0057862.00 0057863.00 0057864.00- 0057865.00 0057884.00 0057895.00- 0057896.00 0057897.00 0057898.00 0057958.00- 0057959.00 0057960.00- 0057961.00 0057962.00 0057963.00 0057964.00 0057965.00 0057966.00 0057967.00 0057968.00 0057969.00 0057970.00 0057971.00 0057972.00 0057973.00 0057974.00 0057975.00- 0057976.00 0057977.00 0057978.00 0057979.00 0057980.00 0057981.00 0057982.00 0057983.00 0057984.00 0057985.00- 0057986.00 0057995.00- 0057996.00 o 477 S c h e d u le 6 - Page 17 0057997.00 0057998.00- 0057999.00 0058000.00- 0058001.00 0058002.00 0058003.00- 0058004.00 0058005.00- 0058006.00 0058007.00- 0058008.00 0058009.00 0058010.00 0058011.00- 0058012.00 0058013.00 0058014.00- 0058016.00 0058017.00- 0058018.00 0058019.00- 0058020.00 0058021.00- 0058022.00 0058023.00 0058024.00- 0058025.00 0058026.00- 0058027.00 0058028.00- 0058029.00 0058030.00- 0058031.00 0058032.00- 0058033.00 0058034.00- 0058035.00 0058036.00- 0058037.00 0058038.00 0058039.00 0058040.00- 0058041.00 0058042.00- 0058043.00 0058044.00 0058045.00 0058046.00 0058047.00- 0058048.00 0058049.00 0058050.00 0058051.00- 0058052.00 0058053.00- 0058054.00 0058055.00- 0058056.00 0058057.00 0058058.00- 0058059.00 0058060.00- 0058061.00 0058062.00- 0058063.00 0058064.00- 0058065.00 0058066.00 0058067.00 0058068.00- 0058069.00 0058070.00 0058071.00 0058072.00 0058073.00 0058074.00 0058075.00 3478 S ch e d u le 6 - Page 18 0058076.00 0058077.00 0058078.00 0058079.00 0058080.00 0058081.00 0058082.00 0058083.00 0058084.00- 0058085.00 0058086.00- 0058088.00 0058089.00 0058090.00- 0058091.00 0058092.00- 0058093.00 0058094.00 0058178.00 0058181.00 0058182.00- 0058183.00 0058184.00 0058187.00 0058188.00- 0058189.00 0058190.00 0058191.00 0058192.00- 0058193.00 0058195.00- 0058196.00 0058197.00 0058198.00 0058199.00- 0058200.00 0058201.00 0058202.00- 0058203.00 0058204.00 0058205.00- 0058206.00 0058217.00 0058221.00 0058222.00 0058224.00 0058225.00 0058226.00 0058228.00 0058229.00 0058230.00 0058232.00 0058234.00- 0058235.00 0058236.00 0058237.00 0058238.00 0058239.00 0058240.00 0058258.00 0058261.00- 0058262.00 9479 S ch e d u le 6 - Page 19 0058286.00- 0058287.00 0058288.00 0058289.00 0058290.00 0058291.00- 0058292.00 0058293.00 0058294.00 0058295.00 0058296.00 0058346.00 0058368.00 0058369.00 0058370.00- 0058371.00 0058372.00 0058373.00- 0058374.00 0058375.00 0058376.00- 0058377.00 0058378.00 0058379.00 0058380.00- 0058381.00 0058382.00 0058383.00 0058384.00 0058385.00 0058386.00 0058387.00 0058388.00 0058389.00 0058390.00 0058391.00 0058393.00 0058394.00 0058395.00 0058396.00 0058397.00 0058427.00 0058428.00 0058429.00 0058430.00 0058431.00 0058432.00- 0058433.00 0058434.00 0058435.00 0058436.00 0058437.00 0058438.00 0058439.00 0058440.00 0058441.00 0058442.00 S c h e d u le 6 - Page 20 0058443.00 0058444.00 0058445.00 0058446.00 0058449.00 0058450.00 0058452.00 0058454.00 0058457.00 0058466.00- 0058467.00 0058468.00 0058469.00 0058471.00 0058472.00 0058473.00 0058512.00 0058513.00 0058514.00 0058515.00 0058516.00 0058517.00 0058518.00 0058519.00 0058520.00 0058521.00 0058522.00 0058523.00 0058524.00 0058525.00 0058526.00 0058528.00 0058529.00 0058530.00 0058531.00 0058532.00 0058533.00 0058534.00 0058535.00 0058536.00 0058539.00 0058540.00 0058541.00 0058542.00 0058543.00 0058544.00 0058545.00 0058546.00 0058547.00- 0058548.00 0058549.00 0058550.00 9481 S c h e d u le 6 - Page 21 0058551.00 0058552.00- 0058553.00 0058554.00- 0058555.00 0058556.00 0058562.00- 0058564.00 0058591.00 0058592.00 0058593.00 0058594.00- 0058595.00 0058596.00 0058597.00- 0058598.00 0058599.00- 0058600.00 0058601.00 0058602.00 0058603.00 0058604.00 0058622.00 0058623.00- 0058624.00 0058625.00- 0058628.00 0058645.00- 0058648.00 0058650.00- 0058654.00 0058696.00- 0058704.00 0058706.00 0058712.00 0058715.00 0058716.00 0058727.00 0058744.00 0058745.00- 0058748.00 0058749.00- 0058750.00 0058751.00- 0058754.00 0058755.00 0058756.00 0058757.00 0058761.00 0058764.00 0058768.00- 0058769.00 0058770.00- 0058771.00 0058772.00- 0058773.00 0058774.00- 0058776.00 0058806.00 0058811.00 0058872.00 0058874.00 0058876.00 0058878.00 0058886.00 0058887.00 0058888.00- 0058890.00 0058891.00 9482 S ch e d u le 6 - Page 22 0058892.00 0058893.00 0058943.00 0058945.00 0058974.00 0059021.00 0059023.00 0059024.00 0059112.00- 0059126.00 0059128.00- 0059139.00 0059144.00 0059147.00- 0059149.00 0059152.00 0059156.00 0059168.00- 0059171.00 0059196.00 0059248.00- 0059249.00 0059301.00- 0059304.00 0059306.00 0059315.00 0059324.00- 0059325.00 0059414.00- 0059417.00 0059554.00- 0059583.00 0059584.00- 0059617.00 0059619.00- 0059668.00 0059678.00- 0059680.00 0059682.00- 0059706.00 0059712.00 0059726.00- 0059729.00 0059736.00- 0059746.00 0059761.00- 0059766.00 0059769.00- 0059868.00 0060014.00- 0060015.00 0060048.00- 0060051.00 0060077.00- 0060078.00 0060093.00- 0060094.00 0060095.00 0060096.00 0060097.00 0060105.00- 0060106.00 0060107.00 0060108.00 0060110.00 0060111.00 0060118.00 0060122.00 0060123.00 0060139.00 0060147.00 0060149.00 3483 S c h e d u le 6 - Page 23 0060151.00 0060153.00 0060157.00- 0060158.00 0060159.00 0060163.00- 0060164.00 0060170.00 0060178.00 0060179.00 0060180.00 0060181.00 0060182.00 0060190.00 0060194.00 0060218.00 0060269.00 0060279.00 0060290.00 0060328.00- 0060329.00 0060332.00 0060372.00 0060406.00- 0060407.00 0060433.00 0060435.00- 0060436.00 0060437.00 0060442.00 0060477.00 0060478.00 0060479.00- 0060480.00 0060481.. 00 0060482.00 0060483.00 0060484.00 0060485.00 0060486.00 0060487.00 0060488.00 0060489.00 0060490.00 0060491.00- 0060494.00 0060495.00 0060496.00- 0060498.00 0060499.00- 0060514.00 0060518.00 0060519.00 0060520.00 0060521.00- 0060522.00 0060523.00- 0060525.00 0060526.00- 0060535.00 0060536.00 006053 7.00-0060544.00 943' S c h e d u le 6 - Page 24 0060545.00- 0060546.00 0060660.00- 0060662.00 0060663.00 0060675.00- 0060676.00 0060738.00 0060739.00 0060740.00 0060741.00 0060748.00 0060752.00- 0060753.00 0060787.00- 0060788.00 0060865.00 0060866.00 0060867.00- 0060868.00 0060870.00 0060885.00 0060886.00 0060900.00 0060940.00- 0060941.00 0060942.00 0060943.00 0060985.00- 0060986.00 0061042.00 0061043.00- 0061044.00 0061045.00 0061057.00 0061059.00 0061120.00- 0061121.00 0061162.00 0061166.00 0061167.00 0061176.00 0061226.00-0061228.00 0061229.00 0061231.00-0061233.00 0061236.00 0061247.00 0061248.00 0061249.00 0061341.00 0061342.00 0061362.00 0061363.00 0061421.00 0061424.00 0061433.00 0061442.00 0061445.00 0061449.00 0061499.00 S c h e d u le 6 - Page 25 0051500.00 0061502.00 0061553.00- 0051554.00 0061562.00- 0061563.00 0061574.00 0061628.00 0061629.00 0061712.00 0061747.00 0061770.00 0061846.00 0061847.00 0061854.00 0061855.00 0061868.00 0061872.00 0061936.00 0061937.00 0061938.00 0061940.00 0061943.00 0061951.00 0061952.00 0062009.00 0062023.00 0062027.00 0062036.00 0062115.00 0062154.00 0062165.00 0062166.00 0062167.00 0062169.00 0062170.00 0062184.00 0062191.00 0062195.00 0062196.00 0062203.00 0062211.00 0062212.00 0062213.00 0062214.00 0062215.00 0062221.00 0062223.00 0062240.00 0062252.00 0062255.00 0062269.00 r* 943 o S c h e d u le 6 - Page 26 0062270.00 0062271.00 0062272.00 0062273.00 0062277.00 0062278.00 0062281.00 0062298.00 0062299.00 0062356.00 0062365.00 0062428.00 0062488.00 0062489.00 0062503.00 0062504.00 0062529.00 0062595.00 0062629.00 0062630.00 0062686.00 0062687.00 0062724.00 0062770.00 0062916.00- 0062917.00 0062921.00- 0062922.00 0062926.00- 0062950.00 0062951.00- 0062975.00 0062976.00- 0063000.00 0063101.00- 0063211.00 0063212.00- 0063266.00 0063274.00- 0063275.00 0063276.00 0063308.00- 0063322.00 0063655.00- 0063671.00 0063673.00- 0063687.00 0063692.00- 0063694.00 0063696.00- 0063700.00 0063702.00- 0063715.00 0063719.00- 0063721.00 0063726.00- 0063741.00 0063743.00 0063747.00- 0063750.00 0063753.00- 0063769.00 0063771.00- 0063778.00 0063778.00- 0063915.00 0063917.00- 0064397.00 0065135.00- 0065144.00 0065420.00- 0065548.00 0065640.00- 0065644.00 0065659.00- 0065667.00 0065671.00- 0065682.00 9437 S c h e d u le 6 - Page 27 0065685.00- 0065686.00 0065687.00- 0065727.00 0065728.00- 0065733.00 0065734.00- 0065743.00 0065757.00- 0065761.00 0065765.00- 0065771.00 0065803.00- 0065804.00 0065820.00- 0065841.00 0065842.00- 0065854.00 0065855.00- 0065945.00 0065946.00- 0066103.00 0066112.00- 0066517.00 0066601.00- 0066747.00 0066748.00- 0066765.00 0066766.00- 0066779.00 0066780.00- 0066818.00 0066861.00- 0066977.00 0066978.00- 0067069.00 0067120.00- 0067167.00 0067185.00- 0067191.00 0067198.00- 0067201.00 0067204.00- 0067224.00 0067231.00 0067233.00- 0067235.00 0067304.00- 0067685.00 0067686.00- 0067707.00 0067708.00- 0067812.00 0067813.00- 0067823.00 0067824.00- 0067833.00 0067907.00- 0067931.00 0067941.00- 0067981.00 0067999.00 0068100.00- 0068103.00 0068106.00- 0068110.00 0068113.00- 0068116.00 0068117.00- 0068119.00 0068120.00- 0068147.00 0068148.00 0068149.00- 0068150.00 0068156.00- 0068165.00 0068170.00- 0068176.00 0068192.00- 0068216.00 0068220.00- 0068248.00 0068249.00 0068324.00 0068250.00- 0068291.00 0068292.00- 0068293.00 0068294.00- 0068307.00 0068324.00 0068336.00- 0068559.00 0068560.00- 0068565.00 0068566.00- 0068652.00 0068653.00- 0068659.00 9488 S ch e d u le 6 - Page 28 0068661.00- 0068738.00 0068742.00- 0068770.00 0068772.00- 0068774.00 0068775.00 0068776.00- 0068813.00 0068815.00- 0068826.00 0068828.00 006830.00- 0068841.00 0068843.00- 0068878.00 0068880.00- 0068882.00 0068884.00- 0068938.00 0068941.00- 0069302.00 0069304.00- 0069305.00 0069307.00- 0069321.00 0069323.00- 0069346.00 0069348.00- 0069470.00 0069472.00- 0069491.00 0069493.00- 0069534.00 0069535.00- 0069540.00 0069541.00- 0069561.00 0069562.00- 0069564.00 0069565.00 0069566.00 0069567.00- 0069621.00 0069623.00- 0070196.00 0070197.00- 0070198.00 0070199.00- 0070453.00 0070459.00- 0070461.00 0070470.00- 0070558.00 0070559.00- 0070588.00 0070590.00- 0070648.00 0070650.00- 0070652.00 0070655.00- 0070697.00 0070699.00- 0070701.00 0070704.00- 0070740.00 0070742.00- 0070827.00 0070829.00- 0070830.00 0070832.00- 0070844.00 0070846.00- 0070855.00 0070857.0.0-0070869.00 0070871.00- 0070891.00 0070893.00 0070895.00- 0071116.00 0071118.00- 0071193.00 0071194.00- 0071222.00 0071223.00- 0071385.00 0071412.00- 0071659.00 0071660.00- 0071714.00 0071721.00- 0071730.00 0071731.00- 0071736.00 0071737.00- 0071756.00 0071789.00- 0071795.00 0071796.00- 0071813.00 0071814.00- 0071864.00 0071865.00- 0071867.00 9489 0005938.00- 0005959.00 0013616.00 0016343.00- 0016346.00 0053617.00- 0053631.00 0060149.00 0060279.00 0064955.00- 0065037.00 0065128.00- 0065134.00 0065135.00- 0065144.00 0065684.00 0065728.00- 0065733.00 0065777.00 0065807.00- 0065808.00 0065842.00- 0065854.00 0066104.00- 0066111.00 0066601.00- 0066747.00 0066766.00- 0066779.00 0068117.00- 0068119.00 0068148.00 0068249.00 0068292.00- 0068293.00 0068324.00 0070197.00- 0070198.00 0071223.00- 0071385.00 0071386.00- 0071411.00 0071731.00- 0071733.00 0071734.00- 0071736.00 0071814.00- 0071864.00 Schedule 8 - Page 1 0000179.00 0000448.00- 0000449.00 0002465.00 0002472.00 0002473.00 0002476.00- 0002477.00 0002481.00- 0002489.00 0002716.00 0005938.00- 0005959.00 0007229.00 0007831.00 0013369.00 0015684.00 0016343.00 0028932.00- 0028937.00 0030879.00 0031992.00- 0032014.00 0033607.00- 0033615.00 0038346.00 0038347.00 0038366.00 0038367.00- 0038368.00 0038372.00 0038373.00 0038375.00 0046828.00- 0046829.00 0047791.00 0047793.00 0050387.00- 0050389.00 0050436.00- 0050443.00 0050444.00- 0050452.00 0050456.00- 0050457.00 0050465.00- 0050475.00 0051731.00- 0051735.00 0051736.00- 0051737.00 0053078.00- 0053255.00 0053479.00- 0053509.00 0053510.00- 0053540.00 0053711.00- 0053715.00 0053717.00- 0053722.00 0053724.00 0053725.00- 0053737.00 0053738.00- 0053741.00 0053756.00- 0053758.00 0053793.00 0054043.00- 0054136.00 0054386.00- 0054407.00 0054427.00-0054428.00 0054429.00-0054431.00 0054432.00- 0054433.00 . Q -, 99i Schedule 8 - Page 2 0 0 5 4 9 1 4 .0 0 - 00550250. 0 00550 44.00- 00550470. 0 00550 52 .00- 00550630. 0 0055070.00- 00550770. 0 00 55078.00- 00550790. 0 0055082.00- 00550850. 0 0055090.00- 00550930. 0 00550 94.00- 00550950. 0 00550 96.00- 00550990. 0 0 0 5 5100 .0 0- 00551030. 0 0 0 5 5 1 0 4 .0 0 - 00551070. 0 0 05 5108 .0 0- 00 5 5 1 1 10. 0 0 0 5 5 1 1 2 . 0 0 - 00551220. 0 0 0 5 5 1 2 3 . 0 0 - 00551260. 0 0 0 5 5 1 2 9 . 0 0 - 00551300. 0 0055131.00 0055132.00 0055133.00 0055134.00 0055137.00 0055138.00 0055140.00 0055144.00 00 573 05.0 0- 00573060. 0 0 0 6 3 2 1 2 .0 0 - 00632660. 0 0 065 22 7 .0 0- 00652420. 0 0 0 6 5 6 1 9 .0 0 - 00656390. 0 0065777.00 0065809.00- 00658130. 0 00 6 5 8 1 6 .0 0 - 00658170. 0 0068292.00- 0068293.0. 0 0 0 7 1 7 3 1 . 0 0 - 0071733.0. 0 0 0 7 1 7 3 4 . 0 0 - 0071736,0. 0 V. 9492 Schedule 9 Page 1 0005938.00- 0005959.00 0030364.00 0033382.00- 0033383.00 0033409.00- 0033417.00 0033607.00- 0033615.00 0033675.00- 0033698.00 0047793.00 0064955.00- 0065037.00 0065128.00- 0065134.00 0065728.00- 0065733.00 0065777.00 0066104.00- 0066111.00 0066766.00- 0066779.00 0067077.00- 0067081.00 0067086.00- 0067092.00 0067120.00- 0067167.00 0068324.00 0070197.00- 00709198.00 0071386.00- 0071411.00 0071731.00- 0071733.00 9493 S c h e d u le 10 - Page 1 0003991.00 0004292.00 0004293.00 0004294.00 0004295.00- 0004296.00 0006132.00 0013317.00- 0013318.00 0013321.00- 0013322.00 0013325.00 0013326.00 0013327.00 0013328.00 0013329.00 0013330.00 0013331.00 0013332.00 0013334.00 0013336.00- 0013338.00 0013339.00 0013340.00 0013345.00 0013346.00- 0013347.00 0013348.00- 0013349.00 0013352.00 0013353.00 0013365.00 0013366.00 0013367.00 0013368.00 0013369.00 0013370.00 0013371.00- 0013372.00 0013373.00 0013376.00 0013478.00- 0023479.00 0013480.00 0013481.00 0013482.00 0013571.00 0013572.00 0013573.00 0013576.00 0013577.00 0013580.00 0013584.00 0013586.00- 013587.00 0013588.00 0013889.00 0013590.00 0013591.00 9494 S ch e d u le 10 - Page 2 0013594.00 0013596.00- 0013596.02 0013598.00 0013599.00 0013600.00- 0013601.00 0013602.00- 0013603.00 0013604.00- 0013605.00 0013606.00- 0013606.01 0013609.00 0013616.00 0013617.00 0013618.00 0013685.00 0013584.00 0013732.00 0013783.00 0015684.00 0016343.00 0016607.00 0016608.00 0016609.00 0016610.00- 0016617.00 0016618.00 0016620.00- 0016621.00 0016629.00 0016631.00 0016635.00 0016636.00 0016645.00 0016647.00 0030368.00 0030369.00- 0030370.00 0030371.00 0032341.00 0032347.00 0032900.00- 0032902.00 0032903.00 0032904.00 0032905.00 0032906.00 0032907.00 0032908.00 0032909.00 0032910.00 0032911.00 0032912.00 0032913.00 0032914.00 0032915.00 0032916.00 95 S c h e d u le 10 - Page 3 0032917..00 0032918.,00 0032919.,00 0032920.. 00 0032921..00 0032922.,00 0032923. 00 0032924..00 0032925.,00 0032925.,00 0032927.,00 0032928..00 0032929.,00 0032930.,00 0032931., 00 0032932..00 0032933..00 0032934.. 00 0032935.. 00 0032935..00 0032937.,00 0032938.,00 0032939..00 0032940.,00 0032942..00 0032943.. 00 0032944..00 0032945.. 00 0032945.. 00 0032947..00 0032948.. 00 0033031..00 0033032..00 0033033.. 00 0033034..00 0033035..00 0033035.. 00- 0033042. 00 0033043.. 00 0033044..00 0033045..00 0033045..00 0033047.. 00 0033048..00 0033049..00 0033050..00 0033051.. 00 0033053..00 0033054..00 0033055..00-0033060.00 0033061.. 00 Q9B S c h e d u le 10 - Page 4 0033077.00 0033078.00- 0033098.00 0033117.00 0033203.00- 0033211.00 0033213.00 0033214.00 0033215.00 0033216.00 0033270.00- 0033277.00 0033288.0.0- 0033277.00 0033288.00- 0033294.00 0033295.00 0033296.00 0033297.00 0033298.00 0033300.00 0033301.00- 0033302.00 0033314.00 0033315.00 0033316.00 0033317.00 0033318.00 0033319.00' 0033320.00 0033321.00' 0033322.00 0033323.00 0033324.00 0033325.00' 0033326.003 0033327.00 0033332.00 0033341.00 0033342.00 0033351.00' 0033352.00 0033353.00 0033354.00 0033355.00 0033356.00 0033357.00 0033358.00 0033359.00 003360.00 0033361.00 0033366.00 0033367.00 0033370.00 0033371.00 0033372.00 0033373.00 0033374.00 0033375.00 0033376.00 0033382.00 0033383.00 0033394.00 ni S c h e d u le 10 - Page 5 0033408.00 0033409.00- 0033417.00 0033446.00 0033447.00- 0033450.00 0033461.00- 0033466.00 0033467.00 0033468.00 0033469.00 0033470.00- 0033471.00 9933472.00 0033473.00- 0033474.00 0033475.00 0033476.00 0033594.00 0033601.00- 0033606.00 0033616.00 0033617.00 0033618.00 0033619.00- 0033620.00 0033621.00 0033622.00 0033623.00- 0033630.00 0033637.00- 0033668.00 0033669.00- 0033671.00 0033672.00- 0033674.00 0036433.00- 0036514.00 0036515.00- 0036516.00 0036517.00 0036609.00 0036610.00- 0036664.00 0036704.0- 0036769.00 0036770.00- 0036771.00 0036772.00 0036773.00 0036774.00- 0036783.00 0036795.00- 0036853.00 0036854.00- 0036902.00 0036903.00- 0036933.00 0035938.00 0035952.00- 0037043.00 0037053.00- 0037055.00 0037085.00- 0037088.00 0037089.00- 0037092.00 0037107.00 0037108.00 0037110.00 0037111.00 0037112.00 0037127.00 0037128.00 9498 S c h e d u le 10 - Page 6 0037130.00 0037131.00 0037132.00- 0037133.00 0037134.00- 0037135.00 0037135.00- 0037139.00 0037145.00 0037147.00 0037148.00 0037255.00- 0037360.00 0037361.00- 0037496.00 0037514.00- 0037520.00 0037549.00- 0037550.00 0037613.00- 0037629.00 0037704.00- 0037742.00 0037805.00- 0037879.00 0038028.00- 0038038.00 0038088.00 0038103.00- 0038112.00 0038113.00- 0038123.00 0038124.00- 0038137.00 0038155.00- 0038221.00 0047756.00 0047770.00 0047771.00 0047792.00 0004292.00 0053591.00- 0053616.00 0053617.00- 0053631.00 0055147.00- 0055157.00 0055305.00 0055307.00 0055311.00- 0055312.00 0055377.00 0055388.00- 0055390.00 0055501.00- 0055502.00 0063001.00- 0063056.00 0063212.00- 0063266.00 0065728.00- 0065733.00 0065777.00 0066104.00- 0066111.00 9493 S ch e d u le 11 - P age 1 0001026.090 0001028.00 0001168.00 0008071.00- 0008090.00 0020898.00- 0020900.00 0021127.00 0022066.00- 0022121.00 0022122.00-0022166.00 0028823.00- 0028837.00 0028838.00- 0028843.00 0032949.00 0032950.00 0032951.00 0032952.00 0032953.00 0032954.00- 0032955.00 0032956.00 0032957.00- 0032958.00 0032959.00 0032960.00 0032961.00- 0032962.00 0032963.00- 0032964.00 0032965.00 0032966.00 0032967.00 0032968.00 0032969.00- 0032970.00 0032971.00 0032972.00 0032973.00 0032974.00 0032975.00 0032976.00 0032977.00 0032978.00 0032979.00- 0032982.00 0032983.00- 0032984.00 0032985.00 0032986.00 0032987.00 0032988.00 0032989.00 0032990.00 0032991.00- 0032992.00 0032993.00- 0033030.00 0033122.00 0033381.00 0035897.00 0037248.00- 0037254.00 0037642.00- 0037649.00 S ch e d u le 11 - Page 2 0037650.00- 0037659.00 0037669.00- 0037688.00 0038046.00- 0038053.00 0047770.00 0047771.00 0049034.00- 0049035.00 0056338.00 0056342.00 0056360.00 0056404.00 0056814.00 0056878.00 0065045.00- 0065084.00 0065728.00- 0065733.00 0068775.00 0071386.00- 0071411.00 S c h e d u le 12 - Page 1 0000179 . 00 0051731. 00 -0 05173 5.0 0 0051736. 00 -0 05 1737 .0 0 0053711. 00 -0053715.00 0053717. 00 -0053722.00 0053725 . 00 -0053737.00 0063277. 00 -0063305.00 0065122. 00 -00 65127 .00 9502 .3 S c h e d u le 13 - Page 1 0002629.00 0003991.00 0004292.00 0006132.00 0013365.00- 0013356.00 0013367.00 0013368.00 0013369.00 0013370.00 0013373.00 0013376.00 0013478.00- 0013479.00 0013480.00 0013571.00 0013572.00 0013573.00 0013576.00 0013577.00 0013580.00 0013584.00 0013586.00- 0013587.00 0013588.00 0013589.00 0013590.00 0013591.00 0013594.00 0013596.00- 0013596.02 0013598.00 0013599.00 0013600.00- 0013601.00 0013602.00- 0013603.00 0013604.00- 0013605.00 0013606.00- 0013606.01 0013609.00 0013610.00- 0013611.01 0013612.00- 0013615.00 0013617.00 0013618.00 0013619.00- 0013621.00 0013622.00 0013685.00 0013732.00 0013783.00 0016607.00- 0016608.00 0016609.00 0016610.00- 0016617.00 0016618.00 0016620.00- 0016621.00 0016629.00 0016631.00 9503 S ch e d u le 13 - Page 2 0016635. 00 0016636. 00 0016645. 00 0016647. 00 0032341. 00 0032347. 00 0032900. 00-0032902.00 0032903. 00 0032904. 00 0032905. 00 0032906. 00 0032909. 00 0032910. 00 0032912. 00 0032913. 00 0032916. 00 0 0 3 2 9 1 7 .. 00 0032918..00 0032919..00 0032920..00 0032921..00 0032922..0 0 0032925..00 0032927..00 0032929..00 0032930..00 0032931..00 0032932.. 0.0 0032933..00 0032934.. 00 0032935..00 0032936..00 0032937..00 0032938..00 0032939..00 0032940.. 00 0032942 .00 0032943 .00 0032944 .00 0032945 .00 0032946 .00 0032947 .00 0032948 .00 0032950 .00 0032951 .00 0032952 .00 0032953 .00 0032954 .00-0032955.00 0032956 .00 0032957 .00-0032958.00 9504 S c h e d u le 13 - Page 3 0032959.00 0032953.00- 0032964.00 0032955.00 0032966.00 0032968.00 0032969.00- 0032970.00 0032971.00 0032973.00 0032974.00 0032975.00 0032976.00 0032977.00 0032978.00 0032979.00- 0032982.00 0032983.00- 0032984.00 0032985.00 0032986.00 0032987.00 0032989.00 0032990.00 0032993.00- 0033030.00 0033031.00 0033032.00 0033033.00 0033034.00 0033035.00 0033036.00- 0033042.00 0033043.00 0033044.00 0033045.00 0033046.00 0033047.00 0033048.00 0033049.00 0033050.00 0033053.00 0033054.00 0033055.00- 0033060.00 0033214.00 0033215.00 0033216.00 0033270.00- 0033277.00 0033288.00- 0033294.00 0033295.00 0033296.00 0033297.00 0033298.00 0033300.00 0033301.00- 0033302.00 0033314.00 950 S c h e d u le 13 - Page 4 0033315.00 0033316.00 0033317.00 0033318.00 0033319.00- 0033320.00 0033321.00- 0033322.00 0033323.00 0033324.00 0033325.00- 0033326.00 0033327.00 0033 332.00 0033341.00 0033342.00 0033351.00- 0033352.00 0033353.00- 0033354.00 0033355.00 0033356.00 0033357.00 0033358.00 0033359.00- 0033360.00 0033361.00 0033366.00 0033367.00 0033370.00 0033371.00 0033372.00 0033373.00 0033374.00 0033375.00 0033376.00 ' 0033381.00 0033382.00- 0033383.00 0033394.00 0033408.00 0033409.00- 0033417.00 0033446.00 0033447.00- 0033450.00 0033475.00 0033594.00 0033616.00 0033617.00 0033618.00 0033619.00- 0033620.00 0033621.00 0033622.00 0033623.00- 0033630.00 0033637.00- 0033668.00 0033669.00- 0033671.00 0033672.00- 0033674.00 0033675.00- 0033698.00 3503 0047756. 00 0047768. 00 0047770. 00 0047771. 00 0047791. 00 0047792. 00 0047793. 00 S ch e d u le 13 - Page 5 SERVICE LIST W illiam K rohley, Esq.' K e l l e y Drye & Warren 350 P a rk Avenue New Y o r k , New Y or k 10022 M i c h a e l M. Gordon, E s q . Cadwalader, Wickersham & T a ft One W a l l S t r e e t New Y o r k , New Y or k 10005 Leonard Rivkin, Esq. R iv k in , L e f f , Sherman & R ad ler 100 Garden C i t y P l a z a Garden C i t y , New Y o r k 11530 Judge Morton Silberman Clark, Gagliardi & M iller 99 C o u r t S t r e e t White P l a i n s , New Y or k 10601 Thomas B e c k , Esq. A rth u r, Dry & K a lish 1230 Avenue o f the Americas New Y o r k , New Yor k 10020 David R. G r o s s , E s q . Budd, Larner, Kent, Gross, P i c i l l o & Rosenbaum 33 W as h in gto n S t r e e t N e w a r k , New J e r s e y 07102 Dennis Rothman, Esq. L e s t e r Schwab K a tz & Dwyer 120 Broadway New Y o r k , New Y o r k 10005 Paul V. E sp o sito , Esq. L e w i s , O verbeck & Furman 135 South L aSalle S tre e t S u i t e 1060 C h i c a g o , I l l i n o i s 60603 Irving Like, Esq. R e i l l y , Like and Schneider 200 West Main S t r e e t P.O . Box 218 B a b y l o n , New Yor k 11702 V icto r J. Yannacone, J r . , Esq. Yannacone & Yannacone P o s t O f f i c e Drawer #109 P a t c h o g u e , New Y or k 1 1 7 7 2 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAIL S T A T E OF NEW YORK ) COUNTY OF NEW YORK ) SS . : MARYANN CIONE, bo m u duly sworn, deposes and says that deponent is not a party to this action, is over 18 years of aqe, and resides at 1430 Stadium Avenue, Bronx, New York 10465. Thai; on the 7th day of Januarv, 10 83 deponent served the within Supplemental Answers of Defendant Monsanto Company to Plaintiffs' Interroqatories to Defendants (First Wave) Second Set upon the followinq attorneys: See attached list at the above address desiqnated by said attorneys for that purpose by depositing a true copy of same enclosed in a postpaid properly addressed wrapper in an official depository under the exclusive care and custody of the United States Post Office Department within the State of New York. Sworn to before me this day of January, 1983 Notary Public 3509 UNITED STATES D ISTR ICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JAM 1 7 19C3 f V TIME A.M....................... - P .M ..;................... X In re "AGENT ORANGE" MDL 381 (af1p ^ r)F IW5:7 PRODUCT LIABILITY LITIGATION : ----------------------------------------- x \ CK-V DEFENDANTS' MEMORANDUM REGARDING IMPUTATION OF KNOWLEDGE WITHIN ;THE GOVERNMENT JAN 1 8 1983 KELLEY DRYE & WARREN Attorneys for Defendant Hercules Incorporated 101 Park Avenue New York, New York 10178 (212) 808-7800 TOWNLEY & UPDIKE Attorneys for Defendant Monsanto Company 405 L e x i n g t o n Avenue New York, New Yor k 10174 (212) 682-4567 RIVKIN, LEFF, SHERMAN & RADLER Attorneys for Defendant The Dow Chem ic al Company 100 Garden C i t y P l a z a Garden C i t y , New York 11530 (516) 746-7500 CLARK, GAGLIARDI & MILLER Attorneys for Defendant T-H A g r i c u l t u r e & N u t r i t i o n Company 99 C o u r t S t r e e t White P l a i n s , New Y o r k 10601 (914) 946-8900 CADWALADER, WICKERSHAM & TAFT Attorneys for Defendant Diamond Shamrock C or poration One Wall S t r e e t New Y or k , New Yor k 10005 (212) 908-7000 ARTHUR, DRY & KALISH, P . C . Attorneys for Defendant Uniroyal, Inc. 1230 Avenue o f the Americas New Y ork, New York 10020 (212) 841-9300 BUDD, LARNER, KENT, GROSS, PICILLO & ROSENBAUM Attorneys for Defendant Thompson Chemical C o r p o r a t i 33 Washington S t r e e t Newark, New J e r s e y 07102 (201)622-7400 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT P l a i n t i f f s h ave su b m itte d a memorandum* s e e k in g to impose l im i t a t i o n s on d e fe n d a n ts ' d is c o v e r y o f th e United S t a t e s on th e "Government C o n tr a c t D e fe n s e ", as d e fin e d by th e C ourt in P r e t r i a l Order No. 33. The Government has r e c e n t ly p a r r o te d p l a i n t i f f s ' arguments in an apparent e f f o r t to redu ce th e number o f d e p o s it io n s o f Government w itn e s s e s to be taken by d e fe n d a n ts .* * The undersigned d e fe n d a n ts su bm it t h i s memorandum i n re s p o n s e t o P l a i n t i f f s ' Memorandum and t h e i s s u e s r a i s e d by th e Government. The l i m i t a t i o n s on d e fe n d a n ts ' d is c o v e r y sought by p la in t if f s are n eith er warranted under the Federal Rules of C iv il Procedure nor the orders of th is Court. They are b ased on a m is r e a d in g o f th e r e l e v a n t c a s e law and d e m o n stra b ly fa ls e assumptions about the fa c ts concerning the Govern m ent's m il it a r y and o th er involvem ent in h e r b ic id e s . In lig h t of the established rules perm itting lib e ra l discovery, the p o t e n tia lly d is p o s itiv e issu e s framed by the Court fo r an e a r ly t r i a l , the f r u i t s o f d is c o v e ry to date and the a p p lica b le p r in c ip le s o f law regardin g im putation o f knowl edge w ith in the Government, i t would be in appropriate fo r P l a i n t i f f s ' Memorandum C o n c e rn in g The "Government C o n tra c t D efen se" Phase o f The "Agent Orange" Product L i a b i l i t y L i t i g a t i o n : A Management Plan For The D is c o v e r y Phase, d ated June 8, 1982. (h e r e in a fte r " P l a i n t i f f s ' Memorandum") ** S e e , e . g . , T r a n s c r ip t o f H earing, November 22, 1982 a t 2429-2431. the Court to r e s tr ic t the defendants' e ffo rts to conduct d isco v e ry commensurate w ith the stak es in volved in th is l i t i g a t i o n . To d a t e , n e i t h e r p l a i n t i f f s nor th e Government has done an yth in g more than com plain t h a t d efen d an ts have in co n ven ien ced them by d i l i g e n t l y p u rsu in g d is c o v e r y alon g l i n e s which have appeared p ro m isin g and w o rth w h ile. In h i n d s i g h t , some h ave p r o v e n more p r o d u c t i v e th a n o t h e r s . However, d is c o v e r y i s by i t s v e r y n a tu re and d e s ig n a le a r n in g p r o c e s s in which a p a r t y cannot and should n ot be e x p e c te d to guarantee the re s u lts in advance. Defendants can only gu aran tee t h a t th e r e have been and w i l l co n tin u e to be good reasons f o r th e d is c o v e r y th e y have sought and co n tin u e to pursue. Q^ K 1 / -2- ARGUMENT I . DEFENDANTS ARE ENTITLED TO TAKE BROAD DISCOVERY TO DETERMINE WHAT "THE GOVERNMENT" KNEW___________ The d e s c r ip t io n o f th e Government C on tract D efense s e t f o r t h b y t h e C o u r t i n P r e t r i a l O rder No. 33 does n o t d efin e "the Government" fo r purposes o f the defense. In f a c t , t h e meaning o f t h e term f o r t h o s e p u rp o s e s may w e l l have to a w a it th e co m p letio n o f d is c o v e r y and t r i a l . As w ill be seen, the "Government's" knowledge concerning the hazards o f Agent Orange and i t s components i s u n q u estion ab ly found in a s i g n i f i c a n t number o f b ra n ch e s, departm ents and agencies -- in ad d itio n to the m ilita r y -- which were a l l c a l l e d upon by th e m i l i t a r y and o th e r s to p r o v id e in fo rm a tio n in connection w ith the use of Agent Orange in Vietnam. These p a r t s o f "Government" and th e in fo rm a tio n each p o s s e s s e d were, th u s, d i r e c t l y in v o lv e d in and r e le v a n t to the s o - c a lle d "d e cisio n making p ro c e s s ." The knowledge o f the "Government" i s a lso found elsew here in th e f e d e r a l bureau cracy and was a v a ila b le w ith in th e government f o r the a sk in g . The is s u e s here a re: Were t h e y a s k e d f o r t h a t in f o r m a t io n ? What in f o r m a t i o n , i f any, did they a c tu a lly provide? Even, i f not asked, were they n everth eless obliged to provide i t without the asking? Or, i f n ot asked, should th ey have been? Defendants admit that they d o n 't have a ll the answers to these questions. -3 - 3S_i O ' J L . However th ey should not be stym ied a t the th resh o ld o f d isco v e ry in to th ese m atters by a b stra c t d is tin c tio n s o f law in a misguided e ffo r t to cut corners. This lit ig a t io n is simply fa r too important fo r such treatm ent. P l a i n t i f f s ' , o f c o u r s e , o p in e t h a t " t h e Go'vernm ent" means a v e r y lim it e d number o f h ig h l e v e l p e rso n n e l, which is a d e fin itio n of convenience th at is fa r too r e s tr ic tiv e . R e g a r d le s s o f how t h e term i s u l t i m a t e l y d e f i n e d , d e fe n d a n ts d is c o v e r y to d a te , and th e d is c o v e r y sought in th e f u t u r e , has been designed to determine the knowledge of the Govern ment on th e i s s u e s d e f in e d in P r e t r i a l Order No. 33. S5I4 -4- I I . UNDER PRINCIPLES GOVERNING IMPUTATION OF KNOWLEDGE WITHIN THE GOVERNMENT, DE FENDANTS ARE ENTITLED TO BROAD DISCOVERY FROM THE GOVERNMENT____________________ The number o f u n i t s w ith in th e Government w ith knowledge re le v a n t to the Government Contract Defense is fa r l a r g e r th a n p l a i n t i f f s s u g g e s t . Many p a r t s o f t h e Government were d i r e c t l y in v o lv e d in th e h e r b ic id e development and m il it a r y procurement e f f o r t s durin g th e 1960 's and e a r l i e r . * As an i n i t i a l m atter, defen dan ts are e n t i t l e d to d is c o v e ry from th e se a g e n c ie s on th e is s u e o f what was known. Thus, d e f e n d a n t s may be a b le t o e s t a b l i s h a t t r i a l t h a t t h e "G o v ern ment" had a c t u a l knowledge o f im portant f a c t s , based on communications w ith in the Government. F a ilin g th a t, defen d a n ts may b e a b l e t o e s t a b l i s h , a s a m a t t e r o f law , t h a t t h e . p a r t ic u la r Government person n el or u n its can be charged w ith the knowledge held by other personnel or u n its. A lth o u g h any i s s u e s w h ich may be p r e s e n t e d a t t r i a l concerning "im putation" of knowledge w ith in the Govern ment w i l l have to be based upon th e unique f a c t s o f t h i s l i t i g a t i o n , the co u rts have g e n e r a lly imputed knowledge from one agency to another where the knowledgeable agency had a d u ty to d i s c l o s e th e in fo r m a tio n to th e o th e r , J. A. Jones C e r t a i n o f th e f a c t s now d e v e lo p e d t h a t b e a r on th e Government's knowledge are d iscu ssed in f r a , P oin t III; defendants believe that additional fa cts in support of th is assertion w ill.b e developed a fte r addition al discovery. -5 - `515 C o n s t r u c t i o n Co. v . U n ite d S t a t e s , 390 F .2 d 886 ( C t. C l . 1968 ); U n ited S t a t e s v . K i e f e r , 228 F .2 d 448 (D.C. C i r . 19 5 5 ), c e r t , d e n ie d , 350 U .S. 933 (19 5 6 ); U n ited S t a t e s v . F i r s t N a tio n a l Bank, 138 F.2d 681 (7 th C ir . 1943), or where the o th e r agency shou ld have known or in q u ir e d about in fo rm a tio n p o ssessed by the know ledgeable agency, Palm etto Bank v . U n ite d S t a t e s , No. 1 4 -7 9 , s l i p op. (C t. C l. J u l y 28, 1 9 8 1 ) ; * L 1E n fa n t P l a z a P r o p e r t i e s v . U n ite d S t a t e s , 645 F .2 d 886 (Ct. Cl. 1981).** In J.A. Jones C on struction C o ., supra, the Court o f Claims imputed knowledge h eld by the A ir Force to the i g n o r a n t Army C orps o f E n g i n e e r s , w i t h whom p l a i n t i f f , as the co n stru ctio n agent fo r the A ir Force, had co n tra cted . The Corps o f E n gineers was unaware th a t p l a i n t i f f ' s lab o r c o s t s would be u n u s u a lly h ig h becau se o f an A ir Force p r o j e c t in the area th a t would pay workers a t a premium, which would dry up the lab or supply p l a i n t i f f expected to draw from. In A copy o f the Palm etto Bank d e c is io n i s subm itted h erew ith . P la in t iffs poin t out th at courts appear "w illin g to impute knowledge h o r iz o n ta lly [between agencies] only when t o do so r e f l e c t e d r e a l i s t i c o p p o r t u n it i e s f o r i n t e r a g e n c y e x c h a n g e " . P l a i n t i f f s Memorandum p . l l . This o b serv a tio n , however, must be the beginning o f the a n a ly sis , ra th e r than the end, as p l a i n t i f f s su ggest. D efen dan ts b e l i e v e t h a t d is c o v e r y d e sig n e d to show " r e a lis t ic opp ortu n ities fo r interagency exchange" has in f a c t d em on strated th o se r e a l i s t i c o p p o r t u n it ie s , and th erefo re w ill u ltim a te ly warrant im putation. See discussion of fa cts at Point III, -6 - 8516 so h o ld in g the C ou rt o f Claim s d is tin g u is h e d B a te so n -S t o lt e , Inc, v . U nited S t a t e s , 172 F. Supp. 455 (C t. C l. 1959), p e t . d i s m 'd , 305 F .2 d 383 ( C t. C l . 1952) ( c i t e d a t P l a i n t i f f s ' Memorandum p . 2 1 ) , s i n c e i n t h a t c a s e " t h e r e was no s i g n i f i c a n t bond b etw een th e a g e n c i e s , o r t h e i r p r o j e c t s , and no reason fo r the [knowledgeable agency] to look out fo r [the ig n o r a n t a g e n c y 's ] c o n t r a c t o r s . " 390 F .2d a t 892. That the Government i s la r g e and i t s records volum in ous i s i r r e l e v a n t . * What c o u n ts i s th e r o l e i n Government o f the r e s p e c tiv e agen cies concerning the su b je ct m atter of the in form ation.** Thus, the Seventh C irc u it Court of Appeals rejected the "the-Government-is-huge" argument o ffe re d in United S ta tes v. F ir s t N ational Bank, 138 F .2d 681 (7 th C ir . 1943). True, th e r e are an "immense number o f f e d e r a l departm ents, bureaus and a g e n cies, [with] tons o f papers contained in th e f i l e s o f e a c h ...[ a n d ] v a rio u s and sundry w id e ly s c a t t e r e d p r o j e c t s , huge la b o r f o r c e s , and [ i t i s a g e n e r a l] i m p o s s i b i l i t y [ f o r ] one departm ent [to ] know what another department is doing or going to do." See P l a i n t i f f s ' Memorandum p . 2 1 . N o n e t h e l e s s , know ledge w i l l be imputed from one agency to another (or w ith in an agency) i f ap p ro p riate under the circu m stan ces. P l a i n t i f f s sim ply m iscon stru e th e c a s e s when, as w ith t h e i r d is c u s s i o n o f Richmond M arin e, th e y fo c u s on whether th e a g en cies were in an " e f f i c i e n t " ( P l a i n t i f f s Memorandum p. 12) or " b e s t " ( I d . p. 15) p o s i t i o n t o exchange in fo r m a tio n . T h is p o i n t i s d is c u s s e d more fu lly , in fr a , at pp. 10-14. -7 - 3517 In F i r s t N ation al Bank, the Seventh C ir c u it focused on whether th e know ledgeable agency had a duty to d i s c l o s e : The r e a l is s u e i s w hether th e m atters in v o lv e d h ere were u n r e la te d so t h a t on r e c e i v i n g th e d e a th c e r t i f i c a t e , no d u ty re s te d upon the V eteran s' Bureau to communicate th a t f a c t to the Pension B u r e a u .... [The knowledge] re c e iv e d by one agency was so im portant to the o th er th a t th ere was a p la in le g a l duty to communicate such inform ation to the o th e r, and in d e f a u lt th e r e o f i t must be considered to have con stru ctive n o t ic e .... 138 F.2d a t 684. This p r in c ip le was a p p lied in K i e f e r , su p ra ( c i t e d a t P l a i n t i f f s ' Memorandum p . 2 2 ), r e s u l t i n g i n a fin d in g o f no im p u tation becau se o f th e p a r t i c u l a r f a c t s p re se n te d .* The k e y e lem en t i n K i e f e r was t h a t t h e r e was no d u ty on th e know ledgeable agency to d i s c l o s e th e in fo rm a tio n to the oth er agency. In f a c t , not to d is c lo s e was found to be a d m i n i s t r a t i v e l y e f f i c i e n t and r e q u ir e d by w e ll- c o n s id e r e d r e g u la tio n s . The Government had a le g itim a te i n t e r e s t in h avin g the two s e c tio n s m aintain se p a ra te f i l e s . The in su rance section (the ignorant agency) acted pursuant to a reg u la tio n (implemented in order to expedite the g re a t number o f r e in s ta te m e n t a p p l ic a t io n s ) w hich c a l l e d f o r The c o u r t in K i e f e r r e fu s e d to impute to th e l i f e insurance service of the Veterans Adm inistration fa cts known by t h e V .A . d i s a b i l i t y c la i m s s e r v i c e , t h e r e b y r e je c t in g p l a i n t i f f ' s co n ten tio n th a t he was e n t it le d to recover under h is l i f e insurance p o licy d esp ite a fr a u d u le n t statem en t on h is renew al a p p l ic a t io n . - 8 - qo ocri r e i n s t a t e m e n t on th e b a s i s o f t h e i n s u r e d ' s own s ta te m e n t (without requiring reference to a claim ant's d is a b ilit y f i l e in th e o th e r departm ent) as p ro o f th a t c la im a n t's h e a lth was no worse th an when th e p o l i c y la p s e d . M . a t 450 -451. The court concluded th at "the procedure under the regu latio n is reasonably related to e ffic ie n t adm inistration of the insur ance program and i s v a l i d . " at 451.* In Palm etto Bank, supra, knowledge h eld by the F e d e r a l Land Bank was im pu ted t o t h e Farmers Home A d m in i s t r a t i o n b a s e d on a d u ty o f FHA t o i n q u i r e o f FLB (w hich FHA knew to have knowledge r e l e v a n t to th e FHA). The c o u r t h e ld t h a t FHA u n r e a s o n a b ly r e l i e d on an a p p r a i s a l o f s e c u r e d p r o p e r t y b e c a u s e FHA knew t h a t FLB a l s o had i n f o r m a t i o n about the property, which, i f checked, would have a le rte d FHA t o t h e i n a c c u r a c y o f t h e o t h e r a p p r a i s a l . On t h e same a n a l y s i s , i n L 'E n f a n t P l a z a , s u p r a , the Court o f Claim s re fu s e d to impute knowledge from th e General S e rv ic e s A d m in istration to the D i s t r ic t o f Columbia Redevelopment Land Agency because, although in vo lved in the Many o f th e c a s e s r e l i e d upon b y p l a i n t i f f s a re V. A. b e n e fit cases in which there was, as in K ie fe r , a Government in t e r e s t p reclu d in g shared inform ation, rather than a duty to d is c lo se . E.g . , United S tates v. C o o p e r, 200 F .2 d 954 (6 th C i r . 19 5 3 ); U n ite d S t a t e s v . R i g g i n s , 65 F .2 d 750 ( 9 th C i r . 19 3 3 ); H a lv e r s o n v . U n ite d S t a t e s , 12 1 F .2 d 420 ( 7 t h C i r . 1 9 4 1 ) , c e r t . d e n ie d , 314 U .S . 695 (19 4 2 ); Jones v . U n ite d S t a t e s , 106 F .2 d 888 ( 5 t h C i r . 1939) ( c i t e d a t P l a i n t i f f s ' Memorandum pp. 1 4 - 1 5 ) . -9- 9519 same urban re d e v e lo p m e n t p r o j e c t , t h e two a g e n c i e s a c t e d co m p letely in d epen d ently o f each o th er and had t o t a l l y d iffe r e n t ro le s concerning the p r o je c t. Given th e ir d i f f e r e n t r o l e s , t h e c o u r t found t h a t RLA was under no d u ty t o i n v e s t i g a t e about f a c t s known to GSA.* The co u rt h eld th a t: RLA and GSA a r e in d e p e n d e n t e n t i t i e s and have no c o n n e c tio n , o u t s id e o f th e f a c t th a t both agencies were in volved with the urban renewal development o f the L'E nfant Plaza complex. There is nothing t o show t h a t RLA was r e q u i r e d t o s u p e r v i s e or co n tro l the actio n s o f GSA's co n tracto r or th a t i t was re sp o n sib le fo r p l a i n t i f f 's r e l i a n c e on th e supposed a c c u ra c y o f b u i l d i n g p l a n s su b m itte d b y GSA t o RLA. 645 F .2d a t 890. A bsent a d u ty to i n v e s t i g a t e , no knowledge was imputed to the ig n o ran t agency. P la in t iffs have ignored the holdings of the courts in th e se "duty to d is c lo s e " and "duty to in v e s t ig a t e " c a s e s , and h ave i n s t e a d p r o f f e r r e d t h e i r own u n s u p p o rte d c o n c l u s i o n th a t the "co n siste n t p attern " o f the cases is th a t knowledge i s imputed to an ig n o ran t Government u n it only where another Government u n it was in the "b e st p o s itio n " to tran sm it the inform ation, except th a t where "other persons" are in th a t RLA was l e s s o r t o b o th p r i v a t e and go ve rn m en ta l r e d e v e l o p e rs (one o f whom was GSA) who, i n t u r n , a c t e d as com m ercial l e s s e e s under th e term s o f t h e i r l e a s e s and the Area Coordinator Agreement fo r the p ro je c t (n eith er o f w h ich imputed know ledge t o RLA o f f a c t s known t o one o f i t s le s s e e s ). -1 0 - QO K O& "b e s t p o s i t i o n ," no im p u ta tio n w i l l be made. See P l a i n t i f f s Memorandum p. 16. P l a i n t i f f s do n o t i d e n t i f y any c a s e s th a t support t h i s p o s it io n . In f a c t , c o u rts do not use t h i s a n a ly sis . The c o u r ts have n ot been concerned w ith w hether, on the is s u e o f ch arg in g one a g e n c y 's knowledge to another, some t h i r d p a r t y may h a ve b een i n a " b e t t e r " p o s i t i o n th an the knowledgeable agency to inform the ignorant agency. One m igh t be c o r r e c t i n c o n c l u d in g t h a t [based on th e rea so n in g o f B a te s o n -S to 1 t e , s u p r a [ kn ow ledge o f one Army i n s t a l l a t i o n is not imputable to another in s ta lla t io n on th e b a s i s t h a t both are p a r t o f th e same command w i t h i n th e Army. I t m igh t even be reasonable to conclude, assuming th a t two d i f f e r e n t o r g a n iz a tio n a l elem ents on one m i l i t a r y i n s t a l l a t i o n have t h e i r own p ro cu rem e n t a c t i v i t i e s , t h a t kn ow ledge o f one should not be charged to the o th e r m erely b eca u se b o th are l o c a t e d on th e same i n s t a l l a t i o n . Such i l l u s t r a t i o n s r e v e a l how e x t e n s i v e th e im pact o f B a te so n -S to lte ' s reasoning might be. However, under c e r ta in circum stances know ledge o f in f o r m a t i o n may be im puted between d iffe r e n t organ ization s w ithin the government. The key f a c t o r in making t h i s determ in ation i s whether the p r o c u r in g o r g a n i z a t i o n had re a s o n to know o f the in fo rm a tio n . . . . The prim ary con s id e ra tio n in determing whether knowledge should be imputed between governmental agen cies i s the e x e r c is e o f due c a r e . (Emphasis ad d ed .) "Government M is r e p r e s e n ta tio n and N o n -D isc lo su re in F e d e ra l Procurement," 6 A.B.A. Public C ontract L .J. 39, a t 103-104, That p la in t iffs ' "better position" analysis is in ap posite is demonstrated by Palm etto Bank, supra, where the p a rty th a t was probably in the "b e st p o s itio n " * to a d v i s e FHA ( t h e i g n o r a n t a g en cy) t h a t t h e a p p r a i s a l b e in g u sed by FHA was i n f l a t e d was t h e p l a i n t i f f i t s e l f . P l a i n t i f f had more in fo r m a tio n about th e se cu re d p r o p e r t y than e i t h e r FHA o r FLB. Had p l a i n t i f f r e v e a l e d t h a t in f o r m a t i o n t o FHA, t h e r e would h ave b een no need to im pute F L B 's knowledge to FHB. S i m i l a r l y , i n F i r s t N a t i o n a l B an k, s u p r a , ** th e c o u r t was not concerned w ith whether the know ledgeable agency or the bank (which had honored checks fra u d u le n tly endorsed in th e dead p a y e e ' s name) was in a b e t t e r p o s i t i o n t o n o t i f y the ignorant agency th a t the endorsements were fraud u len t. P la in tiffs ' "better position" analysis results from a m is r e a d in g .o f the r e le v a n t c a s e s . The r e s u l t o f t h i s I t appears from the f a c t s s ta te d th a t p l a i n t i f f in Palm etto Bank was in the " b e s t p o s it io n " . However, not enough fa c t s are given to re so lv e the "b est p o sitio n " and t h e c o u r t d o es n o t i t s e l f i n d i c a t e who was i n t h e "best p o s itio n " . Quite simply, the court did not fin d that inquiry relevant. In F i r s t N a tio n a l Bank, the c o u rt imputed knowledge o f an in d iv id u a l's death to the Bureau o f Pensions o f the Veterans A d m in istra tio n , so th a t the defendant bank was not l i a b l e to the Bureau fo r honoring checks fra u d u le n tly endorsed in th e d e c e a s e d p a y e e ' s name. Knowledge was im puted b e c a u s e the Bureau f a i l e d to. e x e r c is e re a s o n a b le ca r e to d is c o v e r in fo rm a tio n a v a ila b le to the V eteran s Bureau. 138 F.2d a t 684. -1 2 - QK9 9 O Kt f j misreading is th at p la in t if f s id e n tify issues that are not re le v a n t to the Government C on tract Defense. For example, p la in t if f s a sse rt (without bothering to demonstrate) th at defendants were c le a r ly in the b e st p o sitio n to have d is closed c e rta in inform ation to relevan t u n its o f the Govern ment. P l a i n t i f f s ' Memorandum pp 12 , 16 . P l a i n t i f f s a l s o argue th a t defendants cannot su sta in the Government C on tract Defense unless they e s ta b lis h th at they s a tis fie d a duty to d isclo se ce rta in inform ation to "responsible" or "rational" d e c i s i o n m a k e r s .* P l a i n t i f f s ' Memorandum pp. 6, 7, 10, 1 7 , 23 . The "duty" o f d efen d an ts c r e a te d by p l a i n t i f f s sim ply does not e x i s t on the Government C o n tract Defense is s u e . As form ulated by the Court in P r e t r ia l Order No. 33, th e p rim ary i s s u e i n v o l v e s a com parison o f th e knowledge h e ld by th e d e fen d a n ts and the Government. See P r e t r i a l O rder No. 33 a t p . 16. The i s s u e o f where th e G overnm ent's in fo r m a tio n came from i s sim p ly n o t relevan t. P la in t iffs concede th is early in th e ir memorandum ( " i f t h e governm ent h a s o b t a in e d t h e r e l e v a n t knowledge and e x p e r t i s e from o th e r s o u r c e s . . . and knows a s much a s o r more th a n t h e s u p p l i e r , no d u ty may be b r e a c h e d , " P l a i n t i f f s ' Memorandum p . 4 ) , y e t t h e y b a s e t h e i r e n t i r e argument i n t h e body o f th e memorandum on th is "duty." D espite p l a i n t i f f s ' re co g n itio n th a t where inform ation was gen erated i s ir r e l e v a n t to the Government C o n tract Defense, p la in t if f s purport to find a d istin ctio n in the c a s e s based on whether the inform ation i s gen erated in sid e or ou tsid e o f the Government. P l a i n t i f f s ' Memorandum p . 16 . However, p l a i n t i f f s c i t e no c a s e s i n s u p p o r t o f t h i s " d i s t i n c t i o n . " Where th e in fo r m a t io n sought to be imputed was gen erated i s not germane; co u rts examine the r e la tio n s h ip s between the knowledge a b le and ig n o ra n t a g e n c ie s. -1 3 - 8523 P l a i n t i f f s have compounded two in c o r r e c t in t e r p r e t a t io n s o f the case law (th e " b e t t e r p o s itio n " and "d efen dants' duty" arguments) in to a th ird unsupported p o sitio n : t h a t th e " e q u i t i e s " do n o t p e rm it d e fe n d a n ts to s h i f t t h e i r "duty" to o th e rs " in an i n f e r i o r p o s itio n " w ith r e s p e c t to t h e i n f o r m a t i o n . P l a i n t i f f s ' Memorandum p . 1 7 . A g a in , th e c o u rts have not an alyzed th e ca s e s b e fo re them in t h i s manner. The v e te r a n s ' b e n e f it s ca se s c i t e d ( P l a i n t i f f s ' Memorandum pp. 1 4 - 1 5 ) * w ere n o t d e c i d e d on t h i s b a s i s , nor were any o f the o th er ca s e s r e l i e d upon by p l a i n t i f f s . See e . g . , U n ite d S t a t e s v . A c c a r d o , 113 F .S up p. 783 (D. N . J . ) , a f f ' d , 238 F .2d 271 (3rd C i r . 1953) ( c i t e d in P l a i n t i f f s ' Memorandum p . 1 1 ) . * * The ca se s th a t co n sid e r whether im putation o f knowledge w ith in the Government i s appropriate e s ta b lis h at Like K ie f e r , the ca ses r e lie d upon (Cooper, R ig g in s , H alverson and J o n e s ) were d e c id e d on th e ground t h a t th e ig n o r a n t a gen cy had no d u ty t o i n v e s t i g a t e f a c t s in the possession of the knowledgeable agency--in fa c t, i t was a d m i n i s t r a t i v e l y more e f f i c i e n t n o t to i n v e s t i g a t e , and th e p e r t i n e n t r e g u la t io n s so p r o v id e ( see s u p ra , pp. 10 -11). The c o u r t in Accardo r e fu s e d to impute knowledge about defendant's crim inal con viction s held by several Govern ment u n i t s to the N a t u r a liz a t io n Branch o f th e Immigra t i o n and N a t u r a l i z a t i o n S e r v i c e b e c a u s e t h e r e was no r e a lis t ic opportunity for exchange of th at inform ation. The c o u r t d id not b o th e r to c o n s id e r w hether i t would be "eq u itable" to perm it defendant to b e n e fit by th a t im pu tation . l e a s t two s i t u a t i o n s t h a t have re q u ire d im pu tation: where t h e " i g n o r a n t " a g en cy had' a d u t y t o i n v e s t i g a t e f a c t s known by the other agencies; or, where the knowledgeable agencies had a duty to d is c lo s e the inform ation to the ignorant agency. Thus, d isco ve ry i s appropriate to determine what th e Government knew and th e e x t e n t to which v a r io u s p a r t s o f government were under e it h e r one o f th ese d u tie s , what in fo rm a tio n th e s e d u t ie s encompassed, and th e r o l e in govern ment o f th e se v a r io u s p a r t s . -1 5 - III. FACTS NOW AVAILABLE DEMONSTRATE THAT THE GOVERNMENT ENGAGED IN A BROAD BASED EFFORT TO COORDINATE AND DEVELOP MORE COMPLETE KNOWLEDGE OF HERBICIDES I t i s c l e a r from in f o r m a t i o n now a v a i l a b l e t h a t the Government's h e r b ic id e re se a rc h and development program th a t re s u lte d in the use o f Agent Orange included a broad- based se a r c h , throu ghout th e Government and else w h ere , f o r in fo rm a tio n about h e r b ic id e s . The a g e n c ie s d i r e c t l y in v o lv e d in the h e rb icid e program apparently were under a duty to , and in f a c t d id , in v e s t ig a t e o th er sources o f h e rb ic id e inform ation. Other Government agen cies appear to have been on n o t ic e o f t h i s e f f o r t and, t h e r e f o r e , should have coo p er ated with the m ilita r y 's e ffo r t. C o o r d in a t io n among f e d e r a l a g e n c i e s t o d e v e lo p in fo rm atio n on p e s t ic id e s has e x is te d through v a rio u s inform al and form al in te rd e p a rtm e n ta l groups s in c e 1940. The I n t e r dep artm ental Committee on P e s t C o n tro l was e s t a b lis h e d in 1940, to c o n sid e r requirem ents f o r resea rch and development; to s e rv e as a c o n s u l a t i v e body to f e d e r a l a g e n c ie s and p e s t i c i d e m an u factu rers; to c o o r d in a te programs on p e s t c o n t r o l; and, to emphasize th e im portance o f s a f e and e f f e c t i v e u s e s o f p e s t i c i d e s . I n i t i a l l y t h e com m ittee was com p r ise d o f re p re s e n ta tiv e s from the Department o f I n te r io r , th e Army, th e Navy and th e U n ite d S t a t e s P u b lic H e alth S e rv ice , but i t la te r grew to in clude a d d itio n a l represen- -1 6 - Qtv*^X T ^r y Of y t a t i v e s from th e Food and Drug A d m in istra tio n , the Department o f A g r ic u ltu r e and th e A ir F o rce .* In 1961 the S e c re ta rie s o f Defense, In te rio r, A g ric u ltu re and H ealth, Education & W elfare formed the Federal P est Control Review Board w ith the in te n t th a t such Board would review programs conducted by vario u s fe d e ra l a gen cies f o r th e c o n tr o l o f p la n t l i f e and forms o f in v e r t e b r a te s and would co n s id e r problems and developm ents in the fie ld of chemical control with "p a rticu la r reference to the p o s s ib le ad verse e f f e c t s and the adequacy o f p r o v is io n s f o r the proper use o f p e s t i c i d a l c h e m ic a ls ." The Board was directed to address a ll phases of pest control including " s a f e t y t o man, d o m e s tic a n im a ls , w i l d l i f e and t h e e n v i r o n ment in g e n e r a l" and was in s t r u c t e d to a d v is e th e fo u r c a b in e t departm ents on m o d ific a tio n s in p la n s th a t would be in the best public in te re s t.* * W ithin the Department o f Defense, the Advanced Research P ro jects Agency, under the aegis o f the Secretary o f D e f e n s e , c o o r d i n a t e d and fun ded p ro gra m s, many o f w hich See R .J . A nderson Dep. Ex. 2, Wymer, W.H. " C o o r d i n a t i o n in th e U .S. F e d e ra l Government on P e s t, P e s t i c i d e s , and P est Management" (19 7 1); R .J. Anderson Ex. 4, "Minutes o f the 57th Meeting o f the Interdepartm ental Committee on P e st C o n tr o l." See B u ckley Dep. Ex. 8, Forward, " P e s t ic id e M onitor in g J o u rn a l, June 1967." -1 7 - q r &9 ^i were in con jun ction w ith the United S ta te s Department of A g r ic u ltu r e , to develop in form ation on h e r b ic id e s .* For example, a m eeting was h e ld a t Edgewood A rse n a l at the Chemical Research & Development L aboratories o f the Army C h em ica l C orps on A p r i l 26, 1963 t o " d i s c u s s and e v a l u a t e the t o x i c i t y o f 2,4-D and 2 ,4 ,5 -T compounds w ith p a r t ic u l a r emphasis on use o f th ese m a te ria ls in m ilit a r y o p e ra tio n s as h e r b i c i d e s ." * * The m eeting was c h a ir e d by C olon el F. L. B a u e r, who was D i r e c t o r o f M e d ic a l R e s e a r c h a t t h e C h em ica l Research & Development L ab o rato ries. P resen tation s were made b y r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s from t h e Army C hem ical C o rp s, Chemi c a l B i o lo g ic a l Research Agency a t Edgewood A rsenal (Gen. Delmore); F ort D etrick (Dr. M in arik ); the Chemical Research & D evelopm ent L a b o r a t o r i e s , w hich was p a r t o f t h e CBR Agency a t Edgewood A rse n a l (C o l. Bauer, Dr. Bernard McNamara); th e D epartm ent o f A g r i c u l t u r e (Dr. Warren Shaw, Dr. J. H. L e a r y ) , and o th e r s . R e p re s e n ta tiv e s o f th e O f f ic e o f th e S e c r e ta r y o f D efense and the Patuxent W ild lif e Research C enter o f the Department o f the In te rio r also attended. S e e , e . g . , E n n is Dep. Ex. 6, Memorandum, C o n t r o l f o r S electio n of D efo liatio n and/or Vegetation Control A gen ts, dated March 26, 1963. See Simmons Dep. Ex. 2, M inutes o f M eeting to D is c u s s And E v a l u a t e The T o x i c i t y o f 2 ,4 -D And 2 , 4 , 5 - T Com pounds (26 A p r il 1963). -1 8 - 9528 Dr. Warren Shaw, t h e USDA r e p r e s e n t a t i v e a t th e Edgewood m eeting, t e s t i f i e d t h a t fo llo w in g th e m eeting he made s p e c i f i c e f f o r t s t o b r i n g to t h e a t t e n t i o n o f Dr. McNamara any e v i d e n c e o f th e e f f e c t i v e n e s s , l i m i t a t i o n s , t o x i c i t y to p la n t s and t o x i c o l o g i c a l e f f e c t s o f 2,4-D and 2 ,4 ,5 - T by r e q u e s tin g f e d e r a l a g e n c ie s and chem ical companies t o p a s s such in f o r m a t io n a lo n g . Dr. Shaw f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t he would be "amazed" i f he had n o t made r e q u e s t s t o th e Public Health Service fo r such inform ation in lig h t of h is many c o n t a c t s t h e r e .* On May 9, 1963, b a r e l y a week a f t e r th e Edgewood m e e tin g , r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s from th e Army C hem ical C o rp s, Chemical B io lo g ic a l R ad io lo gical Agency, b rie fe d the P re sid e n t's S cien ce A d v iso ry Committee on th e " P o s s ib le H ealth Hazard of Phenoxyacetates as Related to D efo liatio n Operations in V ie t n a m ." * * P r e s e n t a t i o n s w ere once a g a in made b y Gen. D elm ore, D r. McNamara, Dr. M in a r ik , C o l. Bauer and o t h e r s . Ten d a ys l a t e r , on May 1 5 , 1963, P r e s i d e n t John F. Kennedy re le a se d the Report o f the P r e s id e n t's Science A d v is o r y Committee on th e "Use o f P e s t i c i d e s " which s p e c i f i c a l l y r e f e r r e d to 2,4-D and 2 ,4 ,5 - T as e x t e n s i v e l y used See Shaw Dep. T r. 1 1 2 - 1 1 8 . See V occi Dep. Ex. 8, " B r ie fin g to the P r e s id e n t 's S c i e n c e A d v is o r y Committee May 9, 1963 by CBR Agency P erson n el on th e P o s s ib le H ealth Hazard o f Phenoxyace ta te s as Related to D efo lia tio n Operations in Vietnam." -1 9 - 9529 h e r b i c i d e s and s t a t e d t h a t th e " p a n e l i s c o n v in c e d t h a t we must u n d erstan d more c o m p le te ly th e p r o p e r t i e s o f [ p e s t i c i d e s ] and determ ine t h e i r lon g-term im pact on b i o l o g i c a l system s", and t h a t "we must now a l s o t a k e m easures t o i n s u r e t h a t continued exposures to sm all amounts o f th ese ch em icals in our environment w ill not be harmful over long periods o f tim e ." The p an el recommended t h a t th e Department o f H ealth , Education and W elfare develop a comprehensive d a ta -g a th e rin g program and "co o p e rate w ith o th er departm ents to develop a continuing network to monitor residue le v e ls in a ir , water, s o i l , man, w i l d l i f e and f i s h . " * In 1964, in response to the P r e s id e n t's Science A d visory Committee Report and w ith the ad vice and encourage ment o f the E x e cu tiv e O f f ic e o f the P re sid e n t ( e s p e c i a l l y the O ffic e o f S cien ce and Technology and th e Bureau o f the Budget), the S ecretaries of Defense, In terio r, A gricu ltu re and H ealth, Education and W elfare reo rg a n ized th e F ed eral P e st C on trol Review Board in to the F ed eral Committee on P est C o n tro l.* * T h is re o r g a n iz a tio n was deemed n e c e ssa ry to "expand the c o lla b o r a t io n in two d ir e c t io n s : F i r s t , to See B u ckley Dep. Ex. 9, A Report o f the P r e s id e n t 's S c i e n c e A d v i s o r y Com m ittee, "Use o f P e s t i c i d e s , " May 15, 1963. See B u ckley Dep. Ex. 8, Forward, " P e s t ic id e M onitor ing Journal, June 1967." -2 0 - 0 !T Q ^ U Ct 0 p erm it th e new Committee to c o v e r a l l a s p e c t s o f p e s t c o n t r o l -- research, m onitoring of the environment fo r p e s tic id e s , and p u b li c in fo rm a tio n programs - - as w e ll as to review operational programs; secondly, to extend th e ir council to a l l F ed eral programs in v o lv in g p e s ts and t h e i r c o n t r o l." * Among t h o s e on th e F e d e r a l Committee on P e s t C o n t r o l a t t h i s tim e w ere John M. G ea ry, D epartm ent o f D e fe n s e ; R o b e rt J. Anderson, A g ric u ltu ra l Research S ervice; rep resen tatives from t h e F o r e s t S e r v i c e , USDA, t h e P u b l i c H e a lt h S e r v i c e , HEW, and o t h e r s . * * D iscovery to date has uncovered important fa c ts r e le v a n t to th e Government C o n tra ct Defense th a t must be viewed in the co n te x t o f the form al and inform al co o rd in a t i o n among f e d e r a l a g e n c i e s r e g a r d i n g h e r b i c i d e s d e s c r i b e d above - - p a r t i c u l a r l y b e c a u s e much o f t h i s c o o r d i n a t i o n was d irected s p e c if ic a lly to the m ilita r y h erb icid e program.*** A few o f the h ig h lig h ts obtained through defendants' d isco very are se t fo rth below. A T a sk F o rce under th e s u p e r v i s i o n o f Dr. McNamara was e s t a b lis h e d a t Edgewood to study the t o x ic o l o g i c a l * See i d . ** See i d . *** See Shaw Dep. T r. 1 1 2 - 1 1 8 ; V o c c i Dep. Ex. 8, " B r i e f i n g t o t h e P r e s i d e n t ' s S c i e n c e A d v i s o r y Committee May 9, 1963 b y CBR Agency P e r s o n n e l on th e P o s s i b l e H e a lt h Hazard of Phenoxyacetates as R elated to D e fo lia tio n Operations in Vietnam." -2 1 - 8531 e f f e c t s o f 2,4-D , 2 ,4 ,5 - T and Agent P u rple in 1961 or 1962 in p r e p a r a tio n f o r th e A p r il 26, 1963 m eeting a t Edgewood and f o r t h e b r i e f i n g t o t h e PSAC on May 9, 1 9 6 3 .* Dr. McNamara, head o f th e T o x i c o l o g y D i v i s i o n , M e d ica l L abs, CRDL, and h i s s t a f f p r o v i d e d t o x i c o l o g i c a l d a t a f o r u s e i n th e a n a ly s is o f chem ical compounds as p o t e n t i a l chem ical w a r f a r e a g e n t s . Dr. McNamara s e r v e d on one o f t h e "Review P oin t Committees" which evaluated p o te n tia l chem ical w arfare a g e n t s . Dr. McNamara and h i s s t a f f worked c l o s e l y w it h th e A g e n ts R e se a rc h Branch o f th e C h em ical L a b o r a t o r i e s , CRDL, which was headed by Dr. F r ie d r ic k Hoffmann and which search ed f o r and proposed ch em ical compounds as p o t e n t i a l ch em ical warfare agents. Dr. Hoffmann learn ed o f " s t a r t l i n g inform ation" co n c e rn in g th e h ig h t o x i c i t y o f a d io x in compound and le a rn e d ab o u t German l i t e r a t u r e l i n k i n g d i o x i n w ith th e m a n u fa c tu rin g p ro ce ss o f tr ic h lo r o p h e n o l, an in term ed iate in the p rod u ction o f 2 ,4 ,5 - T , on a t r i p to Europe in 19 5 9 .** Dr. Hoffmann shared t h i s in fo rm ation w ith o th er people a t Edgewood in vo lve d in th e rev iew o f the compounds as p o t e n t i a l ch em ical w arfa re ag e n ts. D ioxin was co n sid ered as a p o t e n t ia l chem ical w arfare a g e n t by CRDL i n th e e a r l y 1 9 6 0 's . See V occi Dep. Tr. 59-60, 154. See M e t c a l f Dep. Ex. 8, Hoffmann, F r i e d r i c k , W. "R ep o rt on T r ip to Europe" (1959) [re d a c te d v e r s io n ] ; Jandorf Dep. Ex. 11 [one page retyped e x c e rp t o f th e R ep ort]. -2 2 - ^QsO' Qo^ During t h is time the P u blic H ealth S erv ice main t a in e d a L ia is o n O f f i c e a t Edgewood* and was r e p r e s e n te d on the Eederal P est C ontrol Review Board. In 1963, the Public Health Service, D ivisio n o f Occupational Health, possessed know ledge o f d i o x i n a s a p o t e n t i a l c h l o r a c n e g e n i n t h e manu fa c tu rin g p ro cess o f 2 ,4 ,5 - T .* * Indeed, in 1964, Dr. Groth from the P u b lic H ealth S e rv ic e was encouraged by o th e rs in the Pub l i c H ealth S e r v ic e to conduct a d io x in study and in January 1965 Dr. Groth in f a c t proposed a study to confirm th a t 2 ,3 ,7 ,8 te tr a c h lo r o d ib e n z o -p -d io x in was a contam inant in 2 ,4 ,5 -T in lig h t of "widespread use of 2,4,5-T as a h erb icid e."*** In 1966, th e Food and Drug A d m in is tr a tio n was i n formed t h a t what had b een known as t h e C h ic k Edema F a c t o r was in f a c t a d io x in compound.**** P r i o r to 1968 th e Food and Drug Adm inistration learned through te stin g th at 2,4,5-T contained d io x in .* * * * * In a d d it io n , in 1968 r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s from the Food and Drug A d m in is tr a tio n and th e P u b lic H e a lth S e r v ic e i n i t i a t e d a h e a lt h su rvey o f workers in a 2 , 4-D and 2 ,4 ,5 - T See Simmons Dep. T r. 16 4 -16 6 . S ee, e . g . Key Dep. Tr. 70, 89-90. See Groth Dep. Tr. 64. See Higgenbothan Dep. Ex. 2, F ir e s to n e , " E tio lo g y o f C h ic k Edema D i s e a s e " . See Higgenbothan Dep. Tr. 102. -2 3 - 8533 p la n t which r e v e a le d th e p r e se n c e o f d io x in as an e x tre m e ly potent acnegen in the manufacturing process of 2 ,4 ,5-T.* In 1963 personnel a t the N ation al Cancer I n s t it u t e were aware o f the p resen ce o f d io x in in 2 , 4 , 5-T and th a t l i v e r and sk in problems were a s s o c ia te d w ith th e m anufactur ing process of 2 ,4 ,5-T.** In December 1966 o r J a n u a ry 1967, Mr. R o b e r t Cox o f th e Weapons Development and E n g in e e rin g L a b o r a to r ie s a t Edgewood, was informed by Monsanto about d io x in and ch loracn e asso ciated w ith 2 ,4 ,5-T production w hile in v e stig a tin g the Weldon S prin gs P r o je c t .* * * Furthermore, in 1965 Dr. C h arles M inarik, C h ief o f the Crops D iv isio n , Chemical B io lo g ic a l Research Agency, F o rt D e t r ic k , knew o f c h lo ra c n e problem s a s s o c ia t e d w ith the manufacturing process o f 2 ,4 ,5-T.**** Based on the in fo rm atio n d iscu sse d above, i t i s c le a r th a t th e m ilit a r y and o th er Government u n its attem pted to c o o r d in a te e f f o r t s to d ev e lo p more com plete knowledge * See a ls o Birmingham Dep. Ex. 26, P ollan d , Smith, M etter, P o s s ic k , "A H ealth Survey o f Workers in a 2 , 4-D and 2 , 4 , 5-T P la n t ," March 1971. ** See T ra n scrip t o f the. d e p o sitio n o f C arl Baker, dated December 8, 1982 (n ot y e t a v a i l a b l e ) . *** See T ran scrip t o f the d ep o sitio n of Robert Cox, dated December 8, 1982 (n ot y e t a v a i l a b l e ) . **** See M inarik Dep. Tr. 301-308. -2 4 - 9534 about h erb icides. Defendants are therefore e n title d to continue d isco v e ry about oth er attem pts b y .the Government to c o l l e c t h e r b ic id e in fo rm a tio n and to d is c o v e r y about the inform ation such attempts uncovered. -2 5 - Q er ju .q3 0rr IV. THE DISCOVERY SOUGHT BY DEFENDANTS IS REASONABLY CALCULATED TO LEAD TO THE DISCOVERY OF ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE REGARDING THE GOVERNMENT CONTRACT DEFENSE____________________________ D efen d an ts have p r o v id e d th e Government w ith names o f a d d itio n a l p o te n tia l w itn esses concerning the Government Contract Defense. Im p licit in these e ffo rts is defendants' b e lie f th at the depositions sought are relevan t to the s u b je c t m atter o f the Government C o n tract D efense and reason ably calcu lated to lead to the discovery of adm issible e v i d e n c e , w h ich i s th e a p p r o p r i a t e s ta n d a r d un der Fed. R. C iv. P. 2 6 (b ) ( 1 ) . Defendants have dem onstrated in the p r e c e d i n g p o r t i o n s o f t h i s memorandum t h a t d i s c o v e r y o f many d if f e r e n t Government agen cies i s ap p rop riate under a p p lica b le p r in c ip le s o f law regardin g the im putation o f knowledge w ith in the Government. P la in t if f s are free to pursue discovery under a d i f f e r e n t th e o r y , i f th e y p r e f e r . * The p o in t, however, i s t h a t th e r e s t r i c t i o n s p l a i n t i f f s seek to p la c e on d e fe n d a n ts' d is c o v e r y are in a p p r o p r ia te and u n n ecessa ry. A lth o u g h P l a i n t i f f s ' Memorandum c o n t a i n s t h e words "A D isco v ery Plan" in i t s t i t l e , i t i s r e a l l y no such thing. P la in t if f s merely argue th a t defendants should not be perm itted to proceed as they have planned. P l a i n t i f f s do n ot attem p t to d em on strate f a c t u a l l y t h a t the d iscovery sought by defendants is ir re le v a n t; they merely sta te th at defendants should conduct d iscovery according to th e ir "core-concentric c ir c le " theory, s ta rtin g f i r s t with "ra tio n a l" or "resp on sible" Govern ment d ecision m akers. -2 6 - ^0 ^ q j oo P l a i n t i f f s would have th is Court impose the "core- c o n c e n tric c i r c l e " d is c o v e r y management p la n su ggested by P ro fe s s o r B r a z il.* However, P ro fesso r B r a z i l 's th e o rie s have y e t to be implemented in th e F ed eral R ules o f C i v i l Procedure and even he acknowledges th a t "not a l l kinds o f b ig cases are b e st managed i n th e same w ay ." B r a z i l , Im proving J u d i c i a l C o n tr o ls a t p. 906. In f a c t , t h i s approach i s in a p p ro p ria te f o r d i s c o v e ry on th e Government C o n tr a c t D e fe n se . F u rth e r, as P ro fesso r B ra zil p oin ts out, the core-con cen tric c ir c le approach imposes l i m i t a t i o n s on u n w illin g p a r t i e s t h a t c la s h w ith a t le a s t the s p ir it of the current d iscovery ru les. Professor B razil notes the "p oten tial tension" between th e c o r e approach and Rule 26 (w hich p e rm its d is c o v e r y "relevant to the su bject matter" as long as the discovery "ap pears reasonably c a lc u la te d to lead to the d isco ve ry o f admis s i b le e v id e n c e ," and which perm its th e use o f any d is c o v e ry de v ic e , in any sequence, su b ject to the p a r tie s ' r ig h t to seek a p r o t e c t iv e o rd er on motion f o r good c a u s e ). His c o n c lu sio n i s that: i t seems c le a r th a t the s p i r i t o f Rule 26 c o n te m p la te s a d is c o v e r y p r o c e s s in which the p a r tie s are fo r the most p a rt l e f t f r e e to determ ine in what o rd er and B r a z i l , Wayne D . , " im p ro v in g J u d g i c i a l C o n t r o l s Over The P r e t r i a l Development o f C i v i l A c tio n s : Model R ules f o r C ase Management And S a n c t i o n s , " 1981 A m erican Bar Foundation Research Journal, 875-965 (h erein a fter cite d as " B ra z il, Improving J u d ic ia l C o n tro ls"), c ite d at P l a i n t i f f s ' Memorandum p . 8 and d i s c u s s e d th r o u g h o u t . by what means th e y w i l l e x p lo r e the whole universe o f data th a t could lead to adm issible evidence. Id. at 910. Notwithstanding Professor B r a z il's suggestion th at t h e c o r e a p p ro a ch may be a p p r o p r i a t e , i t i s n o t p r e f e r a b l e h e r e .* G iven th e l a r g e number o f a g e n c ie s t h a t have knowl edge re le v a n t to the Government C o n tract Defense, the passage o f many y e a r s s i n c e th e o c c u r r e n c e o f c r i t i c a l e v e n t s , th e l o s s or d e s t r u c t i o n o f r e le v a n t documents, and th e u n a v a i la b i l i t y o f many im p o r ta n t w i t n e s s , t h i s c a s e p r o b a b ly p r e s e n t s the worst case fo r the core approach. The p l a i n t i f f s need not be concerned t h a t d e fe n d a n ts' plan, in th e ir judgment, is not the b e st p o ssib le plan. They can p u rs u e d i s c o v e r y i n any o t h e r manner t h e y may deem more a p p r o p r ia te . A f t e r a l l , d efen d a n ts have more a t sta k e than p la in t if f s i f , through in e ffic ie n t use of discovery, defendants are unprepared f o r t r i a l on the Government C o n tra ct Defense. Moreover, as Professor B r a z il him self m aintains, i t i s not the kind o f d is c o v e ry management p lan , but the Professor B r a z il's a r tic le is intended to support proposed changes in the current ru les governing discovery. While he su ggests th a t the core approach i s p r e fe ra b le i n some c a s e s , he a ck n o w led g es t h a t o t h e r a p p ro a ch es may be more a p p r o p r i a t e , d e p e n d in g on th e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , and t h a t , in any e v e n t, th e c u r r e n t r u le s g iv e th e p a r tie s a g re a t deal o f leeway. See i d . a t 906-911. -2 8 - Q EOr' " f i x i n g e a r l y and firm d a te s f o r th e com pletion o f t r i a l p r e p a r a tio n and f o r th e t r i a l i t s e l f [th a t] i s p ro b a b ly th e sin g le most e f f e c t iv e device thus fa r developed fo r encourag in g prompt and w e ll-fo c u s e d case developm ent." B r a z il, Imposing J u d ic ia l C o n tro ls, p. 917 (emphasis in o r ig in a l) . Of cou rse, Judge P r a tt has a lrea d y done t h i s , and, defendants r e s p e c t f u l l y su g g e s t t h a t th e b e s t way to p ro ceed w ith and com plete d is c o v e r y i s to g e t on w ith i t . R esp ectfu lly submitted, KELLEY DRYE & WARREN Attorneys fo r Defendant Hercules Incorporated 101 Park Avenue New Y o r k , New Y ork 10178 (212) 808-7800 RIVKIN, LEFF, SHERMAN & RADLER Attorneys fo r Defendant The Dow C h em ical Company 100 Garden C i t y P la z a Garden C i t y , New Y ork 11530 (516) 746-7500 CADWALADER, WICKERSHAM & TAFT Attorneys fo r Defendant Diamond Shamrock C o rp o ra tio n One W all S t r e e t New Y o rk , New Y ork 10005 (212) 908-7000 TOWNLEY & UPDIKE Attorneys fo r Defendant Monsanto Company 405 L e x in g to n Avenue New Y o rk , New Y ork 10174 (212) 682-4567 -2 9 - oQ acr D ated: New Y o rk , New Y ork December 20, 1982 CLARK, GAGLIARDI & MILLER Attorneys fo r Defendant T-H A g r ic u lt u r e & N u t r it io n Company 99 C o u r t S t r e e t W hite P l a i n s , New Y o rk 10601 (914) 946-8900 ARTHUR, DRY & KALISH, P .C . Attorneys fo r Defendant Uniroyal, Inc. 1230 Avenue o f the Americas New Y o rk , New York 10020 (212) 841-9300 BUDD, LARNER, KENT, GROSS, PICILL0 & ROSENBAUM Attorneys fo r Defendant Thompson Chem ical C o rp o ra tio n 33 W ashington S t r e e t Newark, New J e r s e y 07102 (201)622-7400 -3 0 - SERVICE LIST M arjorie Feldheim, Esq. R iv k in , L e f f , Sherman & R ad ler 100 Garden C i t y P la z a Garden C i t y , New Y ork 11530 Edwin Matthews, Esq. Budd, L a m e r , Kent, G ross, P i c i l l o & Rosenbaum 33 W ashington S t r e e t Newark, New J e r s e y 07102 Morton B. Silberm an, Esq.Clark, G agliardi & M iller The Inns o f Court 99 C o u rt S t r e e t W hite P l a i n s , New Y ork 10601 Howard L e s t e r , Esq. L e s t e r , Schwab, K a tz & Dwye 120 Broadway New Y o rk , New Y ork 10271 James T y r r e l l , Esq. Townley & Updike 405 L e x in g to n Avenue New Y o rk , New Y ork 10174 Paul V. E s p o s ito , Esq. L ew is, O verbeck & Furman 135 South L a S a lle S tr e e t S u it e 1060 C h ic a g o , I l i n o i s 60603 M ic h a e l M. Gordon, Esq. Cadwalader Wickersham & T a ft One W all S t r e e t New Y o rk , New Y o rk 10005 Clerk of the Panel Judicial Panel of M ultidistrict Litigation 1120 Vermont Avenue, N.W. S u i t e 1002 W ashington, D.C. 20005 Arvin Maskin, Esq. Department o f J u stice Sa few a y B u i l d i n g , Room 905D 521 1 2 t h S t . , N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 Hon. S o l S c h r e i b e r M ilberg Weiss Bershad & Specthrie One P e n n s y lv a n ia P l a z a New Y o rk , New Y ork 10119 Thomas A. Beck, Esq. Arthur, Dry & K alish , P.C. 1230 Avenue o f the Am ericas New Y o rk , New Y ork 10020 V icto r J. Yannacone, Jr. Yannacone & Yannacone P o st O f f i c e Drawer #109 P a tch o g u e , New York 11772 Irvin g Like 200 West Main S t r e e t P.O. Box 218 B a b y lo n , New Y o rk 11702  n tlj* 19m tr frtatre fflourt of ffiimmo TRIAL DIVISION No. 14-79 (Filed: July 28 1981) PALMETTO BANK v. THE UNITED STATES ) Government loan guarantee; ) prudent and reasonable banking ) practices to obtain adequate ) security; rescission for mate) rial misrepresentation. A. Camden Lewis, attorney of record, for plaintiff. William F. Austin and Barnes, Austin and Lightsey, of counsel. Lynn J. Bush, with whom was Assistant Attorney General Alice Daniel, for defendant. Mary K. Qsowski, Department of Agriculture, of counsel. OPINION* MEROW, Trial Judge: In this case, plaintiff claims i $177,956.53, plus interest, a sum alleged to be owed to it by defendant pursuant to a loan guarantee contract executed by the United States, acting through the United States De partment of Agriculture, Farmers Home Administration (FmHA), pursuant to the Emergency Livestock Credit Act of 1974, as amended (Pub. L. No. 93-357, July 25, 1974, 88 Stat. 391, * The opinion and conclusion of law are submitted in accordance with Rule 134(h). u ,c 2 Pub. L. No. 94-35, June 16, 1975, 89 Stat. 213) (Act). Upon the borrower's default under its loan with plaintiff, FmHA refused to honor its guarantee contract to pay 90 percent of the bank's loss. The basis for FmHA's refusal to perforin the contract with plaintiff was defendant's belief that plaintiff had failed to obtain adequate security and that the borrower had used some of the loan funds for un- 1/ authorized purposes. Defendant denies any liability to plaintiff, asserting that, as evidenced by the substantial difference between the appraised value of the security for the loan submitted during the guarantee application process and subsequent ap praisals of the same security obtained after the borrower's default, plaintiff failed to fulfill its responsibility to protect the government's interests pursuant to 7 C.F.R. 1845.15 (1976). Alternatively, defendant argues that, since both FmHA and the bank had a different understand ing of what real property was being mortgaged to secure the emergency livestock (EL) loan, there was no meeting 1_/ Defendant did not present any evidence at trial to support the FmHA's contention that the borrower had used loan funds for unauthorized purposes. .In its post trial brief, defendant stated it would not present any argument to press this issue before the court. There fore, it is concluded that the amount in question, $24,703.26, was expended for authorized purposes. Q^ 3 of minds and, hence, no enforceable contract of guarantee. Plaintiff, in response, relies upon the order issued by this court in Security State Bank v. United States, Ct. Cl. No. 489-78 (Nov. 2, 1979), in urging that diminished value of the loan security does not affect the enforce ability of the guarantee, since the bank determined the borrower's real property to be adequate security for the EL loan in accordance with "prudent and reasonable bank ing practices." For the reasons discussed below, it is concluded that a valid contract of guarantee exists between the parties under which plaintiff is entitled to compensa tion for 90 percent of its reported loss, plus interest. The borrower of the defaulted loan in issue was O-Double-T, Inc. (O-Double-T), a cattle ranching opera tion. In 1974, shortly after the Emergency Livestock Credit Act was passed, O-Double-T obtained a $200,000 EL loan from plaintiff. FmHA, the agency within the United States Department of Agriculture responsible ,for administering the Act, guaranteed 80 percent re payment of the $200,000 loan in the event of a loss. O-Double-T secured the EL loan with livestock and farm equipment. S54 4 In late 1975, Furman Ott, the president of O-Double-T, approached Dwight Patterson, a longtime business acquaintance and then president of Palmetto Bank, to discuss the feasi bility of obtaining a second EL loan for $250,000. Mr. Ott proposed to pay off the first EL loan, which was due shortly, with the proceeds of the second loan and use the remaining $50,000 for specific farm improvements. The FmHA repayment guarantee on the second EL loan would be increased from 80 percent to 90 percent, pursuant to the recent 1975 amend ments to the Act. Mr. Patterson relayed O-Double-T's pro posal to the local FmHA offices. The local FmHA officials, Clarence Rainey, the district supervisor, John Patterson, the Laurens County supervisor, and John Walker, chief of the FmHA farmer programs, con sidered O-Double-T's request and decided to approve a 90 percent guaranteed loan for $250,000 if the borrower would offer a second mortgage on its farm as security in addi tion to the livestock and farm equipment already offered as security. In particular, they requested a second mortgage on the real property the borrower had mortgaged to the Federal Land Bank (FLB) in Spartanburg, South Carolina, in 1974_ O-Double-T agreed to provide this additional security. Once this general accord was achieved, O-Double-T began to submit all the required forms. On or about January 2, 1976, O-Double-T submitted to the local FmHA 9545 5 office an application for guaranteed loan, the certificates of lender and loan applicant, the bank's note for $250,000 payable to O-Double-T, the real estate mortgage taken by the borrower on its farm property, and the necessary fi nancing statements. The application form indicated 0Double-T owned livestock valued at $250,000, farm equip ment valued at $129,000 and a farm consisting of 459 acres valued at $371,790. Mr. Patterson also submitted a re quest for contract of guarantee on the bank's behalf at 2/ the same time; the request listed the equity value of the borrower's real property at $200,000. Throughout the entire application process and until the EL loan went into default, FmHA misunderstood what real property the borrower had pledged as security for the loan. The local FmHA officials were aware that the Ott farm had been mortgaged to the FLB and wh#t property was included in that mortgage even before O-Double-T sub mitted its loan application. When these officials re quested the $250,000 EL loan be secured by the property mortgaged to FLB, they assumed that the security would include the entire farm, including the family residence, and that O-Double-T held title to all the property. Their understanding was not discouraged when they toured the 2/ Equity value is the difference between the value of the property and any prior liens on the property. 9546 6 Ott farm with Mr. Ott and did not observe any physical demarcation between the family residence and the rest of the farm. Neither was this understanding altered by their knowledge that the security offered only encompassed 459 acres since they believed this acreage represented the entire farm. Even both mortgages, the FLB mortgage and plaintiff's mortgage, seemed, at first glance, to support the agency's understanding since descriptions of the mortgaged property were identical. In fact, O-Double-T held title to 459 acres as re flected in its application for guaranteed loan, and Furman and Mildred Ott, as individuals, held title to the family dwelling and the 30 acres surrounding it. Although both mortgages have the identical property de scription, the mortgagors are different. The FLB mortgage lists "O-Double-T, Inc., Furman E. Ott and Mildred S. Ott" as the mortgagors and is signed by the Otts in both their corporate and individual capacity. Plain tiff's mortgage lists O-Double-T as the mortgagor and is executed by the Otts only in their corporate capacity. Also, the property, as described in the various appraisals obtained by the lenders, differs. An appraisal obtained for the FLB mortgage included 488.85 acres; plaintiff's O4 7 included 459 acres. The FLB mortgage appraisal included five farm buildings and a one-story rock constructed dwell ing with six rooms and an enclosed porch. Palmetto's mortgage appraisal included a dwelling and farm buildings, without further description. Mr. Patterson, plaintiff's representative throughout the loan application process, and Thomas Youngblood, the bank official charged with servicing O-Double-T's EL loan, were aware from the outset that the real property owned by O-Double-T did not include the Ott family residence and surrounding 30 acres, but they were not aware that FmHA did not realize this fact as well. The bank under stood FmHA's request for a second mortgage on the property mortgaged to FLB as directed only to that mortgaged property owned by the EL loan applicant, O-Double-T. Consequently, throughout the loan appli cation, FmHA personnel did not request, nor did the bank offer, any information regarding the acreage and precise description of the farm property mortgaged by O-Double-T to secure the 90 percent guaranteed loan. As a result of FmHA's misunderstanding,, the officials did not re quest a personal guarantee from the Otts to repay the loan made to O-Double-T. U 48 8 Once O-Double-T had agreed to mortgage its farm property to plaintiff as additional security for the $250,000 loan, plaintiff proceeded to comply with the remaining loan guar antee requirements. Pursuant to 7 C.F.R. 1845 (1976), plaintiff, as lender, was: * * * responsib[le] for seeing that proper and adequate security is obtained and maintained in existence and of record to protect the interests of the lender and FmHA * * *. To ensure that the property offered as security is adequate, the applicable regulations require that: Property that will serve as security for the loan must be appraised by a qualified ap praiser who is experienced in appraising the kind of property involved. (a) Qualifications of appraisers. The lender will be responsible for determining that appraisers have the necessary qualifi cations and experience to make the appraisals. If the lender has any questions in this regard, it should check with FmHA before having an ap praisal made. (b) Appraisal fees or charges. The lender must determine that the fees or charges are reasonable. (c) Appraisal reports. Real estate ap praisal reports will be made on forms approved by the lender based on at least two comparable sales. (7 C.F.R. 1845.18). Plaintiff asked Samuel Flemming to appraise O-Double-T's property. Mr. Flemming, a retired local farmer, was a self- taught appraiser who did most of the bank's appraisals for 9549 9 rural farm properties. Besides his appraisal work, Mr. 3/ Flemming served on the bank's board of directors. Mr. Flemming's appraisal of the property was based upon his own inspection of the farm in late 1975 or early 1976 and the two required comparable sales. His appraisal de scribed a 459 acre tract with 75 acres under cultivation, 300 acres of pasture land and 84 acres of timber. On the property he noted there was a dwelling, five barns and buildings, all of which were "frame and steel construc tion," and a grain bin. For the comparable sales he used two 1973 sales of local farm property, the Copeland, Stone & Wheeler property of 1,866.62 acres and the Rimer property of 1,076 acres. The Copeland property sold for $600/acre and the Rimer property sold for $557/acre. Mr. Flemming valued the O-Double-T acreage at $1,000/acre, or $459,000, because, in his opinion, it was "in much better shape" than either comparable sale. He valued the buildings at $120,000 and the grain bin at $6,000. His total appraisal value for the property was $585,000. In the spring of 1975, Furman Ott had, at his own cost, obtained an appraisal of the property by another local ap praiser, M. H. Hunter, Jr. Prior to the Flemming appraisal Mr. Ott had sent the Hunter appraisal to plaintiff. 3/ The record shows that Mr. Flemming also owned stock in the Palmetto Bank. There is no indication, however, of how much of its stock he held or how long he had owned it. n~ _ 9550 10 The Hunter appraisal, which contained no comparable sales, valued O-Double-T's property at $558,700. Plaintiff was also aware that FLB had appraised the entire Ott farm of 489 acres in 1974 before it approved the mortgage on the property. The manager of the Laurens County FLB office informed Mr. Patterson of the FLB appraisal value before the EL loan guarantee was approved, but did not forward a copy of it until sometime after the loan guarantee was granted. The FLB valued the entire property at $350,000 ($450/acre). When Mr. Patterson calculated the property's equity value, he used Flemming's appraisal value of $585,000. He had determined that Flemming's appraisal was reasonable in light of Flemming's past performance record with the bank and the proximity in valuation between Flemming's appraisal 4/ and Hunter's appraisal. After subtracting the balance owing on the FLB mortgage ($253,512) from $585,000, the equity value of O-Double-T's property was in excess of the $200,000 amount reflected on plaintiff's request for contract guarantee. The amount reported to FYnHA was in tentionally lower than necessary because the bank, as a 4/ It is uncertain what consideration, if any, Mr. Patterson gave to the FLB appraisal value of $350,000 for the entire farm. When questioned about it at trial by de fendant's counsel, Mr. Patterson responded that, by the time the information had been received, "we had our own appraisal" and "[w]e were satisfied with our appraisal." OOr*Jcr i1 practice, "never lend[s] the full value of * * * the equity appraisal. * * * It's always a percentage, usually 75 to 80 percent. * * *" Plaintiff believed that the $200,000 equity value on O-Double-T's property, when added to the livestock and farm equipment FmHA had approved earlier as security for the first $200,000 EL loan, would provide adequate security for an increased EL guaranteed loan of $250,000. The local FmHA officials, in accordance with FmHA's policy and practice, totally relied upon the lender; they did not question the accuracy of Flemming's ap praisal and they did not perform their own appraisal of the property during the application process. Once O-Double-T had given a second mortgage on its prop erty to plaintiff as additional security for the guar anteed loan, the FmHA officials believed the loan was adequately secured. On March 1, 1976, several months after having received O-Double-T's application, the local FmHA director signed a contract of guarantee. The contract promised that FmHA would pay 90 percent of the: * * * difference between the total amount of principal and interest owed on any Emergency Livestock loan advances * * * and the then current market value of loan security less the amount owed on any prior liens. * * * 12 After the contract had been signed, the FmHA county supervisor directed plaintiff to release the entire $250,000 for 0-Double-T's use: $200,000 was used to satisfy O-DoubleT's first EL loan and $50,000 was deposited in 0-Double-T's checking account with plaintiff. On January 21, 1977, shortly after the first loan pay ment had come due, the loan went into default and a liquida tion of the loan's security was begun. The proceeds from the sale of the borrower's cattle and farm equipment totalled $96,539.95. This sum was applied against the loan. An auction held to sell the real property resulted in a "no sale" when the highest bid received, $550/acre, was refused by O-Double-T since the proceeds would have been insufficent to satisfy the outstanding balance on the first mortgage held by FLB. FmHA, concerned by the drastically reduced market value of 0-Double-T's property, decided to investigate local farm property values and particularly to have the O-Double-T property reappraised. Ralph Moore, a FmHA farmer program specialist, appraised the Ott property twice. The first appraisal, made in the spring of 1977, included 489 acres and the family residence. It valued the property at $325,000. The second appraisal, made in 1978, after sub stantial correspondence had passed between the parties, Qerirj (oj 13 appraised only the 459 acres owned by O-Double-T at 5/ $211,140. Between June 1, 1977 and May 25, 1978, plaintiff filed no less than four "Report of Loss" statements with FmHA. FmHA consistently reported that, in its opinion, the March 1, 1976 contract of guarantee was unenforceable be cause loan funds had been used for unauthorized purposes and plaintiff had failed to obtain the required security. On one occasion, it also alleged that the property expected as security had not, in fact, been secured. Plaintiff ap pealed two of the state FmHA's rejections of its loss claim to the FmHA administrator in late 1977. The administrator's response, issued in early 1978, determined that only the 459 acres owned by O-Double-T would be valued and applied against the loss claim. He also stated that FmHA would not reim burse plaintiff for losses due to the bank's alleged failure to obtain the required security. "Loss" was defined as the "difference between the present value of real estate and the value that FmHA relied upon in issuing the guarantee," or "at least $453,512," the sum of the outstanding balance of the FLB mortgage at the time of O-Double-T Vs application plus the 5/ A substantial portion of the difference between Moore^s two appraisal values can be attributed to the damage the property sustained when it was struck by a storm which occurred during the intervening period. <QsJ cr o 5 4 14 $200,000 equity value of the property reported by plaintiff in its request for contract guarantee. He requested that plaintiff submit another amended report of loss. In the aftermath of the administrator's decision, both parties negotiated and agreed upon a market value of $262,000 for O-Double-T's 459 acres. Plaintiff also at tempted to comply with the FmHA administrator's directives 6/ in its third and fourth "Report of Loss" statements. Yet, despite these changes, FmHA continued to deny plaintiff's loss claim on the ground that the contract of guarantee was unenforceable. When FmHA denied plaintiff's last "Report of Loss" statement filed on or about May 25, 1978, plain tiff filed its claim for breach of contract against the United States in this court. To date, no amount of the claim has been paid to plaintiff. The ultimate question this court must resolve is whether plaintiff's contract of guarantee is enforceable. If so, defendant must compensate plaintiff for 90 percent of the losses incurred as a result of O-Double-T's default. 6/ In plaintiff's third "Report of Loss" it elimi nated from the unpaid loan balance the amount of loan funds allegedly used for unauthorized purposes and listed as the fair market value of the security real property the amount agreed upon by the parties. In plaintiff's fourth "Report of Loss" it still continued to value the real property at $262,000, the amount agreed upon by the parties. 15 Defendant does not deny that plaintiff submitted, in a timely fashion, all the forms required by FmHA to obtain an EL loan guarantee. Nor does the government deny that, on March 1, 1976, FmHA entered into a contract of guarantee with plaintiff for the $250,000 EL loan plaintiff gave to 0-Double-T. FmHA also does not accuse plaintiff of negli gently servicing the loan before default or during the liquidation process. But the government does dispute the enforceability of the guarantee by challenging the ade quacy of the loan's security and the level of care the bank exercised in obtaining it. In doing so, it relies exclusively upon the dramatic decline in the value of the loan's real property security as the basis for its case in chief. This one fact alone, it asserts, is dis positive in establishing that plaintiff was negligent in the exercise of its duty of care, that plaintiff failed to discharge a condition precedent of the contract of guar antee, and that plaintiff was negligent in misrepresenting a material fact. To find a party negligent, and liable for such negli gence, it must first be established that the negligent party QK Kp 16 owed a duty of care to the one injured.' First American Bank, Henrietta v. SBA, 429 F.2d 280, 286 (5th Cir. 1970). In usual guaranty arrangements, the creditor is not a party to the guaranty contract and therefore owes no duty of care to the guarantor other than to abstain from fraudulent con7/ duct. Id. at 287. The regulations governing FmHA's EL line of credit guarantees, contained in 7 C.F.R. 1845, attempt to delineate the responsibilities of both the lender and FmHA regarding security. At the outset, the regulations require that the security "must be adequate, in the opinion of the lender and FmHA, to assure repayment of each EL loan advance" (7 C.F.R. 1845.14(d) (emphasis added)). However, it is the "lender" who is: * * * responsible for seeing that proper and adequate security is obtained and maintained in existence and of record to protect the interests of the lender and FmHA. (7 C.F.R. 1845.15). Failure to obtain the "required security" renders the contract of guarantee unenforceable to the extent such 7/ The government has not alleged, either at trial or in its briefs, that plaintiff engaged in any manner of fraudulent activities in connection with the guarantee in issue. Therefore, it need not be discussed in this opin ion. Qi /eur e j r ?j 17 failure is responsible for any loss. 7 C.F.R. 1845.13(c). FmHA's responsibility regarding the guaranty's collateral is described as a "Condition precedent to issuance of Con tract of Guarantee." It states, in pertinent part, that FmHA officials must: evaluate the material submitted and obtain any other information it deems necessary to deter mine : (1) Whether the applicant appears to be eligible; loan funds have been or will be used for authorized purposes only; the amount of the loan, interest rate, repayment period and schedule, insurance requirements, plan of opera tions, line of credit agreement, any appraisal or other authorizes fees or charges, and any late payment charges appear to be satisfactory; the loan appears to be sound; the lender plans to service the loan properly; and there is a reasonable probability of accomplishing the loan purposes and collection of the loan. (7 C.F.R. 1845.26(a)(1) (emphasis added)). In an earlier case, Security State Bank v. United States, Ct. Cl. No. 489-78 (order of Nov. 2, 1979), the government had relied upon only 1845.13(c) and 1845.15 to support its position that a guarantee was unenforceable against FmHA where the lender had failed to obtain and maintain security adequate to cover the amount of in debtedness, "whether or not culpably." This court, in its order denying the government's motion for summary judg ment, rejected defendant's interpretation as "untenable." Instead, the court found the language of 1845.15: iUcr>Ucr 18 * * * is su scep tib le to the in terp reta tio n th a t the req u ired s e c u r it y is to be ob t a i n e d and m a i n t a i n e d a c c o r d i n g to p r u d e n t and r e a s o n a b l e b a n k in g p r a c t i c e , and we do so con stru e i t . I t i s not f a i r l y to be construed as requiring the lender to warranty defendant that the secu rity is adequate. 8/ (Slip op. at 4, emphasis added). Under the principles set. forth in Security State Bank, supra, whether Palmetto Bank failed to obtain and maintain the required security for the loan depends upon whether Palmetto had determined the adequacy of the collateral in accordance with "prudent and reasonable banking practice[s]." In Security State Bank, supra, the government's adequate security argument was characterized as "in the nature of 8/ Clearly, there are similarities between Security State Bank, supra, and the case at bar. Security Bank had sought a FmHA EL guarantee of $115,000 for the loan which it intended to provide to a cattle rancher who had de veloped a good banking relationship with the bank over the years. The rancher's cattle, the loan security, were counted by the bank on several occasions, at least one time with the help of a FmHA official, before the guarantee was approved. FmHA' made no independent inquiry to verify the ownership or the number of cattle offered as loan security, even when its employee participated in examining the animals. When the rancher defaulted, the bank took posses sion of the cattle and attempted to sell them. All of the cattle, however, did not belong to the debtor and, as a re sult, the sale proceeds were insufficient to cover the loss on the loan. When the bank submitted a loss claim for 90 percent of its loss on the loan, FmHA denied all liability on the ground that the bank had not obtained and maintained security roughly equivalent to the amount of the loan. Security State Bank, supra, to the extent applicable to the facts of the instant case, constitutes controlling precedent. See Northern Helex Co. v. United States, 225 Ct. Cl. ___, 634 F.2d 557 (1980). 9559 19 an affirmative defense." Accordingly, it is concluded that, to prevail in its position that the guarantee is not enforce able, defendant would have had to establish that plaintiff did not conclude the loan was adequately secured in accordance with "prudent and reasonable banking practice." Defendant has not accomplished this requirement. Plaintiff discussed O-Double-T's request for an increased loan with local FmHA officials and was told a guarantee would be forthcoming if the borrower's real property was offered as security. In accordance with the applicable regulations, plaintiff had an appraisal made of the borrower's real estate. The appraiser chosen to make the valuation was someone the bank had used regularly to appraise local rural prop erty and whose work product had been relied upon consis- 9/ tently without incident. 9/ Given the adverse consequences to Palmetto in the event of a failure to secure adequate security, Mr. Flemming's service upon the bank's board of directors and ownership of Palmetto Bank stock is hot considered, in this case, to support any conclusion that his use as an appraiser by Palmetto was not a prudent practice. His position with the bank and his ownership interest would logically indicate that he would be more concerned than an independent appraiser might have been in valuing the property accurately to ensure the bank's interests were sufficiently protected. 9560 20 Plaintiff compared its appraiser's report with an appraisal of the same property performed during the same time period by another reputable local appraiser whose valuation of the property was close to the amount reached by the bank's appraiser. It must be noted that this other appraisal contained no comparable sales and was performed at the borrower's request and expense. Nevertheless, plain tiff did not report the full equity value established by its appraisal, but discounted it to $200,000 in accord with its practice of lending only a percentage (usually 75 to 80 percent) of equity value. In the instant case, the loan was only some 60 percent of the appraisal equity value. The record establishes that plaintiff reasonably believed that the borrower's real property, albeit at a much lower equity value, plus the livestock and farming 10/ equipment already serving as security, would adequate ly protect both its own interest and that of FmHA. 10/ It should be noted that at no time during the proceedings did the government question the significant r? er Zj \J - 21 - Conversely, defendant argues that plaintiff failed to exercise reasonable care and due diligence when it sub mitted the appraisal performed by Mr. Flemming to FmHA and represented to FmHA that the additional security of real property adequately protected all interests. As 11/ noted earlier, the basis for this conclusion is the dramatic difference between the property's appraised value before the loan guarantee was approved and its ap praised value after the borrower's default, at a time when the government's expert witness insisted local farm land values were not fluctuating significantly. In particular, defendant relies upon the bank's president's 10/ (cont'd) discrepancy between the valuation of the livestock and farming equipment during the application process and its actual resale value upon liquidation as part of its argu ment concerning plaintiff's failure to obtain the required security. The borrower valued this security at $379,000 in its application for a loan guarantee. Plaintiff, in its request for contract guarantee, valued this property at $173,000. Upon liquidation, the security yielded only $96,539.95, all of which was applied against the out standing principal balance of the loan. Upon first im pression, it would appear that the significantly lower market value of the borrower's personal property equally contributed to the loss plaintiff incurred on the EL loan. 11/ See pp. 2, 12, supra. OClCO O <U U h j \i\iniuu 22 supposed knowledge of local farmland values and his knowledge of the FLB appraisal of the entire Ott farm, valuing it at $350,000 in 1974, to support its contention that plaintiff knew or should have known that O-Double-T's property was only worth approximately one half of its appraised value. Defendant's analysis of these two factors warrants scru tiny. The record reflects Mr. Patterson's knowledge of local farmland values amounted to a combination of a "general sense" of the "average values" in the community after 48 years of working in Laurens County and "using common sense." Reliance on his common knowledge of local property can be inferred from his decision to accept a higher value for the property in light of rising real estate prices, but then to reduce the equity value more than the usual 20-25 percent reduction to guard against over-inflation. The significance which defendant argues Mr. Patterson should have attached to the FLB appraisal is undermined by de fendant's own evidence. The government's expert witness, Philip Adams, testified that the USDA index of farm real estate for South Carolina reflects an upward trend in property values from March 1976, when the guarantee was approved, to 1978. In fact, the index, which was admitted into evidence, shows a significant upward trend in property values beginning in November 1973. Yet, despite this upward trend, FmHA's ap praisal of the entire Ott Farm performed in March 1977 is u - 23 - $25,000 less than the FLB appraisal performed three years earlier in February 1974. The disparity between the two government appraisals clearly demonstrates that, in the final analysis, an appraisal report is simply the author's opinion. In hindsight, it is apparent that the Flemming ap praisal was wrong and that O-Double-T's property was not worth $1,000/acre. If, when submitted, plaintiff knew or should have known it was inaccurate but still relied upon it in determining the adequacy of the required security, then it failed in its duty to exercise prudent and reason able banking practices. Plaintiff has presented a prima facie case by establishing that it took all normal banking precautions in evaluating the borrower's application and other required papers and that FmHA approved and signed the contract of guarantee. United States v. Irby, 517 F.2d 1042, 1043 (5th Cir. 1975); Southern Glass & Builders Supply Co. v. United States, 398 F.2d 109, 110 (5th Cir. 1968). Defendant's evidence of plaintiff's "general knowledge" of local property values and the two-year-old FLB appraisal report is not deemed to be sufficient to carry its burden of proof when considered in light of its own responsibility to evaluate each applicant's property appraisals and its special relationship with the FLB. 958 24 Both the applicable regulations and Security State Bank, supra, make clear that plaintiff owed a duty of care to FmHA in the handling of EL loan applications. In fact, the expecta tion that lenders will use reasonable care in conducting such in quiries appears to be a routine obligation in most federal guar antee programs. See American Bank of San Antonio v. United States, Ct. Cl. No. 569-77 (slip op. of July 16, 1980) (federal insured student loan program); Tree Farm Development Corp. v. United States, 218 Ct. Cl. ___, 585 F.2d 493 (1978) (the New Com munity Development Corporation's loan guarantee program). However, the standard of due care required, or the degree of reasonableness involved, depends directly upon the gov ernment's access to the material facts involved in each transaction. The greater the government's need to rely upon the lender's representations, the higher the standard of care to which the lender will be held. In First National Bank, Henrietta, supra, 429 F.2d at 288, an action against SBA to enforce a small business loan guarantee, the court considered the question of the guarantor's reliance on the lender in determining whether the lender breached its duty of care. The factors the court 9585 25 considered relevant to its determination that the bank had failed to use reasonable care in providing necessary in formation to the government were that plaintiff was the only party in "proximity to local affairs," the only party with access to records which could reflect upon the soundness of the loan, and was aware that SBA was relying upon its busi ness judgment. Id. As in First National Bank, Henrietta, supra, a de termination of whether the lender failed to exercise reasonable care and whether the lender misrepresented to the government a material fact is also dependent, in large part, upon whether defendant's reliance was justified. In the case at bar, defendant has repeatedly stated that FmHA relied exclusively upon plaintiff's representations regard ing the adequacy of the security in determining whether to enter into the contract of guarantee. Generally, total reliance upon one party's represen tations is not justified when knowledge of the material facts are equally available to both parties. 12 Williston, Contracts 151B, pp. 490-91. See also Andrus v. St. Louis Smelting Co., 130 U.S. 643, 647 (1889). In the context of government contract litigation, this principle has been S5S5 26 integrated into the superior knowledge doctrine and applied in mistake-in-bid cases. The superior knowledge doctrine, set forth in Helene Curtis v. United States, 160 Ct. Cl. 437, 312 F.2d 774 (1963), provides that a contractor may prevail against the government if it can be established that the agency involved intentionally withheld superior knowledge from the contractor which the contractor could not be expected to obtain from other sources. The con tractor may not prevail, however, "if the contractor can reasonably be expected to seek and obtain the facts else where." H. N. Bailey & Assoc, v. United States, 196 Ct. Cl. 166, 178, 449 F.2d 376, 383 (1971). The government's "duty to advise * * * does not arise where the information is equally available to [the contractor]" (emphasis added). Donald M. Drake C o . v. United States, 194 Ct. Cl. 549, 555, 439 F.2d 169, 172 (1971). See also, Ambrose-Augusterfer Corp. v. United States, 184 Ct. Cl. 18, 38, 394 F.2d 536, 547 (1968); T. F. Scholes, Inc, v. United States, 174 Ct. Cl. 1215, 1226, 357 F.2d 963, 970 (1966); National Concrete and Foundation Co. v. United States, 170 Ct. Cl. 470, 476 (1965); Leal v. United States, 149 Ct. Cl. 451, 460, 276 F.2d 378, 383 (1960). 27 The contractor's actual knowledge is irrelevant; con structive knowledge is sufficient to eliminate the govern ment's obligation to inform the contractor if the con tractor is not disabled from obtaining the same or more complete information on the subject. Aerojet-General Corp. v. United States, 199 Ct. Cl. 422, 434, 467 F.2d 1293, 1301 (1972). Likewise, in mistake-in-bid cases, it has been held a contractor may recover if the responsible government officials "knew or should have known of the mistake at the time the bid was accepted." Wender Presses, Inc, v. United States, 170 Ct. Cl. 483, 485, 343 F.2d 961 (1965), and cases cited therein. To determine what responsible officials "should have known," the test requires only that the gov ernment officials have access to "enough" data to raise the "presumption of error" in their minds and invoke their duty to make inquiry. It does not require the government know with certainty all the necessary de tails. Wender Presses, supra, 170 Ct. Cl. at 486; Michel Chernick v. United States, 178 Ct. Cl. 498, 504, 372 F.2d 492, 496 (1967). The r e g u l a t i o n s i m p l e m e n t i n g t h e EL g u a r a n t e e program im p o s e upon FmHA a d u t y to e v a l u a t e e a c h a p p l i c a t i o n and i t s r e q u i r e d e n c l o s u r e s and t o make f u r t h e r i n q u i r i e s , i f n ecessary, to determine whether the accompanying ap p raisals a-J- 39 a dweLling and five barns and buildings; it describes the dwelling as an occupied one-story rock building with six rooms, three of which were bedrooms and an enclosed porch. The appraisal plaintiff had conducted and submitted to the FmHA officials included only 459 acres. It listed a dwell ing and five barns and buildings as constructed on the property. That portion of the appraisal asking the number of rooms, number of baths and type of heating system of dwellings was left blank. Nowhere on the form was a residential dwelling of the type described in the FLB appraisal mentioned. 11. Actually, O-Double-T holds title to 459 acres and Furman and Mildred Ott, as individuals, hold title to the family residence and 30 acres surrounding it. 12. Dwight Patterson, the bank's president, was aware from the beginning of the loan application process that the property owned by O-Double-T did not include either the family residence or the surrounding 30 acres, and that this property was owned by the Otts, as individuals. Having this knowledge, he understood the FmHA request for a second mortgage on the real property originally mortgaged to FLB as directed only to that property included in the FLB mortgage which was owned by the named borrower of the 90 percent guaranteed loan--0-Double-T. 13. Bank officials, particularly Mr. Patterson and Thomas Youngblood, were unaware of FmHA's expectation that the entire Ott farm would be mortgaged as security for the 90 percent guaranteed loan in addition to the livestock and farm equipment. 14. As a result of this misunderstanding, during the entire loan application process, the bank did not advise FmHA officials of the extent and the precise acreage of the farm property O-Double-T had mortgaged to secure the EL loan. Likewise, the FmHA officials, unaware of their misunderstanding, never inquired of either plaintiff or the Otts whether the property mortgaged included the family residence and all of the land surrounding it. As a result of this misunderstaning, FmHA officials considered the $250,000 loan was adequately secured and did not require a personal guarantee of repayment by the Otts. Repayment of the first 80 percent guaranteed loan was also not per sonally guaranteed by the Otts, despite the apparent lack 40 1/ of adequate security. 15. After O-Double-T had agreed to comply with FmHA's request to secure the guaranteed loan with a second mortgage on the property mortgaged to FLB, plaintiff proceeded to have the real estate appraised pursuant to the require ments of 7 C.F.R. 1845 (1976). Section 1845.15 square ly places on the lender the "responsibility for seeing that proper and adequate security is obtained and maintained in existence and of record to protect the interests of the lender and FmHA." To ensure the security is adequate, 1845.18 requires the lender to have the property ap praised as follows: Property that will serve as security for the loan must be appraised by a qualified appraiser who is experienced in appraising the kind of property involved. (a) Qualifications of appraisers. The lender will be responsible for determining that appraisers have the necessary qualifications and experience to make the appraisals. If the iender has any questions in this regard, it should check with FmHA before having an appraisal made. (b) Appraisal fees or charges. The lender must determine that the fees or charges are reasonable. (c) Appraisal reports. Real estate appraisal reports will be made on forms approved by the lender based on at least two comparable sales. As the regulation makes clear, the bank is responsible for ensuring an appropriate appraisal is performed. 16. The bank chose Samuel Flemming to perform the ap praisal. Mr. Flemming was a retired farmer with no formal appraisal training. However, since approximately 1950 he had been appraising rural farm properties for state au thorities, the FmHA, and banks. Most of his appraising work has been done for the plaintiff, Palmetto Bank. At the same time, Mr. Flemming served as a member of plain tiff's board of directors and owned stock in the bank. ]_/ See finding 3. 3570 - 41 - 17. Mr. Flemming personally examined the 459 acres of the Ott farm in late 1975 or-early 1976 and submitted his appraisal to plaintiff around the first part of 1976. It described the acreage as 75 acres under cultivation, 300 acres in pasture land, and 84 acres in timber land. As required, he included two comparable sales. These were the Copeland, Stone & Wheeler property of 1,866.62 acres, sold on November 19, 1973 for $1,119,972 ($600/acre), and the Rimer property of 1,076 acres which sold for $599,500 on May 24, 1973 ($557/acre). In his opinion, the Ott farm was "in much better shape" than either of these two prop erties; in fact, he considered it was one of the "best farm lands that [he] had ever been on." Based upon the information gathered from these sales and his personal examination, Mr. Flemming valued the tenant house and barns on the property at $120,000, valued the grain bin on the property at $6,000, and valued the 459 acres at $459,000 ($1,000/acre), for a total value of $585,000. 18. When plaintiff received Mr. Flemming's ap praisal, Mr. Patterson, the bank's president, compared it with another appraisal of the property performed in the spring of 1975 by M. H. Hunter, Jr., another wellknown appraiser, at Mr. Ott's request and cost. Mr. Hunter's appraisal valued the same 459 acres, including the buildings contained thereon, at $558,700. The ap praisal, however, contained no comparable sales. 19. In considering the Flemming appraisal, Mr. Patterson was also aware that the Ott farm had been appraised in 1974 by the FLB before it approved the first mortgage on the property. The manager of the FLB's Laurens office informed Mr. Patterson of the appraised value of the property, without any further details, before the guaranteed loan had been approved. Mr. Patterson did not receive a copy of this appraisal until after the loan had been approved. The 1974 FLB appraisal valued the entire Ott (O-Double-T) farm of 489 acres at $350,000 ($450/acre). 20. The proximity in value of the Hunter appraisal to the Flemming appraisal, coupled with Mr. Patterson's own sense of local farmland values, led him to be lieve the appraisal had been performed satisfactorily and the value was a fairly accurate approximation of the property's market value. 21. The plaintiff bank then calculated equity value of the Ott farm, the amount available as security for a loan after subtracting prior liens from the market value of the property. It subtracted $253,512, the amount owing on 42 the FLB mortgage at the time of the guaranteed loan appli cation, from the appraised value of the property by Mr. Flemming, $585,000, and then reduced this amount by approxi mately 40 percent to get an equity value of $200,000 against which the bank would lend. The bank.had reduced the equity value of the Flemming appraisal in accordance with its practice "never [to] lend the full value of * * * the equity appraisal." It "always" reduced an appraisal by 15 to 20 per cent. This value was reported to FmHA by the bank and FmHA officials understood the figure to represent the bank's "stat[ement] that they were going to provide a security in the form of real estate equity of $200,000." 22. Based upon the Flemming appraisal of the 0Double-T property, plaintiff believed it had obtained . adequate security for the larger EL guaranteed loan re quested by O-Double-T. 23. The FmHA officials involved also considered the real estate value of O-Double-T's farm, as represented by the Flemming appraisal and plaintiff's request for contract guarantee was adequate security for the loan. In accordance with FmHA's policy and practice, it did not question the ac curacy of the appraisal submitted by the lender bank and it did not perform its own appraisal of the O-Double-T property. 24. After holding O-Double-T's loan application for approximately three to four months, FmHA approved the loan guarantee. On March 1, 1976, Clarence Rainey, the FmHA district director for Laurens County, signed a "Contract of Guarantee" with plaintiff which stated: In consideration of making loan advance(s) by the Lender within the line of credit ceiling pursuant to the Line of Credit Agreement, the United States of America acting through the Farmers Home Administration of the United States Department of Agriculture (herein called "FmHA"), pursuant to the Emergency Livestock Credit Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-357), as amended, does hereby agree that * * * it will pay to the Lender who holds the note(s) for said advance(s) (or as sumption agreement) covered by this contract: a. Ninety percent of the difference between the total amount of principal and interest owed on any Emergency Livestock loan advances * * * and the then current market value of loan securi ty less the amount owed on any prior liens deter mined at the time a decision is made by the lender or FmHA that action * * * is necessary for collec tion of the loan(s) under the terms of the security instruments and this Contract of Guarantee. * * * ^^72 - 43 - 25. Once the loan guarantee was approved, John Patterson, FmHA county supervisor, instructed plaintiff to disburse the funds to O-Double-T. Plaintiff, at O-DoubleT 's request, used $200,000 of the proceeds to satisfy 0Double-T's first FmHA guaranteed loan obligation and de posited the remaining $50,000 into O-Double-T's checking account at the Palmetto Bank. 26. The borrower was to repay the loan in seven annual payments of $35,714.29 plus accrued interest on January 2 of each year. 27. On or about January 21, 1977, the loan went into default and the liquidation of the borrower's security was commenced. 28. The cattle owned by O-Double-T were sold for $31,679.95; the sale of farm equipment yielded $61,860 and in May 1976 another piece of equipment was sold for $3,000. The proceeds, totalling $96,539.95, were applied against the loan. 29. An auction held to sell the real property re sulted in a "no sale" inasmuch as the highest price of fered, $252,450 ($550/acre), was insufficient to satisfy the amount still owing on the first mortgage to FLB. The "no sale" decision was made by Furman Ott, as presi dent of O-Double-T. 30. The real property involved was still owned by O-Double-T at the time of trial; it had not as yet been sold. 31. Shortly after the "no sale" auction, plaintiff requested the Laurens Board of Realtors perform a second appraisal of the O-Double-T property for the purpose of completing the "Report of Loss" statement required by FmHA before it fulfilled its payment guarantee to the lender. 32. FmHA also proceeded to have the property re appraised and an investigation conducted to determine whether farm property values had deteriorated measurably since FmHA had signed the contract of guarantee in March 1976. John Walker, FmHA chief of farmer programs, asked Ralph Moore, a farmer program specialist, to do a market value appraisal of the Ott (O-Double-T) property. Mr. Moore performed two appraisals. The first appraisal, performed in the spring of 1977, involved 489 acres, 3573 44 including the family dwelling and the 30 acres surrounding it, and valued the property at $325,000 ($435/acre). The second appraisal, performed in 1978, included 459 acres and valued the property, as of that time, at $211,140 ($430/acre). During the intervening period between appraisals, a storm had severely damaged the property. In Moore's opinion, farm property values in the area had not drastically changed be tween 1974 and 1978. 33. In conducting both appraisals, Mr. Moore, a formal ly trained farm real estate appraiser, utilized normal ap praisal procedures. He obtained plats and aerial maps of the property, personally inspected the property, and searched for the most recent local comparable sales and made appro priate adjustments. 34. The first "Report of Loss" statement submitted by plaintiff to FmHA on or about June 1, 1977 valued the real property owned by the borrower at $325,000. 35. Plaintiff's second "Report of Loss" statement submitted to FmHA on or about June 17, 1977 valued the same real property owned by Q-Double-T at $222,500. 36. On July 14, 1977, the FmHA South Carolina state office informed plaintiff that, after reviewing its June 17, 1977 "Report of Loss," "it is our determination that the aforesaid June 17, 1977 'Report of Loss,' as submitted, does not represent a loss covered by the March 1, 1976 Contract of Guarantee, and thus, is not enforceable." The basis for this conclusion was FmHA's belief that "the loan funds were apparently not used for planned purposes" and that the "property listed on the Appraisal and on the Request for Contract of Guarantee as an in ducement for the United States to execute a Contract of Guarantee * * * was not secured." 37. The FmHA twice reiterated its position that the contract of guarantee of March 1, 1976 was unenforce able. The first time, on September 8, 1977, was in re sponse to a letter from plaintiff to the FmHA; the second time, on September 21, 1977, was in response to a meeting held on September 16, 1977, at plaintiff's request. 38. On November 3, 1977, plaintiff appealed the state FmHA office's rejection of plaintiff's loss claim regarding O-Double-T to the FmHA administrator, Gordon Cavanaugh. q ^-7 45 39. On January 17, 1978 Mr. Cavanaugh responded to plaintiff's appeal. He decided that the loss claim would be based upon the market value of the 459 acres owned by O-Double-T, as agreed upon by plaintiff and the FmHA. He also determined that: FmHA must deny partial liability for any loss caused by unauthorized use of loan funds and losses resulting from the bank's failure to obtain the required security. The measure of the amount of unobtained security was to be determined, according to Mr. Cavanaugh, by the "difference between the present value of the real estate and the value that FmHA relied upon in issuing the guarantee," after con sidering market trends and allowing for ordinary wear and tear on the property. Mr. Cavanaugh calculated the value FmHA relied upon in issuing the guarantee as "at least $453,512." This figure represents the amount of the FLB mortgage, $253,512, plus the $200,000 equity value plain tiff reported in its request for contract of guarantee. Mr. Cavanaugh concluded his letter by requesting plain tiff submit a "revised" "Report of Loss" which comported with his above instructions. 40. Plaintiff and FmHA, after some negotiation, agreed upon a market value of $262,000 for the 459 acres owned by O-Double-T. 41. Shortly thereafter, on April 25, 1978, plain tiff submitted the requested amended "Report of Loss." This report reflected the value of the real property as $262,000 and eliminated $24,703.26, the amount of loan fund the FmHA had alleged was used for "unauthorized purposes" from the loss claim. The report stated FmHA owed $150,860.13 to plaintiff under the terms of the guarantee. 42. By letter dated May 5, 1978, the state FmHA office, after considering plaintiff's third "Report of Loss," denied plaintiff loss claim of $150,860.13. The basis for the denial was stated as follows: [I]t is our opinion the revised Report of Loss as submitted does not represent a loss covered by the March 1, 1976, Contract of Guarantee and, thus, is not enforceable in that Farmers Home Administration does not have the respon sibility to pay for any loss resulting 9575 46 from failure of a lender to obtain security for the value stated in the appraisal of the Request for Contract of Guarantee. 2/ 43. As noted earlier, 7 C.F.R. 1845.15 (1976) con fers upon the lender the responsibility to obtain and main tain adequate security for the guaranteed loan. Section 1845.26 of the applicable regulations, entitled "Conditions precedent to issuance of Contract of Guarantee," however, makes it incumbent upon the FmHA to "evaluate the material submitted and obtain any other information it deems neces sary to determine "* * * [wjhether * * * any appraisal or other authorized fee or charges * * * appear to be satis factory." 44. FmHA was aware that the FLB held the first mortgage on the property owned by O-Double-T and the FLB's pattern and practice to have an appraisal of property per formed before it would approve any mortgage. In fact, the FLB did have the 489 acres belonging to both O.-Double-T and the Otts appraised in 1974. The FLB, a cooperative bank now funded by private sources, is supervised by the Farm Credit Administration, an independent agency of the executive branch of the United States government. As such, FmHA has entered into an agreement with the FLB whereby any and all FLB appraisal reports are made available to FmHA upon its request. Despite this arrangement, at no time prior to O-Double-T's default on the guaranteed loan did any involved FmHA official request a copy of the 1974 FLB appraisal of the Ott farm. 45. On May 25, 1978, plaintiff filed its last "cor rected" "Report of Loss" which shows FmHA owing $177,956.53 to the plaintiff under the terms of the guarantee as of that date. Plaintiff computed this figure as follows: (a) it subtracted from the unpaid principal balance, $250,000, the gross proceeds generated by the cattle and equipment sales, $96,539.95, which resulted in the out standing unpaid balance on the loan of $153,460.05; (b) it then added to this figure the accrued interest owing on the loan for the period January 1, 1976 through May 25, 1979, $44,269.42, to get the subtotal amount of J?197,729.47; (c) to this figure it added the outstanding balance owing on the FLB mortgage, $279,958.12, to get $477,687.59; (d) then the agreed upon value.of the O-Double-T property, $262,000, was subtracted from $477,687.59 to get the basic loss of $197,729.47. The figure $177,956.53 is 2/ See finding 15. 9578 47 90 percent (the amount of the FmHA guarantee) of the basic loss amount, $197,729.47. 46. Plaintiff is charging defendant a 9 percent rate of interest per year on the outstanding unpaid principal balance on the loan of $153,460.05. The daily rate of interest is $38.37. 47. Plaintiff has requested FmHA pay it the $177,956.53, plus interest, reflected in its May 25, 1978 "Report of Loss" pursuant to the terms of the contract of guarantee FmHA executed with plaintiff on March 1, 1976. FmHA has refused. 48. On January 5, 1979, Palmetto Bank filed its claim for breach of contract against the United States in the Court of Claims. As of that date, no part of the amount claimed had been paid to plaintiff. 49. A trial was held on April 22-23, 1980 in Columbia, South Carolina. The witnesses called by plaintiff were: Dwight Patterson, president and chairman of the board of directors of the Palmetto Bank during the time in issue, and Thomas Youngblood, the loan administrator of the Palmetto Bank during the years in issue. Defendant called as witnesses: Samuel Flemming, the person who initially appraised O-Double-T's property for plaintiff, John Patterson, Laurens County supervisor of FmHA in 1976, Clarence Rainey, Laurens County's district supervisor of FmHA in 1976, Don Payne, president of the Federal Land Bank Association of Spartanburg, John T. Walker, chief of FmHA farmer programs in South Carolina, Ralph Moore, farmer program specialist in the FmHA state of fice in South Carolina, Philip Adams, a real estate ap praiser who was qualified by the court as an expert in that area, and Dwight Patterson, president and chairman of the board of directors of the Palmetto Bank during the years in issue. Both parties submitted exhibits which were admitted into evidence during the trial pro ceedings . 50. Philip Adams, defendant's expert witness on real estate appraisals, testified at trial that he had been retained by the government to make a study of pricing trends of farm real estate in Laurens County during the years 1976, 1977 and 1978 with reference to the O-Double-T farm property. Mr. Adams testified that the results of his study, as related to the sub ject tract, showed a "slight dip" in its value between 1976 and 1977 and a subsequent "upward trend" in the property's value in 1978. He concluded that the value Q^7'7 -r 48 of "open and/or pasture land" in Laurens County would have been appraised as follows: March 1976 $500/acre; June 1977 $460/acre; April 1978 $500/acre. In his opinion, the 0Double-T land could not have sold for $1,000/acre at any time from 1972 to the present. Mr. Adams, however, did not make a full narrative appraisal of 0-Double-T and did not.inspect the property until two days before he submitted his report to the government on April 19, 1980. CONCLUSION OF LAW Upon the foregoing findings and opinion, it is con cluded that plaintiff is entitled to recover and it is recommended that judgment be so entered. 9578 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK X In re "AGENT ORANGE" MDL 381 (ail cases) PRODUCT LIABILITY LITIGATION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE X STATE OF NEW YORK ) : SS . : COUNTY OF NEW YORK ) KATHLEEN BABAJKO, b e i n g d u l y sworn, d e p o se s and s a y s , t h a t she i s o v e r t h e age o f 18 y e a r s , t h a t she r e s i d e s a t 286 P a c i f i c Avenue, S t a t e n I s l a n d , New York and t h a t she i s n o t a party to the above-entitled proceeding. That on the 20th day o f December, 1982, she se rved the annexed Memorandum o f Law and A t t a c h m e n t s on t h e a t t o r n e y s l i s t e d on the annexed S e r v ic e L i s t , by d e p o s it in g tr u e c o p ie s t h e r e o f , contained in securely sealed, postpaid wrapper, properly addressed to s a id a tt o r n e y s in the l e t t e r box r e g u l a r l y m aintained and e x c lu siv e ly co n trolled by the United States Postal Service, lo c a t e d on the N o rth east corn er o f 4 1 s t S t r e e t and Park Avenue, Borough o f Manhattan, New Y o r k , New Y o r k . Sworn t o b e f o r e me t h i s 2 1s t day o f December, 1982. 9580 2- - 'O O UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT O? NEW YORK In re "AGENT ORANGE" Product L ia b ility L itig a tio n xF MDL 38I K> SPECIAL ms TCR' S ORDER A-'^...... p.N\.....' x WHEREAS l e a d c o u n s e l f o r p l a i n t i f f s h as r e q u e s t e d t h a t F r a n c i s R. Kennedy be d e p o s e d on b e h a l f o f d e f e n d a n t Diamond Shamrock C o r p o r a t io n ; and WHEREAS Mr. Kennedy i s a p r e s e n t em ployee o f Diamond Shamrock who, w i t h Diamond Sham rock's c o o p e r a t i o n , w i l l be d e p o se d i n New Y or k C i t y , New Y o r k ; and WHEREAS Diamond. Shamrock has s u b m i t t e d t h e a f f i d a v i t o f Dean S a u n d e r s , sworn t o December l k , 1982 ( E x h i b i t A h e r e t o ) , c o n t e n d i n g t h a t Mr. Kennedy i s n o t an o f f i c e r , d i r e c t o r or managing a g e n t o f Diamond Shamrock; NOW THEREFORE IT IS ORDERED t h a t t h e t a k i n g o f Mr. K e n n e d y ' s d e p o s i t i o n i n New Y or k i s w i t h o u t p r e j u d i c e t o t h e c o n t e n t i o n t h a t Mr. Kennedy i s n o t an o f f i c e r , d i r e c t o r or managing ag en t o f Diamond Shamrock f o r p u r p o s e s o f Fed. R. C i v . P. 3 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) and 3 7 ( d ) ; and that the issue is reserved as to whether the d eposition q 5 3 i. it Kennedy i s b i n d i n g on Diamond Shamrock. t e s t i m o n y o f Mr. Dated : SO O R D E R E D : (\ 9582 2- - #****: Tinaie wuaa!>^ n r t ii%fcWi UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK In re "AGENT ORANGE" Product Liability Litigation X : MDL No. 3 8 I : AFFIDAVIT :STATE OF TEXAS ) ' : ss. : !COUNTY OF HARRIS ) iI y DEAN SAUNDERS, b e i n g d u l y sw o r n , d e p o s e s and s a y s : 1 . I am Human R e s o u r c e s Manager o f d e f e n d a n t Diamond 1Shamrock Corporation's Greens Bayou Plant. I make this affidavit | i1 based upon personal knowledge to describe the current employment i dutiesof F.R.Kennedy, anemployee at the Greens Bayou Plant. ; 2. M r . Kennedy has been employed at Greens Bayou since ; j IIII j i June 15, 1979 in the position of Purchasing Buyer. As Purchasing iI! Buyer, Mr. Kennedy reports to the Purchasing and Stores Supervisor.! : .No personsreport toMr. Kennedy. i ! 3. As Purchasing Buyer, Mr. Kennedy's primary function is to purchase as directed materials and equioment to specifica- i ! 'tions and quality. In performing this function, Mr. Kennedy: {a) ! evaluates requisitions for proper description and establishes a course of action; (b) expedites and traces orders to assure required delivery; (c) coordinates the paper flow to insure proper handling by receiving; (d) submits a monthly activity report; and (e) checks and aoproves invoices. 4. Mr. Kennedy com m unic ate s d a i l y w i t h t h e P u r c h a s i n g and S to r e s S u p erviso r co n cern in g h is work a c t i v i t i e s . His work i s c o n s ta n tly b ein g review ed by management, although he i s allow ed l a t i t u d e and d e c i s i o n m ak in g w i t h i n h i s a r e a o f r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . He r e c e i v e s guidance from s u p e r io r s in. vendor s e l e c t i o n and e xp en d i t u r e s . Q u o ta tio n b id t a b u l a t i o n s are p rep ared by him and then .submitted to superiors for approval. 5 . As P u r c h a s i n g B u y e r , Mr. Kennedy i s n o t n o f f i c e r , d i r e c t o r , o r managing a g e n t o f Diamond Shamrock. :Sworn t o b e f o r e me t h i s Dean S a u n d e r s Notary Public -2- 9534 ff . - Y UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK IN RE "AGENT ORANGE" PRODUCT LIABILITY LITIGATION ALL CASES X x I .. IN C'.ERK'S r'Hijf: U. S. DISTACI COURT E.D.N.Y. k JAN2 7 1983 k TIME A.M... ... .... MDL Np/)"38.1 (GCP) ( SS) UNITED STATES' MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION DOCUMENTS AND IN SUPPORT OF THE UNITED STATES' MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER I . INTRODUCTION On J a n u a ry 1 0 , 1983 d e f e n d a n t s moved t h a t the S p e c i a l Master i s s u e an o r d e r c o m p e ll i n g p r o d u c t i o n o f Food and Drug A d m i n i s t r a t i o n ("FDA") documents p u r s u a n t t o Rule 37 o f the Federal Rules of C iv il Procedure. Because the issuance of the o r d e r by th e S p e c i a l M as te r both i s not w a r r a n t e d by th e f a c t s c o n c e r n i n g FDA document p r o d u c t i o n and would have an o p p r e s s i v e and burdensome e f f e c t upon th e United S t a t e s , the United S t a t e s opposes t h a t motion and o r d e r . In a d d it io n to r e q u e s t i n g denial of the motion, the United States seeks a p rotective order pursuant to Rule 3 7(a). This requested order would prevent d e fe n d a n ts from c o n t in u in g to h a r r a s s and oppress the Government, and, i n p a r t i c u l a r , FDA by p r e v e n t i n g d e f e n d a n t s from r e n e w in g the r e q u e s t s c o n ta in e d in d e f e n d a n t s ' pending motion and a l l p r i o r r e q u e s t s f o r documents from th e FDA. F e d . R . C i v . P . 37(a) and 26(c) . (30 / I I . ARGUMENT A. The S p e c i a l M aster Should Deny D e fe n d a n ts' Motion t o Compel P r o d u c t io n Because The U nit ed S t a t e s Has A l r e a d y F u l l y Responded t o These Document P r o d u c t i o n R e q u e st s____ In t h e i r Memorandum in Su p port o f Motion t o Compel P r o d u c t io n of Food and Drug A d m i n i s t r a t i o n Documents, d e f e n dan ts have p resen ted an in a c c u r a t e p i c t u r e of the Government's p r o d u c t i o n o f FDA docu ments. Not o n l y have d e f e n d a n t s been l e s s than ingenuous in r e l a t i n g t o the c o u r t t h e i r a c t i o n s and alleged in a b ility to proceed with th e ir defense, but they also have m i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d the f a c t s s u r r o u n d i n g FDA document p r o d u c t i o n . The United S t a t e s s t r e n u o u s l y o b j e c t s t o t h i s d is t o r t io n of i t s good f a i t h e f f o r t to supply the p a r tie s to th is l i t i g a t i o n with a l l p e rtin e n t documents cu rren tly retained in FDA f i l e s . Defendants have s t a t e d th a t "no s i g n i f i c a n t document p r o d u c t i o n from FDA" has e v e r o c c u r r e d . D e f e n d a n t s ' Memorandum In Support o f Motion t o Compel P r o d u c t io n o f Food and Drug A d m in istratio n Documents a t 4 ( h e r e i n a f t e r , "D efs. Mem."). Defendants' fu rth er contend that neither the United S tates' Re sponse t o D e f e n d a n t s ' Phase I F i r s t Wave I n t e r r o g a t o r i e s (h erein after, the "United S ta te s' Response") nor i t ' s A p r i l 1 5 , 1981 N o t i c e t o A l l C o u n s e l mention FDA o r FDA docu m e nts. D e f s . Mem. a t 4 . 1 / Alt ho ugh d e f e n d a n t s a r e l i t e r a l l y c o r r e c t in t h a t FDA does not appear on e i t h e r of these documents, the defendants neglect to mention the February 13, 1981 Notice to A ll Counsel that accompanied the United S ta te s ' Response. That Notice a l e r t e d the p a r t i e s t h a t an index o f government document p r o d u ctio n t h a t would soon be a v a i l a b l e from the m ic r o fi lm d i s t r i b u t e r s , Mathias & Carr. Notice to A ll Counsel dated February 13, 1981 a t 1 . That l i s t , r e l e a s e d by the end o f F ebruary, 1981, contained numerous pages o f e n t r i e s dem onstrating p r o d ig io u s p r o d u c t i o n o f FDA documents in 1980. S e e , S e l e c t e d page s o f United S t a t e s ' Index o f Document P r o d u c t io n a t t a c h e d h e r e t o as Appendix A (h e r e in a fte r, "Appendix A "). 1/ Defendants also a s s e rt that they have con tin u ally c h a lle n g e d and o b je c t e d to the United S t a t e s ' a l l e g e d l y i n s u f f i c i e n t answ ers to t h e s e i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s . D e f s . Mem. at 4. Although the United S ta tes has always attempted to respond as f u l l y as p o ssib le to defendants' concerns, the Government i s compelled to p o in t out t h a t not one o f the l e t t e r s c i t e d by d e f e n d a n t s men tio ns t h e FDA as a pr oblem o r as a n e g l e c t e d a r e a o f d i s c o v e r y . S e e , Appendix t o D e f s . Mem. at Tabs 2-6. A d d itio n a lly , the Government notes th at " i f a party ob jects to or f a i l s to answer in te rro g a to rie s, the party s u b m i t t i n g t h e i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s may move t h e c o u r t f o r an order under F e d .R .C iv .P . 37(a) com pelling an answer. F e d .R .C iv .P . 3 3 (a )." Pan-Islam ic Trade Corp. v. Exxon C orp., 632 F .2 d 539, 552 (5 th C i r . 1 9 8 0 ) . The U n it ed S t a t e s did o b j e c t t o the F i r s t Wave I n t e r r o g a t o r i e s . S e e , U n it e d S t a t e s ' Response. However, defendants apparently have never been s u f f i c i e n t l y d is t u r b e d by the United S t a t e s ' e f f o r t s in d isco v e ry to f i l e a motion to compel production of documents p r i o r to the pending motion. The d e fe n d a n ts ' attempt to a s s e r t , at th is la te date, that they have previously sought to co rrect any a lle g e d inadequacy of production is simply not c r e d ib le . .v .'-:. v ' " U s ' l S S : .' ) ' i i':%. : ` '.>j? i ' i'. '!. :-:i : ! FDA has a l r e a d y c o n d u c t e d one f u l l document s e a r c h and a s u b s e q u e n t f o l l o w - u p ch ec k o f r e l e v a n t FDA f i l e s on b e h a l f o f the p a r t i e s t o t h i s l i t i g a t i o n . FDA f i r s t s e a r c h e d i t s f i l e s in r e s p o n s e t o the r e q u e s t s o f c o u n s e l f o r The Dow Ch em ic al Company f o r documents g e n e r a l l y r e l e v a n t t o t h i s l i t i g a t i o n . FDA o f f i c i a l s s e a r c h e d a l l Bureau o f Foods f i l e s lik e ly to contain the requested information, including the f i l e s o f the D i v i s i o n o f C hem istry and P h y s i c s , the D i v i s i o n o f Chem ical T ec h n o lo g y and the D i v i s i o n o f T o x i c o lo g y . 2/ S e e , A f f i d a v i t o f Dr. F ire sto n e a t 1 , atta ch e d h ereto as Appendix B. That s e a r c h produced a p p r o x im a te ly 2772 documents t o t a l l i n g n e a r l y 16,500 pages. In accordance with normal procedures fo r d is c o v e r y in th is l i t i g a t i o n , the U n it ed S t a t e s had t h e s e documents m i c r o f i l m e d . The r e s u l t i n g te n r o l l s o f m i c r o f i l m , e a c h c o n t a i n i n g up t o 2500 frames o f i n f o r m a t i o n , g e n e r a l l y became a v a i l a b l e t o the p a r t i e s by l a t e Se p te m b er, 1980. S e e , Appendix A. FDA em ployee s c o n d u c t e d a second f o l l o w - u p ch ec k o f the r e l e v a n t FDA f i l e s in r e s p o n s e t o D e f e n d a n t s ' Phase I , F i r s t Wave I n t e r r o g a t o r i e s se rv e d on January 1 5 , 1981. That second sweep th ro u g h FDA f i l e s tu r n e d up o n l y n e g l i g i b l e amounts o f i n f o r m a - 2/ In th e o p i n i o n o f FDA, no Bureau o f Drugs f i l e s c o u l d r e a s o n a b l y be e x p e c t e d , in th e normal c o u r s e o f FDA b u s i n e s s , t o c o n t a i n any o f the i n f o r m a t i o n s o u g h t by d e f e n d a n t s . FDA, t h e r e f o r e , lim ite d i t s search to Bureau o f Foods f i l e s . -4- O TijQ QJ t i o n t h a t the Government had not p r e v i o u s l y produced. S p e c i f i c a l l y , FDA found o n l y 24 p a g e s o f p r e v i o u s l y unproduced m a t e r i a l in t h i s subsequent sweep through the re le v a n t f i l e s . S ee, Appendix A a t 40. The United S t a t e s produced t h a t m a t e r i a l a s M i c r o f i l m Batch 1 9 1 6 , e n t i t l e d " I n t e r n a l Agency Memos," in June, 1981. D e s p i t e t h i s tremendous e f f o r t by FDA, d e f e n d a n t s have m isr e p re se n te d to t h i s c o u r t t h a t FDA's response was i n s i g n i f i c a n t , a p p a r e n t l y in both s i z e and q u a l i t y . To the con trary, that response contains a myriad of documents d ir e c t l y r e l a t e d to th e FDA work on c h i c k edema f a c t o r t h a t th e d e f e n d a n t s have ch aracterized as so important. These documents, produced o ver two y e a r s ago, were co n ta in e d in the f o l lo w i n g m ic r o fi lm batches: Batch Title R o l l and Frames 1282 Chick Edema-Statement b efore Senate Committee on Commerce-by V e r r e t t JUS-0166 0958-0969 1292 D i o x i n - H i s t o r y FDA l e t t e r s Memos, R e p o r t s JUS-0166 1429-1469 1333 C h ic k Edema D i s e a s e P u b l i c a t ions JUS-0168 1640-1909 1342 C hick Edema JUS-0168 2203-2230 1558 C h i c k Edema D i s e a s e FDA Memoranda JUS-0179 1908-1938 1571 I n v e s t i g a t i o n o f Chick Edema Factor-FDA assignment and analytical findings JUS-0179 2469-2493 1573 Dioxin methodology for fa ts and o i l s ; FDA c o r r e s p o n d e n c e and memos JUS-0180 0015-0029 -5-  -ZU . 1593 1595 1600 1611 1639 1641 1644 1645 1647 1648 1671 1672 1771 1799 C h ic k Edema D i s e a s e JUS-0180 0544-0559 Analysis of results of reference toxic fat JUS-0180 0574-0596 C h i c k Edema o u t b r e a k North C a r o lin a 1969' JUS-0180 1716-0718 C h ic k Edema O u tb reak North C a r o l i n a 1969; FDA memos JUS-0180 0922-1011 C h ic k Edema D i s e a s e JUS-0180 1939-1944 C h i c k Edema D i s e a s e Chlorinated Pesticides JUS-0180 1947-1961 D i o x i n s - 1 9 7 1 C h i c k Edema Miscellaneous reports JUS-0180 2027-2052 D i o x i n s - 1 9 7 1 C h ic k Edema FDA R e p o r t s JUS-0180 2053-2157 D io x in s / S t a tu s R e po rts; unpub - JUS-0180 2163-2250 l i s h e d C h i c k Edema R e p o r t s FDA C h ic k Edema D i s e a s e Miscellaneous report JUS-0180 2251-2266 Dioxins-Status reports, FDA r e p o r t s - C h i c k Edema JUS-0181 1276-1551 C h ic k Edema Outb re ak North C a r o l i n a - 1 9 6 9 ; FDA r e p o r t s JUS-0181 1552-1609 C h ic k Edema Disease/NIH memo JUS-0183 1044-1047 D io x in s -1971/Chick Edema/Dept. of A g r ic u ltu r e reports JUS-0183 1611-1666 For the defendants to contend th at there has been "a lack of s i g n i f i c a n t document p r o d u c t i o n from FDA" in vie w o f t h i s and o t h e r FDA p r o d u c t i o n i s d i s i n g e n u o u s a t b e s t . -6- The defen d an ts a l s o a l l e g e t h a t the United S t a t e s has never answered a s in g le one of defendants' req uests fo r documents, including in d iv id u a lly id e n tifie d documents, a r i s i n g out o f an FDA empl oyee d e p o s i t i o n . To th e c o n t r a r y , the United S tates has responded to defendants' requests as i n f o r m a t i o n became a v a i l a b l e from FDA. On November 1 1 , 1982, fo r example, counsel fo r the Government issued a N otice to A l l Counsel th at addressed a v a r i e t y of outstanding document req u e sts. That N otice s p e c i f i c a l l y stated th at Dr. Firestone had not been a b le to l o c a t e , i n t e r a l i a , the f i r s t seven items re q u e ste d by t h i s pending motion w it h i n the r e l e v a n t Bureau o f Foods f i l e s . N o t ic e to A l l Counsel dated November 1 1 , 1982 a t 5-6, atta ch e d h e r e to as Appendix C ( h e r e i n a f t e r , "App endix C " ) . T h i s N o t i c e re s p o n d e d , in p a r t , t o Mr. P a k u l a ' s September 1 3 , 1982 l e t t e r t o Mr. Maskin r e q u e s t i n g t h e s e documents. Defendants m erely waste government c o u n s e l and the S p e c i a l M a s t e r 's time by renewing th es e p r e v i o u s l y answered requests. In view o f th e U n it e d S t a t e s ' p r i o r p r o d u c t i o n from FDA and attem p ts to a d d ress l a t e r r e q u e s t s f o r documents, d e f e n d a n t s ' a c t i o n o f r a i s i n g t h i s motion cannot be viewed as anything other than harrassment. Defendants obviously seek t h e S p e c i a l M a s t e r ' s im p r im atu r to demand c o m p l e t e d u p l i c a t i o n o f a l l p r i o r FDA s e a r c h e s and p r o d u c t i o n . Such an Orde r would have an o p p r e s s i v e and burdensome e f f e c t on FDA and the Government and sh ou ld t h e r e f o r e be d e n ie d . -7- 9591 B. The S p e c i a l M as te r Should Deny D e f e n d a n t ' s Motion t o Compel Production Because the Motion I n c l u d e s New R e q u e s t s To Which th e U nit ed S t a t e s Has Not Had Any O p p o r t u n i t y To Respond. The d e fe n d a n t s ' proposed o rd e r in c lu d e s a t l e a s t f i v e requests fo r s p e c i f i c documents that the defendants ra is e fo r the f i r s t t i m e . S e e , Orde r a t t a c h e d t o th e D e f s . Mem., Item s 1 3 , 14, 15 , 16, 17 and 18. The Government r e c o g n iz e s t h a t , as the d e f e n d a n t s p r o c e e d w i t h d i s c o v e r y , t h e y may d e v e l o p i n t e r e s t in new a r e a s and g e n e r a t e new r e q u e s t s . However, i t seems s i n g u l a r l y in a p p r o p r ia t e and o p p r e s s iv e f o r the d efen d a n ts t o demand c o m p e ll e d p r o d u c t i o n by t h e U n it ed S t a t e s b e f o r e they have e v e r g iv e n the Government an opp o rtu n ity to respond. The F ed era l Rules o f C i v i l Procedure provide f o r a procedure of discovery that "encourages extraju d icial discovery w i t h a minimum o f c o u r t i n t e r v e n t i o n . " F e d . R . C i v . P . , D e p o s itio n s and D is c o v e r y , A d v iso ry Comm ittee's E xp lan a to ry S t a t e m e n t C o n c e r n i n g 1970 Amendments o f D i s c o v e r y R u le s a t 67. Rule 37(a) provides that: . . . i f a party, in response to a request f o r in s p e c tio n submitted under Rule 34, f a i l s to respond t h a t i n s p e c t i o n w i l l be permitted as requested or f a i l s to permit inspection as requested, the discovering p a r t y may move f o r an o r d e r c o m p e l l i n g . . . inspection in accordance with the request. F e d . R . C i v . P . 3 7 ( a ) . As the comment t o the r u l e s t a t e s : "Rule 37(a) provides r e l i e f to a party seeking discovery a g a in s t one who, with or w ith o u t s t a t e d o b j e c t i o n s , f a i l s to -8- Q COT'.Qw OW affo rd the d is co v e ry ." F ed.R .C iv.P . 37(a), Advisory Committee Note. The R u le s do not a n t i c i p a t e o r s a n c t i o n r e q u e s t s , such as that of defen d an ts, fo r an order compelling production where t h e r e has been no p r i o r r e q u e s t f o r the documents. To th e e x t e n t t h a t t h e . d e f e n d a n t s ' new r e q u e s t s i n v o l v e new a r e a s o f i n t e r e s t not encompassed by p r i o r FDA s e a r c h e s and p r o d u c t i o n , the S p e c i a l Master should s t r i k e th e s e new lyr a i s e d r e q u e s t s (Items 13 , 1 4 , 1 5 , 16 , 17 and 18) as in a p p r o p r ia t e to an o rd er to compel production a t t h i s time. However, such an o r d e r i s n o t , in f a c t , e s s e n t i a l b e c a u s e FDA p re v io u sly has searched i t s f i l e s fo r a l l m aterial r e la t in g to the s u b j e c t m a t t e r o f t h e s e r e q u e s t s . The s e a r c h r e s u l t e d in a d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t th e s e documents a p p a r e n t l y do not e x i s t in the r e le v a n t f i l e s . S e e , A f f i d a v i t o f Dr. David Firestone at 3-4. Therefore, in clusion of these requests in any order compelling production, which the United S ta te s s u g g e s t s s h o u ld not be i s s u e d a t a l l , s h ou ld be d e n i e d by the Special Master as oppressive. C. The S p e c i a l Master Should Deny the D e f e n d a n t s ' Motion t o Compel Production Because the Requests fo r Documents are O p pressive, O v e r l y Broad and Burdensome.____ In f i l i n g the pending motion, counsel fo r defendants r e p r e s e n t e d t h a t the Motion c o n s i s t e d o f an a tt e m p t to narrow t h e i r document r e q u e s t s . T r . H earing B e f o r e Hon. Sol. S c h r e i b e r , S p e c i a l M a s t e r , Jan u ary 10> 1983 a t 2746. Th is p r o f f e r a l l e g e d l y had the b e n e f i c e n t purpose of a s s i s t i n g the Government -9- in f o c u s s i n g i t s e f f o r t s t o make any o u t s t a n d i n g document p r o d u c t i o n from FDA t o th e p a r t i e s . I_d. , a t 274 7-2748. However, under the gu ise of promoting e f f i c i e n t production fo r l im it e d and d i s c r e t e documents, d e fe n d a n ts r e q u e s t y e t a n o t h e r p a g e - b y - p a g e s e a r c h o f e v e r y r e l e v a n t f i l e in FDA'. \ S e e , Order a t t a c h e d t o D e f s . Mem. Ex am ination o f the d e f e n d a n t s ' order reveals th a t, although defendants have requested certain s p e c i f i c documents, t h e y a l s o have made sw ee ping r e q u e s t s t h a t do not comport w ith the a l l e g e d purpose o f the m o t i o n . 3/ As th e S p e c i a l M a s te r a p p a r e n t l y r e c o g n i z e s , such broad r e q u e s t s , p a r t i c u l a r l y in the absence of proof th at the Government has m is s ed more than th e u n d e r s t a n d a b l e n e g l i b l e amounts o f i n f o r m a t i o n in the f i r s t FDA p r o d u c t i o n , a r e not o n l y u n r e a s o n a b l e , but also oppressive ./ 3/ In f a c t , d efen d a n ts' ord er i s q u it e a r t f u l l y arranged to create the impression that i t has a narrow scope. Defendants i n i t i a l l y l i s t an a r r a y of s i n g l e documents as the documents r e q u e s t e d . Once beyond t h o s e r e q u e s t s , h owever, the sc o p e o f the requests grows with each succeeding request u n til, u ltim ately, d e f e n d a n t s in e f f e c t r e q u i r e d u p l i c a t i o n o f FDA' s i n i t i a l complete search. 4/ At the P r e t r i a l C o n fe r e n c e on Ja n u a ry 10, 1983 d u r in g a discussion of the pending motion, the Special Master stated: " [ R e q u e s t s f o r ] c a t e g o r i e s [o f documents] c r e a t e some d i f f i c u l t y f o r me u n l e s s t h e r e be good r e a s o n why i t co u ld be shown t h a t the Government has not carried out its in it ia l resp o n sib ility. . . . I have e x p r e s s e d the o p in io n t h a t agency by agency makes s e n s e when you a r e t a l k i n g about s p e c i f i c docu ments. When you a r e t a l k i n g about c a t e g o r i e s you a r e g o i n g to have some p r o b l e m s , i f you a r e talkin g about ten agencies." T r . Hearin g B e f o r e Hon. S o l S c h r e i b e r , S p e c i a l M a s t e r , Ja nuary 10 , 1983 a t 2751. -10- QO ^u Qv 4a For example, defendants have requested production of: " e v e r y memorandum, r e p o r t o r communication c o n c e r n i n g w e e k l y m eetin gs o f the D i v i s i o n o f Food f o r the y e a r s 195 8 -19 6 9 ." Orde r a t t a c h e d t o D e f s . Mem. a t 4. I t would be v i r t u a l l y i m p o s s i b l e f o r FDA to respond, t o the r e q u e s t as ph ra sed without searching every s in g le f i l e in the Bureau of Foods. On i t s f a c e , even w i t h o u t c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f FDA's enormous p r i o r e f f o r t s , t h i s req u est is p a t e n tly op p ressiv e. In a d d itio n , most o f th e s e communications would have a b s o l u t e l y no r e l a t i o n to th is l i t i g a t i o n . Defendants also have requested production o f " [ a ] 11 documents in the p o s s e s s i o n o f FDA t h a t c o n t a i n research, information or publications relatin g to 2,4,5-T, 2,4,5-TCP, any d io x in , ch loracn e or chick edema." Order attach ed to D e f s . Mem. a t 4. F i r s t , t h i s r e q u e s t c o n t a i n s no te m p ora l lim ita tio n . Given the scope of the d iscovery for the government contractor defense, for defendants to request a l l such documents, apparently including those of post-1972 vintage, is unreasonable. Second, a t a minimum, FDA has produced a l l o f i t s f i l e s co n c ern in g 2 , 4 , 5 , - T , d i o x i n , and c h ic k edema. S e e , A f f i d a v i t o f Dr. David F i r e s t o n e a t 4 ( h e r e i n a f t e r , "Appendix B " ) . FDA has asserted that th is prior discovery contained the universe of FDA's in fo rm a tio n on 2 ,4,5-TC P and c h lo r a c n e as w e l l . S e e , I d . a t 4. These and o t h e r o f d e f e n d a n t s ' r e q u e s t s a re f a r too broad f o r th e Government t o c o n d u c t any r e a s o n a b l e s e a r c h . What these requests e s s e n t i a l l y require is y e t another sweep through -11- th e same f i l e s . S i n c e the second chec k in 1981 which adhered th e scope o f th e Phase I , F i r s t Wave I n t e r r o g a t o r i e s in 1981 produced o n l y n e g l i g i b l e new p r o d u c t i o n , a t h i r d sweep, such as the one proposed by d e f e n d a n t s , would be o p p r e s s i v e and burdensome. T herefore, to the exten t defendants' order contains broad requests, the United States requests that the S p e cia l Master deny the proposed order. D. The U n it ed S t a t e s S p e c i f i c a l l y O b j e c t s to th e Document R e q u e s t s Embodied in D efendants' Motion to Compel Prod uction Food and Drug A d m i n i s t r a t i o n Documents. The United S t a t e s makes the f o l l o w i n g s p e c i f i c o b j e c t i o n s to defendants' requests fo r documents as contained in the defendants' proposed order compelling production of documents: 1. Higginbotham, G.R. and Ress, J . , p r e lim in a r y r e p o r t dated November 14, 1968 " A n a l y s i s o f Commerical C h lo r o p h e n o ls f o r T r ac e Amounts o f T h e i r C o n d en sa tio n and P o l y m e r i z a t i o n P r o d u c t s . " I d e n t i f i e d in the b i b l i o g r a p h y to Co ntamin ants Branch , DFCT, " C u r r e n t S t a t u s o f th e C h ic k Edema F a c t o r Problem" (1969) ( h e r e i n a f t e r "DFCT R e p o r t " ) . The United S t a t e s p r e v i o u s l y has responded to d e fe n d a n ts ' September 13, 1982 re q u e st f o r t h i s document by N otice to A l l Counsel dated November 11 , 1982. That N o t i c e s t a t e d t h a t FDA c o u ld not l o c a t e the r e q u e s t e d document in the r e l e v a n t FDA f i l e s . S e e , Appendix C a t 5. A d d i t i o n a l l y , Dr. F i r e s t o n e ' s a f f i d a v i t i n d i c a t e s t h a t FDA does not have t h i s document in the r e l e v a n t f i l e s . S e e , Appendix B at 1. To r e q u i r e an a d d i t i o n a l s e a r c h o f the r e l e v a n t FDA f i l e s would be burdensome and o p p r e s s i v e . 2. F i r e s t o n e , D. and F l i c k , D . F . , Memo o f c o n f e r e n c e , Dr. Grove e t a l . , F e b ru a ry 1 3 , 1963. I d e n t i f i e d in the b i b l i o g r a p h y o f the DFCT R e p o r t . -12- Q O' xrj * The United S t a t e s p r e v i o u s l y has responded to d e fe n d a n ts ' September 1 3 , 1982 re q u e st f o r t h i s document by N o tic e to A l l Counsel dated November 1 1 , 1982. Th at N o t i c e s t a t e d t h a t FDA c o u l d n ot l o c a t e the requested document in the re le v a n t f i l e s . S e e , Appendix C a t 6. A d d i t i o n a l l y , Dr. F i r e s t o n e ' s a f f i d a v i t i n d i c a t e s t h a t FDA does not have t h i s document in the r e l e v a n t f i l e s . S e e , Appendix B at 1 . To r e q u i r e an a d d i t i o n a l s e a r c h o f th e r e l e v a n t FDA f i l e s would be burdensome and o p p r e s s i v e . 3. L e t t e r from H. van Genderen, P r o f e s s o r , V e t e r i n a r y Pharmacology and T o x ic o lo g y , U n iv e r s ity o f U tr e c h t, t o G. H iggin b otham , F e b r u a r y 25, 1969. The United S t a t e s p r e v i o u s l y has responded to d e fe n d a n ts ' September 13, 1982 r e q u e s t f o r t h i s document by N o tic e to A l l Counsel dated November 1 1 , 1982. Th at N o t i c e s t a t e d t h a t FDA c o u l d not l o c a t e l o c a t e the req u ested document in the r e l e v a n t f i l e s . S e e , Appendix C a t 6. A d d i t i o n a l l y , Dr. F i r e s t o n e ' s a f f i d a v i t i n d i c a t e s t h a t FDA does not have t h i s document in the r e le v a n t f i l e s . S ee, Appendix B at 2. To r e q u i r e an a d d i t i o n a l s e a r c h o f the r e l e v a n t f i l e s would be burdensome and o p p r e s s i v e . 4. Bureau o f S c i e n c e R esearch P r o g r e s s Report P r o j e c t Y005, Ju ly-D ece m b e r, 1968. I d e n t i f i e d in the b ib l io g r a p h y o f the DFCT R e p o r t . The United S t a t e s p r e v i o u s l y has responded to d e fe n d a n ts ' September 1 3 , 1982 re q u e st f o r t h i s document by N o t ic e to A l l Counsel dated November 1 1 , 1982. Th at N o t i c e s t a t e d t h a t FDA c o u l d not l o c a t e the requested document in the re le v a n t f i l e s . S e e , Appendix C a t 6. A d d i t i o n a l l y , Dr. F i r e s t o n e ' s a f f i d a v i t i n d i c a t e s t h a t FDA does not have t h i s document in the r e le v a n t f i l e s . S e e , Appendix B at 2. To r e q u i r e an a d d i t i o n a l s e a r c h o f th e r e l e v a n t FDA f i l e s i s u n d u ly burdensome and o p p r e s s i v e . 5. T i s h l e r , Merck & C o . , P r i v a t e Communication c o n c e r n in g i s o l a t i o n of c r y s t a l l i n e m a te ria l from a t o x ic f a t and d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t i t was an a r o m a t ic s u b s t a n c e c o n t a i n i n g 47 p e r c e n t c h l o r i n e , J u l y 29, 1960. -13- 959 n0 The United S t a t e s p r e v i o u s l y has responded to d e fe n d a n ts ' September 13 , 1982 re q u e st f o r t h i s document by N o t ic e to A l l Counsel dated November 1 1 , 1982. Th at N o t i c e s t a t e d t h a t FDA c o u l d not l o c a t e the requested document in the r e le v a n t f i l e s . S e e , Appendix C a t 6. A d d i t i o n a l l y , Dr. F i r e s t o n e ' s a f f i d a v i t i n d i c a t e s t h a t FDA does not have t h i s document in the r e l e v a n t f i l e s . S e e , Appendix B at 2. To r e q u i r e an a d d i t i o n a l s e a r c h o f the r e l e v a n t FDA f i l e s would be burdensome and o p p r e s s i v e . 6. J .D . Wootton, P r o c t e r & Gamble C o . , 1966, p r i v a t e communication concerning fa c t that a synth etic hexachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin displayed properties s i m i l a r to m a t e r i a l i s o l a t e d from t o x i c f a t and produced c h i c k edema d i s e a s e in c h i c k e n s . The United S t a t e s p r e v i o u s l y has responded t o d e f e n d a n t s ' September 13, 1982 re q u e st fo r t h i s document by Notice to A l l Counsel d a te d November 1 1 , 1982. That N o t ic e s t a t e d t h a t FDA c o u l d not l o c a t e the r e q u e s t e d document in the r e l e v a n t f i l e s . S e e , Appendix C a t 6. Addi t i o n a l l y , Dr. F i r e s t o n e ' s a f f i d a v i t i n d i c a t e s t h a t FDA does not have t h i s document in the r e l e v a n t f i l e s . S e e , Appendix B a t 2. To r e q u i r e an a d d i t i o n a l s e a r c h o f the r e l e v a n t f i l e s would be burdensome and o p p r e s s i v e . 7. Memo from A.D. Campbell or FDA u n i t to Dr. L e w is , p robably in l a t e 1969, copy to J.W. Cook, Department o f P e s t i c i d e s , FDA, c o n t a i n i n g d e t a i l s o f g a s - l i q u i d chromatography and mass s p e c t r o m e t r y work. The U nited S t a t e s p r e v i o u s l y has responded to d e fe n d a n ts ' September 13, 1982 re q u e s t f o r t h i s document by N o t ic e to A l l Counsel dated November 1 1 , 1982. Th at N o t i c e s t a t e d t h a t FDA c o u l d not l o c a t e the requested document in the r e le v a n t f i l e s . S e e , Appendix C a t 6. A d d i t i o n a l l y , Dr. F i r e s t o n e ' s a f f i d a v i t i n d i c a t e s t h a t FDA do es not have t h i s document in the r e le v a n t f i l e s . S e e , Appendix B at 2. To r e q u i r e an a d d i t i o n a l s e a r c h o f the r e l e v a n t FDA f i l e s would be burdensome and o p p r e s s i v e . 8 . O r g a n i z a t i o n c h a r t s o f the Food and Drug A d m i n i s t r a t i o n fo r the y e a rs 1959 though 1973. To the e x t e n t t h a t such documents e x i s t in FDA f i l e s , they are contained in the document prod uction from FDA t h a t the U n it e d S t a t e s made a v a i l a b l e t o the p a r t i e s in the f a l l o f 1980 o r a t t a c h e d h e r e t o as Appendix D. S e e , Appendix B a t 2 and Appendix D. To r e q u i r e an a d d i t i o n a l se ar ch would be burdensome and oppressive. -14- o, rKJf a O' 8x 9. Dr. F i r e s t o n e ' s f i l e s c o n t a in in g any documents p ertain in g to any lit e r a t u r e search r e la t in g to c h i c k edema f a c t o r , 2 , 4 , 5 - t r i c h l o r o p h e n o l , 2 , 4 , 5 trich lo ro p h en o xyacetic a c id , any dioxin or chloracne. To the e x t e n t t h a t such documents e x i s t in FDA f i l e s , they are contained in the document production from FDA t h a t the United S t a t e s made a v a i l a b l e t o the p a r t i e s in the f a l l of 1980. S e e , Appendix B a t 3. To r e q u i r e y e t a n o th e r s e a r c h o f t h e s e f i l e s i s unduly burdensome and o p p r e s s i v e . 10. A l l l a b o r a t o r y notebooks and documents of any s o r t , including d rafts, containing information or communications about experiments referred to in the a r t i c l e "Chemical and T o x i c o l o g i c a l E v a lu a tio n o f I s o l a t e d and S y n t h e t i c C h lo r o D e r i v a t i v e s o f D ibenzop - d i o x i n , " N ature, V o l. 220, 702-03 (November 16, 1968) . To the e x t e n t t h a t such documents e x i s t in FDA f i l e s , they are contained in the document production from FDA t h a t the U nit ed S t a t e s made a v a i l a b l e t o the p a r tie s in the f a l l of 1980. See, Appendix A at 35, Batch 1774 and Appendix B a t 3. To r e q u i r e y e t another search of these f i l e s is unduly burdensome and o p p r e s s i v e . 1 1 . Rowe, V .K . P e r s o n a l commun ication, 1970, c o n c e r n i n g a c u t e t o x i c i t y s t u d i e s on s m a l l a n im a ls in 1967. This document e i t h e r has been produced or does not e x i s t ' in the r e l e v a n t FDA f i l e s . S e e , Appendix B a t 3. To r e q u i r e y e t a n o th e r s e a r c h o f t h e s e f i l e s i s unduly burdensome and o p p r e s s i v e . 12. K ettering Laboratory, unpublished rep o rts, Department o f P r e v e n t i v e Medicine and I n d u s t r i a l H e a lth , C o l l e g e of Medicine, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio. To the e x t e n t t h a t such documents e x i s t in FDA f i l e s , they are contained in the document production from FDA t h a t the U nited S t a t e s made a v a i l a b l e t o the p a r t ie s in the f a l l of 1980. S e e , Appendix B at 3. To r e q u i r e y e t a n o t h e r s e a r c h o f t h e s e f i l e s i s undu ly burdensome and o p p r e s s iv e . 13. G.R. Higginbotham's f i l e s co n tia n in g the r e s u l t s of a b i b l i o g r a p h y s e a r c h on th e e f f e c t s o f c h l o r i n a t e d d io x in s which were given to A.D. Campbell. -15- To th e e x t e n t t h a t such documents e x i s t in FDA f i l e s , they are contained in the document production from FDA t h a t t h e U n it ed S t a t e s made a v a i l a b l e t o the p a r t i e s in the f a l l of 1980 . S e e , Appendix B a t 3. To r e q u i r e y e t a n o t h e r s e a r c h o f th e s e f i l e s i s unduly burdensome and o p p r e s s i v e . 14. Organic s y n t h e s i s l i t e r a t u r e by P r o fe s s o r Gilman used f o r background i n f o r m a t i o n on the i s o l a t i o n of th e c h i c k edema f a c t o r by P r o c t e r & Gamble. This request constitutes a request that defendants have n o t p r e v i o u s l y made. As a new r e q u e s t t o which the United S t a t e s has not y e t had an o p p o r t u n it y to respond, t h i s r e q u e s t does not belong in an o rd e r to compel production. A d d itio n a lly , to the exten t that such documents e x i s t in FDA f i l e s , t h e y a r e c o n t a i n e d in t h e document p r o d u c t i o n from FDA t h a t t h e U n it ed S t a t e s made a v a i l a b l e t o the p a r t i e s in the f a l l o f , 1980. S e e , Appendix B a t 4. To r e q u i r e y e t a n o t h e r s e a r c h o f th ese f i l e s i s unduly burdensome and oppresive. 15. Every unpublished item in the bibliography of the DFCT r e p o r t . This request constitutes a request that defendants have not p r e v i o u s l y made in w r i t i n g in a c c o r d a n c e w i t h p r o c e d u r e . As a new r e q u e s t t o which th e United S t a t e s has not y e t had an o p p o rtu n ity to respond, t h i s r e q u e s t does not belong in an o r d e r to compel production. A d d i t i o n a lly , to the e x te n t th at such documents e x i s t in FDA f i l e s , th e y a r e c o n t a i n e d in t h e document p r o d u c t i o n from FDA t h a t t h e U n it ed S t a t e s made a v a i l a b l e t o the p a r t i e s in the f a l l o f 1980. S e e , Appendix B a t 4. To r e q u i r e y e t a n o t h e r se arch o f th ese f i l e s i s unduly burdensome and oppressive. 16 . Report by Dr. Cowan, D i r e c t o r o f Northern R esearch L a b o r a t o r y , USDA, on t h e e f f e c t o f r e f i n i n g p r o c e s s e s on d i o x i n added to f a t , 1 9 7 0 - 7 1 . This request constitutes a request that defendants have not p r e v i o u s l y made. As a new r e q u e s t t o which the United S t a t e s has not y e t had an o p p o r tu n ity to respond, t h i s re q u e st does not belong in an o rd e r to compel production. A d d it io n a lly , th is document e ith e r has already been produced or i t does not e x i s t in th e r e l e v a n t FDA f i l e s . S e e , A ppe ndi x a t B. To r e q u i r e y e t a n o t h e r s e a r c h o f t h e s e f i l e s i s undu ly burdensome and o p p r e s s i v e . -16- 86 1 7 . Every memorandum, r e p o r t o r communication c o n v e r n i n g w eekly m eetings o f th e D i v i s i o n o f Food f o r the y e a r s 1958-1969. This request constitutes a request that defendants have n o t p r e v i o u s l y made. As a new r e q u e s t t o which the United S t a t e s has not y e t had an o p p o r tu n ity to respond, t h i s req u e st does not belong in an order to compel production. A d d itio n a lly , th is request is o v erly broad and, th erefo re, v i r t u a l l y impossible to address. Because the request is so sweeping, the r e q u e s t i s burdensome and o p p r e s s i v e . 1 8 . Every memorandum, r e p o r t o r communication c o n v e r n i n g w eekly m eetings o f the Bureau o f Food Chemistry f o r the years 1968-1969. This request is o v erly broad and, th erefo re, v i r t u a l l y impossible to address. Because the request is so sw eeping, the r e q u e s t i s burdensome and o p p r e s s i v e . In a d d itio n , i t is inap prop riate fo r defendants to include t h i s request in a motion to compel production because they have never requested these docuemnts prior to this time. 1 9 . A l l documents in t h e p o s s e s s i o n o f FDA t h a t c o n t a i n research, information or publications relatin g to 2 ,4 ,5 -T , 2,4,5-TCP, any d io x in , chloracne or chick edema. To th e e x t e n t t h a t such documents e x i s t in FDA f i l e s , they are contained in the document production from FDA t h a t th e U n it e d S t a t e s made a v a i l a b l e t o th e p a r t ie s in the f a l l of 1980. S ee, Appendix B a t 4. To r e q u i r e y e t a n o t h e r s e a r c h o f the r e l e v a n t f i l e s i s unduly burdensome and o p p r e s s i v e . 20. A l l correspondence and documents of any d e s c r i p t i o n from, t o o r between FDA and P r o c t e r & Gamble t h a t mention o r r e l a t e t o c h i c k edema o r any d i o x i n . T h i s r e q u e s t i s o v e r l y broad b e ca u se i t c o n t a i n s no temporal lim itatio n . Consequently, the request is undu ly burdensome and o p p r e s s i v e . To th e e x t e n t t h a t such documents e x i s t in FDA f i l e s , th e y a r e c o n t a i n e d in th e document p r o d u c t i o n from FDA t h a t th e U nit ed S t a t e s made a v a i l a b l e t o th e p a r t i e s in th e f a l l o f 1980. S e e , Appendix B a t 4. To r e q u i r e y e t a n o t h e r search of the r e le v a n t f i l e s i s unduly burdensome and o p p r e s s i v e . -17- 360 2 1 . A l l n o t e s , memoranda, correspondence or documents o f any d e s c r i p t i o n th a t r e l a t e to meetings, d is c u s s io n s or communications -- formal or informal -- between any employee o f FDA and any o t h e r p e r s o n , i n c l u d i n g but not lim ited to any government e n t it y at which chick edema, 2 , 4 , 5 - T , 2 ,4 ,5 -T C P , any d io x in or c h lo r a c n e was mentioned o r d i s c u s s e d . This r e q u e s t i s o v e r l y broad because i t c o n t a i n s no temporal lim ita tio n s . Consequently, the request is unduly burdensome and o p p r e s s i v e . To the e x t e n t t h a t such documents e x i s t in FDA f i l e s , t h e y a r e c o n t a i n e d in the document p r o d u c t i o n from FDA t h a t t h e U n it ed S t a t e s made a v a i l a b l e t o th e p a r t i e s in the f a l l o f 1980. S e e , Appendix B a t 4. To require yet another search of the relevant f i l e s is unduly burdensome and o p p r e s s i v e . 22. A ll documents, including but not lim ited to tran s m itta l l e t t e r s , p e rta in in g to the dissem ination from 1957 t o 1970 o f i n f o r m a t i o n , r e p o r t s or d a t a from FDA to any person or government e n t i t y or from any person or government e n t i t y t o FDA, c o n c e r n i n g 2 , 4 , 5 - T , 2,4,5-TCP, any d io x in , chloracne or ch ick edema. To the e x t e n t t h a t such documents e x i s t in FDA f i l e s , they are contained in the document production from FDA t h a t th e U n it e d S t a t e s made a v a i l a b l e t o th e p a r tie s in the f a l l of 1980. S ee, Appendix B a t 5. To r e q u i r e y e t a n o t h e r s e a r c h i s unduly burdensome and o p p r e s s i v e . E. Because o f the O p p ressive E f f e c t of Defendants' Motion, the United States Requests that the Special Master Issue a P rotective Order R e gard in g D i s c o v e r y From th e Food and Drug A d m i n i s t r a t i o n _________ Rule 37(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of C i v i l Procedure provides that: I f the court denies the motion [to compel production] in whole o r in p a r t , i t may make such p r o te c tiv e order as i t would have been empowered t o make on a motion made p u r s u a n t t o Rule 26(c). -18- Oo F e d . R . C i v . P 3 7 ( a ) ( 2 ) . Rule 26 (c ) a l l o w s a c o u r t t o f a s h i o n whatever order ju s t i c e might require to p ro tect "a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, o p p r e s s io n , or undue burden or expense." F ed .R .C iv.P . 26(c). Although the United S tates recognizes a p o te n tia l need, in t h e o r y , t o f o c u s on s p e c i f i c d i s c o v e r y r e q u e s t s , i t f i n d s the r e a l i t y o f the re q u e s ts contained in the pending Motion undu ly burdensome and o p p r e s s i v e . F i r s t , FDA a l r e a d y has conducted at l e a s t one f u l l search of a l l re le v a n t Bureau of Foods f i l e s in which the requested documents reasonably would be l o c a t e d . S e e , Appendix B a t 1 . The p r o d u c t i o n from th e s e f i l e s two y e a r s ago was both voluminous and s i g n i f i c a n t . S e e , Appendix A. For the d efen d a n ts to r e q u i r e y e t another sweep o f th e s e f i l e s i s e n t i r e l y u n re as o n a b le and o p p r e s s i v e . Second, the United S ta tes has previou sly informed defendants t h a t a number o f the s p e c i f i c documents r e q u e s t e d a r e not contained in any Bureau of Foods f i l e s . Defendants' continued renewal of these requests co n sists of harrassment of the Government and i t s a g e n c i e s which d i s t r a c t s the Government from i t s goal of completing any incomplete production. I t is s i m p l y absurd and burdensome to make FDA o f f i c i a l s con d u ct yet another search for these documents. Third, defendants' Motion in c lu d e s o v e r l y broad document r e q u e s t s , most of which would have no r e l a t i o n in any form t o th e i s s u e s in th is case. Because of the inestimable e f f o r t required to make the r e q u i s i t e s e a r c h e s , th e Government a l s o f i n d s t h e s e r e q u e s t s unduly burdensome and o p p r e s s i v e . -19- The United S t a t e s a l r e a d y has d evo ted s i g n i f i c a n t re s o u rc e s and e f f o r t in p r o v id in g p a r t i e s to t h i s l i t i g a t i o n w i t h immense p r o d u c t i o n o f d i s c o v e r y from a m u l t i t u d e o f w i t n e s s e s .and document r e p o s i t o r i e s . With t h i s m oti on , d e f e n d a n t s o v e r s t e p the bounds o f t h e i r d i s c o v e r y r i g h t s in an e f f o r t to h a r r a s s , burden and oppress the Government, i t s a g e n c ie s and i t s employees. For these reasons, the United States requests that the Special Master issue the attached P rotective Order regarding FDA document p r o d u c t i o n . The Order would p r e v e n t the d e f e n d a n t s from pursuing or renewing any re q u e sts e i t h e r fo r the a c t u a l documents requested in defendants' pending motion or for documents p e r t a i n i n g to the s u b j e c t m a t t e r s encompassed by d e f e n d a n t s ' pe nd in g m otion. S e e , Appendix E. Th is p r o t e c t i v e order is n e c e ssa r y to prevent defendants from co n tin u in g to h a r r a s s FDA w i t h both the r e a s s e r t i o n o f a l r e a d y s e t t l e d document r e q u e s t s and such burdensome r e q u e s t s as evidenced by the pending motion. Rule 37(a)(4) provides th at, i f the court denies a motion to compel production, the court s h a ll r e q u ir e the moving p arty or the attorn ey a d v i s i n g the motion or both o f them to pay t o th e p a r t y o r deponent who opposed the motion the reasonable expenses incurred in opposing the motion, including attorney's fees . . . . F ed .R .C iv .P 3 7 ( a ) ( 4 ) . In a d d it io n , under the p r o v is io n s of Ru le 2 6 ( c ) , the c o u r t a l s o may award the c o s t s o f a motion -20- 3604 for a P ro tective Order i f that motion is granted. Fed.R.Civ.P. 2 6 ( c ) . The U n ited S t a t e s t h e r e f o r e r e q u e s t s t h a t th e S p e c i a l Master award to the United S t a t e s the c o s t of opposing d e fe n d a n ts ' Motion to Compel and o f b r in g i n g the a t t a c h e d Motion f o r P r o t e c t i v e Order. I l l . Conclusion For the reasons cite d above, the United S tates requests t h a t the S p e c i a l Ma ster deny D e f e n d a n t s ' Motion t o Compel P r o d u c t i o n o f Food and Drug A d m i n i s t r a t i o n and i s s u e the a t t a c h e d Food and Drug A d m i n i s t r a t i o n P r o t e c t i v e Order. Respectfully Submitted, j . Paul McGrath As s i s t a n t A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l C ivil Division RAYMOND J . DEARIE United States Attorney D irecto r, Torts Branch T r ia l Attorney, Torts Branch C ivil Division U.S. Department of J u s tic e Washin gt on, D.C. 20530 Telephone: (202) 724-6725 Attorneys for the United States of America. -21- 9605 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby c e r t i f y th a t a tru e and c o r r e c t copy of the United S t a t e s ' Memorandum in O p p o s i t i o n t o D e f e n d a n t s ' Motion to Compel P ro d u c tio n o f Food and Drug A d m i n i s t r a t i o n Documents and in Support o f the United S t a t e s ' Motion f o r P r o t e c t i v e Order was mailed t h i s 3ay o f January, 1983 to the f o l l o w i n g : V ictor J. Yannacone, Jr. Yannacone & Yannacone, P.C. P o s t O f f i c e Drawer #109 P a t c h o g u e , New York 11 7 7 2 Morton B. Silberm an, Esq. Clark, Gagliardi & M iller 99 C o u r t S t r e e t White P l a i n s , New York Leonard L. R ivkin, Esq. R iv k in , L e f f , Sherman & Radler 100 Garden C i t y P l a z a Garden C i t y , New York 11530 Wendell B. Alcorn, J r . , Esq. Cadwalader, Wickersham & T a ft, One W a l l S t r e e t New Y or k , New York 10005 Esqs. John C. S a b e tta , Esq. Townley & Updike, Esqs. Chrysler Building 405 L e x i n g t o n Avenue New Y o r k , New York 10174 Bud Holman & W i l l i a m K r o h l e y , K e lle y , Drye & Warren 101 Park Avenue New Y o r k , New York 10178 Esqs. Arthur, Drye & K a lish , P.C. 1230 Avenue o f the Americas New Y o r k , New York 10020 Dennis Rothman, Esq. L e s t e r , Schwab, Katz & Dwyer 120 Broadway New Y o r k , New York 10271 n n J John M. F i t z p a t r i c k , Esq. Dilworth, Paxson, Kalish & Levy 2600 The F i d e l i t y B u i l d i n g P h i l a d e l p h i a , Pennsylvania 19109 Mr. Raymond J . De a r i e United States Attorney U.S. Courthouse 225 Cadman P l a z a B r o o k l y n , New. York 11201 Robert T a y lo r , Esq. Ashcraft & Gerel 2000 L S t r e e t , N.W. S u i t e 700 Wa s h i ngt o n, D.C. 20036 Edward Mat t hews, Esq. Budd, Larner, Kent, Gross, P i c i l l o & Rosenbaum 33 Washington S t r e e t Newark, New J e r s e y 07102 Paul V. E s p o s i t o , Esq. L e w i s , Ove r beck & Furman 135 South La S a l l e S u i t e 1000 C h i c a g o , I l l i n o i s 60603 Irvin g Like, Esq. R e illy, Like & Schneider 200 West Main S t r e e t B a b y l o n , New York 11702 Sol Sch reib er, S p e cia l Master Milberg, Weiss, Bershad & Specthrie One P e n n s y l v a n i a P l a z a New Y o r k , New York 10199 Clerk of the Court U.S. D istrict Court E a s t e r n D i s t r i c t o f New York Hempstead Turnpike Uniondale Avenue U n i o n d a l e , New York 11553 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x IN RE "AGENT ORANGE" PRODUCT LIABILITY LITIGATION X MDL IN CLERK'S OFFICE U. S. DISTRICT COURT E.D. ALL CASES TIMl AM, UNITED STATES' MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION----- TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE AND BIONETICS RESEARCH LABORATORIES, INC. DOCUMENTS AND IN SUPPORT OF THE UNITED STATES' MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER I . INTRODUCTION On J a nua r y 1 0, 1983 d e f e n d a n t s moved t h a t the S p e c i a l Master i s s u e an o r de r compell ing p r o du ct i on o f Na ti ona l Cancer I n s t i t u t e ( h e r e i n a f t e r "NCI") and B i o n e t i c s Research L a b o r a t o r i e s , I n c . documents p u r s u a n t t o Rule 37 o f t he F e d e r a l Rul es o f C i v i l P r o c e d u r e . ^ / Because the i s s u a n c e o f the o r d er by the S p e c i a l Master both i s not warranted by the f a c t s concerning NIH document p r o d u c t i o n and would have an o p p r e s s i v e and 1/ Defendant s, in a f o o t n o t e , f u r t h e r s t a t e t ha t they include the National In stitu te of Environmental Health Sciences ( h e r e i n a f t e r "NIEHS") in t h e i r motion t o compel p r o d u c t i o n o f NCI documents. D e f e n d a n t s ' Memorandum In Support o f Motion t o Compel P r o d u c t i o n o f N a t i o n a l Ca nc er I n s t i t u t e and B i o n e t i c s Research L a b o r a t o r i e s , I n c . Documents a t 2 , n . ( h e r e i n a f t e r , "Defs. Mem."). In es se n ce , def end an ts ' motion i s d i r e c t e d at t he N a t i o n a l I n s t i t u t e s of Heal t h ( h e r e i n a f t e r "NIH") b e c a u s e NCI and NIEHS a r e the o nl y i n s t i t u t e s w i t h i n NIH t h a t r e a s o n a b l y c o u l d be e x p e c t e d t o have the r e q u e s t e d documents w i t h i n th e ir f i l e s . S ee, A f f id a v i t of Joanne Belk at 1, attached h e r e t o as Appendix B. 08 t burdensome e f f e c t upon the United S t a t e s , the United S t a t e s opposes th at motion and o rd er . In a dd it io n to r e q u e s t i n g denial of the motion, the United States seeks a p r o te c tiv e order pursuant to Rule 37 ( a ). This requested order would prevent d e f e n d a n t s from c o n t i n u i n g t o h a r r a s s and o p p r e s s the Government, and, i n p a r t i c u l a r , NIH and i t s i n d i v i d u a l i n s t i t u t e s by preventing defendants from renewing the requests contained in defe nd an ts ' pending motion and a l l p r i o r re q u e st s f o r documents from t h e NIH. F e d . R . C i v . P . 3 7( a ) and 2 6 ( c ) . I I . ARGUMENT A. The S p e c i a l Mas t er Shoul d Deny D e f e n d a n t s ' Motion t o Compel P r o d u c t i o n Becaus e The Uni t ed S t a t e s Has A l r e a d y F u l l y Responded t o These Document P r o d u c t i o n R e q u e s t s . In t h e i r Memorandum in Sup po r t o f Motion t o Compel Pro duct io n of Na t i o n a l Cancer I n s t i t u t e and B i o n e t i c s Research L a b o r a t o r i e s , I nc. Documents, def en da nts have p r e s e n t e d an i n a c c u r a t e p i c t u r e o f t h e Go ver nment ' s p r o d u c t i o n o f NIH and, i n p a r t i c u l a r , NCI document s. Not o n l y have d e f e n d a n t s been l e s s than ingenuous in r e l a t i n g to the court t h e i r a c t i o n s and a l l e g e d i n a b i l i t y t o pr oceed w i t h t h e i r d e f e n s e , but they also have m ischaracterized the f a c t s surrounding NCI document p r o d u c t i o n . The Uni t e d S t a t e s s t r e n u o u s l y o b j e c t s to t h i s d i s t o r t i o n of i t s good f a i t h e f f o r t to supply the p a r t i e s to t h i s l i t i g a t i o n with a l l p e r t i n e n t documents c u r r e n t l y r e t a i n e d i n NIH f i l e s . -2- 96C In e f f e c t , defendants a lle g e that NCI has never produced any m a t e r i a l other than s i x pages r e l a t i n g to the B i o n e t i c s S t u dy c u l l e d from NCI annual r e p o r t s . S e e , D e f s . Mem. Defendants further contend that neither the United S ta te s ' Response t o D e f e n d a n t s ' Phase I F i r s t Wave I n t e r r o g a t o r i e s ( h e r e in a fte r, "United S ta te s ' Response") nor i t s April 15, 1981 N o t i c e t o A l l Counsel menti on NCI o r NCI documents. D e f s . Mem. a t 4 . 2 / Al t h o u g h d e f e n d a n t s a r e l i t e r a l l y c o r r e c t in t h a t NCI o r B i o n e t i c s do not appear on t h e f a c e o f e i t h e r o f t h e s e documents, the defendants n e g le c t to mention the February 13, 1981 Notice to A l l Counsel th at accompanied the United S t a t e s ' Re spons e. That N o t i c e a l e r t e d the p a r t i e s t h a t an index o f 2/ Defendants a l s o a s s e r t t h a t they have c o n t i n u a l l y c h a l l e n g e d and o b j e c t e d to the United S t a t e s ' a l l e g e d l y i n s u f f i c i e n t a nswers t o t h e s e i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s . De f s . Mem. a t 4. Although the United S t a t e s has always attempted to respond as f u l l y as possible to defendants' concerns, the Government i s compelled to point out tha t not one of the l e t t e r s c i t e d by d e f e n d a n t s me n t i o n s NIH o r NCI as a probl em or as a neglected area of discove ry. See, Appendix to Defs. Mem. a t Tabs B-F. A d d i t i o n a l l y , the Government notes t h a t " i f a p ar ty ob je cts to or f a i l s to answer in t e r r o g a t o r ie s , the party s u b m i t t i n g t he i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s may move t he c o u r t f o r an o r de r under F e d . R . C i v . p . 37(a) c om pe l li ng an answer. F e d . R . C i v . P . 3 3 ( a ) . " P a n - I s l a m i c Trade Corp. v . Exxon C o r p. , 632 F. 2d 539, 552 ( 5 t h C i r . 1980). The Uni t ed S t a t e s did o b j e c t t o t he F i r s t Wave I n t e r r o g a t o r i e s . S e e , Uni t ed S t a t e s ' Response. However, defendants ap p are n tl y have never been s u f f i c i e n t l y d i s t u r b e d by the United S t a t e s ' e f f o r t s in d i s c o v e r y to f i l e . a motion to compel production of documents p r i o r to the pending motion. The d e f e n d a n t s ' a tt empt to a s s e r t , at t h is l a t e date, that they have previously sought to co rrect any a l l e g e d inadequacy of production is simply not c r e d i b l e . L.ill:. iciii`>.. ii;; iti "ili.-ti.-.<i:_ iicJ `.* ;-iJ :.fi government document p r o d u c t i o n t h a t would soon be a v a i l a b l e < from t he m i c r o f i l m d i s t r i b u t o r s , Mat hi as & C a r r . N o t i c e t o A l l Counsel dated February 13, 1981 a t 1. That l i s t , released by t he end o f F e b r u a r y , 1 9 8 1 , c o n t a i n e d numerous pa ge s o f e n t r i e s d e m o n s t r a t i n g p r o d u c t i o n o f NIEHS documents in 1980. S e e , S e l e c t e d pages o f Uni t ed S t a t e s ' Index o f Document Production, attached hereto as Appendix A (h e r e in a fte r, "Appendix A"). Al t ho u g h a t f i r s t g l a n c e NIEHS p r o d u c t i o n mi ght appea r t o t a l l y u n r e l a t e d to t h a t o f NCI, a s e p a r a t e i n s t i t u t e in the National In stitutes of Health, that impression is fa lse . NIEHS did not e x i s t as an i n s t i t u t e u n t i l Janua r y 1 2, 1969. Division of Public Information, National Institutes of Health, Pub. No. 8 1 - 5 , 1981 NIH Almanac a t 78 ( 1 9 8 1 ) . P r i o r t o t h a t time and a f t e r November, 1966, i t e x i s t e d as the D i v i s i o n of Envi r onme nt a l He a l t h S c i e n c e s . _Id. a t 77. U n t i l NIEHS became an i n s t i t u t e , a l l i n f o r m a t i o n r e l a t i n g t o the B i o n e t i c s s t u d y r e s t e d in t he hands o f NCI. At some p o i n t a f t e r NIEHS came i n t o b e i n g , t h e m a t e r i a l s r e l a t i n g t o B i o n e t i c s a p p a r e n t l y were t r a n s f e r r e d from NCI t o NIEHS. S e e , A f f i d a v i t o f Joanne Belk at 1 - 2 . This t r a n s f e r of documents r e f l e c t e d the t r a n s f e r o f v a r i o u s program f u n c t i o n s and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , i n c l u d i n g the NCI B i o a s s a y Program, from NCI t o NIEHS. _Id. a t 1 . T h e r e f o r e , i f t h i s m a t e r i a l e x i s t s i n NIH f i l e s , most, i f not a l l , NCI m a t e r i a l r e q u e s t e d by d e f e n d a n t s would be l o c a t e d in NIEHS f i l e s -4- sen or a r c h i v e s . S e e , A f f i d a v i t o f Joanne Belk a t 1 - 2 . 3/ NIEHS a l r e a d y has c o n du c t e d one f u l l document s e a r c h and a su bs e q ue n t f o l l o w - u p check o f a l l r e l e v a n t f i l e s on b e h a l f o f t he p a r t i e s t o t h i s l i t i g a t i o n . NIEHS f i r s t s e a r c h e d i t s f i l e s in r e s p o n s e t o the r e q u e s t s o f c o u n s e l f o r The Dow Chemi cal Company f o r documents g e n e r a l l y r e l e v a n t t o t h i s l i t i g a t i o n . NIEHS o f f i c i a l s n o t i f i e d a l l program l e a d e r s and s e n i o r s t a f f a t NIEHS, i n c l u d i n g o f f i c i a l s o f t he i n t r a m u r a l program, the e x t r amu r a l program, D i r e c t o r ' s o f f i c e and N a t i o n a l T o x i c o l o g y Program. The o f f i c i a l s s e a r c h e d a l l c o r r e s p o n d e n c e and r e s e a r c h r e p o r t f i l e s to c o l l e c t a l l documents r e l a t i n g t o 2 , 4 - D , 2 , 4 , 5 - T , TCDD, d i o x i n and h e r b i c i d e s . S e e , A f f i d a v i t of Joanne Belk a t 2. That search produced approximately eight f i l e drawers of material consisting of approximately 1066 documents t o t a l l i n g n e a r l y 19,800 p a g e s . In accordance with normal pr ocedures f o r d i s c o v e r y in t h i s l i t i g a t i o n , the United S t a t e s had t h e s e documents m i c r o f i l m e d . The r e s u l t i n g t w e l v e r o l l s o f m i c r o f i l m g e n e r a l l y became a v a i l a b l e t o t he p a r t i e s by Sept ember , 1980. S e e , Appendix A. NIEHS empl oyees co n du c t e d a second f o l l o w - u p c h e c k o f the r e l e v a n t f i l e s in response to d e f e n d a n t s ' document r e q u e s t 3/ NIH d e t e r mi n e d t h a t t he f i l e s o f NIEHS and p o s s i b l y NCI were t he o n l y NIH f i l e s t h a t , in the normal c o u r s e o f NIH b u s i n e s s , r e a s o n a b l y coul d be e x p e c t e d to c o n t a i n any o f the information sought by de fe n da n ts . S e e , A f f i d a v i t o f Joanne Belk at 1. -5- i n Sept ember, 1 9 8 2 . 4 / Th a t second sweep t hr ough NIEHS f i l e s r e v e a l e d no i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t t he Uni t ed S t a t e s had not p r e v i o u s l y produced. S e e , A f f i d a v i t of Joanne Belk a t 2. Those same Se p t e mb e r , 1982 r e q u e s t s a l s o r e s u l t e d in a computer check o f NCI f i l e s t o e n s u r e t h a t e v e r y t h i n g r e l a t i n g to t he s u b j e c t had been t r a n s f e r r e d t o NIEHS and pr o duc e d. NCI chec ked i t s f i l e s r e p o s i t o r y f o r m a t e r i a l r e l a t i n g t o Agent Orange, chloracne, 2,4-D, 2,4,5-T, p e s t ic id e studies and d i o x i n . S e e , A f f i d a v i t o f Joanne Belk a t 2. Athough n o t h i ng was l o c a t e d a t t h a t r e p o s i t o r y , NCI di d l o c a t e a n o t h e r r e p o s i t o r y a t which the f o l l o w i n g volumes, t o t a l l i n g o ver one thousand pages of m a t e r i a l , were located : 1. "Program of Carcinogenesis Studies" - V o l . I of the fin a l Bionetics Report; 2. "Program of C arcinogenesis Studies" - Vol. II (pages 52-232) of the fin a l Bionetics Report; 3. "Teratology Study"; 4. Index from the B i o n e t i c s Re searc h R e p o r t s ; and 5. Index from the B io n e tics Research Reports. I d . a t E x h i b i t A, p . 2 . In a d d i t i o n , t h e s e a r c h l o c a t e d a f i l e f o l d e r o f c o r r e s p o n d e n c e and r e p r i n t s . Id^. a t E x h i b i t A, p . l . NCI s e n t t h i s m a t e r i a l t o NIH who, in t u r n , t r a n s f e r r e d i t t o the Department of J u s t i c e . However, in st ead of marking the m a t e r i a l as N C I / B i o n e t i c s i n f o r m a t i o n , NIH r e f e r r e d t o i t as 4/ This r e q u e s t c o n s i s t e d of C h a r l e s M a t t i n g l y ' s September 9, 1982 l e t t e r t o A r v i n Maskin whi ch was s e n t t o NIH on September 1 5 , 1982. -6- 3613 g r a n t s from NIEHS and c o r r e s p o n d e n c e and r e p o r t s on t he P r e s i d e n t ' s Working Group on P e s t C o n t r o l . S e e , L e t t e r t o A. Maskin from J . Be lk , dated October 22, 1983, a tt a c h e d h e r et o as Appendi x C. T h e r e f o r e , t he Department o f J u s t i c e had t h i s m a t e r i a l m i c r o f i l me d and rel eased, as Batch 1936, "Grants & M a t e r i a l s from P r e s i d e n t ' s Working Group on P e s t i c i d e s , " when i n a c t u a l i t y i t was NCI p r o d u c t i o n . S e e , Appendi x A. NCI a l s o s e a r c h e d i t s annual r e p o r t s from 1963-1970 f o r r e f e r e n c e s to t he B i o n e t i c s s t udy and l o c a t e d a n e g l i g i b l e amount o f i n f o r m a t i o n . S e e , A f f i d a v i t o f Joanne Bel k a t E x h i b i t A, p . 2 . Those pages were m i c r o f i l m e d and produced as Bat ch 1940, " R e p o r t s r e f e r r i n g t o c o n t r a c t between NCI and B io n e tic s ." S e e , Appendix A at 11. The United S t a t e s a l r e a d y has pr ovi ded the p a r t i e s with an o p p o r t u n i t y t o i n s p e c t the p e r s o n a l f i l e s o f Dr. Diane C o u r t n e y , a f o r mer B i o n e t i c s empl oyee now in t he employ o f t h e Envi r onme nt a l P r o t e c t i o n Agency. On Janua r y 1 9, 1983 t he p a r t i e s s e a r c h e d t hrough Dr. C o u r t n e y ' s o v e r s i x l i n e a r f e e t of documents to s e l e c t those th a t the United S t a t e s w i l l produce on m i c r o f i l m . Dr. C o u r t n e y ' s documents may have i n c l u d e d many o f t h o s e documents s ought by t he o r d e r a t t a c h e d to t h e pendi ng m o t i o n , such as some p e r i o d i c or i n t e r i m r e p o r t s r e l a t i n g to the B i o n e t i c s study, documents prepared in the course of the B ion etics study that mention 2 ,4 ,5 -T , and r e p o r t s on the t o x i c o l o g y o r c h e m i s t r y o f 2 , 4 , 5 - T pr epared in connection with the B ion etics study. S ee, Order attached t o D e f s . Mem. For d e f e n d a n t s t o demand t h a t t he Uni t ed -7- S t a t e s produce, under co u rt o r d e r , documents t h a t i t al re a dy has made a v a i l a b l e t o t he p a r t i e s i s u n r e a s o n a b l e and burdensome. The d e f en d a n t s a l s o a l l e g e t h a t the United S t a t e s has never answered a s i n g l e one of defendants' r e q u e s ts f o r documents a r i s i n g out o f an NCI o r B i o n e t i c s empl oyee d e p o s i t i o n . To the c o n t r a r y , t he Uni t ed S t a t e s has res ponded t o a l l o f d e f e n d a n t s ' r e q u e s t s as i n f o r m a t i o n became a v a i l a b l e from NIH. On November 1 1 , 1982, f o r exampl e, c o u n s e l f o r t he Government issued a Notice to A l l Counsel th a t addressed a v a r i e t y of o ut s t a n d i n g document r e q u e s t s . That No ti ce s p e c i f i c a l l y answered the o u t s t a n d i n g document r e q u e s t from d e f e n d a n t s r e l a t i n g to NIH document p r o d u c t i o n and inf ormed a l l p a r t i e s t h a t the c u s t o d i a n s o f the r e l e v a n t f i l e s had compl et ed a l l production of a l l requested information e x istin g in those f i l e s . N o t i c e t o A l l C o un s e l dated November 1 1 , 1982, a t 2- 3, attached hereto as Appendix D (h e r e in a fte r, "Appendix D"). T h i s N o t i c e r e s p o n d e d , in p a r t , t o Mr. M a t t i n g l y ' s September 9, 1982 l e t t e r t o Mr. Maskin r e q u e s t i n g documents from NIH and NCI in p a r t i c u l a r . Def enda nt s m e r e l y w a s t e government c o u n s e l and the S p e c i a l M a s t e r ' s time by renewing t h e s e pre vio u sly answered requests. In vi ew o f t he Uni t ed S t a t e s ' p r i o r p r o d u c t i o n from NIH and i t s response to d e f e n d a n t s ' l a t e r r e q u e s t s f o r documents, de fe n da n ts ' maintenance of the pending motion cannot be viewed as anything other than harrassment. Defendants obviously -8- 9615 seek t h e S p e c i a l M a s t e r ' s impr i mat ur t o demand compl et e d u p l i c a t i o n o f a l l p r i o r NIH s e a r c h e s and p r o d u c t i o n . Such an o r d e r would have an o p p r e s s i v e and burdensome e f f e c t on NIH and the Government and t h e r e f o r e s h o u l d be deni ed o u t r i g h t . B. The S p e c i a l Ma s t er Shoul d Deny D e f e n d a n t s ' Motion t o Compel Pro duct i on Because the Motion I n c l u d e s Documents Not in the Possession, Custody or Control o f The N a t i o n a l I n s t i t u t e s of He a l t h _______________________ In the order accompanying the pending motion, the defen d a n t s r e q u e s t " [a] 1 1 f i l e s _in the p o s s e s s i o n o f B i o n e t i c s or NCI t h a t c o n t a i n r e s e a r c h i n f o r m a t i o n o r p u b l i c a t i o n s on 2 , 4 , 5 - T , 2,4,5-TCP, any dioxin or ch loracne." Order Attached to Defs. Mem. a t 2 ( emphasi s a d d e d ) . In a d d i t i o n , d e f e n d a n t s have r e q u e s t e d p r o d u c t i o n o f t he p e r s o n a l f i l e s o f Dr. C a r l B a k e r , a former government employee. These documents, and o t h e r s re q u e s t e d by d e f e n d a n t s , a r e not in the p o s s e s s i o n , c u s t o d y o r c o n t r o l o f NIH. S e e , A f f i d a v i t o f Joanne Be l k a t 3. The Uni t e d S t a t e s has no r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o r a u t h o r i t y t o produce documents in the c o n t r o l of e i t h e r B i o n e t i c s Research Labora t o r i e s , Dr. Baker or any o t h e r independent e n t i t y or p e rs o n. Rule 34(a) of the Federal Rules of C i v i l Procedure provides that: [ a ] n y p a r t y may s e r v e on any o t h e r p a r t y a r e q u e s t (1) t o pr oduc e and pe rmi t the p a r t y making the r e q u e s t , or someone a c t i n g on h i s b e h a l f , t o i n s p e c t and copy, any d e s i g n a t e d documents . . . which c o n s t i t u t e or contain matters within the scope of Rule 26(b) and which a r e in the p o s s ession , custody or control of the p a r t y upon whom the r e q u e s t i s s e r v e d . -9- 961S F e d . R . C i v . P . 34(a) (emphasi s a d d e d ) . 5/ Upon a showing t h a t a party does not have possession, custody or control of the r e q u e s t e d documents, t h a t p a r t y cannot be compelled t o produce them. La Chemise L a c o s t e v . A l l i g a t o r Company, I n c . , 60 F. R. D. 164, 171 (D. Del . 1 9 7 3 ) ; United S t a t e s v . Dempster B r o t h e r s , I n c . , 31 F. R. D. 207, 208 (E.D. Tenn. 1 962 ) . As one court stated: The " c o n t r o l " r e q u i r e m e n t o f Rule 34 which presumes a l e g a l r i g h t to obtain the n ec ess ar y documents . . . - has not been in te rp r e te d to order defendants to produce documents wi thi n the e x c l u s i v e p o s s e s s i o n and c o n t r o l of t h i r d p a r t i e s , such as non-party licen sees [of the defen dant] . United Sheeplined Clothing Co., Inc, v. National Broadcasting C o . , I n c . , 11 F . R . S e r v .2d 892, 894 ( S . D . N. Y 1968) . Bionetics Research Laboratories, Inc. (hereinafter, " B i o n e t i c s " ) i s an independent c o r p o r a t i o n t h a t , under c o n t r a c t , p r o v i d e d c e r t a i n s e r v i c e s t o NCI d u r i n g t he 1 960s . Be f o r e now, d e f e n d a n t s f u l l y r e c o g n i z e d not onl y t h i s f a c t , but also the inherent d i f f i c u l t i e s in requesting the United S t a t e s to produce documents in the p o s s e s s i o n , custody or co n tro l of B io n e tic s . S e e , Tr. Hearing Before Sol Schreiber, 5/ Use o f t h i s r u l e p r e s u p p o s e s t h a t the Unit ed S t a t e s i s a party to th is l i t i g a t i o n , a fa c t that the United S tates and, when c o n v e n i e n t , t h e p a r t i e s d i s p u t e . C i t a t i o n t o t h i s r u l e o r t o Rul e 37 by t h e Uni t ed S t a t e s does not c o n s t i t u t e an a d m i s s i o n o f p a r t y s t a t u s in t h i s l i t i g a t i o n and the Uni t ed States expressly reserves the righ t to argue a position to the contrary. -10- 9617 belongs s o l e l y to B i o n e t i c s and not the United S t a t e s . S e e , A f f i d a v i t of Joanne Be lk a t 3. The d e f e n d a n t s ' c o g n i z a n c e of t h i s f a c t was r e f l e c t e d in a d i s c u s s i o n o f B i o n e t i c s a t a h e a ri ng in which counsel f o r one defendant admitted: We a r e p e r f e c t l y happy t o pr o c e e d by subpoena a g a i n s t the p r i v a t e i n d i v i d u a l s and t h e company in r e q u e s t s t h a t t he documents be produced in a timely fashion. T r . Hearing Before Sol Schreiber, Special Master, July 14, 1982 a t 1275-1276. Yet a p p a r e n t l y defendants have never done s o . For d e f e n d a n t s , more than s i x months l a t e r , t o r e q u e s t an o r d e r c o m p e l l i n g p r o d u c t i o n by the Uni t ed S t a t e s of these documents t h a t belong to a p r i v a t e c o r p o r a t i o n i s nothing less than harrassment. In addition, defendants have requested the production o f t h e p r i v a t e f i l e s o f Dr. C a r l B a k e r , D i r e c t o r o f NCI from 1969 t o 1 97 2. However, Dr. Ba ke r i s no l o n g e r an empl oyee of the United S t a t e s and any o f h i s f i l e s t h a t have not been produced are not in the possession, custody or control of the Government. S e e , A f f i d a v i t of Joanne Belk a t 3. Although the United States w i l l request the cooperation of Dr. Baker in producing his f i l e s for the benefit of the parties to this l i t i g a t i o n , i n c l u s i o n of these p r i v a t e f i l e s in an order c o m p e l l i n g p r o d u c t i o n by t he Uni t e d S t a t e s i s , t o s a y t he l e a s t , i n a p p r o p r i a t e . The United S t a t e s t h e r e f o r e r e q u e s t s -11- the Special Master to s t r i k e the request from any order i s s u e d , i f t he S p e c i a l Ma s t e r deems t h a t such an o r d e r i s s t i l l necessary. C. The S p e c i a l Mast er Shoul d Deny D e f e n d a n t ' s Motion t o Compel P r od u ct i on Because the Motion I n c l u d e s New Re q u e s t s To Which t h e Un i t e d S t a t e s Has Not Had Any O p p o r t u n i t y To Respond. The d e f e n d a n t s ' pr oposed o r d e r i n c l u d e s a t l e a s t f i v e req ue st s f o r s p e c i f i c documents th at the defendants r a i s e f or t h e f i r s t t i m e . 6/ S e e , Or de r a t t a c h e d t o t h e D e f s . Mem., Items 12, 13, 14, 1 5, and 16. The Government r e c o g n i z e s t h a t , as t h e d e f e n d a n t s p r o c e e d w i t h d i s c o v e r y , t h e y may d e v e l o p i n t e r e s t in new a r e a s and g e n e r a t e new r e q u e s t s . However, i t seems s i n g u l a r l y i n a p p r o p r i a t e and o p p r e s s i v e f o r the d e f e n d a n t s t o demand c o mp e l l e d p r o d u c t i o n by the Un i t e d S t a t e s b e f o r e t h ey have e v e r g i v e n the Government an o p p o r t u n i t y t o respond. The F e d e r a l Ru l e s o f C i v i l Pr o c e dur e p r o v i d e f o r a procedure of discovery that "encourages extra ju d icial discovery 6/ During the week o f J anuary 10, 1983, the day upon which defendants served the pending motion, the United States r e c e i v e d a January 5 l e t t e r from William F. Cavanaugh, J r . of R i v k i n , L e f f , Sherman & R a d l e r t h a t r e q u e s t e d c e r t a i n o f t h e s e items. That l e t t e r r e q u e s t e d p r o d u c t i o n o f Dr. B a k e r ' s pe rso na l f i l e s (Item 12) and of any notes or minutes o f weekly m e e t i n g s of the NCI S c i e n t i f i c D i r e c t o r a t e (Item 1 3 ) . Al t hough t h e Uni t ed S t a t e s now has r e c e i v e d t h i s w r i t t e n r e q u e s t , i t s r e c e i p t does not n e g a t e the f a c t t h a t t he Uni t ed S t a t e s had no o p p o r t u n i t y t o r es pond b e f o r e d e f e n d a n t s s e r v e d t h e pending motion. -12- w i t h a minimum o f c o u r t i n t e r v e n t i o n . " F e d. R . C i v . P . , D e p o s i t i o n s and D i s c o v e r y , A d v is or y Committee's Expl anatory S t a t e m e n t C o n c e r n i n g 1970 Amendments o f D i s c o v e r y Ru l e s a t 67. Rule 37(a) provides th at: . . . if a party, in response to a request f o r in s p ec tio n submitted under Rule 34, f a i l s to respond t h a t i n s p e c t i o n w i l l be permitted as requested or f a i l s to permit inspection as requested, the discovering p a r t y may move f o r an o r d e r c o m p e l l i n g . . . inspection in accordance with the request. F e d . R . C i v . P . 3 7 ( a ) . As t h e comment t o the r u l e s t a t e s : "Rule 37(a) provides r e l i e f to a party seeking discovery a g a i n s t one who, w i t h o r w i t h o u t s t a t e d o b j e c t i o n s , f a i l s t o a f f o r d the d i s c o v e r y . " F e d .R .C iv .P . 3 7 ( a ) , Advisory Committee Note. The Ru l e s do not a n t i c i p a t e or s a n c t i o n r e q u e s t s , such as t h a t of d e f e n d a n t s , f o r an o rder compell ing pr oduct ion where t h e r e has been no p r i o r r e q u e s t f o r t he documents. To t he e x t e n t t h a t t he d e f e n d a n t s ' new r e q u e s t s i n v o l v e new a r e a s o f i n t e r e s t not encompassed by p r i o r NIH s e a r c h e s and p r o d u c t i o n , the S p e c i a l Master should s t r i k e t hes e newlyr a i s e d r e q u e s t s (Items 12, 1 3 , 14, 15, 16 and 17) as i n a p p r o p r i a t e to an o rd er to compel pr od uc t io n a t t h i s time. However, such an o r d e r i s n o t , i n f a c t , e s s e n t i a l b e c a u s e NIH previou sly has searched i t s relevant f i l e s for a l l material re la tin g to the subject matter of these requests. That search resu lted in a determination th a t, i f they have not already been produced, t h es e documents a p p a r e n t l y do not e x i s t in the r e l e v a n t f i l e s . S e e , A f f i d a v i t of Joanne Belk at 3-4 -13- 9620 (h erein a fter, "Appendix B"). Therefore, inclusion of these requests in any order compelling production, which the United S t a t e s s u g g e s t s should not be i s su e d at a l l , should be denied by the Special Master as oppressive. D. The S p e c i a l Mas t er Shoul d Deny t he De f e n d a n t s ' Motion t o Compel Production Because the Requests f o r Documents are O p p r e s s i v e , O v e r l y Broad and Burdensome.____ In f i l i n g the pending motion, counsel f o r defendants r e p r e s e n t e d t h a t the Motion c o n s i s t e d o f an at t empt t o narrow t h e i r document r e q u e s t s . T r . Hearing B e f o r e Hon. S o l S c h r e i b e r , S p e c i a l Master, January 10, 1983 a t 2746. This p r o f f e r a l l e g e d l y had the b e n e f i c e n t purpose of a s s i s t i n g the Government in f o c u s s i n g i t s e f f o r t s t o make a n y - o u t s t a n d i n g document p r o d u c t i o n from NIH t o the p a r t i e s . _Id. , a t 2747- 2748. However, under the g u ise of promoting e f f i c i e n t production f o r l i m i t e d and d i s c r e t e documents, def endants r e q u e s t y e t a n o t h e r p a g e - b y - p a g e s e a r c h o f e v e r y r e l e v a n t f i l e i n NIH. S e e , Order a t t a c h e d t o De f s . Mem. Exami nati on o f t he d e f e n d a n t s ' order reveals th a t, although defendants have requested ce rta in narrow c a t e g o r i e s o f document s, t h e y a l s o have made sweepi ng r e q u e s t s th at do not comport with the a l l e g e d purpose o f the moti on. As t he S p e c i a l Mas t er r e c o g n i z e s , such broad r e q u e s t s , p a r t i c u l a r l y in the absence of proof th at the Government has mi s s ed more than t he u n d e r s t a n d a b l e n e g l i g i b l e amounts of i n f o r m a t i o n in t he f i r s t NIH p r o d u c t i o n , a r e not o n l y -14- ' r A 't % J n ! M -A. unreasonable, but a l s o o p p r e s s i v e .!_/ For example, defendants have requested production o f : " Re c o r ds of m e e t i n g s a t t e n d e d by FDA s c i e n t i s t s and Dr. B a k e r . " Order a t t a c h e d t o D e f s . Mem. a t 4. I t would be v i r t u a l l y i m p o s s i b l e f o r NIH t o respond t o the r e q u e s t as p h r a s e d . On i t s f a c e , even without c o n s id e r at io n of NIH's p r i o r production e f f o r t s , t h i s re q ue st i s p a t e n t l y o p p r e s s i v e . In a d d i t i o n , many o f t h e s e r e c o r d s would most l i k e l y have a b s o l u t e l y no r e l a t i o n to t h i s l i t i g a t i o n . Defendants a ls o have requested production of: A l l documents r e l a t i n g to Dr. C o u r t n e y ' s attendance at any workshops, c o n f e r e n c e s , meetings or seminars concerning teratology, including but not lim ited to a l l notes p e r t a i n i n g to Dr. C o u r t n e y ' s t r i p to Canada and meetings with Canadian s c i e n t i s t s in which 2 ,4 ,5 - T , 2,4,5-TCP, any dioxin or c h l o r a c n e was ment i one d. Order a t t a c h e d t o De f s . Mem. a t 3. F i r s t , t h i s r e q u e s t c o n t a i n s no t emporal l i m i t a t i o n . Given the scope o f the d i s c o v e r y f o r the government contractor defense, for defendants to request a l l such documents, apparently including those of post-1972 7/ At t he P r e t r i a l C o n f e r e n c e on J a n u a r y 10, 1983 d u r i n g a discussion of the pending motion, the Special Master stated: " [ Re q u e s t s f o r ] c a t e g o r i e s ( of documents] c r e a t e some d i f f i c u l t y f o r me u n l e s s t h e r e be good r e a s o n why i t c o u l d be shown t h a t the Government has not carried out its i n i t i a l re sp o n sib ility . . . . I have expressed the opinion t h a t agency by agency makes s e n s e when you a r e t a l k i n g about s p e c i f i c document s. When you a r e t a l k i n g about c a t e g o r i e s you a r e g o i n g t o have some p r o b l e m s , i f you a r e talking about ten agencies." Tr . Heari ng B e f o r e Hon. S o l S c h r e i b e r , S p e c i a l Ma s t e r , J a n u a r y 10, 1983 a t 2751. -15- j.v b* !! $ .. v i n t a g e , i s u n r e a s o n a b l e . Second, Dr. Courtney i s an a c t i v e s c i e n t i s t with acknowledged exp ertise in the area of teratology. She has a t t e n d e d u n t o l d numbers o f s c i e n t i f i c c o n f e r e n c e s on te ra to lo g y at which "2,4 ,5 -T , 2 , 4 , 5-TCP, dioxin or chloracne" might have been mentioned. In e f f e c t , defendants are requesting t h a t Dr. C o ur t ne y o r NIH t u r n o v e r e v e r y note o f e v e r y c o n f e r e n c e e v e r attended by Dr. Courtney. This r eq ue st u n q u e s t i o n a b l y i s o ver br oa d and s houl d be d e n i e d . These and o t h e r r e q u e s t s are f a r too broad or vague f o r t h e Government t o u n d e r t a k e any r e a s o n a b l e s e a r c h . What th es e re q u e st s e s s e n t i a l l y r e q u i r e i s y e t another sweep t h r o u gh t he same f i l e s . S i n c e NIH perf ormed a second check in 1982 s p e c i f i c a l l y in response to d e f e n d a n t s ' r e q u e s t f o r information concerning B io n e tic s , a third sweep, such as the one proposed by d e f e n d a n t s , would be o p p r e s s i v e and burdensome. Therefore, to the extent defendants' order contains broad or vague requests, the United States requests that the Special Master deny the proposed order. E. The Uni t e d S t a t e s S p e c i f i c a l l y O b j e c t s t o t he Document R e q u e s t s Embodied by D e f e n d a n t s ' Motion t o Compel P r o d u c t i o n of N a t i o n a l Cancer I n s t i t u t e and B i o n e t i c s Re s e a r c h L a b o r a t o r i e s , I n c . Documents_____ The Uni t ed S t a t e s makes the f o l l o w i n g s p e c i f i c o b j e c t i o n s to def endants' r e q u e s t s f o r documents as contained in the defendants' proposed order compelling production of documents: -16- v c , *. 1 . A l l c o n t r a c t s , and any and a l l supplements or m odifications th e r e to , between the United Sta tes o r NCI and B i o n e t i c s f o r t h e s t udy o f carcinogenicity and/or teratogenicity of various compounds, i n c l u d i n g but not l i m i t e d to the c o n t r a c t executed in 1963 pursuant to which a report titled "Evaluation of Carcinogenic, T e r a t o g e n i c and Mutagenic A c t i v i t i e s o f S e l e c t e d P e s t i c i d e s and I n d u s t r i a l Chemi cal s" was prepared. The United S t a t e s p r e v i o u s l y has responded to defendants' September 9, 1982 reque st f o r t h i s m a t e r i a l by N o t i c e t o A l l Couns el dat ed November 1 1 , 1982. That N o t i c e s t a t e d t h a t NIH had completed i t s s e a r c h and had produced any such documents contained withi n i t s f i l e s . S e e , Appendi x D a t 3. A d d i t i o n a l l y , Ms. B e l k ' s a f f i d a v i t indicates that, i f they have not a l r e a d y been produced, thes e documents do not e x i s t i n NIH f i l e s . S e e , Appendi x B a t 2- 3. To t he e x t e n t t h a t any such documents e x i s t in the f i l e s o f Dr. C o u r t n e y , the p a r t i e s had an o p p o r t u n i t y on January 19, 1983 to i n s p e c t and s e l e c t them f o r p r o d u c t i o n by the Uni t e d S t a t e s . To r e q u i r e any a d d i t i o n a l s e a r c h o f NIH f i l e s would be unduly burdensome and o p p r e s s i v e . 2. Any p e r i o d i c r e p o r t s , i n t e r i m r e p o r t s , f i n a l r e p o r t s , c o r r e s p o n d e n c e or r e p o r t s or memoranda o f any d e s c r i p t i o n by B i o n e t i c s t o NCI o r any o t h e r a g e n c y , o r by NCI o r any o t h e r a g e n c y o f the United S t a t e s Government to any o th e r agency or person, that mention t e s t r e s u l t s or fin d ing s by B i o n e t i c s p e r t a i n i n g to 2 , 4 , 5 - T and/or i t s possible hazards, including teratogenicity. The United S t a t e s p r e v i o u s l y has responded to def end an ts ' September 9, 1982 re que st f o r t h i s m a t e r i a l by N o t i c e t o A l l Counsel d a t e d November 1 1 , 1982. That N o t i c e s t a t e d t h a t NIH had completed i t s s e a r c h and had produced any such documents contained w ith in i t s f i l e s . S e e , Appendi x D a t 3. A d d i t i o n a l l y , Ms. B e l k ' s a f f i d a v i t indicates that i f they have not a l r e a d y been produced, t hes e documents do not e x i s t in NIH f i l e s . S e e , Appendi x B a t 2- 3. To t he e x t e n t t h a t any such documents e x i s t in the f i l e s of Dr. C o u r t ne y , the p a r t i e s had an o p p o r t u n i t y on January 19, 1983 to i n s p e c t and s e l e c t them f o r p r oduc t io n by the United S t a t e s . To r e q u i r e any a d d i t i o n a l s e a r c h o f NIH f i l e s would be undul y burdensome and oppressive.  " 3. A l l documents t h a t r e l a t e to the s e l e c t i o n o f 2 ,4 ,5 - T f o r study by B i o n e t i c s , in c lu d in g but not l i m i t e d t o a l l r e p o r t s , n o t e s o r memoranda of any meetings, formal or informal, within or o u t s i d e NCI on t he s u b j e c t o f p o s s i b l e h a z a r d s , including teratogenicity, of 2,4,5-T. The United S t a t e s p r e v i o u s l y has responded to d e f e n d a n t s ' September 9, 1982 r e q u e s t f o r t h i s m a t e r i a l by N o t i c e t o A l l Counsel d a t e d November 1 1 , 1982. That N o t i c e s t a t e d t h a t NIH had compl et ed i t s s e a r c h and had produced any such documents contained within i t s f i l e s . S e e , Appendi x D a t 3. A d d i t i o n a l l y , Ms. B e l k ' s a f f i d a v i t in d ic a te s that, i f they already have have not been produced, t hes e documents do not e x i s t in NIH f i l e s . S e e , Appendi x B a t 2 - 3 . To t he e x t e n t t h a t any such documents e x i s t in the f i l e s o f Dr. C o u r t n e y , the p a r t i e s had an o p p o r t u n i t y on January 19, 1983 t o i n s p e c t and s e l e c t them f o r pr oduct i on by the United S t a t e s . To r e q u i r e any a d d i t i o n a l s e a r c h o f NIH f i l e s would be undul y burdensome and oppressive. 4. A l l f i l e s in t he p o s s e s s i o n o f B i o n e t i c s o r NCI that contain research information or publications on 2 , 4 , 5 - T , 2 , 4 , 5 - T C P , any d i o x i n o r c h l o r a c n e . This request is o v erly broad because i t contains no te mpor a l l i m i t a t i o n . C o n s e q u e n t l y , the r e q u e s t i s unduly burdensome and o p p r e s s i v e . Moreover, the United States previously has re s ponded to d e f e n d a n ts ' September 9, 1982 re q ue st for this material maintained in the possession, c u s t o d y , or c o n t r o l o f NIH by N o t i c e t o A l l C o uns e l d a t e d November 1 1 , 1982. That N o t i c e s t a t e d t h a t NIH had compl et ed i t s s e a r c h and had produced any such documents c o n t a i n e d withi n i t s f i l e s . S e e , Appendix D a t 3. A d d i t i o n a l l y , Ms. B e l k ' s a f f i d a v i t i n d i c a t e s that i f they have not already been produced, t h e s e documents do not e x i s t i n NIH f i l e s . S e e , Appendi x B a t 2- 3. To t he e x t e n t that any such documents e x i s t in the f i l e s of Dr. C o u r t n e y , t he p a r t i e s had an o p p o r t u n i t y on January 19, 1983 t o i n s p e c t and s e l e c t them f o r p r o d u c t i o n . To r e q u i r e an a d d i t i o n a l s e a r c h o f NIH f i l e s would be unduly burdensome and oppress iv e . -18- Ob.:uP '*?*'-Ji iiiw-L F i n a l l y , to the e x t e n t t h i s request seeks documents in the possession of Bionetics, it seeks production o f documents not in NIH's p o s s e s s i o n , custody and c o n t r o l . S e e , Appendix B a t 3. C o ns eq ue nt ly , t h e Uni t ed S t a t e s cannot make t he r e q u e s t e d p r o d u c t i o n and to demand t h a t i t do so i s unduly burdensome and o p p r e s s i v e . 5. A l l documents prepared in the course of the B io n e tics study that mention 2,4,5 -T , 2,4,5-TCP, any dioxin or chloracne. The United S t a t e s p r e v i o u s l y has responded to de fe n da n ts ' September 9, 1982 request f o r t h i s m a t e r i a l by N o t i c e t o A l l Counsel da t e d November 1 1 , 1982. That N o t i c e s t a t e d t h a t NIH had completed i t s s e ar ch and had produced any such documents contained within i t s f i l e s . S e e , Appendi x D a t 3. A d d i t i o n a l l y , Ms. B e l k ' s a f f i d a v i t i n d i c a t e s t h a t , i f they have not a l r e a d y been produced, t hes e documents do not e x i s t in the r e l e v a n t NIH f i l e s . S e e , Appendi x B a t 2 - 3 . To the e x t e n t t h a t t h e s e documents e x i s t in the f i l e s o f Dr. C o u r t n e y , the p a r t i e s had an o p p o r t u n i t y on January 19, 1983 to i n s p e c t and s e l e c t them f o r p r o d u c t i o n by t he Un i t e d S t a t e s . To r e q u i r e any a d d i t i o n a l s e a r c h o f NIH f i l e s would be undul y burdensome and o p p r e s s i v e . 6. A l l documents th at r e l a t e to or evidence the dissemination of information developed in the course of the B io n etics research concerning any p o t e n t i a l hazard of 2 ,4 ,5 -T , including but not l i m i t e d to n o te s , l i s t s or documents of any d e s c r i p t i o n i n d i c a t i n g t o whom and when any data, information, r e s u lts , drafts or versions of the B ion etics reports were disseminated. T h i s r e q u e s t i s o v e r l y broad b ec a us e i t has no temporal l i m i t a t i o n and thus a l s o asks f o r r e c e n t l y generated documents t h a t happen to mention the B ionetics study. Consequently, the r e q u e s t i s unduly burdensome and o p p r e s s i v e . Moreover, the United States p reviou sly has responded to defe nd an ts ' September 9, 1982 re q u e st f o r t h i s m a t e r i a l by Notice to a l l C o u n s e l dated November 1 1 , 1982. That N o t i c e s t a t e d t h a t NIH had compl e t e d i t s s e a r c h and had produced any such documents contained w it h i n i t s f i l e s . S e e , Appendix D at 3. -19- 3 62b A d d i t i o n a l l y , Ms. B e l k ' s a f f i d a v i t i n d i c a t e s th a t , i f they have not already been produced, t h e s e documents do not e x i s t in NIH f i l e s . S e e , Appendi x B a t 2- 3. To the e x t e n t t h a t any such documents e x i s t in the f i l e s o f Dr. C o u r t n e y , t he p a r t i e s had an o p p o r t u n i t y on January 19, 1983 t o i n s p e c t and s e l e c t them f o r p r o d u c t i o n by t he Uni t ed S t a t e s . To r e q u i r e any a d d i t i o n a l s e a r c h o f NIH f i l e s would be unduly burdensome and o p p r e s s i v e . A l l n o t e s , memoranda and c o r r e s p o n d e n c e , from NCI empl oyees t o B i o n e t i c s e mp l o y e e s , and from B i o n e t i c s e mpl o yee s to NCI e mp l o y e e s , t h a t pertain to the Bionetics study, including but not lim ited to t r a n s m i tt a l l e t t e r s accompanying reports, data or other correspondence or documents s u b m i t t e d by B i o n e t i c s t o NCI or by NCI t o B i o n e t i c s . T h i s r e q u e s t i s o v e r l y broad b e c a u s e i t has no temporal l i m i t a t i o n and thus a l s o a s k s f o r r e c e n t l y generated documents th a t happen to mention the B i o n e t i c s study. Consequently, the r e q u e s t i s unduly burdensome and o p p r e s s i v e . To t he e x t e n t t h a t such documents e x i s t in NIH f i l e s , they have previou sly been produced in e i t h e r the f a l l o f 1980 o r November, 1982. S e e , Appendix B at 2-3. A d d i t i o n a l l y , i f any such documents e x i s t in t he f i l e s o f Dr. C o u r t n e y , the p a r t i e s had an o p p o r t u n i t y on J a n u a r y 1 9, 1983 to i n s p e c t and s e l e c t them f o r p r o d u c t i o n by t he Uni t e d S t a t e s . To r e q u i r e any a d d i t i o n a l s e a r c h o f NIH f i l e s would be unduly burdensome and o p p r e s s i v e . A l l n o t e s , memoranda, c o r r e s p o n d e n c e or documents of any description that re la t e to meetings, discu ssions or communications -- formal or i nf or ma l -- held from 1960 t o 1970 and a tt ended by B i o n e t i c s e mp l o y e e s , NCI e mp l o y e e s , o r any other r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of any government or p r iv a t e e n t i t y , at which the B ion etics study was d i s c u s s e d or ment i oned. This request is overly broad because i t seeks material that is unrelated to 2,4,5-T, 2,4,5-TCP, herbicides, Agent Orange, dioxin or chloracne. Consequently, the re que st i s unduly burdensome and o p p r e s s i v e . -20- To t h e e x t e n t t h a t such documents e x i s t in NIH f i l e s , they have p re v io u sly been produced in e i t h e r the f a l l o f 1980 o r November, 1982. S e e , Appendix B at 2-3. A d d i t i o n a lly , i f any such documents e x i s t in t he f i l e s o f Dr. C o u r t n e y , t h e p a r t i e s had an o p p o r t u n i t y on January 19, 1983 t o i n s p e c t and s e l e c t them f o r p r o d u c t i o n by t he Uni t ed S t a t e s . To r e q u i r e any a d d i t i o n a l s e a r c h o f NIH f i l e s would be unduly burdensome and o p p r e s s i v e . 9. A l l LD-50 r e p o r t s and/or o t h e r r e p o r t s on the toxicology and/or chemistry of 2,4,5-T prepared in connecton with the Bionetics study. The United S t a t e s p r e v i o u s l y has responded to d e f e n d a n t s ' September 9, 1982 r e q u e s t f o r t h i s m a t e r i a l by N o t i c e t o A l l Co un s e l d a t e d November 1 1 , 1982. That N o t i c e s t a t e d t h a t NIH had compl et ed i t s s e a r c h and had produced any such documents contained w ithin i t s f i l e s . S e e , Appendi x D a t 3. A d d i t i o n a l l y , Ms. B e l k ' s a f f i d a v i t in d ica te s th a t, i f they have not a l r e a d y been pr oduced, t h e s e documents do not e x i s t in NIH f i l e s . S e e , Appendi x B a t 2 - 3 . To t h e e x t e n t t h a t any such documents e x i s t in t he f i l e s o f Dr. C o u r t n e y , the p a r t i e s had an o p p o r t u n i t y on January 1 9, 1983 t o i n s p e c t and s e l e c t them f o r p r o d u c t i o n by the United S t a t e s To r e q u i r e any a d d i t i o n a l s e a r c h o f NIH f i l e s would be unduly burdensome and o p p r e s s i v e . 10. A l l w r i t t e n p r o t o c o l s , i n c l u d i n g the Food and Drug A d m i n i s t r a t i o n Phase I I t e r a t o l o g y p r o t o c o l , u t i l i z e d or consulted in the course of the Bionetics study. The United S t a t e s p r e v i o u s l y has responded to de f en da n ts ' September 9, 1982 re q ue st f o r t h i s m a t e r i a l by N o t i c e t o A l l C o uns e l d a t e d November 1 1 , 1982. That N o t i c e s t a t e d t h a t NIH had completed i t s se ar ch and had produced any such documents contained w ithin i t s f i l e s . S e e , Appendi x D a t 3. A d d i t i o n a l l y , Ms. B e l k ' s a f f i d a v i t in d icates th a t, i f they have not a l r e a d y been produced, th es e documents do not e x i s t in the r e l e v a n t NIH f i l e s . S e e , Appendi x B a t 3. To t h e e x t e n t t h a t any such documents e x i s t in the f i l e s o f Dr. C o u r t n e y , t h e p a r t i e s had an o p p o r t u n i t y on Ja n ua r y 1 9, 1983 t o i n s p e c t and s e l e c t them f o r p r o du ct i on by the Un i t e d S t a t e s . To r e q u i r e any a d d i t i o n a l s e a r c h o f NIH f i l e s would be undul y burdensome and o p p r e s s i v e . -21- 9623 1 1 . A l l documents r e l a t i n g t o Dr. C o u r t n e y ' s a t t e n dance at any workshops, conferences, meetings or seminars concerning teratology, including but not l i m i t e d t o a l l n o t e s p e r t a i n i n g to Dr. C o u r t n e y ' s t r i p to Canada and meetings with Canadian s c i e n t i s t s in which 2,4,5-T, 2 , 4 ,5 ,TCP, any d i o x i n o r c h l o r a c n e was mentioned. This request is overly broad and, th erefore, v i r t u a l l y impossible to addresss. Because the r e q u e s t i s so sweeping, i t i s unduly burdensome and o p p r e s s i v e . . In any eve n t, the United S t a t e s p r e v io u s l y has responded to d e f e n d a n t s ' September 9, 1982 r e q u e s t f o r t h i s m a t e r i a l by Notice to A l l C o u n s e l d a t e d November 1 1 , 1982. That N o t i c e s t a t e d t h a t NIH had c ompl et ed i t s s e a r c h and had produced any such documents contained w it h i n i t s f i l e s . S e e , Appendix D at 3. A d d i t i o n a l l y , Ms. B e l k ' s a f f i d a v i t i n d i c a t e s t h a t these documents are not in the p o s s e s s i o n , c u s t o d y o r c o n t r o l o f NIH. S e e , Appendix B a t 3. C o n s e q u e n t l y , NIH cannot make t he r e q u e s t e d p r o d u c t i o n and to demand t h a t i t do so i s undul y burdensome and o p p r e s s i v e . Moreover, to the e x t e n t th at any such documents e x i s t in the f i l e s o f Dr. C o u r t n e y , t he p a r t i e s had an o p p o r t u n i t y on January 1 9, 1983 t o i n s p e c t and and s e l e c t them f o r p r o d u c t i o n by the United S t a t e s . To r e q u i r e any a d d i t i o n a l s e a r c h o f NIH f i l e s would be undul y burdensome and o p p r e s s i v e . 12. P e r s o n a l r e c o r d s o f Dr. Baker r e l e v a n t t o 2 , 4 , 5 - T . This request constitutes a request that defendants had not p r e v i o u s l y made in w r i t i n g in a c c o r d a n c e w i t h p r o c e d u r e . As a new r e q u e s t t o whi ch t h e Unit ed S t a t e s has not y e t had an o p p o r t u n i t y t o res po nd, t h i s r eq u e s t does not belong in an o rde r to compel prod uct ion . A d d i t i o n a l l y , t h i s m aterial e ith e r has already been produced or i t does not e x i s t in t he r e l e v a n t NIH f i l e s . S e e , Appendi x B a t 3 - 4 . To r e q u i r e y e t a n o t h e r s e a r c h o f t h e s e f i l e s would be unduly burdensome and o p p r e s s i v e . To t he e x t e n t t h a t t h i s r e q u e s t s e e k s m a t e r i a l in Dr. B a k e r ' s p o s s e s s i o n , i t seeks m a t e r i a l not in the possession, custody or control of NIH o r t he Uni t ed S t a t e s . S e e , Appendix B a t 4. The United S t a t e s cannot compel p r o d u c t i o n o f t h i s m a t e r i a l from Dr. Baker and should n o t , i n t u r n , be compe l l e d t o produce the m a t e r i a l . For th at reason, the reque st i s undul y burdensome and o p p r e s s i v e . -22- 9629 13. Mi n u t e s , n o t e s or memoranda o f m e e t i n g s , or r e f e r r i n g t o m e e t i n g s , o f NCI d i r e c t o r s where 2 , 4 , 5 - T 2 , 4 , 5 , -TCP, any d io x in or ch lorac ne was d i s c u s s e d . This request constitutes a request that defendants have not p r e v i o u s l y made in w r i t i n g in a c c o r d a n c e w i t h p r o c e d u r e . As a new r e q u e s t t o whi ch t he Unit ed S t a t e s has not y e t had an o p p o r t u n i t y to r e s po n d , t h i s r e q u e s t does not bel ong i n an order to compel production. A d d i t i o n a l l y , t h i s request is overly broad p a r t i a l l y because i t c o n t a i n s no t e mp o r a l l i m i t a t i o n and, t h e r e f o r e , i t is v i r t u a lly impossible to address. Because the request is so sweeping, the request is unduly burdensome and o p p r e s s i v e . To the e x t e n t t h e s e documents e x i s t in t he r e l e v a n t NIH f i l e s , they have p r e v i o u s l y been pr o d u c e d . S e e , Appendix A. A d d i t i o n a l l y , Ms. B e l k ' s a f f i d a v i t i n d i c a t e s t h a t , i f t h e s e documents have not alread y been produced, they do not e x i s t i n J:he r e l e v a n t NIH f i l e s . S e e , Appendi x B a t 4. To r e q u i r e y e t a n o t h e r s e a r c h o f NIH f i l e s would be undul y burdensome and oppressive. 14. Records o f m e e t i n g s a t t e n d e d by FDA s c i e n t i s t s and Dr. Ba ke r . This request constitutes a request that defendants have not p r e v i o u s l y made in w r i t i n g in a c c o r d a n c e w i t h p r o c e d u r e . As a new r e q u e s t t o whi ch t he United S t a t e s has not y e t had an o p p o r t u n i t y to r e s p o n d , t h i s r e q u e s t does not b e l o n g i n an order to compel production. A d d i t i o n a l l y , t h i s request is overly broad and, th e r e fo re , v i r t u a l l y impossible to address. Because the request is so swe e p i ng, i t i s unduly burdensome and oppress iv e. To t he e x t e n t t h e s e documents e x i s t in the relevant f i l e s , they have previou sly been p r o d u c e d . S e e , Appendix A. Moreover, Ms. Belk's affidavit indicates that, if these documents have not already been produced, they do not e x i s t in t he r e l e v a n t NIH f i l e s . S e e , Appendi x B a t 4. To r e q u i r e y e t a n o t h e r s e a r c h o f NIH f i l e s would be undul y burdensome and oppressive. 15. Bound compendiums o f s t u d i e s o f c h e m i c a l com pounds fo r c a r c i n o g e n i c i t y published by and/or in possession of United States Public Health Service. -23- rY>,i'rO- O T\ This request constitutes a request that defendants have not p r e v i o u s l y made. As a new r e q u e s t t o which the United S t a t e s has not y e t had an opportunity to respond, th is request does not belong in an o r d e r to compel p r o d u c t i o n . A d d itionally, th is request is so vague that i t is v i r t u a l l y impossible to address. Because t h a t vagueness p r e v e n t s an a d e q u a t e l y narrow s e a r c h s c o p e , i t i s unduly burdensome and o p p r e s s i v e . Moreover, to the e x t e n t th a t such documents e x i s t in NIH f i l e s , t h e y a r e c o n t a i n e d in the p r i o r document p r o d u c t i o n from NIH t h a t the Uni t e d S t a t e s has made a v a i l a b l e t o t he p a r t i e s . S e e , Appendi x B a t 4. To r e q u i r e y e t a n o t h e r s e a r ch of t h e s e f i l e s i s unduly burdensome and o p p r e s s i v e . 16. Dr. F i s h b e i n ' s f i l e s in the cu st ody o f NCI, including but not lim ited to the l i t e r a t u r e reviewed in deciding to include 2 ,4,5-T in the B i o n e t i c s s t u d y , and notes or l i t e r a t u r e r e c e i v e d a t a t o x i c o l o g y meeting in A t l a n t a on 3/12/70 a t t e n d e d by Dr. F i s h b e i n . This request constitutes a request that defendants have not p r e v i o u s l y made. As a new r e q u e s t t o which the Uni t e d S t a t e s has not y e t had an opportunity to respond, th is request does not belong in an o r d e r to compel p r o d u c t i o n . A d d i t i o n a l l y , Ms. B e l k ' s a f f i d a v i t i n d i c a t e s t h a t , i f they have not already been produced, t hes e documents do not e x i s t in the r e l e v a n t NIH f i l e s . See., Appendix B a t 4. To the e x t e n t t h i s r e q u e s t s e e k s m a t e r i a l in Dr. F i s h b e i n ' s p o s s e s s i o n , i t seeks m a t e r i a l not in the possession, custody or control of NIH o r t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s . S e e , Appendi x B a t 4. The Government cannot compel p r o d u c t i o n of t h i s m a t e r i a l by Dr. F i s h b e i n and sh o u l d n o t, in t u r n , be c o m p e l l e d t o produce t he m a t e r i a l . For t h a t r e a s o n , the r e q u e s t i s unduly burdensome and o p p r e s s i v e . F. Because of the Oppres si ve E f f e c t of Defendants' Motion, the United States Requests that the Special Master Issue a P ro te c tiv e Order Re g a r d i n g D i s c o v e r y From t he N a t i o n a l In stitu te s of Health Rule 37(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of C i v i l Procedure provides that: -24- 963 I f the court denies the motion [to compel production] in whole o r in p a r t , i t may make such p r o t e c t i v e ord er as i t would have been empowered t o make on a motion made p u r s u a n t t o Rule 26(c). F e d . R . C i v . P 3 7 ( a ) ( 2 ) . Rule 26 ( c) a l l o w s a c o u r t t o f a s h i o n whatever order j u s t i c e might re q u i r e to p r o te c t "a pa rty or person from annoyance, embarrassment, o p p r e s s i o n , or undue burden or expense." Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c). Although the United States recognizes a potential need, in t h e o r y , t o f o c u s on s p e c i f i c d i s c o v e r y r e q u e s t s , i t f i n d s the r e a l i t y of the requests contained in the pending motion unduly burdensome and o p p r e s s i v e . F i r s t , NIH a l r e a d y has conducted a t l e a s t one f u l l s e ar c h of the r e l e v a n t NIH f i l e s in which t he r e q u e s t e d documents r e a s o n a b l y would be l o c a t e d . S e e , Appendix B a t 1. The p r o d u c t i o n from t h e s e f i l e s has been both s i z e a b l e and s i g n i f i c a n t . S e e , Appendi x A. For the defendants to r e q u i r e y e t another sweep of these f i l e s is e n t i r e l y unreasonable and o p p r e s s i v e . Second, the United S t a t e s has p revio u sly informed defendants that the requested m a t e r i a l i s not c u r r e n t l y c o n t a i n e d in any NIH f i l e s , s p e c i f i c a l l y t h o s e o f NIEHS and NCI. S e e , Appendi x D. D e f e n d a n t s ' c o n t i n u e d renewal of these requests con sists of harrassment of the Government and i t s a g e n c i e s which d i s t r a c t s the Government from i t s goal of completing any incomplete production. I t is s i m p l y a bsur d and burdensome t o make NIH o f f i c i a l s c o n du c t y et another search fo r these documents. -25- O QS3' to* Third, defendants' Motion in c lu de s o v e r l y broad or vague r e q u e s t s which encompass documents which would have no r e l a t i o n in any form to the i s s u e s in t h i s c a s e . Because of the i n e s t i m a b l e e f f o r t r e q u i r e d t o make the r e q u i s i t e s e a r c h e s , the Government a l s o f i n d s t hes e r e q u e s t s unduly burdensome and o p p r e s s i v e . The United S t a t e s has devot ed s i g n i f i c a n t r e s o u r c e s and e f f o r t in p r o v i d i n g p a r t i e s t o t h i s l i t i g a t i o n w i t h immense production through d iscovery from a multitude of witnesses and document r e p o s i t o r i e s . With t h i s mot i on, d e f e n d a n t s ov e r ste p the bounds of t h e i r l e g i t i m a t e d is co v e ry r i g h t s with the e f f e c t of h a r r a s s i n g , burdening and o p p r e s s i n g the Government i t s a g e n c i e s and i t s empl oyees. For these reasons, the United States requests that the S p e cial Master issue the attached P r o t e c t iv e Order regarding NIH document p r o d u c t i o n . The Order would p r e v e n t the d e f e n d a n t s from pursuing or renewing any requests e i t h e r for the a c t u a l documents requested in defend ants ' pending motion or f o r documents p e r t a i n i n g to the s u b j e c t mat t er s encompassed by d e f e n d a n t s ' pe ndi ng mo t i o n . S e e , Appendi x E. T h i s p r o t e c t i v e order i s necessary to prevent defendants from continuing to h a r r a s s NIH w i t h b o t h t he r e a s s e r t i o n o f a l r e a d y s e t t l e d document r e q u e s t s and such burdensome r e q u e s t s as evi denced by the pending motion. -26- 963 Rule 37(a)(4) provides t h a t , i f the co urt denies a motion to compel p r o d u c t i o n , the c o u r t s h a l l r e q u i r e the moving p a r t y o r the a t t o r n e y a d v i s i n g the motion or both o f them to pay t o t h e p a r t y o r deponent who opposed t he motion the reasonable expenses incurred in opposing the motion, including attorney's fees . . . Fed.R .C iv .P . 3 7 ( a ) ( 4 ) . In a d d i t i o n , under the p r o v i s i o n s of Rule 2 6 ( c ) , the c o u r t a l s o may award t he c o s t s o f a motion f o r a P r o t e c t iv e Order i f that motion i s granted. F ed.R .Civ.P. 2 6 ( c ) . The United S t a t e s t h e r e f o r e r e q u e s t s t h a t the S p e c i a l Master award to the United S t a t e s the c o s t o f opposing d e f e n d a n t s ' Motion to Compel and o f b r i n g i n g t he a t t a c h e d Motion f o r P r o t e c t i v e Order. III. Conclusion For the reasons c i t e d above, the United S ta t e s requests t h a t the S p e c i a l Mas t er deny D e f e n d a n t s ' Motion t o Compel Production of Nat ional Cancer I n s t i t u t e and B i o n e t i c s Research L a b o r a t o r i e s , I n c . Documents and i s s u e the a t t a c h e d N a t i o n a l In stitu te s of Health Protective Order. -27- Respectfully Submitted, j . paul mcgrath As s i s t a n t At torney General C ivil Division RAYMOND J . DEARIE United States Attorney AXELRAD D i r e c to r , Torts Branch Civ] T r i a l Attorney, Torts Branch C ivil piivision RETCHEN L WITT T r i a l Attorney, Torts Branch C ivil Division U.S. Department of J u s t i c e Washi ngt on, D.C. 20530 Telephone: (202) 724-6725 Attorneys for the United States of America. 28- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby c e r t i f y t h a t a t r u e and c o r r e c t copy o f the Uni t ed S t a t e s ' Memorandum in O p p o s i t i o n t o D e f e n d a n t s ' Motion t o Compel P r o d u c t i o n o f N a t i o n a l Canc er I n s t i t u t e and B i o n e t i c s Research L a b o r a t o r i e s , I nc. and in Support o f the United S t a t e s ' Motion f o r P r o t e c t i v e Order was mai l ed t h i s ay of January 1983 to the f o l l o w i n g : V icto r J. Yannacone, Jr. Yannacone & Yannacone, P.C. P o s t O f f i c e Drawer #109 P a t c h o g u e , New York 1 1 77 2 Morton B. S i l b e r m a n , Esq. Clark, Gagliardi & Miller 99 Cour t S t r e e t White P l a i n s , New York Leonard L. R i v k i n , Esq. R i v k i n , L e f f , Sherman & R a d l e r 100 Garden C i t y P l a z a Garden C i t y , New York 11530 Wendel l B. A l c o r n , J r . , Esq. Cadwalader, Wickersham & T a f t One Wal l S t r e e t New Yor k, New York 10005 John C. S a b e t t a , Esq. Townley & Updike Chrysler Building 405 L e x i n g t o n Avenue New Yor k, New York 10174 Bud Holman & W i l l i a m K r o h l e y , K e l l e y , Drye & Warren 101 Park Avenue New Yor k, New York 10178 Esqs. A r t h u r , Drye & K a l i s h , P. C. 1230 Avenue of the Americas New Yor k, New York 10020 Denni s Rothman, Esq. L e s t e r , Schwab, Katz & Dwyer 120 Broadway New York, New York 10271 J o h n M. F i t z p a t r i c k , E s q . D ilw o rth , Paxson, K alish & Levy 2600 The F i d e l i t y B u i l d i n g P h i l a d e l p h i a , P e n n s y l v a n i a 19109 M r. Raymond J . D e a r ie United States Attorney U.S. Courthouse 225 Cadman P l a z a Brooklyn, Now Y o r k 11201 Robert T a y lo r, Esq. A shcraft & Gerel 2000 L S t r e e t , N.W. S u i t e 700 W a s h i n g t o n , D .C . 20036 Edwin Matthews, Esq. Budd, Larner, Kent, Gross, P i c i l l o & Rosenbaum 33 W a s h i n g t o n S t r e e t N e w a r k , New J e r s e y 07102 Paul V. E sp o sito , Esq. L e w is , O ve rb e ck & Furman 135 S o u t h La S a l l e S u i t e 1000 C h i c a g o , I l l i n o i s 60603 Irv in g Like, Esq. Reilly, Like & Schneider 200 West Main Street Babylon, New York 11702 Sol S ch reib er, Special Master M ilb e rg , Weiss, Bershad & Specthrie One P e n n s y lv a n ia P la za New Y o r k , New Y o r k 10199 C lerk of the Court U.S. D is tric t Court Eastern D is tric t of Hempstead Tu rn p ik e Uniondale Avenue U n i o n d a l e , New Y o r k New Y o r k 11553 UNITED STATES DISTRICT C'''"""' EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW1 FEB 1 V |G3 ^ In r e ; "AGENT ORANGE" HlViL A ry). P a.7. MDL No. 181 Product L ia b ilit y Litigation NOTICE TO TAKE ORAL DEPOSITION AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS PLEASE TAKE NOTICE t h a t , p u r s u a n t t o Rul e 30(b) o f the Federal Rules of C iv il Procedure, the defendants in the above captioned a c tio n w i l l cause to be tajcen the testimony o f a R e p r e s e n t a t i v e from t he N a t i o n a l Academy o f S c i e n c e s , on t h e 7 t h day o f March 19 83 a t 10:30 o ' c l o c k i n t h e f o r e n o o n a t t h e Law o f f i c e s o f K e l l e y , Drye & Wa r r e n , 1333 New Hampshire A v n u e , N.W. Wa s hi ngt on, D.C. 20036. P u r s u a n t t o Rule 3 0 ( b ) (6) The N a t i o n a l Academy o f S c i e n c e s s h o u l d d e s i g n a t e t h e a p p r o p r i a t e person or persons to t e s t i f y as to the location or a u th e n ticity of the fo llo w in g described documents. PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NUTICE t h a t , a t t h e above t i me and p l a c e , t h e N a t i o n a l Academy o f S c i e n c e s s h a l l pr o duc e and make a v a i l a b l e f o r i n s p e c t i o n and c o p y i n g any and a l l documents i n t h e p o s s e s s i o n , c u s t o d y , o r c o n t r o l o f t h e N a t i o n a l Academy of Sciences or any of i t s su bdivisions including, but not lim ited t o , f i n a l r e p o r t s , i n t e r i m r e p o r t s , n o t e s , memoranda, c o r r e s o n dence, research notes r e l a t i n g to a 1974 research p r o j e c t by t h e N a t i o n a l Academy o f S c i e n c e s / N a t i o n a l Re s e a r c h C o u n c i l or any of i t s subdivisions for the Department of Defense or any of it s s u b d iv i s io n s on the e f f e c t s o f h e r b i c i d e s in Vietnam and any c o n t r a c t f i l e s r e l a t i n g to s a i d s t u d y . The N a t io n a l Academy o.t S c i e n c e s s h a l l a l s o n ro d u c e any and a l l documents i n t h e p o s s e s s i o n , cu sto d y, or c o n t r o l o f th e N a tio n a l Academy o f Sciences or any of i t s su b d ivisio n s in clu d in g, but not lim ited t o , f i n a l r e p o r t s , in t e r im r e p o r t s , n o t e s , memoranda, correspondence, research notes r e l a t i n g to any study performed by the N a t io n a l Academy o f S c i e n c e s / N a t i o n a l R esearch C o u n c il or any o f i t s s u b d iv is io n s on h e r b i c i d e s , d io x in , or i n d u s t r i a l health problems in the oroduction of 2 ,4 ,5-trichlorophenoxy a c e t i c a c i d o r t r i c h o l o p h e n o l and an}/ c o n t r a c t documents and c o n t r a c t f i l e s between th e N a t i o n a l Academy o f S c i e n c e s / N a t i o n a l Research C oun cil or any o f i t s s u b d iv is io n s and any United S ta te s Government Agency p e r ta in in g to h e r b ic id e s or d io x in . S a id s t u d i e s and c o n t r a c t f i l e s are t o co v e r the p e r io d 1360-1970 BUDD, LARNER, KENT, GROSS PICILLO & ROSENBAUM ALAN G. WHITE A t t o r n e y f o r The Thompson C h em ical Company 33 Washington S t r e e t Newark, New J e r s e v 07102 (201) 622-7400 9639 STATE OF NEW JER SEY ) . ss. : COUNTY OF ESSEX ) i I , Caren C. Cunningham, o f f u l l a g e , b e in g d u ly sworn a c c o r d i n g t o law, upon my o a t h d e p o s e s and s a y s : \ l 1 . I am employed by t h e f i r m o f Budd, L a r n e r , Kent, G r o s s , P i c i l l o &Rosenbaum, a t t o r n e y s f o r Thompson C h e m i c a l i j Company. 2. ! J' /*-w On F e b r u a r y //>/ , 1983, I ca u se d t o m a i l , by r e g u l a r j m a il, a copy o f the e n c lo s e d N o tic e to Take D e p o s itio n upon the ! attorneys below set forth representing the p a rtie s, as indicated, ; a t the ad d resses shown, s a id a d d resses being d e s ig n a te d by said attorney for that purpose. j ATTORNEY: L i s t e d on a t t a c h e d s e r v i c e l i s t j 3. I caused to m ailed by c e r t i f i e d m a il, re tu rn r e c e ip t requested the above Notice to Take Deposition to the N a t i o n a l Academy o f S c i e n c e s 2101 C o n t i t u t i o n Av enue, N.W. W as h in gto n , D,. C. 20413. 4. On F e b r u a r y 0 ^ , 1983 I ca u s e d t o be m a i l e d by exp ress messenger the above Notice to Take D eposition fo r f i l i n g to the Clerk, United States D is tr ic t Court for the Eastern D i s t r i c t o f New Y o r k , U n io n d a le Avenue a t Hempstead T u r n p ik e U n i o n d a l e , New y o r k 1 1 5 3 3 . 9640 I c e r t i f y t h a t t h e f o r e g o i n g s t a t e m e n t s made by me a r e t r u e . I am aware t h a t i f any o f t h e f o r e g o i n g s t a t e m e n t s made by me a r e w i l l f u l l y f a l s e , 1 am s u b j e c t t o punish ment. Sworn to and s u b s c r ib e d b e f o r e me t h i s / y * ^ day o f F ebruary, 1983 \ o ir.< iu 6 S -ii t.x p ir n 's M 9641  TO: Morton B. S il b e r m a n , Esq Clark, Gagliardi & M iller The Inns o f Court 99 C o u rt S t r e e t White P l a i n s , New York 1U601 Wendall B. A l c o r n , J r . , Esq Cadwalader, Wickersham & T a ft One Wall S t r e e t New Y or k , New York 10005 John S a b e tta , Esq Townley & Updike 405 L e x i n g t o n Avenue New Y o r k , New York 10174 W illiam K roh lev, Esq K e l l e y , Drye & Warren 101 Park Avenue New Y or k , New York 10178 Thomas A. B e c k , Esq A rthur, Dry & K a iis h , P.C. I23U Avenue o f the Americas New Y ork, New York 10020 Victor J. Yannacone, Jr Yannacone & A sso ciates y P .0 . Box 109 P a t c h o g u e , New Yor k 1 1 7 7 2 A rvin Maskin, Esq Torts Branch, C iv il Division United States Department of Justice Safeway Building 5 2 1 - 1 2 t h S t r e e t , N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 S o l S c h r e i b e r , Esq Melberq, Weiss, Bershad & Specthrie One P e n n s y l v a n i a P l a z a Room 4 9 1 5 , 49th F l o o r New Y o r k , N .Y . 10119 Leonard R iv k in , Esq R i v k i n , L e f f , Sherman & Radler 100 Garden C i t y P l a z a Garden C it v , N.Y. 11530 9642 UNITED STATES D IST R ICT COURT EASTERN D IST R ICT OF NEW YORK In re: "AGENT ORANGE" Product L ia b ility L itig a tio n iN CLERK'S O m e t U. S. DISTRICT COURT E.D.N.Y. X ^ MAR 81983 tc TIME A.M------------------NOTICE TO TAKE DEPOSITION MDL No. 381 X PLEASE TAKE NOTICE t h a t , p u r s u a n t t o Ru le s 30 and 45 o f th e Federal Rules of C iv il Procedure, defendants w ill take the deposi t i o n upon o r a l e x a m i n a t i o n o f THE INSTITUTE FOR DEFENSE ANALYSIS, by an o f f i c e r , d i r e c t o r or managing agent t h e r e o f having knowledge of the documents described in the attached Schedule of Documents, at the o ffic e s of Boothe, Prichard &Dudley, 711 Princess S tre e t, A l e x a n d r i a , V i r g i n i a a t 10:00 a.m. on March 1 6 , 1983. I f f o r any reason the ta k in g o f the d e p o s it io n i s not completed on th e date in d ica te d , then said d ep o sitio n s h a ll be adjourned from day to day u n til completed. PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE t h a t , p u r s u a n t t o t h e F e d e r a l Rule o f C i v i l P r o c e d u r e , t h e p e r s o n t o be examined i s commanded t o p r o duce a t said examination the documents requested in the attached Schedule of Documents. Dated: Garden C i t y , New York March 7, 1983 RIVKIN, LEFF, SHERMAN & RADLER A t t o r n e y s f o r D e f e n d a n t , THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY 9S43 TO: See A t t a c h e d S e r v i c e L i s t 100 Garden C i t y P l a z a Garden C i t y , New Yor k 11530 (516) 746-7500 ~ Schedule o f Documents 1. A l l documents th a t r e f e r or r e l a t e to proposed resea rch , development, te stin g , evaluation, t o x ic ity , or use of herbicides for m ilitary purposes, including but not lim ited to 2,4,5t r i c h l o r o p h e n o x y a c e t i c a c i d , 3-amino 1 , 2 , 4 - t r i a z o l e (ATA, a m i t r o l e a m i n o t r i a z o l e ) , or an e s t e r , amine, s a l t , or o th e r form t h e r e o f , in c lu d in g Agents Orange, Pink, P u rp le, and Green. 2. A l l documents t h a t r e f e r or r e l a t e to r e s e a r c h , d e v e lo p ment, t e s t i n g , e v a lu a tio n , t o x i c i t y , or use o f h erb icid es for m ilitary purposes, including but not lim ited to 2,4,5t r i c h l o r o p h e n o x y a c e t i c a c i d , 3-amino 1 , 2 , 4 - t r i a z o l e (ATA, a m i t r o l e a m i n o t r i a z o l e ) , or an e s t e r , amine, s a l t , or o th e r form t h e r e o f , in c lu d in g Agents Orange, Pink, P u rp le , and Green. 3. A l l documents n o t c a l l e d f o r i n r e s p o n s e t o p a r a g r a p h s "" OR "2" r e l a t i n g t o any communication t o o r from Edgewood A r s e n a l ( i n c l u d i n g b u t n o t l i m i t e d t o a l l com m un ic ations t o or from J . H. C o a s t e s , L. M. Sh arpe,. H. P o l l a c k , S. S. P e n n e r , R o b e r t J . Heaston, J. F. Ruina, S. J. Deitchman, or any agen t, employee or re p re s e n ta tiv e of the I n s t it u t e fo r Defense Analyses or any prede cessor or successor agencies th e r e o f) , which r e fe r or r e la te to dioxin, trich lo ro p h en o l, 2 ,4 ,5-trichlorophenoxyacetic acid , 3amino 1 , 2 , 4 - t r i a z o l e (ATA, a m i t r o l e , a m i n o t r i a z o l e ) , o r an e s t e r , amine, s a l t , or other form th e r e o f, in clu d in g Agents Orange, Pink, P u rp le , and Green. 4. A l l documents not c a l l e d fo r in response to paragraphs "1" or "2" r e l a t i n g to any communication to or from Fort D etrick 9S44 ( i n c l u d i n g b u t n o t l i m i t e d t o a l l communications t o o r from J . H. C o a t e s , L. M. S h a r p e , H. P o l l a c k , S. S. P e n n e r , R o b er t J . H e a sto n , J. F. Ruina, S. J. Deitchman, or any agent, employee or re p re se n ta t i v e o f the Institute fo r Defense Analyses or any predecessor or successor agencies th e r e o f), which re fe r or r e la te to dioxin , tr ic h lo r o p h e n o l, 2 , 4 , 5 -trich lo ro p h en o xy acetic a c id , 3-amino 1 ,2 ,4 - t r i a z o l e (ATA, a m i t r o l e , a m i n o t r i a z o l e ) , or an e s t e r , amine, s a l t , or o th e r form t h e r e o f , i n c lu d in g Agents Orange, Pink, P u r p le , and Green. 5. A ll documents not c a lle d fo r in response to paragraphs "1" or "2" r e l a t i n g to any communication to or from the Advanced R e sea rc h P r o j e c t s Agency ("ARPA") ( i n c l u d i n g b u t not l i m i t e d to a l l com m un ic atio ns t o o r from J . H. C o a t e s , L. M. S h a r p e , H. P o l l a c k , S. S. P en n er, Robert J . H easton, S. J . Deitchman, J . R. Ruina, or any agent, employee or re p re s e n ta tiv e of the I n s t it u t e fo r Defense Analyses or any predecessor or successor agencies th e re o f), which re fe r or re la te to dioxin, trich lorop h enol, 2 ,4 ,5 - t r i c h l o r o p h e n o x y a c e t i c a c i d , 3-amino 1 , 2 1 4 - t r i a z o l e (ATA, a m i t r o l e , a m i n o t r i a z o l e ) , or an e s t e r , amine, s a l t , or o th e r form t h e r e o f , i n c l u d i n g Agents Orange, P in k , P u r p le , and Green. ' j j 6. A ll documents not c a lle d fo r in response to paragraphs "1" or "2" r e la t in g to any communication to or from the United States Department of A griculture (including but not lim ited to a l l co m m unic ati ons t o o r from H. H. C o a t e s , L. M. S h a r p e , H. P o l l a c k , S. S. Penner, Robert J. Heaston, J. F. Ruina, S. J. Deitchman, or 9645 any agent, employee or r e p r e s e n ta tiv e of the I n s t i t u t e f o r Defen. Analyses or any predecessor or successor agencies thereof) , whic refer or relate to dioxin, trichlorophenol, 2,4,5-trichlorophenox y a c e t i c a c i d , 3-amino 1 , 2 , 4 - t r i a z o l e (ATA, a m i t r o l e , a m i n o t r i a s o l e ) , or an e s t e r , amine, s a l t , or oth er form t h e r e o f , includinc Agents Orange, Pink, P u rple, and Green. 7. A ll documents not c a lle d fo r in response to paragraphs "1" or "2" r e la t in g to any communication to or from the O ffic e of t h e S e c r e t a r y o f D e f e n s e ( i n c l u d i n g b u t n o t l i m i t e d t o a l l commu n i c a t i o n s t o o r from J . J . C o a t e s , L . M. S h a r p e , H. P o l l a c k , S. S Penner, Robert J. Heaston, J. F. Ruina, S. J. Deitchman, or any agent, employee or rep resen ta tive of the I n s titu te fo r Defense Analyses or any predecessor or successor agencies t h e r e o f ) , which refer or re la te to dioxin, trichlorophenol, 2 ,4 ,5-trichlorophenox y a c e t i c a c i d , 3-amino 1 , 2 , 4 - t r i a z o l e (ATA, a m i t r o l e , a m i n o t r i a z o l e ) , or an e s t e r , amine, s a l t , or oth er form t h e r e o f , in c lu d in g Agents Orange, Pink, P u rp le , and Green. 8. A l l documents n o t c a l l e d f o r in re s p o n se t o th e p r e c e d in g paragraphs which re fe r or re la te to dioxin, trich loroph enol, 2,4,5t r i c h l o r o p h e n o x y a c e t i c a c i d , 3-amino 1 , 2 , 4 - t r i a z o l e (ATA, a m i t r o l e am in otriazole), or an e s t e r , amine, s a l t , or other form th e r e o f, in c lu d in g Agents Orange, Pink, P u r p le , and Green. 9. A l l n o tes, d r a f t s , source m a t e r ia ls , and o th er documents used in the preparation of or related to In stitu te for Defense A n a ly se s T e c h n ic a l Note 62-68 (December 1962) e n t i t l e d , "The 9848 I Present Status of Chemical Control of Vegetation in Relation to M i l i t a r y N e e d s " , b y J . H. C o a t e s , L. M. Sharpe and H. P o l l a c k . 10 . A l l n o t e s , d r a f t s , s o u r c e m a t e r i a l s , and o t h e r documer used in the preparation o f or r e la te d to a January 1963 I n s titu for Defense Analyses appendix to thr report cited in Paragraph f e n t i t l e d , "Appendix-- ^Chemicals f o r C on trol o f V e g e t a t i o n " , by J. C o a t e s and L. M. S h a r p e . 1 1 . A l l co p ies o f s t u d i e s , r e p o r t s , p u b l i c a t i o n s , and othe lit e r a tu r e which re fe r to or re la te to dioxin, trich lo ro p h en a l, 2 , 4 , 5 - t r i c h l o r o p h e n o x y a c e t i c a c i d , 3-amino 1 , 2 , 4 - t r i a z o l e (ATA, a m itr o le , a m in o t r ia z o le ) , or an e s t e r , amine, s a l t , or o th er for th e re o f, including but not lim ited to any o f the follo w in g: (a) Kimmig, J . , S c h u l z , , K. H. : C h l o r i e r t e a r o m a t i s c h Zyklische ther a ls Ursache der sogenannten Chlorakne, Naturwissenschaften 44,337-338 (1957); (b) Kimmig, J . , S c h u l z , K. H.: B e r u f l i c h e Akne ( s o g . Chlorakne) durch c h lo rie rte aromatische zyklisch e ther, Dermatolgica 115,540-456 (1957); (c) S c h u l z , K. H.: K l i n i s c h e und e x p e r i m e n t e l l e Untersuchungen zur t i o l o g i e der Chloracne, Arch. K lin . Exp. Dermatol, 206,589-596 (1957); (d) B a u e r , H . , S c h u l z , K. H . , S p i e g e l b e r g , U .: B e ru flich e Vergiftungen b ei der H erstellu ng von Chlorophenol Verbindungen, Arch. Gewerbepathol. Gewerbehyg. 18,538-555 (1961) ; (e) Sandermann, W., Stockmann, H., C a ste n , R . : Uber d ie P y r o l y s e de s P e n t a c h l o r p h e n o l s , Chem. B e r . 90,690-692 ( 1 9 5 7 ) ; (f) B le ib e rg , J . , Wallen, M., Brodkin, R . , Appelbaum, I. L.: In d u stria lly acquired porphyria, Arch. Dermatol. 89,793-797 (1964); and (g) Jon es, E. L . , K r iz e k , H.: A Technic f o r T e s t i n g Acnegenic Potency in Rabbits, Applied to the Potent Acnegen, 2 ,3 ,7 ,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-P-Dioxin, Journal of Investigative Dermatology 511 (1962) . 12. A ll organization charts for each d iv isio n , branch, se t i o n , and o th e r u n i t o f the I n s t i t u t e f o r Defense An alyses and a l l predecessors or su ccesso rs th ereto from January 1 , 1956 to January 1, 1972. DEFINITIONS As used herein: A) "Document" s h a l l i n c l u d e t h e w h o l e , any p a r t , any d r a f t , ar any w r i t i n g and r e c o r d o f eve ry type and d e s c r i p t i o n , in c l u d i n g br n o t l i m i t e d t o l e t t e r s , memoranda, r e p o r t s , m anuals , p u b l i c a t i o n s raw and r e f i n e d d a t a , gra p h s, d raw in gs, n o t e s , l i s t s , s t u d i e s , agreements, telegram s, a n a ly ses, summaries of personal co n v ersa tions, d iaries, surveys, s ta tis tic a l statements, charts, pictures, rep o rts and/or summaries of in v e s t i g a t i o n s , opinions or re p o rts of consultants, contracts, projections, d rafts, proposals, books, a r t i c l e s , tape or other recordings, whether p rin ted , typed, hand w r i t t e n , rep rod u ced , m a g n e t i c a l l y r e c o r d e d , or in any o t h e r way made r e a d a b l e o r r e t r i e v a b l e . T h i s d e f i n i t i o n s p e c i f i c a l l y i n cludes any and a l l co p ie s of any documents th a t co n tain any n o ta tion or which otherwise d i f f e r from the o r ig in a l or other copies thereof. B) "Communication" means any t r a n s f e r or exc hang e between two or more p e r s o n s o f any i n f o r m a t i o n , w he th e r by w r i t i n g , e l e c t r o n i c or other means, including but not lim ited to , correspondence, te le grams, t e le x e s , mailgrams, or any other document. This d e fin itio n i n c l u d e s a l l comm unications f o r which you may c l a i m p r i v i l e g e . C) " P e r s o n " or " p e r s o n s " means a l l n a t u r a l p e r s o n s , c o r p o r a t i o n s , p a r t n e r s h ip s , or other b u sin e ss a s s o c i a t i o n s and a l l oth er legal en tities. 9649 STATE OF NEW YORK' ) ) COUNTY OF NASSAU ) s S' ' Theresa A. menna r bein g d u ly sworn, deposes and say: That deponent is not a party to this action, is over years of age and resides in L yn b rook, NY That on the 7th day of March, 1983 the- within NOTICE TO TAKE DEPOSITION , deponent ser upon the- attorneys below set forth representing the parties, a indicated, at the addresses shown, said addresses being desig nated by said attorneys for that purpose, by depositing a true copy of same, enclosed in a postpaid properly addressed wrappe in an official depository under the exclusive care and custody the United States Post Office Department within the State of 1 York. See Attached Service L is t Sworn to before me this 7th day of March , 1981 CgjLjUv_GL, C o o NOTARY" PUBLIC COLLEENA CARNEY NOTARYPUBLIC, STATEOF NEWYORK NO. 4714759 ' QUALIFIEDINSUFFOLKCOUNTY . COMMISSIONEXPIRESMARCH30.198f Q 0. TO: MORTON B. SILBERMAN, ESQ. Clark, Gagliardi & M iller The Inns o f Court 99 C o u rt S t r e e t White P l a i n s , New York 10601 WENDELL B. ALCORN, J R . , ESQ. Cadwalader, Wickercham & T aft One Wall S t r e e t New York, New York 10005 HOWARD LESTER, ESQ. L e s t e r , Schwab, Katz & Dwyer 120 Broadway New Y or k , New York 10271 PAUL ESPOSITO, ESQ. L e w i s , Overbeck & Furman 135 South L aSalle S t r e e t S u i t e 1060 C h i c a g o , I l l i n o i s 60603 JOHN SABETTA, ESQ. Townley & Updike 405 L e x i n g t o n Avenue New Y o r k , New York 10174 THE INSTITUTE FOR DEFENSE ANALY S I S 1801 North Beauregard S tr e e t Alexandria, V irg in ia 22311 WILLIAM KROHLEY, ESQ. K e l l e y , Drye & Warren 101 Park Avenue New York, New York 10178 DAVID R. GROSS, ESQ. Budd, Larner, Kent, Gross, & Rosenbaum 33 Washington Avenue Newark, New J e r s e y 07102 HON. GEORGE C. PRATT united States D istric t Court E a s t e r n D i s t r i c t or New Y o r r Uniondale A v e. & Hempstead Toke U n io n d a l e , New York Pi ,:i 1 lo THOMAS A. BECK, ESQ. A rthur, Dry & K a lis h , P.C. 1230 Avenue o f the Americas New Y or k , New York 10020 VICTOR J . YANNACONE, J R . , ESQ. Yannacone & Yannacone P. 0. Box 109 P a t c h o g u e , New York 1177 2 IRVING LIKE, ESQ. 200 West Main S t r e e t B a b y l o n , New York 11702 ARVIN MASKIN, ESQ. Department of Ju stice Safeway Building Room 904 D Washington, D.C. 20530 SOL SCHREIBER, ESQ. SPECIAL MASTER Milberg, Weiss, Bershad & Specthrie One P e n n s y l v a n i a P l a z a New Y o r k , New York 10019 _^ . 9651 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK In re: "AGENT ORANGE" Product L ia b ilit y L itig a tio n IN CLERK'S OHMCt U. S. DISTRICT COURT E.D.N.Y. * MAR 81983 * TIME A.M---------------NOTOS. TO-.TAKE DEPOSITION MDL No. 381 X PLEASE TAKE NOTICE t h a t , p u r s u a n t t o R u le s 30 and 45 o f t h e Federal Rules of C iv il Procedure, defendants w ill take the deposi t i o n upon o r a l e x a m i n a t i o n o f THE RAND CORPORATION, by an o f f i c e r , d ire cto r or managing agent th ereof having knowledge of the docu ments d e s c r i b e d i n t h e a t t a c h e d S ch edule o f Documents, a t the o f f i c e s o f H a i g h t , D i c k s o n , Brown & B o n e s t e e l , 815 Moraga D r i v e , Los A n g e le s , C a l i f o r n i a a t 10:00 a.m. on March 16, 1983. I f f o r any reason the t a k in g o f the d e p o s it io n i s not completed on the date in d ica te d , then said dep osition s h a ll be adjourned from day to day u n til completed. PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE t h a t , p u r s u a n t t o t h e F e d e r a l Rule o f C i v i l P r o c e d u r e , t h e p e r s o n t o be examined i s commanded t o p r o duce at said examination the documents requested in the attached Schedule of Documents. Dated: Garden C i t y , New York March 7, 1983 RIVKIN, LEFF, SHERMAN & RADLER A t t o r n e y s f o r D e f e n d a n t , THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY To: See Attached S e r v ic e L i s t A Member1' o f t h e Firm 100 Garden C i t y P l a z a Garden C i t y , New York 11530 -v (516) 746-7500 Schedule o f Documents 1 . A r e p o r t t i t l e d , "A S t a t i s t i c a l A n a ly s i s o f th e U.S. Crop Spraying Program in South Vietnam", October, 1967, by Anthony J. Russo, and a l l n o tes, d r a f t s , source m a te ria ls , and o th er documents used in preparation of or r e la te d to th is rep o rt. 2. A r e p o r t t i t l e d , "An E v a l u a t i o n o f Ch em ic al Crop D e s t r u c tio n in Vietnam", O ctober, 1967, by R u s s e ll B e tts and Frank Denton and a l l n o t e s , d r a f t s , s o u r c e m a t e r i a l s , and o t h e r documents used in preparation of or related to th is report. 3. A r e p o r t t i t l e d , "Some F i n d i n g s o f th e V i e t C VIotivation and Morale Study: June - December 19 6 5 ", F e b ru a ry , 196 oy L. Goure, A. J . R u sso , and D. S c o t t , and a l l n o t e s , d r a f t s , source m a t e r i a l s , and o th e r documents used in p r e p a r a t io n o f or trelated to th is report. 4. A ll documents th a t d e s c rib e , contain inform ation about, or r e f e r o r r e l a t e i n any way t o any proposed r e s e a r c h , development, te stin g , evaluation, or use of herbicides for m ilita ry purposes. 5. A ll documents th at d e s crib e , contain inform ation about, or r e f e r or r e l a t e in any way t o any r e s e a r c h , development, t e s t i n g , svaluation, t o x ic it y , or use of herbicides for m ilita r y purposes. 6. A l l documents not c a l l e d fo r in response to paragraphs "1" through "5" r e la t in g to any communication to or from the Advanced Research P r o j e c t s Agency ("ARPA") which d e s c r ib e , co n ta in informa t io n about o r r e f e r or r e l a t e t o in any way to d i o x i n , t r i c h l o r o phenol, 2 ,4 ,5-trichlorophenoxyacetic acid, 3-amino, 1 ,2 ,4 - t r ia z o le 9653 II Ij jI 1 , 2 , 4 - t r i a z o l e (ATA, a m i t r o l e , a m i n o t r i a z o l e ) , o r an e s t e r , amine, j s a l t , or o t h e r form t h e r e o f , i n c l u d i n g A g e n t s O r a n g e , P i n k , P u r p l e ,j and Green. I 6. A l l documents not c a l l e d f o r in response to the precedin g paragraphs which re fe r or re la te to dioxin, trich lo ro p h en o l, 2,4,5! t r i c h l o r o p h e n o x y a c e t i c a c i d , 3-amino 1 , 2 , 4 - t r i a z o l e (ATA, a m i t r o l e , a m i n o t r i a z o l e ) , or an e s t e r , amine, s a l t , or o th e r form t h e r e o f , in c lu d in g Agents Orange, P in k, P u rp le , and Green. | I I i I I I (r> l DEFINITIONS As used herein: A) "Document" s h a l l i n c l u d e th e w h o l e , any p a r t , any d r a f t , and any w r i t i n g and re c o rd o f every type and d e s c r i p t i o n , in c lu d in g but n o t l i m i t e d t o l e t t e r s , memoranda, r e p o r t s , manuals, p u b l i c a t i o n s , raw and r e f i n e d d a t a , g ra p h s, d raw in gs, n o te s , l i s t s , s t u d i e s , agreements, te le g ra m s , a n a ly s e s , summaries of personal co n v e rsa tions, d iaries, surveys, s ta tis tic a l statements, charts, pictures, re p o rts and/or summaries o f in v e s t i g a t i o n s , opinions or re p o rts of consultants, contracts, projections, d rafts, proposals, books, a r t i c l e s , tape or other recordings, whether p rin ted , typed, hand w r i t t e n , re p ro d u c e d , m a g n e t i c a l l y r e c o r d e d , or i n any o th e r way made r e a d a b l e o r r e t r i e v a b l e . T h i s d e f i n i t i o n s p e c i f i c a l l y i n clu d es any and a l l c o p ie s of any documents th a t co n ta in any n o ta tion or which otherw ise d i f f e r from the o r ig in a l or other cop ies thereof. B) "Communication" means any t r a n s f e r or e xc h ang e between two or more p e r s o n s o f any i n f o r m a t i o n , w hether by w r i t i n g , e l e c t r o n i c or other means, including but not lim ited to , correspondence, t e l e grams, t e le x e s , mailgrams, or any other document. This d e f in it io n i n c l u d e s a l l co m m unic ati ons f o r w hich you may c l a i m p r i v i l e g e . C) " P e r s o n " or " p e r s o n s " means a l l n a t u r a l p e r s o n s , c o r p o r a t i o n s , p a r t n e r s h i p s , or oth er b u sin e ss a s s o c i a t i o n s and a l l oth er legal en tities. 9655 STATE OF NEW YORK' ) ) COUNTY OF NASSAU ) SS * THERESA A. MENNA * being duly sworn, deposes and says: That deponent is not a party to this action, is over 18 years of age and resides in Lynbro ok, NY That on the 7 t h day of March, 1983 the within NOTICE TO TAKE DEPOSITION , deponent serve upon the attorneys below set forth representing the parties, as indicated, at the addresses shown, said addresses being desig nated by said attorneys for that purpose, by depositing a true copy of same, enclosed in a postpaid properly addressed wrapper in an official depository under the exclusive care and custody c the United States Post Office Department within the State of Nev, York. See Attached Service L is t Sworn to before me this 7th day of March t 1981 NOTARY PUBLIC' COLLEENA. CARNEY NOTARYPUBLIC, STATEOFNEWYORK NO. 4714759 ` QUALIFIEDINSUFFOLKCOUNTY , COMMISSIONEXPIRESMARCH30.198^ TO: MORTON B. SILBERMAN, ESQ. Clark, Gagliardi & M iller The Inns o f Court 99 C our t S t r e e t Wh: ..e P l a i n s , New York 10601 WENDELL B. ALCORN, J R . , ESQ. Cadwalader, Wickersham & T aft One Wall S t r e e t New York, New York 10005 HOWARD LESTER, ESQ. L e s t e r , Schwab, K a tz & Dwyer 120 Broadway New Y o r k , New York 10271 PAUL ESPOSITO, ESQ. L e w i s , Overb ec k is- Turman 135 South L a Salle S t r e e t S u i t e 1060 C h i c a g o , IL 60603 JOHN SABETTA, ESQ. Townley & Updike 405 L e x i n g t o n Avenue New Y or k , New York 10174 WILLIAM KROHLEY, ESQ. Ke_ley, Drye & Warren 101 Park Avenue New York, New York 10178 The Rand C o r p o r a t i o n 1700 Main S t r e e t S a n t a Monica, C a l i f o r n i a 9040 HON. GEORGE C. PRATT United States D is tr ic t Court E a s t e r n D i s t r i c t or New York Uniondale Ave. l Hempstead Tpke. Uniondale , Ne*.; York DAVID R. GROSS, ESQ. Budd, L a r n e r , Kent, G r o s s , P i c Ilo . & Rosenbaum 33 Washington Avenue Newark, New J e r s e y 07102 THOMAS A. BECK, ESQ. Arthur, Dry & K a lish , P.C. 1230 Avenue o f the Americas New Y or k , New York 10020 VICTOR J . YANNACONE, J R . , ESQ. Yannacone & Yannacone P. 0. Box 109 P a t c h o g u e , New York 1177 2 IRVING LIKE, ESC 200 West Main St e t B ab ylon , New York 11702 ARVIN MASKIN, ESQ. Department of Ju stice Safeway Building Room 904 D Washington, D.C. 20530 SOL SCHREIBER, ESQ. SPECIAL MASTER Milberg, Weiss, Bershad & Specthri One P e n n s y l v a n i a P l a z a New Y or k , New York 10019 S657 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK IN CLERK'S o m e t U. S. DISTRICT COURT F.D.N.Y, x * MAR 81983 k In re: "AGENT ORANGE" TIME A.M PM NOTICE TO TAKE DEPOSITION Product L ia b ility L itig a tio n MDL No. 381 x PLEASE TAKE NOTICE t h a t , p u r s u a n t t o R u le s 30 and 45 o f t h e Federal Rules of C iv il Procedure, defendants w i l l take the deposi- i t i o n upon o r a l e x a m i n a t i o n o f THE MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE, by an o f f i c e r , d ir e c to r or managing agent thereof having knowledge of the documents d escrib ed in the attached Schedule of Documents, a t the o ffice s o f L a th ro p , Koontz, R i g h t e r , C l a g e t t & N o r q u is t , 2345 Grand Avenue, Mutual B e n e fit L if e B u ild in g, Kansas C it y , Missouri a t 10:00 a.m. on March 1 6 , 1983. I f f o r any re a so n th e t a k i n g o f th e d e p o s i t i o n i s n o t completed on the d a te i n d i c a t e d , then s a i d depo- : s it io n s h a ll be adjourned from day to day u n t il completed. PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE t h a t , p u r s u a n t t o t h e F e d e r a l Ru les o f C i v i l P r o c e d u r e , th e p e r s o n t o be examined i s commanded t o p r o duce at said examination the documents requested in the attached Schedule of Documents. Dated: Garden C i t y , New York March 7, 1983 RIVKIN, LEFF, SHERMAN & RADLER A t t o r n e y s f o r D e f e n d a n t , THE TO: See A t t a c h e d S e r v i c e L i s t A Member o f t h e Firm 100 Garden C i t y P l a z a Garden C i t y , New Yor k 11,5.3-0.,^ (516) 746-7500 ,' T ' Schedu le o f Documents LIST OF DOCUMENTS TO BE PRODUCED 1. A report t i t le d , "Assessment of Ecological E ffects of E x t e n s i v e o r Re pe ate d Use o f H e r b i c i d e s " , by W. B. House, L. H. Goodson, H. M. G a d b e r r y , and K. W. D o c k l e r , and a l l n o t e s , d r a f t s , sou rce m a t e r i a l s , and o t h e r documents used in p r e p a r a t io n o f or related to this report. 2. A l l documents t h a t d e s c r i b e , co n ta in inform ation about, or r e f e r or r e l a t e in any way to any proposed r e s e a rc h , development, te s tin g , evaluation, or use of herbicides for m ilita ry purposes. 3. A l l documents th a t d e s c r ib e , con tain inform ation about, or r e f e r o r r e l a t e i n any way t o any r e s e a r c h , d evelopm ent, t e s t i n g , evaluation, t o x ic it y , or use of herbicides for military purposes. 4. A l l documents not c a l l e d f o r in response to paragraphs " 1 " , . "2" or "3" r e la t in g to any communiction to or from the Advanced j Research P r o j e c t s Agency ("ARPA") which d e s c r ib e , co n ta in informa- j t i o n about or r e f e r or r e l a t e in any way t o d i o x i n , t r i c h l o r o - I phenol, 2 , 4 , 5 -trich lo ro p h e n o x y a c e tic a c id , 3-amino 1 , 2 , 4 - t r i a z o l e ; (ATA, a m i t r o l e , a m i n o t r i a z o l e ) , o r an e s t e r , amine, s a l t , o r o t h e r | form t h e r e o f, in clu d in g Agents Orange, Pink, Purple, and Green. | 5. A l l documents not c a l l e d f o r in response to paragraphs "l"j i through "4" r e la t in g to any communication to or from any other | agency of the United S ta te s Government which r e f e r or r e l a t e to d i o x i n , t r i c h l o r o p h e n a l , 2 , 4 , 5 - t r i c h lo r o p h e n o x y a c e t i c a c i d , 3-aminc 9659 iI (ATA, a m i t r o l e , a m i n o t r i a z o l e ) , o r an e s t e r , amine, s a l t , o r o t h e r form th e r e o f, in clu d in g Agents Orange, Pink, P u rp le, and Green. 7. A ll documents not c a lle d fo r in response to paragraphs "1" through "5" r e la t in g to any communication to or from any other agency o f the United S t a t e s Government which r e f e r or r e l a t e to d io x in , t r i c h l o r o p h e n a l , 2 , 4 , 5 - tr ic h lo r o p h e n o x y a c e tic a c id , 3-aminc 1 , 2 , 4 - t r i a z o l e (ATA, a m i t r o l e , a m i n o t r i a z o l e ) , o r an e s t e r , amine, s a l t , or other form th e r e o f, including Agent Orange, Pink, Purple, and Green. 8. A l l documents not c a l l e d f o r in response to the preceding paragraphs which re fe r or re la te to dioxin, trich lo ro p h en o l, 2,4,5 t r i c h l o r o p h e n o x y a c e t i c a c i d , 3-amino 1 , 2 , 4 - t r i a z o l e (ATA, a m i t r o l a m in o tria zo le ), or an e s t e r , amine, s a l t , or other form th e r e o f, in c l u d in g Agents Orange, Pink, P u rp le , and Green. 9660 DEFINITIONS As used h e r e i n : A) "Document" s h a l l i n c l u d e t h e w h o l e , any p a r t , any d r a f t , and any w r it in g and reco rd o f every type and d e s c r i p t i o n , in c lu d in g but not l i m i t e d t o l e t t e r s , memoranda, r e p o r t s , manuals, p u b l i c a t i o n s , raw and r e f i n e d d a t a , g ra p h s, draw ings, n o t e s , l i s t s , s t u d i e s , agreements, telegram s, a n a ly se s, summaries o f personal con versa tions, d iaries, surveys, s ta tis tic a l statements, charts, pictures, rep o rts and/or summaries of in v e s t i g a t i o n s , opinions or re p o rts of consultants, contracts, projections, d rafts, proposals, books, a r t i c l e s , tape or other recordings, whether p rin te d , typed, hand w r i t t e n , reproduced, m a g n e t ic a l ly re c o rd e d , or in any o th e r way made r e a d a b l e o r r e t r i e v a b l e . T h i s d e f i n i t i o n s p e c i f i c a l l y i n cludes any and a l l co p ies of any documents th a t con tain any n o ta tio n or which otherwise d i f f e r from the o r ig in a l or other copies thereof. B) "Communication" means any t r a n s f e r o r ex c h a ng e bet w ee n two or more p e r s o n s o f any i n f o r m a t i o n , w he th er by w r i t i n g , e l e c t r o n i c or other means, including but not lim ited to , correspondence, t e l e grams, t e le x e s , mailgrams, or any other document. This d e f in it io n i n c l u d e s a l l co m m un ic atio ns f o r w h i c h you may c l a i m p r i v i l e g e . C) " P e r s o n " or " p e r s o n s " means a l l n a t u r a l p e r s o n s , c o r p o r a tio n s , p a r tn e rs h ip s , or other business a s s o c ia t io n s and a l l other legal entities. ) COUNTY OF NASSAU ) S3.: THERESA A. MENNA ,. being duly sworn, deposes and says That deponent is not a party to this action, is over 18 years of age and resides in Lynbro ok, NY That on the 7 t h day of March, 198 3 the within NOTICE TO TAKE DEPOSITION , deponent servec upon the attorneys below set forth representing the parties, as indicated, at the addresses shown, said addresses being desig nated by said attorneys for that purpose, by depositing a true copy of same, enclosed in a postpaid properly addressed wrapper in an official depository under the exclusive care and custody of the United States Post Office Department within the State of New York. See Attached Service L is t Sworn to before me this 7th day of March , 1981 0& g , Q c x jw jl U NOTARY PUBLIC NORTON B . S : LbLRMN, LS. . C l a r '--, G a q i . a r . i i & M i l l e r The Inns o f Court 99 Cour t S t r e c t White P l a i n s , New York 10601 WENDELL B. ALCORN, J R . , ESQ. Cacwalader, Wickersham & T aft One Wall S t r e e t New Y ork, New York 10005 .'J'.YvRD j. Lester Schwao , Kat : k tv.'er 120 Broadway New Y o r k , Low Y o rk 10271 PAUL ESPOSITO, ESJ. L e w i s , Overbeck & Furman 135 South L a S a lle S tr e e t S u i t e 1060 C h i c a g o , I l l i n o i s 60603 JOHN SABETTA, ESQ. Townley & Updikc 405 L e x i n g t o n Avenue New Y or k , New York 10174 WILLIAM KROHLEY, ESQ. K e l l e y , Drye & Warren 101 Park Avenue New Y or k , New York 10178 THE MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE 425 V o lk e r S t r e e t Kansas C it y , Missouri 64110 IION. GEORGE C. PRATT United S ta te s D i s t r i c t Cour E a s t e r n D i s t r i c t o f New Yor Uniondale Ave. & Hempstead U n i o n d a l e , New York H X rt DAVID R. GROSS, ESQ. Budd, L arn er, Kent, Gross, ^osenburn 33 Washington Avenue Newark, New J e r s e y 07102 P icillo THOMAS A. BECK, ESQ. Arthur, Dry & K ali sh, P.C. 1230 Avenue o f the Americas New Y ork, New York 10020 VICTOR J . YANNACONE, J R . , ESQ. Yannacone & Yannacone P . 0. Box 109 P a t c h c g u e , New York 1177 2 IRVING LIKE, ESQ. 200 West Main S t r e e t B a b y l o n , New York 11702 ARVIN MASKIN, ESQ. Department of J u stice Safeway Building Room ? 74 D Washington, D.C. 20530 SOL SCHREIBER, F " Q . SPECIAL MASTER Milberg, Weiss, Bershad & Specthrie One P e n n s y l v a n i a P l a z a New Y ork, New York 10019 9663 I5 I (. 5N.Y. tV MAN 1 ... 1CP3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK IN RE "AGENT ORANGE" PRODUCT LIABILITY LITIGATION I* X MDL #381 (All Cases) P r e t r i a l Order N o . 47 x On March 7 , 1983, S p e c i a l M aste r S o l S c h r e i b e r s u b m i t t e d t h e a t t a c h e d "Recommended P r o t e c t i v e Order i G o ve rn in g Documents O b t a i n e d From t h e F i l e s o f Dr. R o b e r t W. j B o v e r y , U n i t e d S t a t e s Department o f A g r i c u l t u r e . " No p a r t y has o b je c te d to the terms o f the o rd er, and the court approves and adopts i t in f u l l . SO ORDERED. Dated: U n i o n d a l e , New York March 9, 1983 * Of the United S ta te s Court o f Appeals, Second C ir c u it , s i t t i n g by d esign ation . P -0 4 9 HO O M J , 6 UNITED STATES D IST R ICT COURT EASTERN D IST R ICT OF NEW YORK IN RE "AGENT ORANGE" PRODUCT LIABILITY LITIGATION X : MDL No. 381 ( A l l C a se s ) : SPECIAL MASTER'S RECOMMENDED : PROTECTIVE ORDER GOVERNING X DOCUMENTS OBTAINED FROM THE FILES OF DR. ROBERT W. BOVEY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ________ The U nited S t a t e s o f America, h avin g re q u e ste d an order pursuant to Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of C iv i l Procedure to p r o t e c t the c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y d u rin g d i s c o v e r y and t r i a l preparation of c e r ta in documents produced pursuant t h e r e t o by th e United S t a t e s Department o f A g r i c u l t u r e ; and WHEREAS, t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s o f America has r e p r e s e n t e d a need t o m a in ta in th e c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y o f th o s e documents and th e in fo rm a tio n co n tain ed t h e r e in ; and WHEREAS, t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Department o f A g r i c u l t u r e r e g a r d s t h e f i l e s o f Dr. R o b e r t W. Bovey as c o n f i d e n t i a l i n t h a t they co n ta in h is perso n al notes and v a rio u s research data, and t h a t some o f t h e s e f i l e s r e f l e c t t h e c o o p e r a t i o n o f a number o f p r i v a t e c o r p o r a t i o n s and i n d i v i d u a l s ; and WHEREAS, a s e p a r a t e o r d e r w i l l p r o t e c t t h e c o n f id e n t ia li t y of such documents at the t r i a l or t r i a l s of the a c t i o n which comprise t h i s l i t i g a t i o n ; and 9665 WHEREAS, th e p a r t i e s b y t h i s o r d e r conc ede n o t h i n g w ith re sp e c t to the use or non-use o f such documents at the t r i a l or t r i a l s of the actions which comprise th is lit ig a tio n ; and WHEREAS, a l l p a r t i e s t o t h i s l i t i g a t i o n h a v e a g r e e d upon the terms o f the order as s e t f o r t h h erein and have agreed to abide by the terms of th is o rd er.in a l l respects, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED t h a t a l l t h o s e documents t h e Government i d e n t i f i e s and produces which comprise the "Bovey C o lle c tio n " are protected by th is C o n fid e n tia lity Order as follows: 1. These documents and t h e ' in fo rm a tio n co n tain ed in them w i l l be used e x c l u s i v e l y f o r th e purpose o f d i s c o v e r y and t r i a l preparation in th is l i t i g a t i o n as contemplated by the F e d e ra l Rules o f C i v i l Procedure, and w i l l be k e p t c o n f i d e n t i a l and w i l l not be e x h ib ite d or describ ed to , or d iscu sse d with anyone not Designated (as d escrib ed in paragraph 3, i n f r a ) or Q u a l i f i e d (as d e s crib e d in paragraph 4, i n f r a ) or counsel fo r t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s . No u s e w i l l be made o f t h e s e documents or th e in fo rm a tio n co n tain ed i n them f o r any purpose o th e r than such d i s c o v e r y and t r i a l p r e p a r a t i o n i n t h i s l i t i g a t i o n . 2. These documents may be c o p i e d o n l y t o t h e e x t e n t necessary to permit th e ir use in accordance with the terms of t h i s Orde r and no f u r t h e r . Any D e s i g n a t e d P e r s o n who r e q u e s t s and r e c e iv e s a copy o f any o r i g i n a l o f any o f th ese documents 9666 -2 - w i l l h e n c e fo r t h be h e ld r e s p o n s i b l e and a cc o u n ta b le f o r t h a t co py o f t h e document and a l l c o p i e s made o f t h a t cop y f o r any purpose. 3. A D e s ig n a t e d P erson i s one who, i n advance o f seeing any o f these documents, (i) i s designated by counsel of re c o rd f o r any p a r t y t o t h i s l i t i g a t i o n , and ( i i ) s ig n s a formal consent (annexed hereto as E xh ib it "A") to be bound by a l l the terms of t h i s Order. Each counsel of record w i l l be r e s p o n s ib le f o r forw arding c o p ie s o f the d e s ig n a tio n and signed consent forms to t h is Court where they w i l l be f i l e d under s e a l. (a) P l a i n t i f f s ' D e s i g n e e s may i n c l u d e a r e a s o n a b l e number o f : each p l a i n t i f f ' s c o u n s e l o f r e c o r d , t h e i r p araleg als and/or th e ir professional consultants or expert w i t n e s s e s , and no o t h e r s . (b) D e f e n d a n t s ' D e s i g n e e s may i n c l u d e a r e a s o n a b l e number o f : each d e f e n d a n t ' s c o u n s e l o f r e c o r d , t h e i r paralegals, th e ir professional consultants or expert witnesses, and no o t h e r s . (c) The p r o f e s s i o n a l c o n s u lta n ts or e x p w i t n e s s e s r e f e r r e d t o i n s u b p a r a g r a p h s (a) and (b) s u p r a , may not be employees, corporate rep resen tatives or corporate c o n s u l t a n t s o f c h e m i c a l companies; ho weve r, t h e y may i n c l u d e independent consultants or expert w itnesses paid by the companies. -3 - 9SG7 4. A Q u a l i f i e d P e r s o n i s a w i t n e s s t o a d e p o s i t i o n noticed by any party to th is l i t i g a t i o n , provided that: (a) a l l persons in attendance at the deposition, excep t f o r the Court R e p o rter, and cou nsel f o r the United States are Designated or Q ualified Persons; (b) th e w i t n e s s i s a d v is e d i n w r i t i n g or on the record a t the d e p o s it io n o f t h i s Order and the w itn ess agrees i n w r i t i n g or on the .record to be bound by a l l i t s terms; (c) cop ies of documents covered by t h is P r o t e c t i v e Order though i d e n t i f i e d and numbered as e x h i b i t s to t h e d e p o s i t i o n , w i l l n o t be made a p h y s i c a l a tt a c h m e n t t o th e tr a n s c rip t of the deposition to be f i l e d with the Court (unless f il e d under s e a l ) . 5 . No cop y o f t h e s e documents w i l l be made a p a r t o f the Court reco rd o f t h i s m u l t i d i s t r i c t l i t i g a t i o n f o r any purpose whatsoever except under seal. 6. Upon t h e t e r m i n a t i o n (by D i s t r i c t C o u r t o r d e r or verdict, or settlement) of a ll the actions consolidated in this m u ltid istrict litig a tio n , a ll designees of a ll parties w ill provide to the counsel of record for the United States either ( i ) a l l c o p ie s o f th e s e documents r e t a i n e d by them, or ( i i ) a statement to the e f f e c t th at a l l such copies have been destroyed. -4- 7. At any p o in t in time p r io r to the term ination o f t h e s e a c t i o n s t h a t any p a r t y ' s c o u n s e l no l o n g e r needs t h e s e documents f o r the purposes o u tlin e d h e re in , t h a t p a r t y 's designees w ill provide the counsel of record for the United States e ith e r (i) a l l cop ies of these documents retained by them, or ( i i ) a statem en t to the e f f e c t t h a t a l l such c o p ie s have been destroyed. 8. No m o d i f i c a t i o n o f t h i s O rd er w i l l be made, n or any a d d itio n a l use of th ese documents authorized, except by o r d e r o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r t h e E a s t e r n D i s t r i c t o f New York upon w r i t t e n a p p l i c a t i o n t o t h e C ou rt and a f t e r an op p o rtu n ity f o r a l l p a r t i e s and the U nited S t a t e s Government to be heard. 9. This Order s h a l l be b in d in g upon a l l persons, in c lu d in g p a r t i e s , D esignated Persons and Q u a li f i e d Persons. I t is enforceable by the contempt power o f the United States D i s t r i c t Court and by any o th er a p p l i c a b l e or a p p ro p ria te sanction imposed in the d is c r e tio n o f a D i s t r i c t Judge of competent ju r is d ic tio n . 10. I f any Designated or Q u a lifie d Person becomes the su bject o f any C o u rt' s subpoena f o r the production o f any of these documents, or information contained therein, th at person w i l l promptly n o t i f y the Government and a l l p a r t i e s to t h i s l i t i g a t i o n o f the pending subpoena, and n o t i f y th e is s u i n g Court of th is P ro tective Order. 11. I f at any tim e any p a rty w ishes a waiver r e la tiv e to a c e r t a i n document or documents from the r e s t r i c t i o n s imposed b y t h e c o n d i t i o n s i n t h i s O rd e r, t h e p a r t y may r e q u e s t such a waiver from t h i s Court in w ritin g , with notice to a l l o th e r p a r t i e s and the Government, s p e c i f i c a l l y i d e n t i f y i n g th e document or documents in q u e s tio n and th e purpose f o r which the waiver is requested. Dated: March 7, 19d3 -6 - EXHIBIT "A" AGREEMENT CONCERNING DOCUMENTS OBTAINED FROM THE FILES OF DR. ROBERT W. BOVEY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER ENTERED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ON _______________________ , 1983________ The undersigned hereby acknowledges t h a t he has read the P rotective Order, dated , 1983 and entered in the United States D is tr ic t Court for the Eastern D i s t r i c t o f New Yor k , 1983 in the a c t io n e n t i t l e d In Re Age nt Orange P r o d u c t L i a b i l i t y L i t i g a t i o n , MDL No. 381 ( A l l C a s e s ) , u n d e r s t a n d s t h e terms t h e r e o f and a g r e e s to be bound by such terms as i f he were sig n a to ry th e r e to . (Date) Signature Business Address Designating Counsel - 7 - o rV.-- % r UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x UVv :',%!t r<**i- Kv . . . M*J 'c I ' i , ;j IN.i iV MAR 9. jGp3 Ti(Vl A :V!..... IN RE "AGENT ORANGE" PRODUCT LIABILITY LITIGATION : MDL # 381 (GCP) (All Cases) x MOTION OF NON-PARTIES GILMORE, INC. AND CHEMIE LINZ, AG FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 26(c) AND PRETRIAL ORDER 42 AND SUPPORTING AFFIDAVIT N o n - p a r t i e s G i l m o r e , I n c . and Chemie L i n z , AG move t h i s Court for a p ro te c tiv e order, pursuant to Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of C i v i l Procedure and P r e - T r ia l Order 42, p reven t ing the d is c lo s u r e by the United S ta te s Environmental P ro tectio n Agency ("EPA") o f two o f t h e i r documents s u b m i t t e d t o EPA i n 1982 on the grounds t h a t (i) th e F e d e r a l I n s e c t i c i d e , F u n g ic id e and R o d e n t i c i d e A c t , a s amended, (FIFRA) s p e c i f i c a l l y p r o h i b i t s d isclo su re of trade secrets or commercial information (ii) the documents of n on -parties to a l i t i g a t i o n contain trade se cre ts th a t notw ithstanding FIFRA, should not be d is c lo s e d to com petitors and ( i i i ) th e documents a re im m a te ria l and i r r e l e v a n t as beyond t h e te m p o ra l scope o f t h i s l i t i g a t i o n . T h i s m oti on i s made upon the a f f i d a v i t o f Roger E. G ilm ore, sworn to on March 14 , 1983, and the e x h i b i t annexed t h e r e t o . Dated: March 18, 1983 BURNS SUMMIT ROVINS & FELDESMAN A t to r n e y s f o r G ilm o re, I n c . and Chemie L i n z , AG 445 Park Avenue New Y o r k , New Yor k 10022 (212) 980-3200 ROSENFIELD BOROD & KREMER P .O . Box 3070 Memphis, Tennessee 38103 (901) 525-6361 TO: CADWALADER, WICKERSHAM & TAFT A t t o r n e y s f o r D ef en d a n t Diamond Shamrock One W all S t r e e t New Y o r k , New York 10005 TOWNLEY & UPDIKE Attorneys for Defendant Monsanto Company Chrysler Building 405 L e x i n g t o n Avenue New Y o r k , New York 10017 -2- 967-3 1 CLARK, GAGLIARDI & MILLER Attorneys for Defendant T.H. Agriculture & Nutrition Co., The Inns o f Court 99 C o u r t S t r e e t White P l a i n s , New Yor k 10607 Inc. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE C ivil Division 521 12th S tr e e t, Northwest Room 822 Washin gton, D.C. 20530 YANNACONE & ASSOCIATES Attorneys for P la in tiffs P ost O f f i c e Drawer 109 P a t c h o g u e , New York 1177 2 ASHCRAFT & GEREL 2000 L S t r e e t , N.W. Washington, D.C. RIVKIN, LEFF, SHERMAN & RADLER A t t o r n e y s f o r Dow C h em ica l 100 Garden C i t y P l a z a Garden C i t y , New Yor k 11530 LEWIS, OVERBECK & FURMAN 135 South L a S a lle S t r e e t C h i c a g o , I l l i n o i s 60603 KELLEY, DRYE & WARREN Attorneys for Defendant Hercules, Inc. 101 Park Avenue New Y o r k , New York 10178 ARTHUR, DRY & KALISH, P . C . Attorneys for Defendant UniRoyal 1230 Avenue of the Americas New Y o r k , New York 10020 SHEA & GOULD Co-Counsel for UniRoyal 330 Madison Avenue New Y o r k , New York 10017 BUDD, LARNER, KENT, GROSS PICILLO & ROSENBAUM Attorneys for Defendant Thompson C h e m i c a l s 33 Washington S t r e e t Newark, New J e r s e y 07102 'Of* UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------- --------------------- IN RE "AGENT ORANGE" PRODUCT LIABILITY LITIGATION ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- MDL #381 ( a l l c a s e s ) AFFIDAVIT OF ROGER E. GILMORE ROGER E. GILMORE, b e i n g d u l y sworn, d e p o se s and s t a t e s : 1 . I am P r e s i d e n t o f G i l m o r e , I n c . ( h e r e i n a f t e r " G i l m o r e " ) , a Tennessee c o r p o r a t i o n which i s the e x c l u s i v e a g e n t f o r Chemie L i n z , AG, a c o r p o r a t i o n o r g a n i z e d under t h e l a w s o f A u s t r i a ( h e r e i n a f t e r "Chemie L i n z " ) , f o r 2, 4, 5-T p ro d u cts in the United S t a t e s o f America. Under the l i c e n s e e / b r o k e r agreem ents, Gilm ore, In c. has the o b l i g a t i o n to m aintain s e c r e t s o f Chemie L in z. Gilmore has been s p e c i f i c a l l y a u t h o r iz e d by Chemie L in z to r e p r e s e n t Chemie L i n z ' s i n t e r e s t s in t h i s m u l t i - d i s t r i c t l i t i g a t i o n regarding "Agent Orange" (see attached te le x , E xhibit A ) . 2. On b e h a l f o f Gilmore and Chemie L i n z , I p r e v i o u s l y o b je c te d to the production and d is c lo s u r e o f two documents: (1) a gas chromatogram requested by the Environmental P ro tectio n Age ncy ( h e r e i n a f t e r "EPA) on May 1 3 , 1982, and s u b m i t t e d t o t h e EPA on June 22, 1982; and (2) a tw o - p a g e document o f t h e c u r r e n t method o f m an u fa c tu re o f 2, 4, 5 - T . I am a d v i s e d t h a t t h e EPA has s t a t e d d u rin g th e March 4, 1983, h e a r in g t h a t i t " i s c o n fid e n t" i t can se gregate the o r i g i n a l o f both th ese documents and a l l c o p i e s t h e r e o f . (See T r a n s c r i p t o f March 4, 1983, a t p. 3299.) 8875 3. I am a l s o a d v i s e d t h a t we were a sk e d t o res p o n d t o c e rta in questions propounded during that conference, as follow s (Transcript, p. 3302): Question 1 : Whether any o f the documents in question r e f e r in any way t o d i o x i n ? Response : By l e t t e r o f May 13, 1982, t h e EPA requested "raw data chromatograms fo r 2, 4, 5-T samples spiked w ith lOppb or l e s s o f 2, 3, 7 - 8 - t e t r a c h o l o r o - d i b e n z o p - d i o x i n (TCDD)." The g a s chromatogram was produced by Chemie Linz subsequent t o t h i s r e q u e s t , and was subm itted t o t h e EPA on June 22, 1982. Question 2 : Whether [the documents] contain a h i s t o r i c a l process chronology, including statements as to what the p r o c e s s e s were in th e 1960 t o 1971 p e rio d ? Response : No. Q u e s t i o n 3 : When t h i s t y p e o f i n f o r m a t i o n , c o n t a i n e d in the documents, was f i r s t submitted to the government? Response : The m anu factu ring p r o c e s s d a ta was f i r s t s u b m i t t e d t o t h e EPA on A u g u s t 1 9 , 1982. The g a s ch r o m o t agram was f i r s t s u b m i t t e d t o t h e EPA on June 22, 1982. N e i t h e r Chemie Linz nor Gilmore subm itted any in fo rm a tio n r e l a t i n g to dioxin or manufacturing processes prior to these submissions. 4. Your A f f ia n t r e s p e c t f u l l y req u ests th a t the gas chromato grams subm itted on June 22, 1982, and the d a ta r e f l e c t i n g the m a n u fa c tu rin g p r o c e s s s u b m itte d on A u gust 1 9 , 1982, n o t be produced p u r s u a n t to p r e - t r i a l Order No. 42. -2- My commission e x p i r e s : ~ ' /s~. / 9 > y -3 - I n t e r n a t i o n a l 'r 3 l e x V i i Ml' iS-" Mi 3 2 4 Y U H Z H 1 3 0 3 03 01 10 =10 li HR F S N R , 5 2 / K Z E i C - gemi qernge product l i a b i l i t y l it ig a t io n HERRI NG HP,ROH 4 TH Kt MU!MU1tr-- t tT 1". R T I --:l.*1r--_-i U- UMORE: INC = TO REPRES ENT CHENIE WITH THE E PR I H THE RGEN T OR ANGE PR ODUCT L I R E L I T I G A T I O N ON HAECH 4 TH 1 3 8 3 IN THE SANE WRY i FIT?POI NT ED OU T IN -. riW**.. :t iilt. W:IKiL'T". *. S ES= Gl ! t;Ilj:l lI i1sV\*r*^- it1}1M1s *i..t1*r" SPECIAL NR S T E P c n <>CHRE i"i*Ti\.J5.*Lf----Wr. OPTED r- r- T-. r L t= : I th i T ! M. Uv = REGRESS CHEHIELINZ/KZE/KUERNSTEIMER +++' 2 1 3 2 4 Y L I N Z A# GILMORE MF5 J / f f Western Union International, Ine. VIA EABIO-AiiSTEIR 0 1 / 0 3 / 8 3 0 3 1 3 GNT X el) t Z f t f f In te rn a tio n a l le ie x * ^ Western Union International, Inc. 5 STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) SS . : COUNTY OF NEW YORK ) JACQUELINE GEBHARD, b e i n g sworn d e p o s e s and s a y s : Deponent i s o v e r 18 y e a r s o f a g e , n ot a p a r t y to t h e a c t i o n and r e s i d e s i n New Y o r k , New Y o r k . On March 1 8 , 1983 I s e r v e d t h e e n c l o s e d Motion o f N o n - P a r t i e s G i l m o r e , I n c . and Chemie L i n z , AG f o r a P r o t e c t i v e Order P u r s u a n t t o Rule 2 6 (c) and P r e - T r i a l Order 42 and S u p p o r t i n g A f f i d a v i t and Memorandum o f Law o f N o n - P a r t i e s G il m o r e , I n c . and Chemie L i n z , AG i n S u p p o r t t h e r e o f upon Clark, Gagliardi & M iller Attorneys fo r Defendant T.H. Agriculture & Nutrition. Co. , The Inns o f C ourt 99 C o u r t S t r e e t White P l a i n s , New York 10607 United S tates Department of Justic C ivil Division 521 12th S tr e e t, Northwest Room 822 W ash in gton , D.C. 20530 Ashcraft & Gerel 2000 L S t r e e t , N.W. Washington, D.C. R i v k i n , L e f f , Sherman & R ad ler A t t o r n e y s f o r Dow Chemical 100 Garden C i t y P l a z a Garden C i t y , New York 11530 L e w i s , O ve rb ec k & Furman 135 South L a S a lle S tr e e t C h i c a g o , I l l i n o i s 60603 Budd, L arn er, Kent, G ross, P i c i l l o & Rosenbaum Attorneys for Defendant Thompson C h e m i c a ls 33 Washington S t r e e t Newark, New J e r s e y 07102 by d ep ositin g a true copy th ereof enclosed in a pre-paid properly addressed wrapper under the e x c lu s i v e care and custody o f the Federal Express mail d e liv e ry se rv ic e , next day d e liv e ry . On March 18, 1983 I s e r v e d t h e e n c l o s e d Motion o f N o n - P a r t i e s G i l m o r e , I n c . and Chemie L i n z , AG f o r a P r o t e c t i v e Order P u r s u a n t t o Rule 26(c) and P r e - T r i a l Order 42 and S u p p o r t i n g A f f i d a v i t and Memorandum o f Law o f N o n - P a r t i e s G i l m o r e , Inc.- and Chemie L i n z , AG i n S u p p o r t t h e r e o f upon Yannacone & A ssociates Attorneys for P la in tiffs P o s t O f f i c e Draw 109 P a t c h o g u e , New York 11 7 7 2 by d ep o sitin g a true copy th e re o f enclosed in a pre-paid prop erly addressed wrapper in an o f f i c i a l d e p o sito ry under the e x c l u s i v e c a r e and c u s to d y o f the United S t a t e s P o s t a l S e r v i c e w i t h i n the S t a t e o f New Y o r k . Sworn t o b e f o r e me t h i s 18th day o f March, 1983 N o t a r y /Pn,,u(WTblylALi c~my Notoy pNoi.0'3,,1S-t4a7t1e116 t a t rCJerutf*flcaa5teeFi.l,end_1NInewNeYworYicoCroiTucnSmfc Commission Expires March 30/l9^ Jacqueline Gebhard r UNITED STATES D IST R ICT COURT EASTERN DISTR ICT OF NEW YORK In re "Agent Orange" Product Liability Litigation MDLJfo ^ (Ali* Cases) SPECIAL INTER'S RECOMMENDED : ORDER AND MEMORANDUM RE: DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL : PRODUCTION OF FDA DOCUMENTS On January 10, 1983, defendants moved, pursuant to Rule 37 of the Fed. R. Civ. P., before the Special Master for an order compelling the government's production of additional documents in the possession of the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA"). In its papers in opposition to defendants' motion to compel, the government represents that the FDA has conducted one full search for documents relevant to this litigation which included a search through the FDA's Bureau of Food files (includ ing the files of its Division of Chemistry and Physics, Division of Chemical Technology and Division of Toxicology). This search resulted in the production of 2,772 documents totalling approxi mately 16,500 pages, which the government asserts it made available on microfilm in September 1980. According to the government's papers, a follow-up search by FDA revealed a negligible amount of additional relevant information (approximately 24 pages) which the government states it made available on microfilm in June 1981. Replying to the defendants' assertion that they served individual requests identifying specific documents, the government states 9E31 -2 - t h a t i t responded to such r e q u e s t s by way o f a N o t ic e to Counsel date d November 1 1 , 1982 which s t a t e d t h a t a s e a r c h o f t h e r e l e v a n t f i l e s did not uncover the items sought by defendants. The government a l s o o b j e c t s to d e f e n d a n t s ' propose d o r d e r to compel p ro d u ctio n because i t con tain s f i v e new r e q u e s t s to which the United S t a t e s has had no o p p o r t u n i t y to re spond; the government urges that these requests be s trik e n as opp ressive in view o f the previous search (and follow -up search) o f FDA f i l e s which r e v e a l e d t h a t th e s e documents do n o t e x i s t i n the relevant f i l e s . Replying to the government's papers, the defendants r e i t e r a t e t h e i r p o s i t i o n t h a t the government has n o t made a s u f f i c i e n t s e a r c h f o r the r e q u e s t e d documents. As an example, the defendants c ite the government's response to th e ir request fo r the f i r s t seven documents contained in t h e i r motion to compel. The d e f e n d a n ts s t a t e t h a t t h e s e documents were c i t e d i n a r e p o r t which i n d i c a t e d t h a t f i l e s i n the Contaminants Branch o f th e FDA contained the unpublished documents r e f e r r e d to in the rep o rt; inasmuch as these documents have never been produced and th a t, therefore, according to the government, they are not contained in the relevant f i l e s , the defendants' question the c r it e r ia by which the government determ ined f i l e s to be r e l e v a n t f o r i t s s e a r c h . The defendants also request that the Special Master require the govern ment to p r o v i d e an a f f i d a v i t d e t a i l i n g i t s s e a r c h e f f o r t s wheneven i t cannot lo c a t e a p a r t i c u l a r document. 8882 -3- After carefully considering the submissions of both the defendants and the government, and after hearing oral argument on the issue, I conclude that requiring the government to conduct yet another full search of the same "relevant" files would be wasteful and probably futile, in view of the fact that the follow-up search, conducted after defendants submitted their Phase I First-Wave Interrogatories, turned up a negligible amount of new material. However, I recommend that so much of defendants' motion which covers Items #1-9 and #11-13 be granted. These requests are specific in nature, basically seeking particular documents. Although the government has stated that FDA could not locate these documents ih earlier searches of relevant files, I believe a further, specific search is advisable. In complying with this Order, the government will submit an affidavit indicating who conducted the search, which files were searched and by what criteria it was determined that the files searched were relevant. With respect to Items #14-16, the government represents that these are new requests to which they have not had an oppor tunity to respond. I agree with the government that Rule 37 does not anticipate requests for orders compelling production where there has been no prior request for documents. However, in view of the fast approaching June 27, 1983 trial date, and to avoid -4 - further delay, I believe that rulings on these requests are in order at this time. Items #14 and 15 are denied as being too broad in nature and scope. The government is directed to search for the report requested in Item #16 and to indicate by affidavit, as described above, which files were searched, by whom, and by what criteria the files were determined to be relevant. Items #10 and #17 to #22 in defendants' motion to compel are denied. These requests are far too general and broad in nature and scope, are duplicative of prior requests and would not further the discovery process. The attached Recommended Order sets forth the specific documents in the possession of the FDA for which the government is to conduct a search, and outlines the contents of the affidavit which shall be submitted with further production of the documents sought. Date: March 1983 Respectfully submitted SOL SCHREIBER Spedial Master oj UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK In re "AGENT ORANGE" c,v Ka ^ Product L ia b ility L itigatigli ^ -c,oJ rDaEFENDANT THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY' S ..-'EQUEST TMFOR "PRODUCT- ^rON OF DOCUMENTS DIRECTED TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA RE: NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY MDL NO. 381 -X PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, t h a t p u r s u a n t t o R u le 34 o f th e j F e d e r a l R u le s o f C i v i l P r o c e d u r e , th e Defenda nt The Dow C h e m i c a l i Company ("Dow") r e q u e s t s the U n it e d S t a t e s o f Am er ic a t o pr oduce j f o r in s p e c t io n and copyin g the documents re q ue ste d h e r e i n which are in the possession, custody or con trol of the N ational S e c u r i t y Agency and i t s p r e d e ce sso r or s u c c e s s o r a g e n c ie s or ' o f f i c e s , i f any, w ithin t h i r t y days of se rv ic e of th is Notice or j such o t h e r d a t e as may be d i r e c t e d by th e S p e c i a l M a s t e r . j DOCUMENTS REQUESTED In a cc o rd a n ce w ith the d e f i n i t i o n s and i n s t r u c t i o n s s e t f o r t h i n D e f e n d a n t s ' Ph ase I F i r s t Wave I n t e r r o g a t o r i e s ( F i r s t Set) dated January 15, 1981, a copy of which is annexed hereto as E x h ib it A, you are requested to produce the fo llo w in g documents f o r i n s p e c t i o n and c o p y i n g by Dow: SS85 ; 1- A l l documents that r e fe r or r e la t e to proposed j research, development, te s tin g , evaluation , t o x ic i t y , or use of herbicides for m ilita r y purposes, including but not lim ited to 2 . 4 . 5 - t r i c h l o r o p h e n o x y a c e t i c a c i d , or an e s t e r , amine, s a l t , or o t h e r form t h e r e o f i n c l u d i n g A gents Orange, P i n k , P u r p l e , and Green. 2. A l l documents th a t r e f e r or r e l a t e to r e s e a r c h , development, te s tin g , evalu ation , t o x ic i t y , or use of herbicides I j I for m ilita r y purposes, including but not lim ited to 2 . 4 . 5 - t r i c h l o r o p h e n o x y a c e t i c a c i d , or an e s t e r , amine, s a l t , or o t h e r form t h e r e o f i n c l u d i n g Anents Orange, P i n k , P u r p l e , and Green. 3. A l l documents not c a l l e d fo r in response to I j t paragraphs 1 or 2 r e l a t i n g to any communication to or from Edgewood A r s e n a l which r e f e r or r e l a t e to d i o x i n , t r i c h l o ro p h e n o l, 2 , 4 , 5 - t r i c h l o r o p h e n o x y a c e t i c a c i d , or an e s t e r , amine, t j s a l t or other form th e r e o f, in clu d in g Agents Orange, Pink, Purple j and Green. j 4. A l l documents not c a l l e d fo r in response to paragraphs 1 or 2 r e l a t in g to any communication to or from F ort j D etrick which refer or r e la t e to d ioxin , tric h lo ro p h e n o l, 2 . 4 . 5 - t r i c h l o r o p h e n o x y a c e t i c a c i d , or an e s t e r , amine, s a l t or o th e r form t h e r e o f , in c lu d in g Agents Orange, P in k , P u rp le and Green. j ] j jII I iIIl i j i 5. A ll documents not c a lle d for in response to paragraphs 1 or 2 r e l a t i n g to any communication to or from the Advanced Research P r o j e c t s Agency ("ARPA") which r e f e r or r e l a t e to dioxin, trichlorophenol, 2 ,4 ,5-trichlorophenoxyacetic acid, or an e s t e r , amine, s a l t or o th er form t h e r e o f , i n c l u d in g Agents Orange, P in k , P u rp le and Green. 6. A l l documents not c a lle d for in response to paragraphs 1 or 2 r e l a t i n g to any communication to or from the In stitu te for Defense Analyses (including but not lim ited to a l l communications t o or from J .H . C o a t e s , L.M. S h a r p e , H. P o l l a c k , S.S . Penner, Robert J. Heaston, J .F . Ruina, S .J . Deitchman, or any agent, employee or rep resen ta tive of the I n s t it u t e for Defense Analyses or any predecessors or successors t h e r e o f ) , which refer or r e la te to d ioxin , trich lorop h en ol, 2 ,4 ,5 t r i c h l o r o p h e n o x y a c e t i c a c i d , or an e s t e r , amine, s a l t or other form t h e r e o f , i n c l u d i n g Agents Orange, P i n k , P u rp le and Green. 7. A l l documents not c a lle d for in response to paragraphs 1 or 2 r e l a t i n g to any communication to or from the O ffic e of the S ecretary of Defense which re fe r or re la te to d i o x i n , t r i c h l o r o p h e n o l, 2 , 4 , 5 - t r i c h lo r o p h e n o x y a c e t i c a c i d , or an e s t e r , amine, s a l t or other form t h e r e o f , in c lu d in g Agents Orange, P i n k , P u r p le and Green. 8. A l l documents not c a lle d for in response to the p re ceding paragraphs which re fe r or r e la t e to d io x in , t r i c h l o rophenol, 2 , 4 , 5 - t r i c h l o r o p h e n o x y a c e t i c a c i d , or an e s t e r , amine, 9687 s a l t or other form th e r e o f, in cludin g Agents Orange, Pink, Purple and Green. 9. A l l c o p ie s of s t u d i e s , r e p o r t s , p u b l i c a t i o n s an other l i t e r a t u r e which re fe r to or r e la t e to dioxin, t r ic h l o - r o p h e n o l, 2 , 4 , 5 - t r i c h l o r o p h e n o x y a c e t i c a c i d , or an e s t e r , amine s a l t or other form th e r e o f, in cludin g but not lim ite d to any of the following: (a) Kimmig, J . , S c h u lz , K.H.: C h l o r i e r t e aromatische Zyklische ther a ls Ursache der sogenannten Chlorakne, Naturwissenschaften 44,337-338 (1957), i j or an E n g l i s h or o t h e r t r a n s l a t i o n t h e r e o f ; j (b) Kimmig, J . , S c h u l z , K'.H.: B e r u f l i c h e Akne j (sog. Chlorakne) durch c h lo rie rte aromatische zyklische j th e r, D erm atologica 115,540-546 (1957), or an E n g lis h or other translation thereof; (c) S c h u l z , K .H .: K l i n i s c h e und e x p e r im e n t e l l e Untersuchungen zur t io lo g ie der Chloracne, Arch. K lin . Exp. Dermatol. 206,589-596 (1957), or an E n g lis h i | j I ! | I i j or other tran slatio n thereof; (d) B a u e r , H . , S c h u l z , K . H . , S p i e g e l b e r g , U .: B e r u f lic h e V e rg iftu n g e n bei der H e rste llu n g von Chlorphenol-Verbindungen, Arch. Gewerbepathol. Gewerbehyg. 18,538-555 (1 9 6 1 ) , or an E n g l i s h or o th er j translation thereof; ! (e) Sandermann, W., Stockmann, H ., C asten, R .: j Uber d i e P y r o l y s e des P e n t a c h l o r p h e n o l s , Chem. B e r . | Ii n r88 ...I 90,690-692 (1 9 5 7 ) , or an E n g l is h or o th e r t r a n s l a t i o n thereof; (f) B leiberg, J ., Wallen, M., Brodkin, R ., Appelbaum, I . L . : I n d u s t r i a l l y acquired porphyria. Arch. Dermatol. 8 9,7 93-79 7 (1964); and (g) J o n e s , E . L . , K r i z e k , H.: A T e c h n ic f o r Testing Acnegenic Potency in Rabbits, Applied to the Potent Acnegen, 2 ,3 ,7 ,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-P-Dioxin, Journal of In v estig a tiv e Dermatology 511 (1962). 10. A ll organ ization charts for each d iv is io n , branch, s e c t i o n and o t h e r u n i t o f the N a t i o n a l S e c u r i t y Agency and a l l predecessors or su ccessors th ereto from January 1 , 1956 to January 1, 1972. 11. A l l documents not c a lle d for in response to the preceding paragraphs that are responsive to Defendants' Phase I F i r s t Wave I n t e r r o g a t o r i e s ( F i r s t S e t ) d a t e d J a n u a r y 1 5 , 1981 (E xhibit A h e re to ), but which have not yet been produced to the p a r t i e s by the United S t a t e s of America in In re "Agent Orange" P r o d u c t L i a b i l i t y L i t i g a t i o n , MDL No. 381. T h i s r e q u e s t i n c o r p o r a te s by r e f e r e n c e the d e f i n i t i o n s and i n s t r u c t i o n s co n tain ed in Exhibit A hereto, including, in particular d efin itio n s of " d i o x i n " , " h e r b i c i d e " , and "document". vVi M Dated: Garden C i t y , New York March , 1983 RIVKIN, LEFF, SHERMAN & RADLER A Member o f th e Firm Attorneys for Defendant THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY 100 Garden C i t y P l a z a Garden C i t y , New Yor k 11530 (516) 746-7500 To: Attached S e r v ic e L i s t 9890 TO: Morton B. Siiberm an, Esq. Clark, Gagliardi & M iller The Inns o f C ourt 99 C o u r t S t r e e t White P l a i n s , N.Y. 10601 Wendell B. A lco rn , J r . Esq. Cadwalader, Wickersham & T aft One W all S t r e e t New Y o r k , New York 10005 John S a b e tta , Esq. Townley & Updike 405 L e x i n g t o n Avenue New Y o r k , N .Y . 10174 William Krohley, Esq. K e l l e y , Drye & Warren 101 Park Avenue New Y o r k , N.Y. 10178 Howard L e s t e r , Esq. L e s t e r , Schwab, Katz & Dwyer 120 Broadway New Y o r k , N.Y. 10271 David R. G r o s s , Esq. Budd, L a rn e r, Kent, Gross P i c i l l o & Rosenbaum 33 Washington S t r e e t Newark, N.J. 07102 Thomas A. B eck , Esq. A rthur, Dry & K a li s h , P.C. 1230 Avenue o f the Americas New Y o r k , N.Y. 10020 V icto r J. Yannacone, J r . , Yannacone & Yannacone P.O. Box 109 Patchogue, N.Y. 11702 Esq. Irving Like, Esq. 200 West Main S t r e e t Babylon, N.Y. 11702 Arvin Maskin, Esq. Torts Branch, C iv il Div. United States Dept, of Justice Safeway Building 521-12th Street Washington, D.C. 20530 Sol Schreiber, Esq. Milberg, Weiss, Bershad & Specthrie One P e n n s y l v a n i a P l a z a Room 4915, 49th F l o o r New Y or k , N.Y. 10119 The Counsel o f Vietnam Veterans 329 E i g h t h S t r e e t , N.E. Was hington, D.C. 20002 P a t r i c i a D. Howard Chief of the Ju d icial Panel on M u l t i d i s t r i c t Litigation 1120 Vermont Av enue, N.W. S u i t e 1002 Was hington, D. C. 20005 Paul E sposito, Esq. L e w i s , O ve rb eck & Furman 135 South L a S a ll e S t r e e t S u i t e 1060 C h i c a g o , 1 1 1 . 60603 SG91 EXHIBIT A T) E ~ r 7 J / P rrfrs-z; JT- " J 7~s-r? /? a e>'lr . [ Prs/zj', !*-> ) ' UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK i t ------------ ------ -------------------- | In re | "AGENT ORANGE" i product Liability Litigation KDL No. 381 DEFENDANTS' PHASE I FIRST WAVE INTERROGATORIES (FIRST SET)_______________ ; PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, pursuant to Rule 33 of the I Federal Rules cf Civil Procedure and Pretrial Order No. 26, filed I `December 29 1980, the undersigned defendants demand that the United States of America and each plaintiff herein serve and file i .answers to each of the following Interrogatories under oath on or ii 'before February 13, 1981, in accordance with the definitions and ii ^instructions attached hereto and made a part hereof. !it;: i INTERROGATORIES A. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TESTING AND EVALUATION OF HERBICIDES I.* Identify separately each unit of the United States, [as defined herein, including those listed on Appendix A hereto, jthat engaged during the period prior to January 1, 1972 in any activities relating to the research, development, testing or evaluation of herbicides for potential use in connection with I military activities, and as to each such unit, describe: a. The nature and extent of its involvement in such activities; and b. The duration of its involvement in such activi ties. 2. As to each separate unit of the United States identified in the response to Interrogatory 1, Identify each \ 969 OAw I person in charge of or with responsibility for any of its activ ities relating to the research, development, testing or evaluation !of herbicides for potential use in connection with military activities. 3- Give an organization chart for each separate unit j i;of the United States identified in the response to Interrogatory 1 i for each period prior to January 1, 1972 during which it was !l jinvolved in activities relating to the research, development, j ' testing or evaluation of herbicides for potential use in eonnec- Ition with military activities. | y. Identify each communication, meeting, contract or i mother transaction between the United States and any of the defen dants herein, or any officer, agent, employee or other person act f ing or purporting to act on behalf of a defendant, that concerns .or relates to any research, development, testing or evaluation of ^herbicides prior to January 1, 1972 for potential use in connec- tI tion with military activities. 5., Identify each document constituting, memorializing, disclosing, referring or relating to each communication, meeting, icontract or other transaction identified in the response to Inter- I rogatory . 6. Identify each project concerning the research, development, testing or evaluation of herbicides for potential use in connection with military activities, including those projects listed on Appendix B hereto. 7. As to each project identified in the response to Interrogatory 6, identify each document that constitutes, memo rializes, discloses, refers or relates to the results of research, rear**" ^ .'/-Vyrr^d.-;v^v-V - i development, testing or evaluation that was conducted pursuant to that project. B. SPECIFICATION, SELECTION, PURCHASE, PROCUREMENT, PRODUCTION, SHIPMENT I! AND DELIVERY OF HERBICIDES j 8. Identify separately each unit of the United States, l .as defined herein, including those listed on Appendix A hereto, i .that engaged during the period prior to January 1, 1972 in any activities relating to .the specification, selection, purchase, j procurement, production, shipment or delivery of herbicides for j!potential use in connection with military activities, and as to each such unit, describe: I ! a. The nature and extent of its involvement in such il activities; and | ! b. The duration of its involvement in such activi- i 9. As to each separate unit of the United States i identified in the response to Interrogatory 8, identify each person in charge of or with responsibility for any of its activ ities relating to the specification, selection, purchase, procure ment, production, shipment or delivery of herbicides for potential ! i! use in connection with military activities. I 10. Give an organization chart for each separate unit of the United States identified in the response to Interrogatory 8 for each period prior to January 1, 1972 during which it was involved in activities relating to the specification, selection, purchase, procurement, production, shipment or delivery of herbi cides for potential use in connection with military activities. -3 - SO 94 5 19 I 'WssajsrHT'- 11. I Identify each communication, meeting, contract other transaction between the United States and any of the defen- i jdants herein, or any officer, agent, employee or other person acting or purporting to act on behalf of a defendant, that conj jcerns or relates to the specification, selection, purchase, pro- ! curement, production, shipment or delivery of herbicides prior to \ January 1, 1972 for potential use in connection with military activities. | i ! 12. Identify each document constituting, memorializing, j |;'.disclosing,referring or relatingto each communication, meeting, 'contract orother transaction identified in responseto Interro- n ;gatory 11. |i jj 13-Identify each herbicide usedor tested by the ji | ! I \ 'United States prior to January 1, 1972for potential use in con- ' nection with military activities, and with respect to each such ! ! 'iherbicide: j II a. State the dates during which it was used and/or tested; b. Identify each geographical location at was used and/or tested; and I c. Identify the suppliers and/or manufacturers, i and. state the amounts contracted for by the United States and the t lamounts delivered to the United States by each such supplier and/or i manufacturer... 19. For the period from January 1, 1961 to January 1972, identify each person in charge of, with responsibility for, lor who participated in or was consulted with respect to: a. Selecting, contracting with or making changes in suppliers and manufacturers of herbicides for potential use in -9- SGS5 ywiwumwiwi. j*. jconnection with military activities; i b. Preparing, evaluating, selecting, modifying"or approving technical specifications for each herbicide selected, purchased or procured by the United States for potential use in connection with military activities; j c. Preparing, evaluating, selecting, modifying or approving labeling specifications for each herbicide selected, purchased or procured by the United States for potential use in connection with military activities; and d. Preparing, evaluating, selecting, modifying or approving shipping and financial specifications for each herbicide i selected, purchased or procured by the United States for potential j !j j l'use in connection with military activities. ; 15. Fur the period from January 1, 1961 to January 1, i! '.1972, identify each document that describes,,refers or relates to: a. The selection of, contracts with, or lIof changes in suppliers and manufacturers of herbicides for potential use in connection with military activities; , b. The preparation, evaluation, selection, modifi cation or approval of technical specifications for each herbicide selected, purchased or procured by the United States for potential I luse in connection with military activities; c. The preparation, evaluation, selection, modifi cation or approval of labeling specifications for each herbicide selected, purchased or procured by the United States for potential use in connection with military activities; and d. The preparation, evaluation, selection, modifi cation or approval of shipping and financial specifications for each herbicide selected, purchased or procured by the United States for potential use in connection with military activities. -5 - 16. For the period from January 1, 1961 to January j1, 1972, identify each person in charge of, with responsibility jfor, or who participated in or was consulted with respect to: | a. Contacting and negotiating with suppliers and manufacturers concerning contracts for, and the purchase or pro cI urement of herbicides for potential use in connection with military activities; i j b. Evaluating, considering or determining conform- | jity or compliance by suppliers and manufacturers with technical j !j specifications for each herbicide selected, purchased or procured j by the United States for potential use in connection with military j II :l activities; IiI i! c. Evaluating, considering or determining conform- : jity or compliance by suppliers and manufacturers with labeling 'specifications for each herbicide selected, purchased or procured jby the United States for potential use in connection with military activities; d. Evaluating, considering or determining conform ity or compliance by suppliers and manufacturers with shipping and financial specifications for each herbicide selected, purchased or procured by the United States for potential use in connection with [ military activities; and | e. Evaluating, considering or determining perform ance by suppliers and manufacturers of any contracts for herbi cides selected, purchased or procured by the United States for potential use in connection with military activities. 17. For the period from January 1, 1961 to January 1, 1972, identify each document that describes, refers or relates to: a. Contracts and negotiations with supp and manufacturers concerning contracts for, and the purchase or -6- U  'procurement of herbicides for potential use in connection with imilitary activities; | b. The evaluation, consideration or determination Il jof conformity or compliance by suppliers and manufacturers with 'technical specifications for each herbicide selected, purchased or I ;1r procured by the United States for potential use in connection with !military activities; !i c. The evaluation, consideration or determination J 'of conformity or compliance by suppliers and manufacturers with i :labeling specifications for each herbicide selected, purchased or ,1 procured by the United States for potential use in connection with; ! ^military activities; i d. The evaluation, consideration or determination ii ]of conformity or compliance by suppliers and manufacturers with | I f shipping and financial specifications foreach herbicideselected, .purchased or procured by the United States for potential use in ! connection with military activities; and I ! e. The evaluation, consideration or determination I i j ; Jof performance by suppliers and manufacturers of any contracts for herbicides 'selected, purchased or procured by the United States for potential use in connection with military activities. j Iff. For the period from January 1, 1961 to January 1, 1972, identify each person in charge of, with responsibility for, or who participated in or was consulted with respect to: a. The implementation, application or us Defense Production Act of 1950, the Defense Materials System, or any regulations, orders, procedures, directives or priority ratings issued or available pursuant thereto, in connection with the pro duction, procurement, purchase or shipment of herbicides for use in connection with military activities. -7- 19- For the period from January 1, 1961 to January 1, 1972, identify each document that: a. Discusses, refers or relates to the tion, application or use of the Defense Production Act of 1950, i jthe Defense Materials System, or any regulations, orders, procel jdures, directives or priority ratings issued or available pursuant > :thereto, in connection with the production, procurement, purchase jor shipment of herbicides for use in connection with military i activities; and !i] b. Contains a reference to the Defense Production ,Act of 1950, the Defense Materials System, or any regulations, I orders, procedures, directives or priority ratings issued or available pursuant thereto, and which was prepared in connection with the production, procurement, purchase or shipment of herbi cides for use in connection with military activities. i C. OSE, APPLICATION AND ! DISPOSAL OF HEBBICIDES 20. Identify separately each unit of the United States, as defined herein, including those listed on Appendix A hereto, that engaged during the period from January 1, 1961 to January 1, 1||:1972 in any activities relating to the use, application (i .e., dispersal) or disposal of herbicides in connection with military activities in Southeast Asia, and as to each such unit, describe: a. The nature and extent of its involvement in such activities; and b. The duration of its involvement in such activi- ties. 21. As to each separate unit of the United States identified in the response to Interrogatory 20, identify each 8- - 3 3 9 9 person in charge of or with responsibility for any of its activ- i iities relating to the use, application or disposal of herbicides i jin connection with military activities in Southeast Asia. tI 22. Give an organization chart for each separate uni of the United States identified in the response to Interrogatory i20 for each period between January 1, 1961 and January 1, 1972 ! 'during which it was involved in activities relating to the use, j application or disposal of herbicides in connection with military I activities in Southeast Asia. i 23- Identify each communication, meeting or other trans-' iI I action between the United States and any of the defendants herein, l `I I; jl.or any officer, agent, employee or other person acting or purport- | i ing to act on behalf of a defendant, that concerns or relates to the use,application ordisposal during the periodfromJanuary 1, I j: j j1961to January 1, 1972 ofherbicides inconnection with military j activities in Southeast Asia. !'iI 21). Identify each document describing, referring or i relating to each communication, meeting or other transaction iden tified in the response to Interrogatory 23- Il 25- . Identify each person in- charge of, with respon- Isibility for, or who participated in or was consulted with respect to: a. Evaluating, considering or determining whether ;and the purposes for which herbicides would be used in connection with military activities in Southeast Asia; b. Evaluating, considering or determining which I (herbicides would be used in connection with military activities in Southeast Asia; -9- i c. Developing, considering, evaluating, selecting, modifying, issuing and approving procedures, guidelines, instruc tions, directives, orders or rules and regulations relating to the time, place and manner of application of each herbicide used in connection with military activities in Southeast Asia; d. Developing, considering, evaluating, selecting, modifying, issuing and approving procedures, guidelines, instruc- i! ;tions, directives, orders or rules and regulations relating to the j iconditions for and all other considerations pertaining to the application of each herbicide used in connection with military ! i activities in Southeast Asia; j d. Evaluating, considering or determining the i *:effectiveness, usefulness and tactical or strategic value of each [herbicide used in connection with military activities in Southeast | Asia; and j e. Evaluating, considering or determining whether to suspend, modify or discontinue the application of any herbi cide used in connection with military activities in Southeast Asia. 26. Identify each document that constitutes, memo rializes, discloses, describes, refers or relates to: a. The evaluation, consideration or determination of whether and the purposes for which herbicides would be used in connection with military activities in Southeast Asia; b. The development, consideration, evaluation, selection, modification, issuance and approval of procedures, guidelines, instructions, directives, orders or rules and regula tions relating to the time, place and manner of application of each herbicide used in connection with military activities in Southeast Asia; -10- 97 0 1 J-, ..A*? "Z & -jjfT `V v"^T>>'W'T\ *iyrV c. The development, consideration, eva selection, modification, issuance and approval of procedures, guidelines, instructions, directives, orders or rules and regula t i o n s relating to the conditions for and.all other considerations !pertaining to the application of each herbicide used in connection ;with military activities in Southeast Asia; I i:1 d. The evaluation, consideration or determination ''of the effectiveness, usefulness and tactical or strategic value i!Iof each herbicide used in connection with military activities ! | iin Southeast Asia; and i ! e. The evaluation, consideration or determination l! j!of whether tc suspend, modify or discontinue the application of i ! |:any herbicide used in connection with military activities in ! i jSoutheast Asia. !i i D. HEALTH EFFECTS AND DIOXIN ' i ! 27. For the period prior to January 1, 1972, identify tIj each person in charge of, with responsibility for, or who partici pated in or was consulted with respect to: * a. Evaluating, considering or determining the toxicity or health effects of dioxin, 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxyacetic ! jacid, 2,^4--dichlorophenoxyacetic acid or any of the herbicides involved in this action; b. Evaluating, considering or determining matters relating to the synthesis, analysis, identification, origin, destruction or removal of dioxin; and c. Evaluating, considering or determining matters relating to the presence or possible presence of dioxin in 2,^,5- trichlorophenoxyacetic acid, E.^-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid or any of the herbicides involved in this action. 9702 -1 1 - I 28. For the period prior to January 1, 1972, identify lIeach document that discusses, mentions, refers or relates to: | a. The toxicity or health effects of dioxin, 2,H, I5 -trichlorophenoxyacetic acid, 2 ,H-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid or any of the herbicides involved in this action; b. The synthesis, analysis, identification, origin, |i! ;destruction or removal of dioxin; and iI j c. The presence or possible presence of dioxin in |2 ,^ ,5 -trichlorophenoxyacetic acid, 2 ,H-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid I i ,`or any of the herbicides involved in this action. j| ! DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTION'S . 1. The following definitions apply herein: | ii | a. "Dioxin" means all polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins ! ;(PCDDs) and all polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs). I I b. "Document" is used in the broadest possible sense j '* I :;and means any written or graphic matter of whatever kind or nature,! or any other means of preserving thoughts or expression (including, without limitation, tape recordings and/or transcriptions thereof), iand all tangible things from which information can be processed or :transcribed, whether originals, copies or drafts (including without limitation, non-identical copies), however produced or repro duced. Note that a document with handwritten or typewritten notes, editing or other marks, etc., is not and shall not be deemed iden tical to one without such notes, marks, etc. "Documents" also means all graphic, mechanical, or electronic reproductions, repre sentations, recordings, or compilations of data of any kind, in cluding but not limited to, drawings, charts, graphs, motion pic ture films, microfilms, microfiles, photographs, tape recordings, -12- > Vi ' *L-j.^ .cwcvii3=?g^ tnm!.virrt*z videotapes, any transcripts or printouts produced therefrom, and all drafts of any of the foregoing. c. "Draft" means any earlier, preliminary, preparatory or tentative version of all, or part of the document, whether or not such draft was superseded by a later draft, and whether or not jthe terms of the draft are the same as, or different from the terms of the final document. | d. "Herbicide" means any substance containing 2,H,5- i trichlorophenoxyacetic acid, 2 ,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, or jan ester, amine, salt or other form thereof, including Agent Orange, Agent Pink, Agent Purple, Agent Green and any other i I1herbicide involved in this action. ! e. "Identify" when used with reference to a natural i person means state: (i) his full name and present address (or if his j present address is not known, his last known address); and (ii) his present (or, if his present is not known, his last known) job, position, rank, and/or profes sional affiliations, and the same information for the time of the acts or other matters to which the Interrogatory is addressed. f. "Identify" when used with reference to any person other than a natural person means state: (i) the full name thereof; (ii) the nature of the activity engaged in; (iii) the address and principal place of business; and (iv) if applicable, the jurisdiction under the laws 9704 -13- ^ s ^ - ^ ? ^ * * * * * * ^ '^ ^ ^ J fffeg y jw:K * * i ii^ l I i Ij I of which it has been organized and the date of such organization. g. "identify" when used with reference to a document means state: (i) its nature (e.g., letter, telegram, memorandum, i j chart, report, list, etc.), date, and the identity j; of the author and addressees; j (ii) the identity of each person who signed the t | document and each person who participated in I js preparing the document; i (iii) its title or heading; I (iv) its substance; and i| jj (v) its present (or, if the present is not I |j known, the last known) location and custodian. ji h. "Identify" when used with reference to a comnunica- I 'tion, meeting or transaction means state: j (i) its nature (e.g., telephone conversation, face-to-face conversation or meeting, letter, memorandum, etc.); (ii) the date and place thereof (and if a tele phone conversation, the place each participant I was located); (iii) the identity of each person participating in, present during, or witness to, all or any part thereof; and (iv) the substance thereof. i. "Identify" when used with reference to a herbicide means state its full chemical formulation and any trade or other names by which it is known. -U- , 9705 . .,gSSKS3S^i^5S5gBfe& ii i ! J. "Identify" when used with reference to a project or military operation means state any names by which it was known, its purpose or goal, the dates it began and ended, the locations at which it was conducted, and identify separately persons: 1I (i) who approved or authorized its undertaking; ! (li) who were responsible for operational I management; and I" i; (iii) who were responsible for evaluating its i j j results. !|i: k. "Identify" when used in --anv context other than here- `iinabove set forth means describe the pertinent act, work, situa- !i ition, event, etc.,as fully aspossible, andidentify each person i jj l j|in any way involved therein and each document or communication j j1in which such act, work, situation, event, etc., is recorded, idescribed,discussed orotherwise referred to. i I 1. "Labeling specifications" means those portions of : contract specifications for a product that direct what markings I I \ ! . i shall be made on the product or its container. m. "Person" means any natural person, individual, part nership, company, corporation, government body or any other entity.! : j n. "Shipping and financial specifications" means those | portions of contract specifications for a product that direct the packing and manner of shipping for the product and that pertain to the price and payment terms. I o. "Technical specifications" means those portions of contract specifications that detail the chemical or other composi tion, performance and production standards of the product. S706 -15- ~yy& I p. "United States" means THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA jand its offices, departments, bureaus, agencies, representatives, |department heads, agency heads, bureau chiefs, agents, attorneys, employees, or any other persons, acting or purporting to act for, or on behalf of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, under the authority '{ or control of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, or any one or more of I i: :the foregoing. j q. "Tou" means the United States, as defined above, andj i leach plaintiff herein. ' | i i j 2. Each Interrogatory is to be answered to the extent j 'of all information available to you, including all documents and I.other sources of knowledge within your possession, custody or ' ! ! | i j ' i control, or within the possession, custody or control of your i I'I attorneys, wherever located, and including yourdocuments placed .in independent storage facilities. ! j ! 3- Unless otherwise indicated, each Interrogatory re quests information for the period prior to January 1, 1972, in cluding all^information available from documents dated, prepared, sent or received, in whole or in part, prior to January 1, 1972. I 'In addition, however, when any document refers or relates to the l period prior to January 1, 1972, you should include the informa- jtion from that document in your response without limitation as to | jwhen the document was dated, prepared, sent or received. U. Each Interrogatory that refers to any group of per sons is to be answered separately and with particularity, as to each member of any such group. 5. Each Interrogatory that refers to herbicides is to -16- 9707 I be answered separately and with particularity as to each applic able herbicide. 6 . Except where explicitly inaicated otherwise, each Interrogatory herein should be construed independently and not by t (reference to any other paragraph for the purpose of limitation. 7. If the answer to all or any part of an Interrogatory ' ;t :l is not now known or you are otherwise not able to answer fully, so istate in response to such Interrogatory or part thereof, state ;the reasons, and furnish whatever responsive information is now | (known or otherwise available. !I | i 8 . If any privilege is claimed as to any information i i jcalled for, or as to any document required to be identified by an IInterrogatory: i (i) state the nature of the privilege claimed i j (e.g., attorney-client, work product, etc.); ; i (ii) state the basis for claiming the privilege as to the specific information or document; (iii) if the privilege is claimed with respect to any information, identify each person who has knowledge of such information, or to whom such ! information has been communicated in any way, at any time; and (iv) if the privilege is claimed as to any docu ment, identify such document. 9. Certain of the Interrogatories herein seek disclo sure that goes beyond the issues defendants contend should be tried in Phase I. Defendants have nevertheless included such Interrogatories because the issues for Phase I trial have not yet -17- v 9705! O- y pi P (been defined by the Court. Defendants reserve their right to I modify or supplement these Interrogatories to the extent required by the Court's determinations as to the standards and elements of I the government contract defense. 10. "And" as well as "or" shall be construed either disjunctively or conjunctively as necessary to bring within the scope of the specification all responses which might otherwise be construed to be outside its scope. "Each" shall be construed to include the word "every" and "every" shall be construed to include Ithe word "each". "Any" shall be construed to include the word "all" and "all" shall be construed to include the word "any". "Including" shall be construed to include the phrase "without liijilimitation". 'Dated: New York, New York i January 15, 1981 RIVKIN, LEFF & SHERMAN By " P v l A S f A , A Member of the Firm y Attorneys for Defendant The Dow Chemical Company 100 Garden City Plaza G(a5 r1d6e)n7HC6it-y7,500New York 11530 \1 CADWALADER, WICKERSHAM & TAFT By A A Member of tne Fi& Attorneys for Defendant Diamond Shamrock Corporation One Wall Street New York, New York 10005 (212) 785-1000 -1-8- S709 .'J".-* I A ' Wr<y.*-^\*'*--'"W** # ^v .^SS.jWf>e't>er-r KELLEY DRYE & WARREN iemorof th Firm Attorneys for Defendant Hercules Incorporated 350 Park Avenue New York, New York 10022 (2 1 2 ) 752-5800 T0WNLEY & UPDIKE t Attorneys for Defendant Monsanto Company 405 Lexington Avenue New York, New York 10017 (2 1 2 ) 682-4567 CLARK, GAGLIARDI & KILLER Attorneys for Defendant Thompson-Hayward Chemical Co. The Inns of Court 99 Court Street White Plains, New York 10601 (914) 946-8900 DILWORTH, PAXS0N, KALISH & LEVY Attorneys for Defendant Hooker Chemical Company 2600 The Fidelity Building Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19109 (215) 546-3000 ARTHUR, DRY & KALISH By U A itfy*c6 > ^ A Member of the Firm Attorneys for Defendant Uniroyal, Inc. 1230 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10020 (212) 489-4510 -19- :t o : MDL SERVICE LIST BUDD, LARNER, KENT, GROSS, PICILLO & ROSENBAUM By i Y )1/> \ A A Member of the Firm Attorneys for Defendant Thompson Chenicals Corporation 33 Washington Street Newark, New Jersey 07102 (201) 622-7400 LESTER, SCHWAB, KATZ A DWYER A KemDer of tne firm Attorneys for Defendant Hoffman-Taff, Inc. 120 Broadway New York, New York 10271 (212) 964-6611 20 r l I APPENDIX A | -E-X--E-C-U--T-I--V-E-!--B--R-A-N--C-H- I . Department of Defense A. Defense Supply Agency 1. Defense General Supply Center i Richmond, Virginia |i i! a. Directorate of Procurement i and Production | 2. Contract Administration Services 1 | a. Office of Contracts Compliance b. Offices of Contract Administration | Services Regions ; B. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency j C. Department of the Army i; 1. Fort Detrick, Maryland j: a. Biological Laboratories | 2. Edgewood Arsenal, Maryland j a. Weapons Development and Engineering Laboratories - Chemical Process Laboratory b. Office of Procurement and Production 3 . Camp Drum, New York Dugway, Utah Proving Grounds i! D. Department of the Air Force 1. Eglin Air Force Base, Florida a. Armament Development and Test Center 2. Brooks Air Force Base, Texas a. Occupational and Environmental Haalth Laboratory 3. Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio a. Aerospace Research Laboratories b. Air Force Logistics Command A-1 Sill2 J). Directorate of Aerospace Fuels a. Kelly Air Force Base, Texas l b. Aerospace Fuels Field Offices Transportation Branch 5. Surgeon General 6. Operation RANCH HAND E. Department of the Navy . . 1. Naval Construction Battalion Center Gulfport, Mississippi I F. Military Assistance Command in Vietnam 1. "203 Committee" G. Institute for Defense Analyses ;II i 11. 1. Project AGILE Department of Commerce II ] A. Business and Defense Services Administration j 1. Chemicals and Allied Products Divisionij 2. Office of Industrial Mobilization III. Department of Agriculture A. Office of Science and Education * 1. Agricultural Research Service a. Pesticide Regulation Division b. Crop Research Division Crops Protection Research Branch c. Texas and Puerto Rico operations d. Plant Industry Station Beltsville, Maryland B. Advisory Committee on 2,^,5-T C. Forest Service IV. Department of Health, Education and Welfare . A. Public Health Service 1. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences a. NIEHS Laboratories .q Research Triangle, North Carolina ^*7 J A-2 .'"N . r iifeasam ., 2. Food and Drug Administration !V. Department, of State A. American Embassy, Republic of Vietnam V I . Department of the Interior VII. Executive Office of the President A. Office of Civil and Defense Mobilization B. Council on Environmental Quality C. Rational Security Council 1. Central Intelligence Agency D. Office of Science and Technology 1. Panel on Herbicides of the President's Science Advisory Committee INDEPENDENT AND QUASI-OFFICIAL AGENCIES iVIII. National Academy of Sciences A. "ABC Committee" (a committee to investigate bio logical and chemical warfare) B. Committee on the Effects of Herbicides in Vietnam IX. National Research Council X . Environmental Protection Agency A. Advisory Committee on 2,4,5-T MISCELLANEOUS DCI. Department of War A. War Research Service A-3 <3- i # *1 r \ | ! APPENDIX B i 1. Projects concerning the testing of herbicides icr . ^potential use during World War II; ' 2. Projects undertaken after World War II vhicr. were conducted in greenhouses and/or Puerto Rice; i. 3* Projects conducted at or involving Fort DetrtcK, Maryland, Eglir. Air Force Base, Florida and Camp Drue, New Ycr',:; ! A. Projects rendering assistance to or undertaker, ir. ii l;cooperation with foreign nations, including specifically the United Kingdom; 5* Projects undertaken pursuant to or ir. connecticr. with a request by the Departaent of Defense in or about Kay 1961 to determine the feasibility of herbicide operations ir. Vietr.au; 6. Projects concerning the possible manufacture of (herbicides by or under the direct eontrol of the United States Weldon Springs, Missouri, Muscle Shoals, Alabama or elsewhere; | 7. Operation HADES; j B. Operation RANCH HAND; and ! i | 9. Project AGILE. "k-H v 9715 MDL No. 381 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK In re "AGENT ORANGE" Product Liability Litigation DEFENDANTS' PHASE I FIRST WAVE INTERROGATORIES (FIRST SET)________________ CADW ALADER. W ICKERSHAM & TAFT One Wall Street New York. N. Y. 10005 (212) 785-1000 Attorney! for Defendant Diamond Shamrock Corporation 9 T *5 ) -J r STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) COUNTY OF NASSAU ) ss.: Roberta Ringler r bein g du ly sworn, deposes and sa y s : T h a t deponent i s n ot a p a r t y to t h i s a c t i o n , i s o v e r 18 y e a r s o f age and r e s i d e s in T h a t on th e 25thday o f March , deponent serve the within Dow C h e m i c a l Company's Re qu est f o r P r o d u c t i o n o f Documents d i r e c t e d to the U .S.A. re: N a tio n a l S e c u r i t y Agency upon the a t t o r n e y s below s e t f o r t h re p r e s e n tin g the p a r t i e s , as i n d i c a t e d , a t the. a d d r e s s e s shown, s a id a d d r e s s e s b ein g d e s i g nated by sa id a tto r n e y s fo r th a t purpose, by d e p o s itin g a true copy o f same, enclosed in a postpaid properly addressed wrapper in an o f f i c i a l d e p o s it o r y under the e x c l u s i v e ca re and cu sto d y c t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s P o s t O f f i c e D e p a r tm e n t w i t h i n t h e S t a t e o f New York* See attached l i s t Sworn to before me this<=3.S day of /^\<y^cJLs 198S a. NOTARY PUBLIC ;;-a >1 New York To, '' "i c.V-t. n j;0C t -nty 19 P -3 b i* LAW O F F IC E S R ivkin , Le f t , S h er m an & R a d ler TELEPHONE (5 16 )7 4 6 -75 0 0 lOO GARDEN CITY PLAZA GARDEN CITY, NEW YORK 11330 TELEX 645-074 CABLE ADDRESS AT LAW G R C Y TELECOPIER (SIB) 7 4 7 - 3 8 4 3 SUITE 3 0 0 0 - 3 0 NORTH LASALLE STREET CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 6 0 6 0 2 > ( 3 I 2 ) 7 * 2 - 5 6 8 0 WRITERS DIRECT DIAL:(5I6) 228 --4318 March 25, 1983 Arvin Maskin, Esq. Torts Branch, C iv il Division U.S. Department o f J u stice Safeway Building 521 1 2 t h S t r e e t , N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 Re: AGENT ORANGE PRODUCT LIABILITY LITIGATION MDL No. 381 Dear Mr. Maskin: I e n c l o s e D ef en da nt The Dow Chemical Company's Request f o r Production o f Documents d i r e c t e d to th e United S t a t e s o f America r e : N a t i o n a l S e c u r i t y A g e n c y . We would a p p r e c i a t e yo u r prompt attention to this matter. Very tru ly yours, RIVKIN, LEFF, SHERMAN & RADLER SB/rr enc cc: See annexed se rv ic e l i s t By: Steven Brock THE P A R TN ER SH IP IN C L U D E S O N E OR M ORE P R O F E SSIO N A L CO RPO RATIO N S aU* R ivkin, Le f f , S herm an & Ra d l e r TO: Morton B. Silberm an, Esq. Clark, Gagliardi & M iller The Inns o f Court 99 C o u rt S t r e e t White P l a i n s , New York 10601 Wendell B. A lc o r n , J r . , Esq. Cadwalader, Wickersham & T a ft One Wall S t r e e t New Y or k , New York 10005 John S ab etta, Esq. Townley & Updike 405 L e x in g t o n Avenue New Y or k , New York 10174 William Krohley, Esq. K e l l e y , Drye & Warren 101 Park Avenue New Y ork, New York 10178 David R. G ro ss , Esq. Budd, Larner, Kent, G ross, & Rosenbaum 33 Washington Avenue Newark, New J e r s e y 07102 P icillo Thomas A. Beck, Esq. Arthur, Dry & K a li s h , P.C. 1230 Avenue o f the Americas New Y o r k , New York 10020 Arvin Maskin, Esq. Department of J u s tic e Safeway Building Room 904 D Washington, D. C. 20530 V icto r J. Yannacone, J r . , Esq. Yannacone & Yannacone P. 0. Box 109 P a t c h o g u e , New Yor k 1177 2 Irvin g Like, Esq. 200 West Main S t r e e t B a b y l o n , New Yor k 11702 P a t r i c i a D. Howard C h i e f o f t h e J u d i c i a l P a n e l or M ultidistrict Litigation 1120 Vermont Avenue S u i t e 1002 Wash ington, D.C. 20005 The Counsel o f Vietnam Veterar 329 E i g h t h S t r e e t , M.D. Wash ingto n, D.C. 20002 Sol S ch reib er, Esq. Milberg, Weiss, Bershad & Specthrie One P e n n s y l v a n i a P l a z a Room 49 15, 49th F l o o r New Y o r k , New York 10119 Paul E sp osito, Esq. L e w i s , O ve rb eck & Furman 135 South L a S a lle S tr e e t S u i t e 1060 C h i c a g o , I l l i n o i s 60603 Howard L e s t e r , Esq. L e s t e r Schwab, Katz & Dwyer 120 Broadway New Y o r k , New York 10271 ':-9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ X In re: "AGENT ORANGE" Product L ia b ility L itigation X FILED IN CLERK'S OFFICE S. DISTRICT COURT E.D. N.Y Q ^ TIME- ---p.M-- MDL NO. 381 D e f e n d a n t s ' Memorandum In Su p p ort o f Motion to Compel P ro d u c tio n o f P u b li c Health S e rv ice Documents _____ R ivkin, Leff, S h er m a n & Radler At t o r n e y s a n d C o u n s e l l o r s a t L aw I O O Ga r d e n C ity P l a z a ,G a r d e n C ity, N . Y . 1 1 5 3 0 i/>.' . .} . . UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------------------------- X In re: "AGENT ORANGE" MDL No. 381 Product L ia b ilit y L itigatio n X D e f e n d a n t s 1 Memorandum In Su p port o f Motion to Compel P ro d u ctio n o f P u b li c Health S e r v i c e Documents PRELIMINARY STATEMENT This motion seeks to compel the production of documents relevan t to the Agent Orange l i t i g a t i o n in the possession, custody, or con trol of the United States Public Health Service ("USPHS"). Defendants have requested the United S ta te s to pro duce th e s e documents on numerous o c c a s i o n s , as d i s c u s s e d i n f r a , but the government has not produced any of these documents as of this date. RELEVANCE OF USPHS DISCOVERY The t e s t i m o n y g i v e n by USPHS w i t n e s s e s has c l e a r l y d e m o n s t r a te d t h e im p o r ta n ce o f USPHS documents t o t h e d e f e n d a n t s ' p o s i t i o n in the l i t i g a t i o n . The governm ent's f a i l u r e to produce any o f th e r e l e v a n t USPHS documents has s e r i o u s l y im p a i re d th e d e f e n d a n ts ' a b i l i t y to p r o p e r l y defend them selves and has unjustly fru strated the defendants' attempts to complete d is covery. 9721 A former USPHS o f f i c i a l , Dr. Donald J . Birmingham, has t e s t i f i e d t h a t th e USPHS was aware t h a t t h e r e was a c h l o r a c n e problem associated with the manufacture of 2,4,5-T as e a r ly as 1949 (Birmingham Dep. T r . P. 2 0 - 2 3 ) . Two w i t n e s s e s have i n d i c a t e d t h a t they v i s i t e d a t l e a s t two chem ical p l a n t s which produced 2,4,5-T to study th is p a r tic u la r problem while the were employed by the USPHS. (Birmingham Dep. T r . P. 20-23, Key Dep. Tr. P. 144-153). In 1963, Dr. Marcus Key, then the A s s i s t a n t C h i e f D e r m a t o l o g i s t i n th e USPHS, was n o t i f i e d t h a t a U . S . F o r e s t r y S e r v ic e worker had developed ch lo ra cn e a f t e r using 2 , 4 , 5 - T . Indeed, Dr. Key in du ce d c h l o r a c n e on h i s own arm by a p p ly in g commercial 2 , 4 , 5 - T . (Key Dep. T r. P. 60-69). A sub s e q u e n t s t u d y c o n d u c t e d a t the USPHS f a c i l i t y i n C i n c i n n a t i in 1964 confirmed th a t th re e commercial samples of 2 ,4 ,5 - T produced c h lo ra c n e in r a b b i t s . (Key Dep. Tr. P. 126 -13 0 ). Furthermore, former USPHS o f f i c i a l s have t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e y knew i n 196 3-1964 t h a t d i o x i n was r e p o r t e d t o be th e co ntam inant in 2 , 4 , 5 - T which was r e s p o n s i b le fo r the c h lo r a c n e problem. S p e c i f i c a l l y , th e s e USPHS employees had re ad a German s c i e n t i f i c j o u r n a l a r t i c l e (Kimmig and S c h u l z , 1957) which i d e n t i f i e d d i o x i n as th e ch lo ra c n e-p ro d u cin g contaminant in 2 ,4 ,5 - T . (Key Dep. Tr. P. 79-84, Groth Dep. T r . P. 4 1 - 4 3 ) . In 1965, Dr. David G r o th , a p a t h o l o g i s t w i t h th e USPHS, s u b m i t t e d a f o r m a l p r o j e c t p r o p o s a l seeking funding for a study designed to p o s itiv e ly id e n tify the -2- chloracnegic contaminant in 2,4,5-T, but apparently the funding was de nied by h i g h l e v e l USPHS o f f i c i a l s . (Groth Dep. T r . P. 64-68, 9 4 - 9 8 ) . In sum, th e PHS was w e l l aware by 1964 t h a t c h lo r a c n e had been a s s o c i a t e d w ith 2 , 4 , 5 - T p r o d u c t io n and t h a t d i o x i n was the s u s p e c t e d c o n t a m i n a n t . PRIOR EFFORTS TO HAVE THE GOVERNMENT ______PRODUCE USPHS DOCUMENTS______ D e f e n d a n t s have a t t e m p t e d t o o b t a i n r e l e v a n t USPHS documents on s e v e r a l o c c a s s i o n s . However, d e s p i t e th e s e e f f o r t s (as d e t a ile d b e lo w ), the government has f a i l e d to produce any such documents. The o r i g i n a l r e q u e s t f o r th e USPHS documents o c c u r r e d on January 15, 1981, on which d a te d e fe n d a n ts' served the government w i t h D e f e n d a n t s ' Ph ase I F i r s t Wave I n t e r r o g a t o r i e s ( F i r s t S e t ) p u r s u a n t t o R u le 33 o f th e F e d e r a l R u le s o f C i v i l P r o c e d u r e and P r e - t r i a l Order No. 26, f i l e d December 29, 1981. However, d e s p i t e the o b v i o u s a p p l i c a b i l i t y o f the i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s t o USPHS docu m e nts, * no USPHS documents were produce d or mentioned in th e U n it e d S t a t e s ' Re sponse t o D e f e n d a n t s ' Ph ase I F i r s t Wave In te r r o g a to r ie s (F ir s t S e t ) , dated February 13, 1981, nor were USPHS documents r e f e r r e d t o i n the g o v e r n m e n t ' s s u b s e q u e n t * The p e r t i n e n t i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s are a t t a c h e d as E x h i b i t A. -3- 9723 Notice to A l l Counsel, dated A p ril 15, 1981, which supplements the o rigin al response. D e f e n d a n t s have a l s o r e q u e s t e d USPHS documents a t t h e d e p o s i t i o n s o f s e v e r a l USPHS w i t n e s s e s . At the d e p o s i t i o n o f Dr. Marcus Key, defendants o r a l l y requested the production of documents from th e f i l e s p r e v i o u s l y or c u r r e n t l y maintained by t h e USPHS which d e a l w i t h th e Newark, New J e r s e y m a n u f a c t u r i n g f a c i l i t y o f t h e Diamond A l k a l i Company ( p r e s e n t l y th e Diamond Shamrock Company), and in p a r t i c u l a r , any documents prepared or r e c e i v e d by any USPHS o f f i c i a l s c o n c e r n i n g i n v e s t i g a t i o n s or t r i p s made t o t h i s f a c i l i t y . D e f e n d a n t s f u r t h e r r e q u e s t e d th e p r o d u ctio n o f any dermatoses i n v e s t i g a t i o n r e p o r t s prepared by t h e USPHS r e l a t i n g t o c h l o r a c n e , 2 , 4 , 5 - T or d i o x i n . D e f e n d a n t s a ls o requested the government to produce any tr ip s reports pre p a r e d by Dr. Key which r e l a t e d t o any t r i p s made t o Edgewood A r s e n a l fo r o c c u p a t i o n a l h e a l t h sem inars. These document r e q u e s t s were s u b s e q u e n t l y made in w r i t i n g by l e t t e r on September 9, 1982.* The government responded to these req u e sts by l e t t e r on November 1 1 , 1982, a t which time i t s t a t e d t h a t the c u s t o d i a n o f th e USPHS f i l e s , th e N a t i o n a l I n s t i t u t e f o r Environmental H e a lth S c i e n c e s (NIEHS), no lo n g er has any r e l e va n t t r i p r e p o r t s and t h a t any o th e r documents in i t s f i l e s which are responsive to these requests have already been pro duced. *A copy of t h i s l e t t e r i s a ttach ed as E x h i b i t B. -4 - During the d e p o sitio n of Dr. Donald J . Birmingham, the d e f e n d a n t s r e q u e s t e d t h e p r o d u c t i o n o f any USPHS f i l e s r e l a t i n g t o c h l o r a c n e and p r o d u c t i o n o f th e agendas from USPHS s t a f f meetings held at the Cincinnati f a c i li t y . Again, these requests were l a t e r made i n w r i t i n g t o th e government on September 9, 1982.* The government has never produced any documents in re s p o n se to t h e s e r e q u e s t s , and i t s o n ly respon se was in the November 1 1 , 1982 l e t t e r ( r e f e r r e d to above) in which i t s t a t e d t h a t the a p p ro p r ia te government agency had not responded to the requests. At the d ep osition of Dr. Douglas Lee, defendants requested the government to produce a l l documents r e l a t i n g to h e r b i c i d e s , 2 , 4 , 5 - T , TCDD, and c h l o r a c n e m a i n t a i n e d i n th e f i l e s of either the D ivision of Occupational Health or the D ivision of t h e Bu re au o f S t a t e S e r v i c e s , bo th d i v i s i o n s w i t h i n t h e USPHS. T h i s r e q u e s t was s u b s e q u e n t l y made in w r i t i n g by l e t t e r d a te d J a n u ary 20, 1 9 8 3 .* * The government responded t o t h i s r e q u e s t by l e t t e r on March 1 , 1983, a t which time i t i n d i c a t e d t h a t NIOSH (N a tio n a l I n s t i t u t e f o r O c c u p a tio n a l S a f e t y and H e a l t h ) , the su c cessor agency to the Bureau of Occupational Health, could not l o c a t e any o f the req uested f i l e s . The government did not respond to the request for documents from the Bureau of S ta te Services. * A copy of th is l e t t e r is attached as E x h ib it B. ** A copy of th is l e t t e r is attached as E x h ib it C. -5- 9725 At the deposition of Dr. Paul Possick, defendants requested that the government produce a l l the f i l e s which were m a i n t a i n e d a t the USPHS f a c i l i t y i n C i n c i n n a t i c o n c e r n i n g c h l o r a c n e , acne or acne formed derm atoses, and any r e l a t e d f i l e s . T h i s r e q u e s t was l a t e r made i n w r i t i n g by l e t t e r d a t e d February 24, 1983.* The government has not responded to t h i s request. NECESSITY FOR ORDER TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF USPHS DOCUMENTS D e s p i t e t h e r e p e a t e d e f f o r t s made by d e f e n d a n t s to have t h e government produce r e l e v a n t USPHS docu ments, no such do cu ments have been produced nor has the government adequately explained any reasons for the non-production. Defendants are f o r c e d t o make t h i s motion f o r t h r e e r e a s o n s . F i r s t , i t i s c l e a r , ba se d upon t h e t e s t i m o n y o f a USPHS w i t n e s s (Dr. P a u l P o s s i c k ) t h a t th e USPHS f a c i l i t y i n C i n c i n n a t i m a i n t a i n e d e x t e n s i v e f i l e s on the s u b j e c t o f c h lo r a c n e .* * T h e r e fo r e , th e re i s no doubt t h a t r e l e v a n t documents did e x i s t w i t h i n the f i l e s of * A copy o f t h i s l e t t e r i s a t t a c h e d as E x h i b i t D. ** In clu d ed in t h e s e c h l o r a c n e f i l e s were r e p r i n t s o f a r t i c l e s and correspondence on the s u b j e c t . (P o ssick Dep. T r . P. 28-29). Dr. Possick te s tifie d these f il e s included the following sp e c ific i n f o r m a t i o n : Kimmig and S c h u l t z a r t i c l e (Id. a t P. 4 6 - 4 7 ) , B l e i b e r g a r t i c l e (d. a t 4 7 ) , Dermato ses I n v e s t i g a t i o n o f Diamond A l k a l i p l a n t by Birmingham and Key ( I d . a t 4 8 - 5 0 ), Birmingham and Key p r e s e n t a t i o n t o I n t e r n a t i o n a l Congress on O c c u p a tio n a l Health (Id. a t 5 5 -5 6 ), Schw artz a r t i c l e on halowax acne (Id. a t 5 6 -5 7 ), correspondence between Key and G o ld s t e in on U .S . F o r e s t r y worker with chloracne (Id. at 59-60). -6 - 9 t h e USPHS f a c i l i t y i n C i n c i n n a t i . Seco nd, d e f e n d a n t s have e v i dence which i n d i c a t e s t h a t some o f t h e s e documents a r e s t i l l w ith in the c o n tro l of the government. S p e c i f i c a l l y , Dr. David Groth produced a cop y o f a r e l e v a n t USPHS document ( p r o j e c t p r o t o c o l s on a proposed stu d y t o i d e n t i f y the contaminant in 2,4,5-T) in response to a Freedom of Information Act request made i n 1980. Dr. G ro th t e s t i f i e d he p r o v i d e d t h i s document from the government f i l e s he p e r s o n a l l y m ain tain s w it h i n h is c u r r e n t government o f f i c e . (Groth Dep. T r . P. 9 ). Defendants take the p o s it io n t h a t the e x i s t e n c e of t h i s document w ith in government f i l e s c l e a r l y demonstrates th a t the government has eith er refused to review appropriate f i l e s for discovery pur poses or has in adequately conducted i t s search of the f i l e s . T h i r d , d e f e n d a n t s a r e f o r c e d t o make the p r e s e n t motion in p a r t because they find the government's response to their requests both co n fu s in g and in c o m p lete. In response to d efen d a n ts' request for any dermatoses in v e s tig a tio n reports contained in t h e f i l e s o f t h e USPHS f a c i l i t y i n C i n c i n n a t i (Key d e p o s i t i o n , see E xhibit "B"), the government indicated that the present government agency w ith custody of such f i l e s i s NIEHS.* Later in response to defendants' request for documents r e la t in g to herbicides located in the f i l e s of the Bureau of Occupational H e a l t h , * * th e government i n d i c a t e d t h a t NIOSH i s th e c u r r e n t A copy of t h i s response l e t t e r is attach ed as E x h ib it E. A copy of t h i s l e t t e r is attached as E x h ib it C. -7- government agency which has custody of these f i l e s . * These i n c o n s i s t e n t r e s p o n s e s by t h e government make i t u n c l e a r as to which government agency (or a g e n c ie s ) has cu stody o f the r e l e v a n t USPHS f i l e s . F u r t h e r m o r e , o t h e r document r e q u e s t s made by the defendants (such as the req uest for documents from the Bureau o f S t a t e S e r v i c e s , and the re q u e s t fo r the " c h lo r a c n e f i l e s " m a i n t a in e d a t th e USPHS f a c i l i t y i n C i n c i n n a t i ) have sim ply been ignored by the government. Consequently, defendants have no way o f knowing e x a c t l y what measures th e government has taken to insure that a l l the relev an t f i l e s have been searched. The s i g n i f i c a n c e o f t h e USPHS documents t o the l i t i g a tion is obvious. I t is im perative for defendants to have the government produce a l l these relevant documents. Consequently, an o r d e r t o Compel P r o d u c t i o n o f USPHS documents i s a p p r o p r i a t e . RELIEF REQUESTED Defendants r e s p e c t f u l l y r e q u e s t t h a t the government be o r d e r e d t o con d u ct a th oro u gh s e a r c h o f a l l f i l e s which may c o n t a i n the USPHS documents d e s c r i b e d in th e pr opose d Order a t t a c h e d h e r e t o and to produce t h e s e documents w i t h i n t h i r t y d a ys. Defendants f u r t h e r r e q u e s t th a t the government be re q u ire d to document the ste p s i t takes in conducting t h i s se arch . Respectfully submitted, RIVKIN, LEFF, SHERMAN & RADLER Attorneys for Defendant The Dow C h em ical Company 100 Garden C i t y P l a z a Garden C i t y , NY 11530 (516) 746-7500 * A copy of th is response l e t t e r is attached as E x h ib it F. 8- - TOWNLEY & UPDIKE Attorneys for Defendant Monsanto Company 405 L e x i n g t o n Avenue New Y o r k , NY 10174 (212) 682-4567 KELLEY, DRYE & WARREN Attorneys for Defendant Hercules Incorporated 101 Park Avenue New Y o r k , NY 10178 (212) 808-7800 CADWALADER, WICKERSHAM & TAFT Attorneys for Defendant Diamond Shamrock C o r p o r a t i o n One Wall S t r e e t New Y o r k , NY 10005 (212) 908-7000 ARTHUR, DRY & KALISH, P . C . Attorneys for Defendant Uniroyal, Inc. 1230 Avenue o f the Americas New Y o r k , NY 10020 (212)841-9300 BUDD, EARNER, KENT, GROSS, PICILLO & ROSENBAUM Attorneys for Defendant Thompson C hem ica l C o r p o r a t i o n 33 Wa sh ington Avenue Newark, NJ 07102 (201) 622-7400 CLARK, GAGLIARDI & MILLER Attorneys for Defendant T-H A g r i c u l t u r e & N u t r i t i o n Company The Inns o f Court 99 C o u r t S t r e e t White P l a i n s , NY 10601 (914) 946-8900 TO: Morton B. S ilb e r m a n , Esq. Clark, Gagliardi & M iller The Inns o f C ourt 99 C o u r t S t r e e t White P l a i n s , New York 10601 Wendell B. A l c o r n , J r . , Esq. Cadwalader, Wickersham & T aft One W all S t r e e t New Y o r k , New York 10005 John S a b e tta , Esq. Townley & Updike 405 L e x i n g t o n Avenue New Y or k , New York 10174 William Krohley, Esq. K e l l e y , Drye & Warren 101 Park Avenue New Y or k , New York 10178 David R. G r o s s , Esq. Budd, L a rn e r, Kent, Gross, & Rosenbaum 33 Washington Avenue Newark, New J e r s e y 07102 P ic illo Thomas A. B eck , Esq. A rth u r, Dry & K a lis h , P.C. 1230 Avenue o f the Americas New Y o r k , New York 10020 Arvin Maskin, Esq. Department or J u stice Safeway Building Room 904 D W ashington, D. C. 20530 V icto r J. Yannacone, J r . , Esq. Yannacone & Yannacone P. 0. Box 109 P a t c h o g u e , New York 1177 2 Irvin g L ike, Esq. 200 West Main S t r e e t B a b y l o n , New York 11702 Sol Schreiber, Esq. Special Master Milberg, Weiss, Bershad & Specthrie One P e n n s y l v a n i a P l a z a Room 4915, 49th F l o o r New Y ork, New York 10019 9730 D e f e n d a n t s 1 Phase I F i r s t Wave I n t e r r o g a t o r i e s ( F i r s t S e t ) 1. Id en tify separately each unit of the United States, as d e fin e d h e r e in , in c lu d in g those l i s t e d on Appendix A hereto, that engaged during the period p rior to January 1, 1972 in any a c t i v i t i e s r e l a t in g to the research, development, te stin g or evaluation of herbicides for p o t e n t i a l use i n c o n n e c tio n w ith m i l i t a r y a c t i v i t i e s , and as to each such u n it, describe: (a) th e nature and e x t e n t o f i t s involvement in such a c t i v i t i e s ; and (b) the duration o f i t s involvement in such activities; 2. As to each separate u n it o f the United S ta te s id en tified in the response to Interrogatory 1, id en tify each person in charge o f or with r e s p o n s i b ilit y fo r any of i t s a c t iv i t i e s re la tin g to the research, development, testin g or evaluation of herbicides for potential use in connection with m ilitary a c tiv itie s ; 3. Give an o r g a n i z a t io n c h a r t f o r each s e p a ra te u n i t o f the United States id e n tifie d in the response to I n te r r o g a to r y 1 f o r each pe rio d p r i o r to January 1, 1972 du rin g which i t was in v o lv e d in a c t i v i t i e s r e l a t i n g to the research, development, te stin g or evaluation of herbicides for potential use in connection with m ilitary a ctiv itie s; 6. I d e n tify each p r o je c t concerning the research, development, te s tin g or evaluation of herbicides for potential use in connection with m ilitary a c tiv itie s , including these p rojects lis te d in Appendix B hereto; 7. As t o each p r o j e c t i d e n t i f i e d in the response to In terro g a to ry 6, i d e n t i f y each document th a t c o n s tit u t e s , memorializes, discloses, refers or relates to the results o f r e s e a r c h , development, t e s t i n g o r e v a l u a t i o n t h a t was conducted pursuant to that project; 27. For the period p rior to January 1, 1972, id e n tify each p e r s o n i n c h a r g e o f , w i t h r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r , o r who p a r t i c i p a t e d in or was c o n s u lte d w ith r e s p e c t t o : (a) evaluating, considering or determining the to x icity or health effects of dioxin, 2 ,4 ,5-trichlorophenoxyacetic acid, 2 , 4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid or any of the herbicides involved in th is action; (b) e v a lu a tin g , co n sid erin g or determining matters rela tin g to the synthesis, analysis, id e n tif ic a tio n , o rig in , d estru ctio n or removal of d io x in ; and (c) evaluating, considering or determining matters relatin g to the presence or possible presence of dioxin in 2 ,4 ,5-trichlorophenoxyacetic acid, 2 . 4 - dichlorophenoxyacetic acid or any o f the h e r b i c i d e s in v o l v e d i n t h i s a c t i o n ; and 28. For the period p r io r to January 1, 1972, i d e n t i f y each document t h a t d is c u s s e s , mentions, r e f e r s or r e l a t e s to : (a) the t o x ic it y or health e ffe c ts of dioxin, 2 ,4 ,5-trichlorophenoxyacetic acid, 2 . 4- dichlorophenoxyacetic acid or any of the herbicides involved in th is action; (b) the sy n th e sis, a n a ly s is , i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , o r i g i n , d e s t r u c t i o n or removal or d io x in ; and (c) the presence or possible presence of dioxin in 2 ,4 ,5-trichlorophenoxyacetic acid, 2 . 4 - dich loroph en oxyacetic a cid or any o f the herbicides involved in th is action. v. ( Arvin Maskin, Esg. -2- September 9, 1982 D e fe n d a n t s have m a i n t a in e d t h a t no f u r t h e r r e g u e s t s f o r the documents are n ecessary. These documents have been reguested in our f i r s t wave i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s , dated January 15 , 1981, numer ous w r i t t e n r e g u e s t s from January 1981 to June 1982, and on the record during the dep osition s. N evertheless, defendants hereby r e p e a t t h e r e g u e s t s f o r d ocu m e nts a l r e a d y made d u r i n g d e p o s i t i o n s of w itn e s s e s claim ed to be re p re se n te d by the. United S t a t e s . D e p o s i t i o n o f R i c h a r d R. B a t e s _________ Jun e 1 3 , 1982____ Dr. B a te s was g u e s t i o n e d on th e n a t u r e , sc o p e and r e q u ire m e n ts o f th e c o n t r a c t betw een B i o n e t i c s and th e N a t i o n a l C ancer I n s t i t u t e and t s t i f i e d t h a t he knew such a c o n t r a c t ex i s t e d (Tr. 4 7 ), and t h a t p e r i o d i c r e p o r t s were p repared pursuant t o t h a t c o n t r a c t ( T r . 5 0 ) . He was u n a b l e , h o w e v e r , t o do more than sp ecu late as to what the co n tract or the reports contained, as h i s r e c o l l e c t i o n had dimmed. (Tr. 4 7 - 5 1 . ) Nor c o u ld c o u n s e l d eve lo p a m ean in gfu l l i n e of i n g u i r y on th e s u b j e c t , or attem pt to re fre sh Dr. B a te s's r e c o lle c tio n without the documents that were the su bject of our guestion s. Counsel a ls o attempted to procure inform ation from Dr. B ates on th e method and s i g n i f i c a n c e o f s e l e c t i n g 2 , 4 , 5 - t r i c h l o r o p h e n o x y a c e t i c a c i d ( " 2 , 4 - T " ) and 2 -, 4 - d i c h l o r o p h e n o x y a c e t i c a c i d ( " 2 , 4 - D " ) for in clu sio n in the B io n etics study. (Tr. 52-57.) Dr. Bates con firm ed t h a t "some communications" took p la c e between B i o n e t i c s and N a t i o n a l C ancer I n s t i t u t e on t h i s s u b j e c t (Tr. 56) and t h a t th e r e had been some " s h o r t t o x i c o l o g y s t u d i e s " on th e compounds (Tr. 5 4 ) , but he co u ld not remember any s p e c i f i c in fo rm atio n to answer the g u e stio n s put to him. Again, counsel were prevented from re fre sh in g his reco lle ctio n or asking fact-based guestions by th eir lack of documents. Dr. Bates t e s t i f i e d to the existen ce o f w ritte n interim progress reports in d icatin g the possible te ra to g e n icity of 2,4,5-T (Tr. 65 ,6 6 ) as e a r l y as 1965, b u t he c o u ld n o t r e c a l l t h e number o r d a t e s o f r e p o r t s , w i t h whom he s p o k e , o r t o whom he w r o t e a b o u t the r e p o r ts or the co n ten ts o f r e p o r t s . (Tr. 6 6 -7 1.) While he did t e s t i f y th a t he would be able to t e s t i f y about the contents of the r e p o r ts i f he could see them (Tr. 67), counsel were unable to pro c u r e su ch t e s t i m o n y b e c a u s e we l a c k e d t h e r e p o r t s . S i m i l a r l y , no m e a n in g fu l a tte m p t c o u ld be made t o r e f r e s h Dr. B a t e s 's r e c o l le c t i o n or to develop a complete l i n e o f guestioning on th e s u b j e c t s o f m eetin gs co n c e rn in g the p o s s i b l e t e r a t o g e n i c i t y I K E L L E Y D B Y E S. W A R R E N Arvin Maskin, Esq. - 3 - Septem ber 9 , 1982 o f 2 ,4 , 5 - T (Tr. 7 1 -7 5 ) or d is s e m in a t io n o f in fo r m a tio n on p o s s i b l e t e r a to g e n ic ity o f 2 ,4 ,5 -T . (Tr. 75-78.) Although Dr. Bates confirmed th at documents con tain in g such inform ation might e x i s t (Tr. 71, 76), their un availability frustrated counsel's inquiry. D e p o s i t i o n o f K. D iane C o u rtn e y _________ J u l y ' 2 7 , 1982______ ___ C o u n se l q u e s t i o n e d Dr. C o u rtn e y on th e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f th e c h e m i c a l compounds s h e . t e s t e d i n t h e B i o n e t i c s Stu d y and on a p ro to co l fo r conducting a te r a to g e n ic ity study. Dr. Courtney t e s t i f i e d t h a t B i o n e t i c s r e s e a r c h e r s p ro v id e d her w ith r e p o r t s on the " LD50' s" o f v a r i o u s compounds (Tr. 3 1 - 3 2 ) , t h a t th e N a tio n a l Cancer In stitu te is lik e ly to possess the detailed protocol prepared for the study (Tr. 3 7 -3 8 ), and th a t she had c o n s u lte d th e Food and Drug Adm inistration te ra to lo g y protocol in her B io n etics work (Tr. 38-39). But as Dr. Courtney had fo r g o tte n the co n ten ts o f th ese documents and t h e y had n o t b een p r o d u c e d t o c o u n s e l , we c o u l d n e i t h e r p u r s u e our i n q u i r y on t h e s e s u b j e c t s nor a tt e m p t t o r e f r e s h th e w i t n e s s ' s r e c o lle c t io n o f them. Dr. Courtney was q u e stio n e d on the r e s u l t s of her s t u d i e s , and on her i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f the r e s u l t s . She co n firm ed t h a t her la b o ra to ry records from the B io n e tics study are in her p ossession . (Tr. 32-33, 45-46.) She t e s t i f i e d t h a t q u a r t e r l y and annual r e p o r ts were subm itted by B io n e tic s to the N a tio n a l Cancer I n s t i t u t e (Tr. 4647) r e f l e c t i n g i n t e r i m f i n d i n g s and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s , and t h a t she has c o p i e s o f some s u c h . r e p o r t s (Tr. 7 0 .) Dr. C o u r t n e y was u n a b l e , however, to r e c a l l d a te s (Tr. 5 0 -51, 52, 53, 56, 57, 58, 67-68, 69, 75, 90, 91-92) and s p e c i f i c in fo r m a tio n co n cern in g th e r e s u l t s o f the study (Tr. 89), or to a t t e s t t o th e a u t h e n t i c i t y and v e r a c i t y o f t h e d a t a i n a r e p o r t i n c o u n s e l ' s p o s s e s s i o n ( B a t e s E x . 2) w i t h o u t c o n s u ltin g documents req u ested by defendants (Tr. 61, 64, 100, 13 2 ). As c o u n s e l d i d n o t p o s s e s s t h o s e d o c u m e n t s , h o w e v e r , we c o u l d n o t th o ro u g h ly q u e s t io n Dr. Courtney on th e d a te s and r e s u l t s of her t e s t s or attempt to re fre sh her re c o lle c tio n as to her conclusions or in te rp re ta tio n s. C o u n sel a l s o asked Dr. C ou rtney f o r the names o f o t h e r p e rso employed on th e B i o n e t i c s stu d y , b ut she was u n ab le to r e c a l l them without viewing B io n e tic s 's personnel records (Tr. 41). Thus, counsel must a w a it th o s e r e c o r d s b e f o r e q u e s t i o n i n g Dr. C o u rtn e y on th e i d e n t i o f o t h e r B i o n e t i c s p e r s o n n e l who may h a v e k n o w l e d g e r e l e v a n t t o t h i s action. K E L L E Y D R Y E 2. W A R R E N Arvin Maskin, Esq. 4- - Septem ber 9, 1982 Documents Requested We h e r e b y r e i t e r a t e o u r r e q u e s t f o r t h e f o l l o w i n g documents th a t are n ecessary to complete the d ep osition s of Dr. B ates and Dr. C ourtney: 1. A l l contracts., and any and a l l supplements or m odifications th ereto, between the United States or the National Cancer I n s t i t u t e and B io n e t ic s f o r the study of c a r c in o g e n i c i t y and/or te r a t o g e n ic it y o f vario u s compounds, in clu d in g but not lim ite d to the c o n tra c t executed in 1963 pursuant to which a r e p o r t t i t l e d " E v a lu a tio n o f C a r c in o g e n ic , T e r a to g e n ic and Mutagenic A c t i v i t i e s o f S e le c te d P e s t i c i d e s and I n d u s t r i a l Chemicals" was prepared. 2. Any p e r i o d i c r e p o r t s , i n t e r i m r e p o r t s , f i n a l r e p o r t s , corresp on d en ce or r e p o r t s or memoranda o f any o th e r d e s c r i p t i o n by B io n e tic s to N ation al Cancer I n s t i t u t e or any other agency, or by N atio n al Cancer I n s t i t u t e or any o th e r agency of the United S ta t e s government to any o th e r agency or person , t h a t mention t e s t r e s u l t s or fin d in g s by B io n e tic s as to 2 ,4 ,5 -T and/or i t s p o s s ib le hazards, including teratogen icity. 3. Any documents t h a t r e l a t e t o th e s e l e c t i o n o f 2 , 4 , 5 - T or 2,4-D as compounds to be s t u d ie d by B i o n e t i c s , in c lu d in g b u t not l i m i t e d to a l l r e p o r t s or memoranda o f any m e e tin g s , form al o r i n fo rm al, w it h i n or o u t s id e N a t io n a l Cancer I n s t i t u t e on th e s u b j e c t of .possible hazards, including terato gen icity, of 2,4,5-T. 4. A l l documents prepared in th e course o f the B io n e tic s study th at mention 2,4,5-T . 5. A l l documents th a t r e l a t e to or evidence the d i s semination of information developed in the course of the B ionetics resea rch concerning any p o t e n tia l hazard of 2 ,4 ,5 -T . 6. A l l LD50 r e p o r t s a n d / o r o t h e r r e p o r t s on t h e t o x i c o l o g y and/or chemistry of 2,4,5-T prepared in connection with the B ionetics study. 7. A l l w r i t t e n p r o t o c o l s , in c lu d in g th e Food and Drug Adm inistration Phase II teratology protocol, u tiliz e d or consulted in the course of the Bionetics study. 8. A l l documents r e l a t i n g to Dr. C o u r t n e y ' s a tte n d a n c e a t any workshops, c o n fe r e n c e s , m eetings or seminars concerning teratology, including but not lim ited to a ll notes pertaining to : t KELLEY DRYE WARREN Arvin M askin, Esq. -5- Septem ber 9 , 1982 Dr. C o u rtn e y 's t r i p to Canada and m eetings w ith Canadian s c i e n t i s t s in which 2 ,4 ,5 -T was mentioned. study. 9. A l l la b o r a to r y reco rd s gen erated during the B io n e tics Deposition of Bernard J. Jandorf _____ 'June 2 9 f J u l y 1 , 1982_____ The United S ta te s agreed to confirm whether the copy of RL SOP 7 0 - 3 d a t e d J u n e 1 , 1967 t h a t was m arked a s J a n d o r f E x h i b i t 15 c o n s t i t u t e s t h a t e n t i r e docu ment a n d , i f n o t , t o p r o d u c e a com p le t e copy o f th a t document (Tr. 2 1 1 ) i You have not y e t done so. D e f e n d a n t s r e q u e s t e d p r o d u c t i o n o f CRDL SOP 7 0 -3 d a t e d May 6, 19 6 5 ( T r . 2 1 5 ) , w h i c h , as. n o t e d on t h e f i r s t p a g e o f J a n d o r f E x h ib it 15, was superseded by Jandorf E x h ib it 15. Dr. Jandorf t e s t i f i e d t h a t he c o u l d n o t r e c a l l how t h e 1965 and 1967 v e r s i o n s o f SOP 7 0 -3 d i f f e r e d from one a n o t h e r . D e p o s i t i o n o f Van M. Sim July 1 , 19, 1982 Dr. Sim t e s t i f i e d about semiannual program re v ie w s h eld a t the Chem ical Research and Development L a b o ra to ry , Edgewood A r s e n a l, and at. the B i o l o g i c a l L a b o r a t o r i e s , F o rt D e t r ic k , during the 1 9 6 0 's (he a l s o r e f e r r e d to th e re v ie w s a t Edgewood as "Research Laboratory S c ie n tific Conferences"). Defendants requested production of any n o te s, m inutes, agenda, w ritte n p resen ta tio n s or other doc uments prepared in connection w ith the semiannual review programs a t Edgewood or F o rt D e tric k which r e f e r or r e l a t e to d io x in or h erbicides (Tr. 59-65; 196-200). D e p o s i t i o n o f Thomas C. Simmons ______ June 9 , 1982__________ Documents requested a t th is d ep o sitio n were the su b ject o f a l e t t e r t o Ms. B e r n o t t fro m M i c h a e l M. Gordon d a t e d June 1 7 , 1982 D e p o s i t i o n o f Marc us M. Key J u l y 8, 30, 1982______ Defendants requested production from f i l e s p re v io u sly or ' c u rre n tly m aintained by the P u b lic Health S e rv ice of documents that. 9730 \ KELLEY DRYE & WARREN Arvin Maskin, Esq. 6- - Septem ber 9 , 1982 r e f e r o r r e l a t e t o t h e Newark, New J e r s e y 2 , 4 - D and 2 , 4 , 5-T m a n u f a c t u r i n g f a c i l i t y o f t h e Diamond A l k a l i Company (now t h e Diamond Shamrock C o r p o r a t i o n ) , i n c l u d i n g s p e c i f i c a l l y any doc uments prepared or receiv ed by Dr. Key, Donald J. Birmingham, D a v id G r o t h , Norman O l i v i e r , K enneth A r n d t o r P a u l P o s s i c k , or any o t h e r USPHS e m p l o y e e c o n c e r n i n g i n v e s t i g a t i o n s o f , o r v i s i t s r to , th at f a c i l i t y (Tr. 142-154) (also requested at the deposition o f D a v i d H. G r o t h , J u l y 1982 ( T r . 2 1 9 ) ) . D e f e n d a n t s a r e i n p o s se ssio n o f c e r ta in o f these documents, from sources oth er than Government production of documents in t h is l i t i g a t i o n . Several such documents have been marked as e x h ib its a t the d ep o sitio n s r of Public Health Service personnel. Dr. Key t e s t i f i e d about the p rep a ra tio n o f documents c a lle d "derm atoses in v e s t i g a t i o n s " . These are r e s u l t s o f an in v e s t ig a t io n o f o c c u p a t i o n a l s k i n d i s e a s e by USPHS w h i c h w e r e u s u a l l y s e n t t o .the i n i t i a t i n g a g e n c y , t h e f i l e s o f t h e C i n c i n n a t i USPHS f a c i l i t y , and r p o s s i b l y a l s o t o t h e r e g i o n a l USPHS o f f i c e ( T r . 40, 43, 5 9 ) . Defendants req u ested prod u ction of any dermatoses i n v e s t i g a t i o n rep o rts r e la t in g to chloracne, 2 , 4 , 5-T or dioxin (Tr. 249). Dr. Key a l s o t e s t i f i e d a b o u t a t r i p he made t o Edgewood A r s e n a l f o r occupational health seminars; defendants requested production of any t r i p r e p o r t s p r e p a r e d by D r. Key c o n c e r n i n g t h a t v i s i t (Tr. 244) . r D e p o s i t i o n o f D a v i d H. G r o t h ______J u l y 2 0 - 2 1 , 1982______ C Defendants requested production o f Dr. G roth's curriculum v ita e (Tr. 222). D eposition o f Donald J. Birmingham ____ A u g u s t 26, 1982_________ c The Government was asked to produce Dr. Birmingham's p e r s o n a l f i l e s , and USPHS f i l e s , c o n c e r n i n g c h l o r a c n e (no t r a n s c r i p t i s y e t a v a i l a b l e ) and t h e a g e n d a s o f USPHS s t a f f m e e t i n g s a t t h e C in c in n a t i f a c i l i t y w h ile Dr. Birmingham was th e r e . Defendants req u ested production o f w r itte n m a te ria ls from Dr. Birmingham's r 1958 c o u r s e a t Wayne S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y S c h o o l o f B u s i n e s s A d m i n i s t r a t i o n on h e a l t h a s p e c t s o f c u t t i n g f l u i d s . Dr. Birmingham t e s t i f i e d about a se co n d v i s i t he made t o t h e (then) Diamond A l k a l i p l a n t in Newark, New J e r s e y p r i o r t o O c t o b e r 3 1 , 19 6 4 ; d e f e n d a n t s r e q u e s t e d p r o d u c t i o n of any t r i p rep o rt or other w r itte n m ate ria ls prepared by Dr. Birmingham concerning such v i s i t . r ; 9731 Arvin Maskin, Esq. KELLEY DRYE & WARREN -7- Septem ber 9 , 1982 D e p o s i t i o n o f W i l l i a m M. U p h o l t ' ____ A u g u s t 4, 1982_________ Defendants re q u e ste d p ro d u ctio n o f any w r it t e n m inutes, agendas, reports or other documents submitted to the Federal Committee on P est C o n tro l (Tr. 1 1 5 ) , or documents generated by t h e FCPC (T r. 1 1 5 ) . D e f e n d a n t s a l s o r e q u e s t e d p r o d u c t i o n o f a " c l i n i c a l handbook" (Tr.- 115 -116 ) about which Dr. Upholt t e s t i f i e d . D r . U p h o l t t e s t i f i e d a b o u t a USPHS c l i n i c a l han db ook f o r p e s t i c i d e s th a t was w r it t e n to a id p h y s ic ia n s in i d e n t i f y i n g and t r e a t i n g p e stic id e poisoning cases (Tr. 109-110). D eposition o f W illiam Buckingham, J r. __________ June 2 , 1982_______________ During the d e p o s it io n o f Major Buckingham (which was n o tic e d by the p l a i n t i f f s and which was atten d ed by th e S p e c ia l Master ) Major Buckingham t e s t i f i e d - t h a t primary source documents fo r his report were at b i l l e t 5681, B o llin g A ir Force Base (Tr. 105). In the discu ssion about these m a te ria ls, the S p ecial Master requested t h a t th e whereabouts o f th e s e m a t e r i a ls be confirm ed, and the Government should make a r e p o r t about t h a t (Tr. 1 0 2 - 1 0 9 ) . S i m i l a r l y , M a j o r Bu ck in gh am s t a t e d o t h e r s o u r c e m a t e r i a l may be l o c a t e d a t th e A lb e r t F. Simpson H i s t o r i c a l Research C en ter, Maxwell A ir Force B a s e , and th e Government was a l s o i n s t r u c t e d t o r e p o r t on th o s e m a t e r i a l s (Tr. 1 0 9 - 1 1 0 ) . As f a r as d e fe n d a n ts a r e aw are, th e Government has f a i l e d t o make t h e s e r e p o r t s . Major Buckingham t e s t i f i e d about correspondence between h im s e lf and a P r o f e s s o r W esting, s t a t i n g t h a t he r e p l i e d in w r it in g to the P r o f e s s o r ' s l e t t e r to him (Tr. 19 5 ). D esp ite a req u e st from d efendants (Tr. 19 5 ), and a d i r e c t i o n from th e S p e c ia l M aster (Tr. 197-198), th at l e t t e r has not been produced. D ep osition of Robert A. Darrow _________ J u l y 1 3 , 1982 _______ Defendants requested production of Dr. Darrow's notes r e l a t i n g t o a m e e t i n g he a t t e n d e d March 6, 1970 a t ACSFOR,. Washington, D.C. (Tr. 145) and h i s p e rso n a l f i l e s r e l a t i n g to 2,4-D and 2 ,4 ,5 -T (Tr. 199). I f th ere i s going to be any d e la y in the p r o d u c tio n o f any o f t h e s e d o c u m e n t s , p l e a s e l e t me know. In some c a s e s ( p a r t i c u l a r l y ^ Drs. B a t e s and C o u r t n e y ) , t h e s e documents a r e n e c e s s a r y t o d e f e n d a n t s ' p r e p a ra tio n fo r another d e p o s itio n se ssio n w ith the w itn e s s . In a l l ' cases, however, the requested documents are necessary fo r defendants' preparation for the future depositions of related w itnesses. r Arvin Maskin, Esq. -8- September 9 , 1982 A copy of th is l e t t e r i s being hand-delivered to you t o d a y i n New Y o r k C i t y a t t h e o f f i c e o f T o w n l e y & U p d i k e , w h i l e ' you a r e h e re f o r t h e Shaw d e p o s i t i o n . Very tru ly yours, CMM:rp C h a r l e s M. M a t t i n g l y cc: Sol Schreiber, Esq. V icto r J. Yannacone, Esq. Donald R u sso , E s q . (By Hand) M arjorie Feldheim, Esq. M i c h a e l M. G ord o n , E s q . James E. T y r r e l l , Esq. Morton B. S ilb erm a n , Esq. Edwin R. M a t t h e w s , E s q . M arilyn Neiman, Esq. Dennis R. Rothman, Esq.  i KELLEY DRYE WARREN 1a GGA*T D .i O A N I Oa viO C a B t w illia m C. k llH D IC O M A IO A BLUC Aa U I * C M M C m aBD c o o i c * ^o**N m . c a l l a g y D A V l O . C M 1A M AW I*M CMB'SUlDl IC*A0 J . C O n C a n m O n j Omm J.C O tT C U O & A M U E L %. e B O i t O ICBT E . COTTV G CLAM* C U M M IN Q I E UO Cm C T. O A I K n O M O IC B T [M RCN BA BD B H A M IIO N NkANKCl JO*** p . o i t f t O N f t PAUL C. OUTM B O B C * T L. MAIG WILLIAM C . N E C * m a b t in D .m CTC*? lU O CCO.M OLM AW J.O U iM C l N U N llC M C B .SB O M ICM AEI . NSEL W ILLIAM A. O n LCV J O H N J . LVMAOM LCLANO J. MABALCt P C O C B I C S MATMAN C n a b l CS O C C h l C* T h COOOMC PCa B IO N CDw a n D 0 C T S ,M I WILLIAM I K U l i M S U I N TCBBa n CC w . 1 C " w a S m tO C M iC A T. S m E a J O A N W. I I M P I O M ' m O w a MO S . T U T m i L L Ht DAVIQ L.VAUOM AN A L ttB T J.W A LA C C n a u n CCT L.W A LA C LOUIS I .W a R BCN e . lisa w Y c * o rr, u *. MARVCT TOLAS IM AND WILLIAM c . IU B T * uo sr M w. dmarc.j b . A irR C D w. OSCHTS C E O G C SIEGEL COUNSEL a O I H l t T C O W M C w TOMA IOI PARK AVENUE N E W YO RK, N .T. 10178 (>*r) b o b - t b o o calc *law*cblt" TELE* l*BB TELECOPIE ( I ) B O B * ) (S it) BOB-TBBB w l t r * S O t B C C t LIME 7706 ( lit) so* September 9, 1982 ONE lA N D N A A l SOUABE I H m I O a c , CT O B B O I (202 ) 2**t 0 0 SO m a im STBCC7 O A N B U A T , CT. O B B IO ( 2 0 2 ) >2-?B lO w a m im 6 T O m , D. C. * 0 0 2 * (02 ) M l * B222 TELECOPIE* ( 0 2 ) I J . n i IO O NORTH BISCATM t BLVO. MIAMI. P l . 2212 <201 ) 27 *0 0 2 0 AffiLlATCO o m e t : m a S m i O aTC LAW O PT ICE MORI B lO O .N O .il i r - PLOOB - * TOBamOm Om - C * O m t , M I M A T O - U TO*TO, IOS.UABam T L C O n E: 0 2 ( S C 2 ) 1 0 0 7 TELE*:C*2*BO B Arvin Maskin, Esq. Department of J u stice Safeway Building 521 1 2 t h S t r e e t N.W. W a s h i n g t o n , DC 20530 Re: Agent Orange L i t i g a t i o n MDL No. .381 Dear Arvin: D u rin g many o f t h e d e p o s i t i o n s i n t h i s l i t i g a t i o n defendants have requested the production of c e rta in documents about w hich a Government w i t n e s s has t e s t i f i e d . Based on th e d e s c rip tio n s o f the requested documents provided by the w itn esses d u r i n g t h e i r t e s t i m o n y , we know t h a t a t l e a s t some o f t h e d o c uments are c u r r e n tly under the c o n tro l of the w itn e sse s or the Government. The United S t a t e s has co n tin u o u sly re p re se n te d to the Judge, the S p e c ia l Master and the p a r t i e s in t h i s l i t i g a t i o n t h a t Government document p r o d u c tio n has been com plete and t h a t a lle g e d ly d u p lic a tiv e document searches have been n e c e s s ita te d by d e fe n d a n ts ' a d d it io n a l and supplem ental document r e q u e s ts . The r e q u e s t e d documents have n o t been produced. The f a i l u r e o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s t o p r o d u c e t h e s e documents (many o f w h i c h are so c le a r ly re le v a n t th at th e ir relevance would be obvious to anyone) p rio r to the depositions has, to say the le a s t, in c o n v e n ie n c e d th e p a r t i e s and th e w i t n e s s e s . The d e fe n d a n ts have been handicapped in our e ffo r ts to develop meaningful, fa c t-b a s e d in q u ir ie s , or to re fre sh the w itn esses' memories; s e v e r a l w itn esses w i l l have to be examined again a f t e r very i m p o r t a n t documents h a v e b e e n made a v a i l a b l e . 3 '7 4 0 , LAW OFFICES R iv k in , Le f f , S h e r m a n & Ra d l e r lOO GARDEN- CITY PLAZA GARDEN CITY, NEW YORK 11530 TELEPHONE (5 16 )7 4 6 -75 0 0 TELEX 645-074 CABLE ADDRESS AT LAW O R C T TELECOPIER (5 16 )7 4 7 -16 4 3 SUITE 3 0 0 0 3 0 NORTH LASALLE STREET CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 6 0 6 0 2 (312) 7 6 2 - 5 6 6 O M a r jo r ie H. M u ttze r PARTNER D IR ECT DIAL (sie) e s a l a t o January 20, 1983 Arvin Maskin, Esq. Torts Branch, C iv il Division U.S. Department o f J u stice Safeway Building 521 1 2 t h S t r e e t , N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 Re: AGENT ORANGE PRODUCT LIABILITY LITIGATION MDL #381 Dear Mr. Maskin: On Jan u ary 1 1 , 19 83, d e f e n d a n t s dep osed Dr. D o u g la s L e e , who was C h ie f o f the D i v i s i o n o f O c cu p a tio n a l H e a lth , United S t a t e s Public Health S ervice in C in cin n ati during the 1960s. Dr. Lee t e s t i f i e d th a t he reported d i r e c t l y to the D ivision of the Bureau of S ta t e S e r v ic e s and the D i v is io n o f Occupational H ealth . Both were d iv is i o n s o f the United S ta te s P u b lic Health S e r v ic e and were lo c a te d in Washington, D.C. This i s to re q u e s t t h a t th e Government produce a l l documents r e l a t i n g t o h e r b i c i d e s , 2 , 4 , 5 - T , TCDD, and chloracne which were located in the f i l e s of the above-mentioned divisions. At the d e p o s itio n , Dr. Lee t e s t i f i e d th a t a f t e r he was n o t i f i e d of the deposition by the Department of J u s tic e , he wrote a l e t t e r to Dr. Marcus Key o u t l i n i n g the f a c t s t h a t he r e c a l l e d r e g a r d in g h is work w ith th e United S t a t e s P u b li c Health S e r v i c e in C i n c i n n a t i and asking Dr. Key's advice regarding those f a c t s . Dr. Lee fu rth er t e s t i f i e d th a t he kept a copy o f h is l e t t e r to Dr. Key. This i s to form ally request th a t the Government produce immediately a n y 'c o r r e s pondence between Dr. Lee and Dr. Key re g a rd in g t h e i r work a t the C in c in n a ti f a c i l i t y and any correspondence reg ard in g the Agent Orange depositions. Yours tr u ly RIVKIN, LEFF, SHERMAN & RADLER MHM:tm M a r j o r i e H. M i n t z e r THE PARTNERSHIP INCLUDES ONE OR MORE PR O FE S S IO N A L CORPORATIONS LAW OFFICES R ivkin , Le f f , Sherman & R adler TELEPHONE (516) 7A 6-75O 0 lOO GARDEN CITY PLAZA GARDEN CITY, NEW YORK 1133 0 TELEX 6 A S -0 7A CABLE ADDRESS TELECOPIER AT LAW G R C T (s 16) 7 A 7 - 2 8 A 3 SUITE 3 0 0 0 * 3 0 NORTH LASALLE STREET CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 6 0 6 0 3 (312) 7 B 2 - S 6 8 O w r i t e r s d i r e c t d i a l :(5i6) 228" 4317 February 24, 1983 Arvin Maskin, Esq. Torts Branch C i v i l D ivision United States Dept, of Justice Safeway Building 5 2 1 - 1 2 t h S t r e e t N.W. Washington, D .C . 20530 Dear Arvin: Please arrange for production of the chloracne, o c c u p a t i o n a l a cn e g e n s, acneform d e r m a t i t i s and r e l a t e d f i l e s , which were m a i n t a i n e d a t t h e Broadway B u i l d i n g o f t h e USPKS f a c i l i t y at C in cin n ati. These f i l e s contained "reprints of c e r t a i n a r t i c l e s . There was p r o b a b l y some c o r r e s p o n d e n c e , le t t e r s , that I reviewed", as indicated in the deposition of Dr. Paul P o ssick . A d d i t i o n a l l y , we r e q u e s t p r o d u c t i o n o f documents which were r e f e r r e d t o by Dr. P o s s ic k and which were m aintained at a lib ra ry at the Public Health Service f a c i l i t y in Cincinnati. If library materials (for this la tter request only) are voluminous in nature, I would appreciate i t i f you would c a l l me. Per h ap s an i n d e x i n g o f m a t e r i a l s o r o t h e r methods o f r e d u c i n g t h e volume o f p r o d u c t i o n may be m u t u a l l y arranged, i f such is necessary. Attached to th is le t t e r , please find tran script pages (28, 29, 31 th rou gh 35) from the d e p o s i t i o n o f Dr. P o s s i c k which re fe r s p e c i f i c a l l y to such f i l e s . Thank you f o r your co o p e ra tio n in th e s e m a tte r s . Very tru ly yours RIVKI.N, LEFF, SHERMAN & RADLER Stanley Pierce SP :mk Ends. cc: See attached l i s t (without enclosures) THE PA RTNERSH IP IN CLU D ES ON E OR MORE P R O F E S S IO N A L CORPORATIONS S'? 4 2 f E B 2 5 1983 R ivkin, Leff, Sherman & Radler TO: Morton B. Silberman, Esq. Clark, Gagliardi & M iller The Inns o f Court 99 C o u r t S t r e e t White P l a i n s , N.Y. 10601 Wendell B. Alcorn, J r . , Esq. Cadwalader, Wickersham & T a ft One .Wall S t r e e t New Y o r k , N.Y. 10005 John S a b e t t a , Esq. Townley & Updike 405 L e x i n g t o n Avenue New Y o r k , N.Y. 10174 William Krohley, Esq. K e l l e y , Drye & Warren 101 Park Avenue New Y ork, N.Y. 10178 Thomas A. B eck , Esq. Arthur, Drje & Kalish, P.C. 1230 Avenue o f th e Americas New Y or k , N.Y. 10020 Howard L e s t e r , Esq. L e s t e r , Schwab, Katz & Dwyer 120 Broadway New Y o r k , N .Y . 10271 David R. G r o s s , Esq. Budd, L a r n e r , Kent, Gross P i c i l l o & Rosenbaum 33 Washington S t r e e t Newark, N.J 07102 V icto r J. Yannacone, J r ., Yannacone & Yannacone P.O. Box 109 Patchogue, N.Y. 11772 Esq. Irving Like, Esq. 200 West Main S t r e e t Babylon, N.Y. 11702 Arvin Maskin, Esq. Torts Branch C i v i l D ivision United States Dept, of Justice Safeway Building 521 - 1 2 t h S t r e e t N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 Hon. S o l S c h r e i b e r iMilberg, Weiss, Bershad & Specthrie One P e n n s y l v a n i a P l a z a New Y or k , N.Y. 10119 9743 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT F JUSTICE WASHINGTON, D.C. 530 A Jrir-- Reply te tb I R tf to la ilia k ad Nember J A r G L W itt:emm 157-0-107 November 1 1 , 1982 Tlphon : (202) 724-6744 NOTICE TO ALL COUNSEL Re: In r e "Agent Orange" P ro d u c t L i a b i l i t y L i t i g a t i o n , MDL #381_________________ This Notice responds to James T y r r e l l ' s October 20, 1982 r e q u e s t f o r a s t a t u s r e p o r t on o u t s t a n d i n g document r e q u e s t s a r i s i n g out o f government w i t n e s s d e p o s i t i o n s . Mr. T y r r e l l ' s le tte r attached the 11 requests outstanding at the time. This Notice w ill discuss each of those l e t t e r s . 1. October 13, 1982 l e t t e r from E. Matthews re Dr. Darrow Mr. Matthews' l e t t e r r e q u e s t e d p r o d u c t i o n o f documents " p r e s e n t l y m a i n t a in e d a t h i s home o r e l s e w h e r e c o n c e r n i n g Agent Orange and 2 , 4 , 5 - T . " Dr. Darrow in respon se to i n q u i r i e s by the Army has i n d i c a t e d he may have some r e p r i n t s o f open l i t e r a t u r e a r t i c l e s . By l e t t e r , t h e Army h as r e q u e s t e d p r o d u c t i o n o f any documents he may have i n h i s p e r s o n a l f i l e s r e s p o n s i v e t o th e issu e s in the l i t i g a t i o n . Dr. Darrow has not produced those documents at t h i s time. 2. September 2 , 1982 l e t t e r from P . P a k u la r e Mr. G a r n e t t H i g g i n b o t h a m __________________________________________ The government has s e n t t h i s r e q u e s t t o Mr. Higginbotham. Mr. Higginbotham p r e s e n t l y i s on l e a v e , but w i l l s e a r c h h i s f i l e s and respond to the r e q u e s t by November 1 7 . I f h i s s e a r c h produces any documents, the government w i l l have them m icro film e d f o r r e l e a s e to the p a r t i e s . Any Food and Drug A d m i n i s t r a t i o n documents not in th e p o s s e s s i o n o f Mr. Higginbotham have e i t h e r been produced or are located in David F ir e s t o n e 's f i l e s . 2 3. September 9, 1982 l e t t e r from P. Pakula re Dr. David F ire sto n e D r. F i r e s t o n e i s t h e c u s t o d i a n o f t h e FDA f i l e s t h a t would respond to t h i s d isco ve ry re q u e st. U nfortunately, Dr. F i r e s t o n e has been o u t o f th e c o u n t r y f o r much o f t h e time s i n c e h i s d e p o s i t i o n and d i d n ot r e t u r n u n t i l November 8. He has not been a b l e t o make th e s e a r c h o f t h e r e l e v a n t f i l e s t o respond to t h i s r e q u e s t and w i l l not be a b le to do so f o r a t l e a s t anoth er month. Dr. F i r e s t o n e entered the h o s p i t a l during the week o f October 8 f o r major s u r g e r y and w i l l be out o f the o f f i c e f o r a n o t h e r month. He w i l l , ho weve r, c o n d u c t a thorough s e a r c h f o r th e r e q u e s t e d m a t e r i a l s as soon as he r e t u r n s to work. As th e only individual thoroughly fam iliar with a l l of the m aterials d e a l i n g w i t h c h i c k edema f a c t o r , Dr. F i r e s t o n e i s th e pe rso n b e s t a b l e to se arch the f i l e s and to r e c o g n iz e r e l e v a n t documents. T h erefore, the government i s unable to produce the documents sought fo r a t l e a s t another month. The government r e g r e t s t h i s in c o n v e n i e n c e b u t , in f a i r n e s s , both Dr. F i r e s t o n e and Mr. Higginbotham have complied f u l l y w ith a t l e a s t two e x t e n s i v e document r e q u e s t s and have conducted rigo ro u s searches o f re le v a n t f i l e s to comply with those e a r l i e r requests. 4. September 9, 1982 l e t t e r from C. M attin gly re o utstan d in g document r e q u e s t s _____________________________ _________ a . Dr. B a t e s : The N a t i o n a l I n s t i t u t e o f Environmental Health S c ie n c e s (NIEHS), the cu sto d ia n of the r e l e v a n t f i l e s , has se arch ed i t s f i l e s and has a l r e a d y produced any and a l l o f t h e r e q u e s t e d m a t e r i a l s t h a t i t had in i t s possession. b . Dr. C o u r t n e y : The l e t t e r r e q u e s t e d a v a r i e t y o f documents contained in Dr. C o urtn ey's f i l e s , in c lu d in g primary laboratory records for several research p r o je c ts . During most o f the in t e r v e n i n g p e rio d s i n c e her July 27, 1982 d e p o s i t i o n , Dr. Courtney has been in i l l h e a lth and has been u n a b le t o u n d e r ta k e the s e a r c h and r e v i e w n e c e s s a r y t o comply w i t h t h e r e q u e s t . On O c t o b e r 2 7 , Dr. Court ne y a d v i s e d the government t h a t she i s now s u f f i c i e n t l y r e c o v e r e d to b egin the s e a r c h and has i n d i c a t e d t h a t she should be a b l e to ship the documents to the Department of J u s tice fo r micro f i l m i n g by the end o f November. 3 c . Dr. B a t e s and Dr. C o u r t n e y : The N a t i o n a l I n s t i t u t e s o f Health (NIH), in c lu d in g the N ational Cancer I n s t i t u t e (NCI), has completed the search of i t s f i l e s fo r the documents r e q u e s t e d . NIH has produced a l l o f i t s r e l e v a n t documents, in cludin g grants from the National I n s t it u t e of Environmental Health S c ie n c e s (NIEHS), correspon den ce and r e p o r t s o f the P r e s i d e n t ' s Working Group on P e s t i c i d e s , and p o r t i o n s o f NCI an nual r e p o r t s r e f e r r i n g t o th e c o n t r a c t between NCI and B io n e tic s . These documents are in the process of being m i c r o f i l m e d . On November 8, 1982 t h e government produced hard c o p i e s o f r e l e v a n t p o r t i o n s o f th e NCI annual r e p o r t s from 1963 t o 1968 t o Mr. M a t t i n g l y and Mr. Yannacone to expedite matters. d . D r . J a n d o r f : On November 1 , 1982 Mr. M a t t i n g l y a d v i s e d Major Wittmayer t h a t he had a com plete copy o f Jan dorf E x h i b i t 1 5 , RL SOP 70 -3. Mr. M a t t i n g l y ' s l e t t e r f u r t h e r r e q u e s t e d p r o d u c t i o n o f CRDL SOP 70-3 d ate d May 6, 1965. The Army has been u n a b l e t o l o c a t e the document and presumes t h a t , s i n c e i t was s u p e r seded by RL SOP 7 0 - 3 , t h a t i t was d e s t r o y e d in th e c o u r s e o f r o u t i n e document r e t i r e m e n t and d e s t r u c t i o n . e . Dr. Sim: The l e t t e r r e q u e s t e d p r o d u c t io n o f n o t e s , minutes, agendas, w ritten p resen ta tio n s or other documents prepared in connection with semiannual review programs at Edgewood or F t . D e t r i c k which r e f e r or r e l a t e to d i o x i n or h e r b i c i d e s . The Army has produced any such e x i s t i n g documents in prior productions, but has undertaken a follow-up check a t Edgewood. The se arch has l o c a t e d a few documents t h a t may be new. The Army c u r r e n t l y i s r e v i e w i n g th e documents t o determine i f they have been produced p r e v io u s ly . I f not, th e y w i l l be produced f o r m ic r o f i lm i n g and r e l e a s e to the parties. f . Mr. Simmons: The Army s t a t e s t h a t the documents requested in Michael Gordon's June 17, 1982 l e t t e r have been produced. g . D r . K e y : The Department o f H e a lt h and Human S e r v i c e s and th e c u s t o d i a n o f th e r e l e v a n t f i l e s , NIEHS, no l o n g e r ha ve any r e l e v a n t t r i p r e p o r t s . NIEHS has a l r e a d y produced any other documents s t i l l maintained in i t s f i l e s th at would be responsive to th is request. 4 h . Dr. G r o t h : The d e f e n d a n t s r e q u e s t e d a copy o f Dr. Groth's curriculum v it a e . Dr. Groth has informed the govern ment t h a t he has a l r e a d y s e n t a copy t o one o f th e r e q u e s t i n g attorneys. i . Dr. Birmingham: The government cannot r e q u e s t Dr. Birmingham to produce the w r it t e n m a t e r i a ls from h i s 1958 c o u r s e a t Wayne S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y S c h o o l o f B u s i n e s s A d m in is tr a tio n on th e h e a l t h a s p e c t s o f c u t t i n g f l u i d s . These m aterials respond to a c t iv i t y outside the scope of Dr. Bi rm ingh am's employment w i t h t h e g ove rn m ent. We suggest the defendants co n ta ct Dr. Birmingham d i r e c t l y f o r t h a t m a t e r i a l . U n f o r t u n a t e l y , we have been u n a b l e to secure a response from the agency regarding the other m aterials in the request in time to include i t in th is report. j . Dr. U p h o l t : The d e fe n d a n t s r e q u e s t e d a copy o f the " C l i n i c a l Handbook on Economic P o i s o n s " t h a t Dr. Upholt mentioned in h i s d e p o s i t i o n . Although he did not have a copy in his custody, con trol or possession , Dr. Upholt secured a copy to a s s is t the defendants to the best of his a b i l i t y . On November 5 , 1982 t h e government produce d a co py o f t h e t h e Handbook t o Mr. M a t t i n g l y and Mr. Yannacone f o r t h e i r c u r r e n t use w h i l e t h e government has t h e Handbook m icro filmed. The d efen d a n ts a l s o req u e ste d r e l e v a n t re c o r d s o f the F ed eral Committee on P e s t C o n t r o l (FCPC). A f t e r f o l l o w i n g many b a r r e n l e a d s , t h e EPA has l o c a t e d a t l e a s t some m a t e r i a l s which a p p e a r to be resp on sive to the r e q u e s t. Three boxes of documents from th e F e d e r a l Working Group on P e s t Management ( f o r m e r l y t h e FCPC) were a r c h i v e d a t t h e F e d e r a l Records C e n t e r in 1973. EPA has r e q u e s t e d r e c a l l o f t h e s e r e c o r d s and e x p e c t s t h e i r a r r i v a l sometime d uring th e week o f November 1 5 . At t h a t t i m e , EPA r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s w i l l b e g i n t h e i r r e v i e w t o d e t e r m i n e i f t h e s e documents a r e r e s p o n s i v e to t h e document r e q u e s t and i n t e n d , i f t h e documents a r r i v e on s c h e d u l e , t o ha ve th e documents ready f o r m ic r o film in g in two or th r e e weeks. k . Major Buckingham: The d e fe n d a n ts r e q u e s te d t h r e e items in r e la t io n to Major Buckingham: (1) confirm ation that the primary source documents fo r h is rep ort were located at B ollin g A .F .B ., D.C.; (2) confirmation that other source m aterials were l o c a t e d a t A l b e r t A. Simpson H i s t o r i c a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , Maxwell A . F . B . , AL; and (3 ) p r o d u c t i o n o f a l e t t e r from Major Buckingham to P r o f. Westing. ^ 9 -5- The A i r Force has confirmed t h a t the prim ary sou rce documents fo r Major Buckingham's report are preserved at the O ffic e of A i r Force H i s t o r y a t B o l l i n g A . F . B . The A i r Force has begun Segregating the c l a s s i f i e d documents contained in that primary source m ate ria l so th at the u n c l a s s i f i e d m aterial can be m i c r o f i l m e d and r e l e a s e d t o th e p a r t i e s . The c l a s s i f i e d m a t e r i a l s w i l l undergo a d e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n re v ie w and e i t h e r w i l l be d e c l a s s i f i e d or w ithheld as p r i v i l e g e d . For any documents w ithheld, the Air Force w ill seek the appropriate United States v. Reynolds a f f id a v it s . The A i r F orc e a l s o has c o n f ir m e d t h a t some s o u r c e documents e x i s t a t th e Simpson C e n t e r . Mr. Lloyd C o r n e t t , the d i r e c t o r o f th e Simpson C e n te r, has provided r e f e r e n c e s to a l l documents at the Center that r e fe r to Agent Orange. That l i s t of r e f e r e n c e s i s a t t a c h e d . These documents and a l l o t h e r docu ments a t Simpson C e n t e r t h a t mention the word " h e r b i c i d e " have been m i c r o f i l m e d and a r e p r e s e r v e d a t th e O f f i c e o f Air Force History, Bolling A.F.B. Major Buckingham has provided a copy of h is l e t t e r to P ro f. Westing and a copy o f a magazine p i e c e to which the l e t t e r re fe r s . A copy of each is attached for the convenience of the p a r t i e s and a l s o w i l l be a v a i l a b l e on m i c r o f i l m . 1 . Dr. Darrow: As s t a t e d , Dr. Darrow c u r r e n t l y i s s e a r c h i n g h i s f i l e s f o r re s p o n s iv e r e l e v a n t documents. In a d d i t i o n , Dr. Darrow has a d v i s e d th e Army t h a t he has no n o t e s c o n c e r n i n g a March 6, 1970 m eeti ng a t ACSFOR, Washington, D.C. 5. September 13, 1982 l e t t e r from P. Pakula re Dr. F ire sto n e and Mr. Higginbotham_______________________________ _ On h i s one day in t h e o f f i c e b e f o r e e n t e r i n g th e h o s p i t a l , Dr. F ire sto n e searched r e le v a n t f i l e s in the Bureau of Foods in r e s p o n s e t o t h i s r e q u e s t . He d i d not f i n d t h e f o l l o w i n g documents in any Bureau of Foods f i l e s : Higgenbotham, G.R. and R e ss, J . , p r e l i m i n a r y r e p o r t o f November 1 4 , 1968 " A n a l y s i s o f Commercial C h lo r o p h e n o ls f o r Trace Amounts o f T h e ir Condensation and P o ly m e r i z a t i o n P r o d u c t s . " 9748 6 F i r e s t o n e , D. and F l i c k , D . F . , memo o f c o n f e r e n c e , Dr. Grove e t a l . , February 13, 1963. L e t t e r from H. Van Genderen, P r o f e s s o r , V e t e r i n a r y Pharmacology and T o x i c o l o g y , U. o f U t r e c h t , t o G. Higginbotham, F e b ru a ry 25, 1969. Bureau of Science Research Progress Report P ro ject Y-005, July-December 1968. T i s h l e r , Merck & C o . , P r i v a t e communication co n c e rn in g i s o l a t i o n o f c r y s t a l l i n e m a t e r i a l from a t o x i c f a t and d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t i t was an a r o m a t i c s u b s t a n c e c o n t a i n i n g 47% c h l o r i n e . J . C . Wooton, P r o c t o r & Gamble C o . , 1966 - P r i v a t e communication concerning fact that a synthetic hexachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin that displayed p r o p e rtie s s im ila r to m aterial is o la t e d from t o x ic f a t and produced c h i c k edema d i s e a s e in c h i c k e n s . C a n t r e l l , Webb & Mabis - A b s t r a c t s , Am. C r y s t a l l o g r a p h i c Assn. Meeting, p. 27 (19 6 7 ). Memo from Campbell or FDA u n i t t o Dr. L e w i s , p r o b a b l y in l a t e 1969, copy t o J.W. Cook, Dept, o f P e s t i c i d e s , FDA, c o n t a i n i n g d e t a i l s o f g a s - l i q u i d chromatography and mass sp e c t r o m e tr y work. In a d d i t i o n , Dr. F ir e s t o n e b e l i e v e s th a t the f o llo w in g documents a r e r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e from any s c i e n t i f i c l i b r a r y and did not o b t a in them: Harman, D a v i s , G . E . , O t t , W.H., B r i n k , N . G . , K u e h l , F . A . , J. Am. O i l Chem. S o c. 1960 v o l . 82, 2078. Wootton, J . C . , C ourc he n e, W . I . , J. A g r i c . Food Chem 1964 v o l. 12, 94. Campbell, T.C. and L. Friedman, "Chemical Assay and I s o l a t i o n o f C h i c k Edema F a c t . " JAOAC (1966 ) 49, 824. C a m p b e ll , e t a l . Chem. and Eng. News 45, No. 5, 10 ( 1 9 6 7 ) . Hartman, e t a l . , J . Am. Chem. S o c . 3j2, 2078, 1960. .6. September 14 , 1982 l e t t e r from B. Roth r e Dr. F i r e s t o n e and Mr. Higgenbotham___________________________________ These documents f a l l w ithin the scope o f the September 2, 1982 r e q u e s t fo r production (page one o f t h i s N o t i c e ) . 7 7. September 15, 1982 letter from James Tyrrell re Dr. Jesse L. Steinfeld A thorough search of all relevant files has been conducted on all points raised in this request and nothing was found that has not already been produced to the parties. To the best of the agency's knowledge, none of the requested documents from 1969 or earlier exist in NIEHS files. A search of the NIEHS Reprint and the National Toxicology Program files reveals that the earliest documents contained in the files are from 1970. Specifically addressing item 4 in this request, NIEHS advises that it does not have a copy of the program and it is unlikely that NIEHS would have copies of all reports and documents presented at the conference. 8 . September 22, 1982 letter from James Tyrrell re Dr. DuBridge__________________________________ The Executive Office of the President has indicated that the documents requested have been archived with the Nixon Administrate materials. Access to these materials can only be obtained only by following procedures set out in 41 C.F.R. 105-63.302 and 105-63. The government has initiated these procedures by requesting produ< of the documents by November 29, 1982. Upon receipt of the reque the archivist must give notice to Mr. Nixon's attorney who in tur has five working days to either object to the request or indicat his intention to be present during the document search if he dee it necessary. When those five days have elapsed, the search will begin. After completion of the search, for a privilege review by the Executive Office of the President and then for mi filming. The government has no choice but to follow these cum' and time consuming procedures and will do our best to expedite production of any responsive documents. 9. September 30, 1982 letter from W. Cavanaugh re Col. Bauer ________ _ The government will request Col. Bauer, a former emplor the United States, to search his personal files for relevan responsive documents. The government reiterates that the defendants must realize that the government cannot pressur government employees to produce documents. We will, howev "''tinue to seek the most expeditious production possible T 8 10. O c to b e r 1 , 1982 l e t t e r from R. Stalbow r e Dr. Ennis The Department o f A g r i c u l t u r e has in d ic a te d th a t the Department does not have any responsive documents that have not already been produced in t h i s l i t i g a t i o n . Most documents o f th e type and age r e q u e s t e d a r e no l o n g e r r e t a i n e d by th e Department and any that i t has retain ed have been previou sly produced. I f , fo r some r e a s o n , some o f t h e s e documents a r e s t i l l w i t h i n t h e D e p a r t ment, apparently they are being maintained in f i l e s well outside th e scope o f normal and r a t i o n a l s t o r a g e l o c a t i o n s and th e D e p a r t ment cannot l o c a t e them. F u r t h e r , Dr. Ennis has s t a t e d t h a t he has not maintained any personal f i l e s . 1 1 . O c to b e r 6 , 1982 l e t t e r from L . B e n n e tt r e Mr. A v e l l i n o Army has begun t h e t a s k o f a t t e m p t i n g t o l o c a t e t h e s e documents. I f and when more documents or i n f o r m a t i o n a r e a v a i l a b l e , we w ill inform the p a r tie s . Very tru ly yours, GRETCHEN LEAH WITT Attachments *t 3 r DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE HEADQUARTERS ALBERT F. SIMPSON HISTORICAL RESEARCH CENTER MAXW ELL AIR FO R C E BA SE , A L A B A M A 36112 29 Sep 82 Major Glenn Parr HQ USAF/JACC 1900 Half St SW Washington DC 20324 Dear Major Parr Reference our telecon on 27 September. Attached are references to the documents in the Simpson Center which specifically mention Agent Orange. These documents have been microfilmed and can be viewed at the Office of Air Force History at Bolling AFB, Washington DC. This does not include every document which mentions the word "herbicide" because they are legion. But they too can be viewed at Bolling because we have microfilmed them. If vou go to Bolling, Mr William Heimdahl should stions he can contact us for assistance. 1 Atch List of Documents Linked to Orange Herbicide /ffcH Z Documents nt the AFS1IUC time nrc linked specifically to Orange Herbicide. . Entries that have "orange" in the title of the document 'from our^Southeast Asia KWOC (Key Word Out of Context) index. , I.* * 1. Msg, (Declassified), CINCTAC to CINCPACAF, 210030Z Nov 71, subj : Classi fication for Return and Subsequent Disposition of Herbicide Orange. 1 page. 2. Staff Summary Sheet w/4 attachments (Decl), dtd 3 March 1971, subj: Disposal of Orange Herbicide. 5 pages. 3. Msg (Decl), COMUSMACV to 7AF, 131055Z Nov 71, subj: Disposition of Herbi cide Orange. 1 page. , 4. Two unclassified messages on herbicide orange from CHECO microfilm CH-85- 4-10. 9 pages. _ 5. Collection of messages (Decl) on disposition of herbicide:orange from CHECO microfilm CH-89-40-146. 16 pages. 6. Ltr (Decl), SAALC/OQ to OR, dtd 20 Feb 1970, subj: Orange Herbicide. 1 page. ! 7. Collection of messages (Decl) on restriction on use of herbicide orange from CHECO microfilm CH 64-9-171. 10 pages. B. Documents identified in the footnotes of William A. Buckingham's Operation RANCH HAND: The Air Force and Herbicides in Southeast Asia, 1961-1971, where Buckingham';S text specifically mentions orange herbicide. 8. CHECO Report (Secret), Herbicide Operations in Southeast Asia, July 1961-June 1967. by Charles V. Collins, 11 Oct 1967. 9. History (Top Secret) of MACV, 1966, pp 403-404. r* 10. Report (Declassified) on the Herbicide Policy Review prepared at the direction of the American Ambassador to Vietnam by a special Committee representating the Embassy, MACV, USAID and JUSPAO, 28 Aug 1968. (Footnotes reference appendices C and D.) 138 pages. 11. Report (Unclassified), Robert A. Darrow, Reed C. Bunker, and J. Ray Frank, subj: Report of Trip to Republic of Vietnam, 15 Aug-2Sep 1969, Sep 23, 1969. 4 page extract of quoted pages. 12. Msg (Unci), JCS to CINCPAC, 042341Z Nov 69, subj: Restriction on Use of Defoliants and Herbicides and Msg (Unci), CINCPAC to MACV, 052216Z Nov 69, same subject. 2 pages. d* 5 i 13. Ltr, (Unci), Glenn C. Klingman, et. al., to Dr. Lee A. DuBridge, Dec 22, 1969. 7 pages. * . '. . 111 : # t 14. C1IEC0 Report (Secret), RANCH HAND: Herbicide Operations In SEA, by James R. Clary, 13 Jul 1971. , ' ; . . : !. n kK. ) :'- C. Specific references to orange herbicide from our Card Catalog. 15. History (For Official Use Only) of Air Force Logistics Command, 1 Jul 1973 - 30 Jun 1974, Vol 1, Chap. 5 "Disposal of Herbicide Orange," pages 67-90., See also Supporting Documents, Vol 6 (F0U0), Section E. 16. History (Confidential) of Air Force Logistics Command, 1 Jul 1974 31 Dec 1975, Vol 1, Chap. 6 "Distribution," pages 93-101. See also Supporting Documents, Vol 5 (FOUO), Section F.- :. o i,;. -i 4* Kr: X t ) I I.1 ! 9754 < 0i J Frofessor Arthur E# Westing Hampshire College Amherst, ilassachusetts 01002 Dear Professor Westing* Quxrtcra 4211A B. S. Air Force Acad.cry, Colorado B0040 January 19 19^2 end your letter which appeared In Uature I have correoted the error you discovered on page 417 of my manuscript as submitted fo? publication# Thank you for bringing it to ty attention# Concerning the record of spraying in Leoa( ay data vas taken from an official contemporary hictory which was completed in 1971 I don't know what that historian's source van, but he would have had access to the official records. I think you ere probably right in assuming that most if not all of tho Agent Blue vas sprayed an crops# However, some of the Orange end White nay have been also# From tho beginnings of the herbicide program in South Vietnam, the number "2" vaa associated with crop destruction targets while "20" referred to defoliation# I cannot be suro that the sane labels applied to Laos, but it seems possible# If this vas the case, then the two projects in September end Ootober 1966 listed under project number "2W in Table 5* p, 4 1 9 oloo would have been crop deotructioa# lif history is now in the galley proof stage and should be published by the G.F.O# sometime thin year# Again, thanko for keeping me informed# Sincerely, f *Pnt>u mor nr copicn a : i* t Laotian postscript Six -- The clandestine US war against Laos during the Second Indochina War was for the United States substantially an air war -- in terms of environmental impact almost entirely so. Its operational aspects have been well described1. Laos received more than 2.2 million tonnes of air-delivered munitions, fully 31 per cent of the US air war against all Indochina1. The massive wide-area saturation bombing from B-52 stratofortresses alone ultimately added up to 800,000 tonnes of bombs, accounting for 36 per cent of all such missions flown during the war throughout Indochina. The air war against Laos was carried out during the years 1965-73;the three peak years were 1969--71.which were almost equally intense and together accounted for 68 per cent of the Laotian total. An estimated 70 per cent of the entire US air assault upon Laos was in southern Laos (the panhandle), carried out primarily against the supply routes into South Viet Nam (the Ho Chi Minh trail). The remaining 30 per cent of the bombing wis directed against northern Laos, to a major extent against the Plain of Jan in central Xieng Khouang province. Herbicidal chemical warfare attacks by the United States during the Second Indochina War were at one time or another directed against all four of the Indochinese nations of the time, overwhelmingly so against South Viet Nam and in only small but unknown amounts against the others. However, the United Stales has recently released some relevant information regarding Laos'. During the years 1965-69, the United States flew tome 100 anti-plant missions (over 400 sorties), with 1966, the peak year, accounting for 76 per cent of them. Altogether 1,600 cubic metres of herbicides were dispensed, mostly (83 per cent) Agent Orange. This Laotian spraying thus represented 2 per cent of the total Indochina effort. The area sprayed was some 67,000 hectares (not counting overlap), 0.2 per cent of the area of Laos. Most by far of this spraying occurred in southern Laos; and most of the spraying was for purposes of forest destruction to expose the Ho Chi Minh trail. A very small but unknown amount of the total spraying (perhaps 3 per cent, the proportion of Agent Blue dispensed) was devoted to crop destruction in the Plain of Jars and possibly elsewhere. The Plain of Jars was especially hard hit during the war in terms of both social and environmental upheaval4 and-is recovering extraordinarily slowly5**. H.A x t h u x W e st in g Hampshire Collexe. Amherst. Massachusetts, USA 1. LiiUtffi. I . A Uphoff, N. Air N V m imdoehi^. JKtv. fdn. Ch. 5.6 (B aco n , B a to n . 1*72). 2. W n tin f. A.II. Feolotteoi Consnptenen o f the Strong ntiocStfKm M'r. p. M (Almqvnt A W itten, Stockholm, 1976). J . Buckingham, W.A. i t Operetta* Moneh Hand: The A ir F o n r end Herbicides in Sovtheest Asm, Ch. 7. A ppcndu 2 (U.S. Ait Foret. Washington, O ffk r of Air Force Htiiory, nnpubKihcd). 4. Branfman. I*. V oxrt from the Pt$i* o f Jon: Life Under on Air H V ( H ir p c r4 t o . Nr York, 1972). 5. Chanda. N. For Lasiern Franomie /ter. f t . 22 0977). 6. Kubicka. E. Friends J I U , II O f7 t). 7. Kubicka. L . t . protrnstve 42.22 I tt 7 |) . I. Sw attrrndruhrt. J. Christianity 4 Crois. 4 t, 243 0910). Nature, London 294(5842): 606. 17 December 1981 U.S. Department of Justice EXPRESS MAIL JA: GLWi t t : bf 157-0-107 Washington. D.C. 20530 March 1 , 1983 Telephone : (202) 724-6725 NOTICE TO ALL COUNSEL Re: In re "Agent Orange" Product L i a b i l i t y L i t i g a t i o n , MDL No. 381 This Notice provides the response of the United States to several outstanding requests from the defendants for production of documents by the United S t a t e s . 1 . J a n u a ry 20, 1983 Requ est from M. M i n t z e r re Dr. Douglas L e e . In l a t e January, the Government receiv ed a request fo r c e r ta in documents from the 1960s in Public Health Service f i l e s , s p e c i f i c a l l y the Bureau of State S e rv ice s or Bureau of O c c u p a t i o n a l Healh (BOSH). On J a n u a ry 3 1 , 1983 t h i s o f f i c e t r a n s m i t t e d the r e q u e s t to NIOSH, the s u c c e s s o r agenc y t o BOSH, f o r h a n d l i n g . On F e b r u a r y 16 , NIOSH r e p o r t e d t h a t i t co u ld not lo ca te any of the requested f i l e s e ith e r in a c t i v e f i l e s or in s t o r a g e . NIOSH r e p o r t s t h a t i t g e n e r a l l y has no f i l e s from the 1960s. Ms. M i n t z e r ' s l e t t e r a l s o r e q u e s t e d t h a t the United S ta te s produce any correspondence between Dr. Lee and Dr. Marcus Key r e g a r d i n g c e r t a i n m a t t e r s . The Government has w r i t t e n to Dr. Lee t o r e q u e s t t h a t he send us c o p i e s of any such c o r r e s p o n d e n c e . We w i l l inform a l l p a r t i e s o f h i s res p o n se upon r e c e i p t . 2 2. F e b r u a r y 4, 1983 Requ es t from M. M i n t z e r . During the second week of February, the Govern ment r e c e i v e d t h i s r e q u e s t f o r a cop y o f the "DOD Index o f S p e c i f i c a t i o n s and S t a n d a r d s . " On February 9, t h is o f f i c e transm itted t h is request to the Department of Defense for handling. h - MAR 0 7 1983 -2 - On F e b r u a r y 28, DOD t r a n s m i t t e d a m i c r o f i c h e copy o f the requested document to t h i s o f f i c e . We have t r a n s m i t t e d the m i c r o f i c h e t o Mathias & C a rr f o r c o p y in g and r e l e a s e . I t should be a v a i l a b l e f o r pu rch as e s h o r t l y . DOD c o u l d not locate a copy dated e a r l i e r than January, 1983. However, although the l i s t is updated r e g u la r ly , references to e a r lie r sp ecifica tio n are often retained. In a d d i t i o n , DOD has produced c o p i e s o f the herbic ide sp e cif ica tio n s referenced in the Index. These in elude : a . M ilitary Specifications 2,4-D (7 Nov. 66) b. M ilita r y S p e c ific a tions 2 , 4 , 5 - T (7 Nov. 66) c . M ilitary Specification 2 , 4 , 5 - T (26 S e p t . 69) d. M ilit a r y S p e c if ic a t io n 2,4-D (6 Nov. 80) e . M ilitary Specifica tion 2,4-D (5 May 69) f . M ilitary Standard Herbicides (28 Aug. 70) We have s e n t t h e s e documents f o r m ic r o f i l m i n g as Batch No. 1974, e n t i t l e d " M i l i t a r y H e r b i c i d e S p e c s , and S t a n d a r d s . VI With the re s p o n s e of DOD, the Unit ed S tates has completed i t s e f f o r t s in response to this request. GRETCHEN LEAH WITT T r ia l Attorney, Torts Branch C ivil Division STATE OP NEW YORK ) ) COUNTY OF NASSAU ) SS S THERESA A. MENNA ' duly sworn, deposes and says: That deponent is not a party to this action, is over 18 years of age and resides in L y n b ro o k , NY That on the 28th day of March, 1983 , deponent servec the within . D e f e n d a n t s ' Memorandum i n S u p p o r t o f Motion t o Compel P r o d u c t i o n o f P u b lic Health S e r v ic e Documents upon the attorneys below set forth representing the parties, as indicated, at the addresses shown, said addresses being desig nated by said attorneys for that purpose, by depositing a true copy of same, enclosed in a postpaid properly addressed wrapper in an official depository under the exclusive care and custody oi the United States Post Office Department within the State of New York. See Attached Service L is t Sworn to before-me this 28th day of March * 1981 THERESA A. MENNA Q jQ J U J U L A - ' f t Q , O ^ X X f . NOTARY" PUBLIC \| I, 3759 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------------------------- ,, ^ *> . * s, In Re: S- "AGENT ORANGE" Product L ia b ility L itigation I.C-E"'TO TAKE DEPOSITION MDL No. 381 ------------------------------------------------------------------- x PLEASE TAKE NOTICE t h a t , p u r s u a n t t o R u le s 30 and 45 o f the Federal Rules of C iv il Procedure, defendants w ill take the d e p o s i t i o n upon o r a l e x a m i n a t i o n o f THE RAND CORPORATION, by an II ! o f f i c e r , d ir e c to r or managing agent thereof having knowledge of the documents described in the attached Schedule of Documents, at the o f f i c e s o f Hagenbaugh & Murphy, 3701 W i l s h ir e Boulevard (4th F l o o r ) , Los A n g e l e s , C a l i f o r n i a 90010 a t 10:00 a.m. on A p r i l 1 1 , 1983. I f f o r any r e a s o n t h e t a k i n g o f t h e d e p o s i t i o n i s n o t com p l e t e d on the date i n d i c a t e d , then s a id d e p o s it io n s h a l l be adjourned from day to day u n til completed. PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE t h a t , p u r s u a n t t o t h e F e d e r a l R u le s o f C i v i l P r o c e d u r e , th e p e r s o n t o be examined i s commanded to produce at said examination the documents requested in the attached Schedule of Documents. D ated : Garden C i t y , New York March 3 1 , 1983 TO: See Attached Service L is t RIVKIN, LEFF, SHERMAN & RADLER A t t o r n e y s f o r D e f e n d a n t , THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY By j j A/ A Member o f t h e Firm 100 Garden C i t y P l a z a Garden C i t y , NY 11530 (516) 746-7500 9760 Schedule o f Documents j. ' V j { 1 . A r e p o r t t i t l e d , "A S t a t i s t i c a l A n a l y s i s o f the U.S. Crop !S p r a y i n g Program i n South V i e t n a m " , O c t o b e r , 19 6 7, by Anthony J . i-i iRusso, and a l l n o te s , d r a f t s , source m a t e r ia ls ,a n d oth er documents i used in preparation of or related to th is report. 2. A r e p o r t t i t l e d , "An E v a l u a t i o n o f Chemical Crop D e s t r u c t i o n i n Vietnam", O ctober, 1967, by R u s s e ll B e t t s and Frank Denton, and a l l n o t e s , d r a f t s , source m a t e r i a l s , and oth er documents used in preparation of or related to this report. 3. A r e p o r t t i t l e d , "Some F i n d i n g s o f th e V i e t Cong M o tiva tio n and Morale Study: June - December 1965", F ebruary, 1966, by L. Goure, A. J . Ru ss o, and D. S c o t t , and a l l n o t e s , d r a f t s , source m a t e r i a l s , and o th e r documents used in p r e p a r a t io n o f or related to this report. 4. A ll documents th at d e s c rib e , contain inform ation about, or r e f e r o r r e l a t e i n any way t o any proposed r e s e a r c h , development, te s tin g , evaluation, or use of herbicides for m ilita ry purposes. 5. A ll documents th at d e s c rib e , contain inform ation about, or r e f e r or r e l a t e in any way t o any r e s e a r c h , development, t e s t i n g , evaluation, t o x ic it y , or use of herbicides for m ilita ry purposes. 6. A l l documents not c a l l e d fo r in response to paragraphs "1" i tt h r o u g h "5" r e l a t i n g t o any communication t o o r from t h e Advanced ij R e s e a r c h P r o j e c t s Agency <"ARPA") which d e s c r i b e , c o n t a i n i n f o r m a !! t i o n about or r e f e r or r e l a t e t o in any way to d io x in , t r i c h l o r o phenol, 2 ,4 ,5-trichlorophenoxyacetic acid , 3-amino, 1 , 2 , 4 -tria zo le 8761 :\' (ATA, a m i t r o l e , a m i n o t r i a z o l e ) , o r an e s t e r , amine, l t , or o t h e r i.jform t h e r e o f , i n c l u d i n g A g e n t s Ora nge, P i n k , P u r p l e.., rarnd G-reen. | 7. A ll documents not c a lle d fo r in response to paragraphs "1" i-through "5" r e l a t i n g 't o any communication t o or from any o th e r ' agency o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Government w hich r e f e r o r r e l a t e t o d io x in , t r ic h l o r o p h e n a l , 2 , 4 , 5 -tr ic h lo r o p h e n o x y a c e tic a c id , 3-amino 1 , 2 , 4 - t r i a z o l e (ATA, a m i t r o l e , a m i n o t r i a z o l e ) , or an e s t e r , amine, s a l t , or other form th e re o f, including Agent Orange, Pink, Purple, and Green. 8. A l l documents not c a l l e d f o r in response to the preceding paragraphs which r e fe r or re la te to dioxin, trich lo ro p h en o l, 2 ,4 ,5 t r i c h l o r o p h e n o x y a c e t i c a c i d , 3-amino 1 , 2 , 4 - t r i a z o l e (ATA, a m i t r o l e , a m in o tr ia z o le ), or an e s t e r , amine, s a l t , or other form t h e r e o f, in c lu d in g Agents Orange, P in k, P u rp le , and Green. i i Ii; 9762 DEFINITIONS ! As used herein: r . 1 rr 1 A) "Document" s h a l l i n c l u d e t h e w h o l e , any p a r t , any d r a f t , and . any w r i t i n g and rec o rd of e v e ry ty p e and d e s c r i p t i o n , in c lu d in g but *i iinot l i m i t e d t o l e t t e r s , memoranda, r e p o r t s , manuals, p u b l i c a t i o n s , raw and r e f i n e d d a ta , graphs, draw ings, n o te s , l i s t s , s t u d i e s , agreements, telegram s, a n a ly se s , summaries of personal conversa tions, d iaries, surveys, s ta tis tic a l statements, charts, pictures, i1 reports and/or summaries o f i n v e s t i g a t i o n s , o p i n i o n s or r e p o r t s o f consultants, contracts, projections, d rafts, proposals, books, a r t i c l e s , tape or other reco rd in g s, whether p rin ted , typed, hand w r i t t e n , re p ro d u c e d , m a g n e t i c a l l y r e c o r d e d , or in any o th e r way made r e a d a b l e o r r e t r i e v a b l e . T h i s d e f i n i t i o n s p e c i f i c a l l y i n cludes any and a l l cop ies o f any documents th a t contain any nota tion or which otherwise d i f f e r from the o rig in a l or other copies thereof. B) "Communication" means any t r a n s f e r or exc hange between two or more p e rso n s o f any in f o r m a t i o n , whether by w r i t i n g , e l e c t r o n i c or other means, including but not lim ited to , correspondence, t e l e grams, t e l e x e s , mailgrams, or any other document. This d e f in i t io n i n c l u d e s a l l comm unications f o r wfh i c h you may c l a i m p r i v i l e g e . C) " P e r s o n " o r " p e r s o n s " means a l l n a t u r a l p e r s o n s , c o r p o r a t i o n s , p a r tn e rs h ip s , or other business a s s o c ia tio n s and a l l other !1 l e g a l e n t i t i e s . i! Q 'y STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) COUNTY OF NASSAU ) on. i THERESA A. MENNA , being duly sworn, deposes and says: That deponent is not a party to this action, is over 18 years of age and resides in Lynbro ok, NY That on the 3 1 s t day of March, 1983 the within NOTICE TO TAKE DEPOSITION ^ deponent serve* upon the attorneys below set forth representing the parties, as indicated, at the addresses shown, said addresses being desig nated by said attorneys for that purpose, by depositing a true copy of same, enclosed in a postpaid properly addressed wrapper in an official depository under the exclusive care and custody o: the United States Post Office Department within the State of New York, See Attached Service L is t Sworn to before- me this 3 1 s t day of March , 1983. w: THERESA"~AHTmTMT.TOORA-' -------- NOTARY PUBLIC 8764 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Robert A. T a ylo r, J r . , s t a t e s under p e n a lty o f p e rju ry : That deponent i s not a p a r t y to the a c t i o n , i s o ver 18 y e a r s o f age and r e s i d e s in Washington, D .C .; That on th e 4th day o f A p r i l , deponent hand d e l i v e r e d cop ies of the fo rego in g Notice o f Deposition dated A p r il 4, 1983, to the Clerk of Court for the United States D is t r ic t C o u rt f o r the E a s t e r n D i s t r i c t o f New York and d e l i v e r e d c o p i e s v ia Federal Express to the S p e c ia l Master, Sol S c h r e ib e r and mailed, postage prepaid copies to the attorneys below set forth representing the p a r tie s , as indicated: ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS V ictor J. Yannacone, J r . , Esq. Yannacone & A sso cia tes P o s t O f f i c e Drawer #109 P a t c h o g u e , New York 1177 2 Irving Like, Esq. R e illy , Like & Schneider 200 West Main S t r e e t B ab ylon , New York 11702 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS M arjorie F. M intzer, Esq. R iv k in , L e f f , Sherman & Radler 100 Garden C i t y P l a z a Garden C i t y , New York 11530 C o u n se l f o r Dow C h e m i c a l Company Morton B. S i l b e r m a n , Esq. Clark, Gagliardi & M iller The Inns o f Court 99 C o u r t S t r e e t White P l a i n s , New York 10601 C o u n s e l f o r TH A g r i c u l t u r e & N u t r i t i o n Co. M i c h a e l M. Gordon, Esq. Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft One Wall S t r e e t New Y ork, New York 10005 > C o u n se l f o r Diamond Shamrock 65 James E. T y r r e l l , J r . , Esq. Townley & Updike 405 L e x i n g t o n Avenue New Y o r k , New York 10017 Counsel for Monsanto C h a r l e s M. M a t t i n g l y , Esq. K e l l e y , Drye & Warren 101 Park Avenue New Y o r k , New York 10022 Counsel for Hercules, Inc. Marilyn Neiman, Esq. A r th u r , Dry & K a l i s h 1230 Avenue o f the Americas New York, New York 10020 Counsel for Uniroyal Edwin R. Mat thews, Esq. Budd, L a r n e r , Kent, G ro ss , P i c i l l o & Rosenbaum 33 Washington S t r e e t Newark, New J e r s e y 07102 C o u n se l f o r Thompson C h e m i c a l s Corp. M ichael V. C o r r i g a n , Esq. Simpson, Thacher & B a r tle tt One B a t t e r y Park P l a z a New Y or k , New York 10004 Paul V. E s p o s i t o , Esq. 135 Sout h La S a l l e S t r e e t S u i t e 1000 C h i c a g o , IL 60603 Dennis Rothman, Esq. L e s t e r , Schwab, K atz & Dwyer 120 Broadway New Y o r k , New York 10005 John F i t z p a t r i c k , Esq. Dilworth, Paxon, Kalish, Kauffman 2600 The F i d e l i t y B l d g . P h i l a d e l p h i a , PA 19101 Levy & OTHERS Arvin Maskin U.S. Department of J u stice Torts Branch C iv il Division W a s h in g to n , D.C. 20530 9766 CER TIFICATE OF SERVICE Robert A. T a y lo r , J r . , s t a t e s under p e n a lt y o f p e r ju r y : That deponent i s not a p a r t y to the a c t i o n , i s over 18 y e a r s o f age and r e s id e s in Washington, D .C.; That on the 4th day o f A p r i l , deponent hand d e l i v e r e d copies of the foregoing Notice of Deposition dated A p ril 4, 1983, to the Clerk of Court for the United States D is t r ic t C o u rt f o r the E a s t e r n D i s t r i c t o f New York and d e l i v e r e d c o p i e s v i a F ed eral Express to the S p e c ia l Master, Sol S c h r e ib e r and mailed, postage prepaid copies to the attorneys below set forth representing the p a r tie s , as indicated: ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS V icto r J. Yannacone, J r . , Esq. Yannacone & A ssociates P o s t O f f i c e Drawer #109 P a t c h o g u e , New York 11 7 7 2 Irvin g Like, Esq. R e illy , Like & Schneider 200 West Main S t r e e t B a b y l o n , New York 11702 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS M arjorie F. M intzer, Esq. R i v k i n , L e f f , Sherman & Radler 100 Garden C i t y P l a z a Garden C i t y , New York 11530 C o u n s e l f o r Dow C h em ical Company Morton B. S i l b e r m a n , Esq. Clark, Gagliardi & Miller The Inns o f Court 99 C o u r t S t r e e t White P l a i n s , New York 10601 C o u n s e l f o r TH A g r i c u l t u r e & N u t r i t i o n Co. M i c h a e l M. Gordon, Esq. Cadwalader, Wickersham & T aft One Wall S t r e e t New Y o r k , New York 10005 C o u n s e l f o r Diamond Shamrock 9767 James E. T y r r e l l , J r . , Esq. Townley & Updike 405 L e x i n g t o n Avenue New Y or k , New York 10017 Counsel for Monsanto C h a r l e s M. M a t t i n g l y , Esq. K e l l e y , Drye & Warren 101 Park Avenue New Y o r k , New York 10022 Counsel for Hercules, Inc. M arilyn Neiman, Esq. A r t h u r , Dry & K a l i s h 1230 Avenue o f the Americas New Y ork, New York 10020 Counsel for Uniroyal Edwin R. Matthews, Esq. Budd, L arn er, Kent, G ro s s , P i c i l l o & Rosenbaum 33 Washington S t r e e t Newark, New J e r s e y 07102 C o u n s e l f o r Thompson C h e m i c a l s Corp. M ich a el V. C o r r i g a n , Esq. Simpson, Thacher & B a r t le tt One B a t t e r y Park P l a z a New Y or k , New York 10004 P au l V. E s p o s i t o , Esq. 135 Sout h La S a l l e S t r e e t S u i t e 1000 C h i c a g o , IL 60603 Dennis Rothman, Esq. L e s t e r , Schwab, K a t z & Dwyer 120 Broadway New Y o r k , New York 10005 John F i t z p a t r i c k , Esq. Dilworth, Paxon, K alish, Kauffman 2600 The F i d e l i t y B l d g . P h i l a d e l p h i a , PA 19101 Levy & OTHERS Arvin Maskin U.S. Department of J u s tic e Torts Branch C iv il Division Washin gton, D.C. 20530 \0J 76 6 8 J u d i c i a l P a n e l on M u l t i d i s t r i c t P a t r i c i a D. Howard Clerk of the Panel 1120 Vermont Avenue, N.W. S u i t e 1002 Washington, D.C. 20005 Litigation C le rk , United States D is tr ic t Uniondale Avenue Hempstead Turnpike U n io n d a l e , NY 11 55 3 Court, EDNY 97G9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK In r e : "AGENT ORANGE" Product L ia b ility L itigation 'APR 1 4 1 9 8 3 , y 'X T lM t A.M ., W P.M .. NOTICE TO TAKE DEPOSITION g MDL 381 X PLEASE TAKE NOTICE t h a t , p u r s u a n t t o R u le s 30 and 45 of the Federal Rules of C iv il Procedure, defendant w ill take t h e d e p o s i t i o n upon o r a l e x a m i n a t i o n o f LITTON BIONETICS, INC ., by an o f f i c e r , d i r e c t o r or managing agent th e r e o f having knowledge o f the documents described in the attached Schedule of Documents, at the o f f i c e s of Kirkland & E l l i s , 1776 K S t r e e t , N.W., Washington, D.C. a t 10:00 a.m. on A p r i l 21, 1983. I f fo r any reasons the ta kin g of the d ep o sitio n i s not completed on the d a te in d i c a t e d , then s a id d e p o s it io n s h a l l be adjourned from day to day u n t il completed. PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE t h a t , p u r s u a n t t o th e F ederal Rules of C i v i l Procedure, the person to be examined is commanded t o produce a t s a i d e x a m i n a t i o n th e documents r e q u e s t e d in the attached Schedule of Documents. D ated: New Y o r k , New York A p r i l 13, 1983 TOWNLEY & UPDIKE Attorneys for Defendant A Menfber o f t h e Firm 405 L e x i n g t o n Avenue New Y o r k , New Yor k 10174 (212) 682-4567 TO: See A t t a c h e d S e r v i c e L i s t 9770 /ifG TO: MORTON B. SILBERMAN, ESQ. Clark, Gagliardi & M iller The Inns o f Court 99 C o u rt S t r e e t White P l a i n s , NY 10601 WENDELL B. ALCORN, J R . , ESQ. Cadwalader, Wickersham & T a ft One Wall S t r e e t New York, NY 10005 HOWARD LESTER, ESQ. L e s t e r , Schwab, Katz & Dwyer 120 Broadway New Y o r k , New York 10271 PAUL ESPOSITO, ESQ. L e w i s , Overb ec k & Furman 135 South L a S a lle S tr e e t S u i t e 1060 C h i c a g o , IL 60603 LEONARD RIVKIN, ESQ. R i v k i n , L e f f , Sherman & R a d le r 100 Garden C i t y P l a z a Garden C i t y , NY 11530 WILLIAM KROHLEY, ESQ. K e lle y Drye & Warren 101 Park Avenue New Y o r k , NY 10178 DAVID R. GROSS, ESQ. Budd, Larner, Kent, Gross P i c i l l o & Rosenbaum 33 Washington Avenue Newark, NJ 07102 HON. GEORGE C. PRATT United States D is tr ic t Court E a s t e r n D i s t r i c t o f New y o r k Uniondale A v e . & Hempstead Tpke. U n i o n d a l e , NY THOMAS A. BECK, ESQ. A r th u r, Dry & K a l i s h , P .C . 1230 Avenue o f the Americas New York, NY 10020 VICTOR J . YANNACONE, J R . , Yannacone & Yannacone P.O. Box 109 P a t c h o g u e , NY 11 7 7 2 ESQ. ARVIN MASKIN, ESQ. Department o f J u stice Safeway Building Room 904 D Washington, D.C. 20530 SOL SCHREIBER SPECIAL MASTER M i l b e r g , W e i s s , B e r shad & S p e c t h r :.e One Penn P l a z a New Y o r k , NY 10019 LITTON BIONETICS, INC. 5516 Nicholson Lane K e n s i n g t o n , MD 20895 3771 SCHEDULE OF DOCUMENTS 1 . A l l c o n t r a c t s , and any and a l l supplements or m odifications th ereto, between the United States or the N a t io n a l Cancer I n s t i t u t e and B i o n e t i c s Research Laboratories ("Bionetics") for the study of ca rcin o g e n icity and/or te ra to g e n ic ity of various compounds, in c lu d in g but not lim ite d to the c o n tra c t executed in 1963 pursuant to which a report t i t l e d " E v a lu a tio n o f C a r c i n o g e n ic , T e r a t o g e n i c and Mutagenic A c t i v i t i e s o f S e l e c t e d P e s t i c i d e s and I n d u s t r i a l Chemicals" was prepared. 2. Any p e r i o d i c r e p o r t s , i n t e r i m r e p o r t s , f i n a l r e p o r t s , c o r r e s p o n d e n c e , commun ications or memoranda o f any other d e s c r ip tio n by B io n e tic s to N ational Cancer I n s t i t u t e or any oth er agency, or by N ation al Cancer I n s t it u t e of any other agency of the United States Government to B io n e tic s , th a t mention or discu ss t e s t s or t e s t r e s u lt s or findings by B io n etics as to 2,4,5-T and/or it s possible hazards, including te ra to g en icity. 3. Any documents t h a t r e l a t e t o th e s e l e c t i o n o f 2 , 4 , 5 - T as a compound t o be s t u d i e d by B i o n e t i c s , i n c l u d i n g b u t n o t l i m i t e d t o a l l r e p o r t s or memoranda o f any communications, meetings, formal or informal, with N ational Cancer I n s t it u t e or any other agency of the U nited S t a t e s Government on th e s u b j e c t o f p o s s i b l e hazards, including teratogenicity, of 2,4,5-T. 4. A l l documents prepared in the course o f the B io n e tic s study that mention 2,4,5-T. 5. A l l documents th a t r e l a t e to or evidence the dissem ination or communication of information developed in the course o f the B io n e tic s research concerning any potential hazard of 2,4,5-T. 6. A l l LD-50 r e p o r t s and/or o t h e r r e p o r t s on th e t o x i c o l o g y and/or chemistry of 2,4,5-T prepared in connection with the Bionetics study. 7. A ll w ritte n p rotocols developed fo r , or u t i l i z e d or consulted in, the course of the Bionetics study. i rc>, DEFINITIONS As used h e r e i n : A) "Document" s h a l l i n c l u d e t h e w h o l e , any p a r t , any d r a f t and any w r i t i n g and re c o r d o f e v e ry type and d e s c r i p t i o n , i n c l u d i n g but not l i m i t e d to l e t t e r s , memoranda, r e p o r t s , manuals, p u b l i c a t i o n s , raw and r e f i n e d d a ta , grap hs, draw ings, notes, l i s t s , studies, agreements, telegrams, analyses, summaries o f personal c o n v e r s a tio n s , d i a r i e s , su rvey s, s t a t i s t i c a l statements, charts, p ictu res, reports and/or summaries o f i n v e s t i g a t i o n s , opinions or re p o rts o f c o n s u lt a n t s , contracts, projections, d rafts, proposals, books, a r tic le s , tape or other recordings, whether printed, typed, handwritten, r e p r o d u c e d , m a g n e t i c a l l y r e c o r d e d , o r i n any o t h e r way made readable or retrievab le. This d efin ition sp e c ific a lly includes any and a l l c o p ie s o f any documents t h a t c o n ta in any n o t a t io n w hich'otherw ise d i f f e r from the o r i g in a l or other copies thereof. B) "Communication" means any t r a n s f e r or ex ch ang e b e tween two o r more p e rso n s o f any i n f o r m a t i o n , whether by w r itin g , e le c t r o n ic s or other means, including but not lim ited to , correspondence, telegram s, t e le x e s , mailgrams, or any other documents. This d e fin itio n includes a l l communications f o r w hich you may c l a i m p r i v i l e g e . C) " P e r s o n " o r " p e r s o n s " means a l l n a t u r a l p e r s o n s , c o r p o r a t i o n s , p a r t n e r s h i p s , or o t h e r b u s in e s s a s s o c i a t i o n s and a ll other legal en tities. v 9773 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAIL STATE OF NEW YORK ) : ss . : COUNTY OF NEW YORK ) PATRICIA SUSAN BARRY, b e i n g d u l y sworn, d e p o s e s and 3ays t h a t deponent i s not a p a r t y to t h i s a c t i o n , i s over 18 y e a r s o f age and r e s i d e s a t 110 North S t r e e t , Monroe, New York. On A p r i l 1 3 , 1983, de p onent s e r v e d th e w i t h i n N otice to Take D e p o sitio n upon the f o llo w in g : SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST a t t h e above a d d r e s s e s by d e p o s i t i n g a t r u e copy o f same e n c l o s e d in a p o s t-p a id , properly addressed wrapper by C o urier. Sworn t o b e f o r e me t h i s 13th day o f A p r i l , 1983 'r'IO Notary Pu&lic Notary Public, State of New York No. 41-4740400 Qualified in Queens County lommisstoa Expires March 30, \ TO: MORTON B. SILBERMAN, ESQ. Clark, Gagliardi & M iller The Inns o f Court 99 C o u r t S t r e e t White P l a i n s , NY 10601 WENDELL B . ALCORN, J R . , ESQ. Cadwalader, Wickersham & T aft One W a l l S t r e e t New Y o r k , NY 10005 HOWARD LESTER, ESQ. L e s t e r , Schwab, Katz & Dwyer 120 Broadway New Y o r k , New Y or k 10271 PAUL ESPOSITO, ESQ. L e w i s , Overb eck & Furman 135 South L aS alle S tr e e t S u i t e 1060 C h i c a g o , IL 60603 LEONARD RIVKIN, ESQ. R i v k i n , L e f f , Sherman & R a d le r 100 Garden C i t y P la z a Garden C i t y , NY 11530 WILLIAM KROHLEY, ESQ. K e lle y Drye & Warren 101 Park Avenue New Y o r k , NY 10178 DAVID R. GROSS, ESQ. Budd, L arn er, Kent, Gross P i c i l l o & Rosenbaum 33 W ash in gt on Avenue Newark, NJ 07102 HON. GEORGE C. PRATT United States D is tr ic t Court E a s t e r n D i s t r i c t o f New y o r k Uniondale Ave. & Hempstead Tpke. U n i o n d a l e , NY THOMAS A. BECK, ESQ. Arthur, Dry & K alish , P.C. 1230 Avenue o f the Americas New Y o r k , NY 10020 VICTOR J . YANNACONE, J R . , Yannacone & Yannacone P.O. Box 109 P a t c h o g u e , NY 1 1 7 7 2 ESQ. ARVIN MASKIN, ESQ. Department of Ju stice Safeway Building Room 904 D W ashington, D.C. 20530 SOL SCHREIBER SPECIAL MASTER Milberg, Weiss, Bershad & Specthr One Penn P l a z a New Y o r k , NY 10019 LITTON BIONETICS, INC. 5516 Nicholson Lane K e n s i n g t o n , MD 20895 3775 / / UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ^ VfesoFf'c5 wx* INC \ .E .R ^ ^ n U Q T F- . S- 2 0 \ S & & In Re X T\WlE*p*.M*-.-.-.-- "AGENT ORANGE" PRODUCT LIABILITY LITIGATION MDL No. 381 (GCPMSS) (ALL CASES) X DEFENDANTS' REPLY TO UNITED STATES' RESPONSE TO MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE AND BIONETICS RESEARCH LABORATORIES DOCUMENTS AND RESPONSE TO UNITED STATES' MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER TOWNLEY & UPDIKE Attorneys for Defendant Monsanto Company 405 Lexington Avenue New York, New York (212) 682-4567 CADWALADER, WICKERSHAM & TAFT Attorneys for Defendant Diamond Shamrock Corporation One Wall Street New York, New York (212) 908-7000 ARTHUR, DRY & KALISH, P.C. Attorneys for Defendant Uniroyal, Inc. 1230 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10020 (212) 841-9300 KELLEY DRYE & WARREN Attorneys for Defendant Hercules Incorporated 101 Park Avenue New York, New York 10178 (212) 808-7800 CLARK, GAGLIARDI & MILLER Attorneys for Defendant T-H Agriculture & Nutrition Company 99 Court Street White Plains, New York 10601 (914) 946-8900 t 3778 il . \ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK In Re X "AGENT ORANGE" PRODUCT LIABILITY LITIGATION MDL No. 381 (GCP)(SS) (ALL CASES) X DEFENDANTS' REPLY TO UNITED STATES' RESPONSE TO MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE AND BIONETICS RESEARCH LABORATORIES DOCUMENTS AND RESPONSE TO UNITED STATES' MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER On January 10, 1983, defendants served a Motion to Compel Production of National Cancer Institute ("NCI") and Bionetics Research Laboratories ("Bionetics") documents. In that motion, defendants detailed their repeated requests before, during and after the depositions of NCI-related and Bionetics-related witnesses for documents within the possession, custody or control of NCI. Defendants have been unable to complete these depositions as a result of the failure of the government to produce the critical documents necessary to refresh the recollection of witnesses and to provide information about events 15 to 25 years ago that are relevant to the government contract defense. Without the aid of these documents, we have developed evidence indicating that in 1963-1964, in the course of choosing chemicals to be tested by Bionetics, NCI scientists - 2 - 9777 knew 2,4,5-T contained dioxin, which caused skin and liver problems; that Bionetics tests showed teratogenicity of 2,4,5-T in mice as early as 1965 or 1966; and that the first draft of the Bionetics teratogenicity study with its positive findings as to 2,4,5-T reached NCI and/or the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences ("NIEHS") in August 1968. The Bionetics report was released in October 1969, more than a year after NCI/NIEHS received it. During that year-plus, the report (or its findings) were distributed "unofficially" within and outside of government to Dr. Minarek at Fort Detrick, Dr. Fitzhugh at the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA"), the National Academy of Sciences, President Nixon's Environmental Quality Council and possibly to others we have not yet been able to identify. Its release caused a scientific and political furor, including charges of concealment, and led directly to limitation of the uses of 2,4,5-T and the first serious studies of the possible human health hazards of 2,4,5-T and dioxin. Despite all this, the government has not yet supplied us with: A single document relating to the choice by NCI of 2,4,5-T as one of the compounds to be tested by Bionetics. 9778 -3- A single contemporaneous document recording early findings by Bionetics of the apparent teratogenicity of 2,4,5-T. A single document reporting the early findings from Bionetics to NCI, NCI to NIH or NIH to the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, or indeed from anyone to anyone. A single contemporaneous document commenting on these extraordinary and unexpected early findings. A single document prepared in the time between the government's receipt of the report in August 1968 and the release of the report in October 1969, either from NCI, NIH, HEW or elsewhere in government, forwarding the draft report, describing it or commenting on it. There can be no question in anyone's mind that defendants will benefit by proving the earliest possible knowledge in the highest levels of HEW, the Department of Defense and the White House of the facts described above. There can be no question that documents in these categories existed. Are we to believe they all have disappeared? Yet that is what the government asks this Court to believe. We submit the Court should not believe it. 9779 -4- POINT I THE UNITED STATES HAS BEEN UNRESPONSIVE TO DOCUMENT REQUESTS A. The Government Has Not Demonstrated Diligent and Thorough Searches for Specific Documents The Appendix to defendant's moving papers confirms the numerous and repeated requests to the government for NCI/Bionetics documents. The record demonstrates that until this Motion to Compel, those requests went virtually unanswered. The government's response to this Motion to Compel leaves the Court -- and defendants -- with no factual basis on which to make an independent judgment as to the sufficiency of the government's search for specific documents. Statements that "all relevant files" have been searched for documents "generally relevant" to this litigation, but that "these documents apparently do not exist in the relevant files," United States Memorandum at 5, 13,* hardly prove that these vital documents cannot be found. The government states that it produced documents from NIEHS files because "materials relating to Bionetics apparently were transferred from NCI to NIEHS" All references to United States' Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Compel Production of National Cancer Institute and Bionetics Research Laboratories, Inc. Documents and in Support of the United States' Motion for Protective Order will be cited as "United States Memorandum at - 5 - 3780 and thus "most, if not all, NCI material located by defendants would be located in NIEHS files or archives." United States Memorandum at 4-5 (emphasis added). These conclusory and rather guarded statements must leave the Court with doubt as to whether enough has been done to find these documents. While the government repeatedly claims to have searched "all relevant files," it does not indicate what the "relevant" files are, or what criteria it used in characterizing only certain files as "relevant." In a footnote, the government offers its view that "the files of NIEHS and possibly NCI were the only NIH files that, in the normal course of NIH business, could reasonably be expected to contain any of the information sought by defendants." United States Memorandum at 5 n.3. On the basis of this statement, how can the Court or defendants know why the government does not expect to find responsive documents in other files? What other files were considered for inspection by the United States? What efforts were made to ascertain the contents of other files to determine whether they were possible sources of documents? These unanswered questions betray the inadequacy of the government's response to defendants' Motion to Compel, and demonstrate why defendants -- and this Court -- have ample reason to doubt the sufficiency and thoroughness of the search for specific documents. i -6 - Not only has the government confined its search to files it alone deemed to be relevant for reasons not set forth, it has further reduced the possibility for meaningful discovery by conducting only broad-sweep searches. As the government concedes in its memorandum, these searches were conducted pursuant to general criteria obtained from the Dow Chemical Company in the initial stages of discovery. Depositions and other discovery have permitted defendants to narrowly define their requests for specific documents and files known to be in the custody of NCI. Nevertheless, the government has chosen to utterly ignore the defendants' specific requests and now relies on its earlier general search, which the government concedes did not include within search criteria references to the Bionetics study. The government does not even assert that it specifically inquired as to the location of the NCI-Bionetics contract pursuant to which the Bionetics study was performed, or the quarterly progress reports produced during that study,* or the LD-50 reports prepared in connection with the study, or the written protocol by which the study was conducted. The government merely alleges that it made general "sweeps" in those files it believed were "likely" to contain Defendants procured by their own efforts -- and the government recently produced -- only four of the reports, all of which which were specifically identified and requested by defendants as early as July 1982. i 3782 -7- what it decided were "relevant" documents.* It does not -- even now -- give defendants or the Court any reason to believe that it made any effort to locate specific extant documents identified by deponents. The government's disregard for defendants' specific requests is further demonstrated by the statements of former and present NCI and Bionetics employees who testified at depositions that they were never asked to search their files for documents. See, e.g., deposition of Dr. Carl G. Baker at 15-17, appended hereto as Exhibit 1. The government offers a vague, general affidavit from Joanne Belk, an Assistant Freedom of Information Officer at NIH, to bolster its claim that it has conducted a thorough search of all "relevant" files and has produced all documents responsive to defendants' requests. Ms. Belk attests that she has been "generally responsible" for document searches, and that she has "directed that searches be conducted in all the places where such records would be expected to exist. Persons in such places have furnished records, indicating that no other [sic] exist, or have reported that no such records exist." Belk Aff't, 1i 2 (emphasis added). Such a statement hardly demonstrates that a thorough search has been conducted. It The general, early search did produce almost 20,000 pages of documents. However, as the search criteria employed were not specifically designed to discover Bionetics-related documents, none of the early documents contained information sought by defendants on this important study. does not identify the places searched, does not state a basis for believing that documents "would be expected" to reside in those unidentified places and does not name the "persons in such places" who were asked to search for documents. Nor is there a clue that Ms. Belk possesses firsthand knowledge of these searches to which she swears. While Ms. Belk attests that only NCI and NIEHS are "likely to have Agent Orange documents,"* Belk Aff't, 1f 3, she does not state whether, in fact , they are the only agencies that do possess responsive documents related to Bionetics' findings as to 2,4,5-T and whether any efforts have been made to determine if other files contain such documents. Even Ms. Belk's attempt to describe the methods used to search for responsive documents lacks substance. She states that NIEHS "notified all program leaders and senior staff at NIEHS," Belk Aff't, 1f 3.A., but does not identify the method of notification or who was notified. She says that these unnamed "officials," using an unspecified "broad definition regarding Agent Orange . . . searched correspondence and research report files." Id. She does not, however, identify the search criteria, what files actually were searched, what files were considered but not searched, the basis on which only It is unclear from Ms. Belk's affidavit whether her references to "Agent Orange documents," Belk Aff't, 1T1f 2,3,13, encompass all documents responsive to defendants' document requests, or merely refer to documents relating to the specific herbicide Agent Orange. -9- "correspondence and research report files" were selected for a search, the method by which files were searched (drawer-by-drawer, file-by-file, page-by-page, etc.) or efforts to contact current and former employees concerning document locations. Nor does Ms. Belk provide this information concerning the search that she implies was conducted at NIEHS in or around October 1982. Id. The Belk affidavit, 1i 3.B., also discusses a search by computer of unspecified files in or around October 1982. Again, the search methodology, search criteria and person(s) performing the search are unidentified. The memorandum of Maralyn Farber Berlin, to which Ms. Belk refers, is similarly incomplete and vague. It speaks of queries to various persons, but does not contain firsthand identification of their efforts, if any, to determine whether they possessed responsive documents. Further, while Ms. Berlin's memorandum apparently was prepared for purposes of this motion, it is not sworn on personal knowledge. Neither the Court nor defendants can ascertain how Ms. Berlin verified the contents of her memorandum three months after the events she describes. Ms. Belk further "presumes" that a variety of documents possessed by Drs. Courtney and Fishbein (current government employees) and Dr. Baker (a former government employee) pertaining to work performed pursuant to government -1 0 - contract or employment "may be" in their personal possession. Belk Aff't, 11 6, 7, 8, 12, and thus need not be produced by the government. As these documents were prepared in connection with government work, and as the government has represented these persons at their depositions and required that defendants make written requests to the government for documents within these deponents' possession, the government should not now be permitted to argue that it will not produce such records. It is incredible that the government has not located any of the documents requested by defendants. All the documents requested have been specifically identified by deponents as being within the possession, custody or control of a government agency, and there is no indication they were destroyed. Further, defendants have provided the government with specific citations to deposition testimony where the documents were identified and discussed. For example, in his deposition at pp. 51-54, appended hereto as Exhibit 2, Dr. Lawrence Fishbein testified to the existence of "bound compendiums put out" by the United States Public Health Service "of compounds that either have been studied for tumorigenicity, carcinogencity...." Id. at 51. Dr. Fishbein testified that while these compendiums are not available in public libraries, "National Institutes of Health would be a primary source." Id. at 52-53. Rather than producing these compendiums -- for which defendants provided a complete testimonial citation -- the -1 1 - government merely argues that "the description of Item 15. is ... vague." Belk Aff't, nil. B. The United States Has Been Silent on Defendants' Document Requests Discovery of government witnesses and documents has been conducted, with the Court's approval, on a predominantly informal basis.* With the commencement of NCI/Bionetics depositions and the identification by deponents of specific documents, it became apparent that further, more specific document production was necessary. Defendants' requests for such particularized production, however, have been met with silence. In early July 1982, while preparing for depositions on July 21, 1982 and July 27, 1982 of the first NCI/Bioneticsrelated witnesses, Dr. Richard Bates and Dr. K. Diane Courtney, defendants determined that the preliminary drafts of the Bionetics study were essential documents for questioning the deponents. At the July 14, 1982 pretrial hearing, defendants informed Special Master Schreiber of their need for these documents (Tr. 1278). The Special Master instructed defendants Thus, the United States' contention (United States Memorandum at 3, n.2) that defendants should have made a formal Motion to Compel earlier is both inconsistent with established discovery practice in this litigation and illogical; a Motion to Compel at an earlier date, when defendants had not yet identified the specific documents needed and when the government was still in the process of production, would have been premature and purposeless. -1 2 - to establish by witness testimony the existence of these documents, after which he would order the government to search for them. Id . As discussed fully in the principal memorandum in support of this motion (at 5), defendants did adduce such testimony, and requested -- orally on the record at the depositions and again in a letter dated September 9, 1982 -- production of those documents. The government did not respond. On October 20, 1982, James E. Tyrrell, Jr. of Townley & Updike requested a status report on the many outstanding document requests on which the government had been silent. The government responded briefly and generally on November 11, 1982, stating that NIEHS "has searched its files and has already produced any and all of the requested materials that it had in its possession." United States Memorandum, Appendix D, at 2. The government added that it had located additional NCI documents, which were being produced. Id . at 3. That production did not, however, contain the specific documents sought by defendants, and did not indicate that a specific search had been made for any particular documents. The government further informed defendants then, for the first time, that Dr. Courtney had been ill, and would produce documents in November. Her documents were not produced in November. Immediately after this Motion to Compel was served on January 10, 1983, defendants received a Notice to All -13- 9788 Counsel informing them that some of the documents requested before, during, and after the Courtney deposition six months earlier -- Dr. Courtney's laboratory records from the Bionetics study -- would be made available for inspection and copying on January 19, 1983 in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. On that date, defendants went to North Carolina, inspected the records and requested copies of selected documents. Despite several requests in the three ensuing months, the government has yet to produce even one of the requested copies Defendants are unable to complete the deposition of Dr. Courtney without them. Not until this Motion to Compel did the government inform defendants that some NCI documents were mislabeled as NIEHS documents (United States Memorandum at 3-4), or had been mismarked as "Grants & Materials from President's Working Group on Pesticides." See United States Memorandum, Appendix A, Batch 1936. Defendants have examined these mislabeled documents, but none is responsive to any document specifically identified and sought by this Motion to Compel. -14- POINT II THE GOVERNMENT'S OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS' REQUESTS ARE UNSUPPORTABLE CONCLUSORY ASSERTIONS The Government's specific objections to the document requests embodied in defendants' proposed Order Compelling Production of Documents consist of conclusory assertions unsupported by fact. Defendants have made specific requests for : 1. All contracts, and any and all supplements or modifications thereto, between the United States or NCI and Bionetics for the study of carcinogenicity and/or teratogenicity of various compounds, including but not limited to the contract executed in 1963 pursuant to which a report titled "Evaluation of Carcinogenic, Teratogenic and Mutagenic Activities of Selected Pesticides and Industrial Chemicals" was prepared. Identified and orally requested at the deposition of R.R. Bates, 7/21/82 at 57 and by letter of 9/9/82. 2 Any periodic reports, interim reports, final reports, correspondence or reports or memoranda of any description by Bionetics to NCI or any other agency, or by NCI or any other agency of the United States Government to any other agency or person, that mention test results or findings by Bionetics pertaining to 2,4,5-T and/or its possible hazards, including teratogenicity. Identified and orally requested at the deposition of R.R. Bates, 7/21/82 at 67 and by letter of 9/9/82. 3. All documents that relate to the selection of 2,4,5-T for study by Bionetics, including but not limited to all reports, notes or memoranda of any meetings, formal or informal, within or outside NCI on the subject of possible hazards, including teratogenicity, of 2,4,5-T. Identified and orally requested at the deposition of R.R. Bates 7/21/82 at 57 and by letter of 9/9/82. -15- 5. All documents prepared in the course of the Bionetics study that mention 2,4,5-T, 2,4,5-TCP, any dioxin or chloracne. Identified and orally requested at the deposition of R.R. Bates, 7/21/82 at 73-74 and by letter of 9/9/82. 9. All LD-50 reports and/or other reports on the toxicology and/or chemistry of 2,4,5-T prepared in connection with the Bionetics study. Identified and orally requested at the deposition of K.D. Courtney, 7/27/82 at 31-32 and by letter of 9/9/82. 10. All written protocols, including the Food and Drug Administration Phase II teratology protocol, utilized or consulted in the course of the Bionetics study. Identified and orally requested at the deposition of K.D. Courtney, 7/27/82 at 37-39 and by letter of 9/9/82. The government asserts that these documents have been produced or do not exist, United States Memorandum at 17-21, without certifying that a specific search has been made for them. Broad-brush searches earlier in discovery do not obviate the need for specific responses to defendants' particularized, narrowly defined requests. The Government's obligation to produce these important specific documents cannot be avoided by a conclusory affidavit based on secondhand information that fails to identify the universe of documents searched and the criteria used for selecting the agencies and files to be searched. The Government further objects to the following defendants' requests on the basis of "oppressiveness" and "burdensomeness," or because of a purported lack of "temporal limitation": -16- 9791 4. All files in the possession of Bionetics or NCI that contain research information or publications on 2,4,5-T, 2,4,5--TCP, any dioxin or chloracne. 6. All documents that relate to or evidence the dissemination of information developed in the course of the Bionetics research concerning any potential hazard of 2,4,5-T, including but not limited to notes, lists or documents of any description indicating to whom and when any data, information, results, drafts or versions of the Bionetics report were disseminated. Identified and orally requested at the deposition of R.R. Bates, 7/21/82 at 78 and by letter of 9/9/82. 7. All notes, memoranda and correspondence from NCI empoyees to Bionetics employees, and from Bionetics employees to NCI employees, that pertain to the Bionetics study, including but not limited to transmittal letters accompanying reports, data or other correspondence or documents submitted by Bionetics to NCI or by NCI to Bionetics. These objections, especially those attacking the lack of a time frame as to Bionetics-related information, are hard to reconcile with a desire to cooperate. There is no doubt that the Bionetics study took place from 1963 to 1969. Obviously, a request for all information disseminated "during the course" of the Bionetics study concerning any potential hazard of 2,4,5-T by its terms refers to information disseminated from 1963 to 1969 . The Government asserts that the following request is overly broad because it fails to specifically request information on 2,4,5-T, dioxin, chloracne, herbicides or Agent Orange: -17- 8. All notes, memoranda, correspondence or documents of any description that relate to meetings, discussions or communications -- formal or informal -- held from 1960 to 1970 and attended by Bionetics employees, NCI employees, or any other representatives of any government or private entity, at which the Bionetics study was discussed or mentioned. The government's objection, however, utterly ignores defendants' ongoing interest in the rationale for selecting test compounds, and in the level of government interest in the other test compounds as against interest in 2,4,5-T. The government professes inability to understand and address the following defendants' requests for specific documents : 11. All documents relating to Dr. Courtney's attendance at any workshops, conferences, meetings or seminars concerning teratology, including but not limited to all notes pertaining to Dr. Courtney's trip to Canada and meetings with Canadian scientists in which 2,4,5-T, 2,4,5-TCP, any dioxin or chloracne was mentioned. Identified and orally requested at the deposition of K.D. Courtney, 7/27/82 at 140-43 and by letter of 9/9/82. 14. Records of meetings attended by FDA scientists and Dr. Baker. Identified and orally requested at the deposition of C.G.Baker, 12/15/82 at 89-90. Part of the Government's confusion may come from its failure to' read the citations to testimony where the documents sought are fully discussed by the witnesses. Contrary to the government's opinion, these requests are both narrow and specific, and relate to specific documents clearly identified by deponents. -18- The government argues that it need not respond to the following defendants' requests because they were not previously made in writing: 12. Personal records of Dr. Baker relevant to 2.4.5- T. Identified and orally requested at the deposition of C.G. Baker, 12/15/82 at 147. 13. Minutes, notes or memoranda of meetings, or referring to meetings, of NCI directors where 2.4.5-T, 2,4,5--TCP, any dioxin or chioracne was discussed. Identified and orally requested at the deposition of C.G. Baker, 12/15/82 at 148. 15. Bound compendiums of studies of chemical compounds for carcinogenicity published by and/or in possession of United States Public Health Service. Identified at the deposition of L. Fishbein, 12/14/82 at 52-53. 16. Dr. Fishbein's files in the custody of NCI, including but not limited to the literature reviewed in deciding to include 2,4,5-T in the Bionetics study, and notes or literature received at a toxicology meeting in Atlanta on 3/12/70 attended by Dr. Fishbein. Identified at the deposition of L. Fishbein, 12/14/82 at 70-72, 142-43. The Special Master expressly rejected this same objection when raised by the government in response to defendants' motion to compel production of Food and Drug Administration documents. See Recommended Order and Memorandum Re: Defendants' Motion to Compel Production of FDA Documents, at 2. As the Special Master noted, the brief time remaining for discovery does not allow for further written requests or procedures that would engender delay. -19- ,A n 'i `i V. POINT I I I THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE ORDERED TO ATTEST WITH SPECIFICITY TO ITS EFFORTS TO COMPLY WITH DOCUMENT REQUESTS Defendants have offered proof, in their moving papers, of the existence of specific NCI/Bionetics-related documents. See Proposed Order Compelling Production of Documents, at 2-4, which references deponents' testimony that the documents exist and defense counsel's months-old oral and written requests for them. No evidence has been offered by any deponent, or by the government, to indicate that these documents were destroyed. The government did not promptly respond to defendants' document requests -- whether made before, during or after depositions -- and has been silent with respect to efforts to locate specific documents. It is now clear that the assistance of this Court is needed to insure that defendants receive all necessary documents, or a detailed testimonial representation of the government's diligent efforts to find those documents. Conclusory, argumentative, unsworn statements by government counsel that they have searched "all relevant files" or all files that "reasonably could be expected to contain" the requested information do not prove that a thorough search has been made. Defendants cannot ascertain, on the basis of the government's characterizations of its search for these important documents, the precise extent and nature of the -2 0 - government's efforts, and whether those efforts were sufficiently detailed and complete. There is, of course, no totally reliable method to determine the extent of the government's efforts; defendants do not have knowledge of every extant file that possibly could be searched. Nevertheless, defendants have devised a procedure by which they hope, to the best of their ability, to insure that an adequate search has been conducted for specific, important documents. Defense counsel request that when the government contends that it cannot locate a particular document, this Court order that the government provide an affidavit documenting its search efforts. Such an affidavit should identify: a. Which bureaus, divisions, sections and branches were searched; which were not searched; and the basis for these decisions. b. Who was contacted in each bureau, division, section and branch, and by what means. c. The precise files actually searched, and their location. d. The method of search (page-by-page, by file folder, by drawer, etc.). e. The files that were not searched. f. The basis on which the government decided to search certain files, and not to search others. g. The person(s) conducting the search. h. The criteria used in conducting the search. -2 1 - v An affidavit containing the above-described information would inform defense counsel of the nature and scope of the search performed, and thus would allow defendants and the Court to make an informed determination whether a thorough search in fact had been performed. To the extent that defendants, after receiving the affidavit, could specifically identify a location in which a document may be found, they could ask that a search be conducted in that particular location. Defendants request that the Court adopt this procedure to assist them in gaining access -- to the maximum extent possible -- to the documents that are so crucial to completion of discovery and preparation for Phase I trial. -2 2 - * 9797 CONCLUSION For all the foregoing reasons, defendants respectfully request that their Motion to Compel Production of National Cancer Institute and Bionetics Research Laboratories Documents be granted and that the United States' Motion for a Protective Order be denied. Respectfully submitted. TOWNLEY & UPDIKE Attorneys for Defendant Monsanto Company 405 Lexington Avenue New York, New York (212) 682-4567 CADWALADER, WICKERSHAM & TAFT Attorneys for Defendant Diamond Shamrock Corporation One Wall Street New York, New York (212) 908-7000 ARTHUR, DRY 8 KALISH, P.C. Attorneys for Defendant Uniroyal, Inc. 1230 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10020 (212) 841-9300 KELLEY DRYE & WARREN Attorneys for Defendant Hercules Incorporated 101 Park Avenue New York, New York 10178 (212) 808-7800 CLARK, GAGLIARDI & MILLER Attorneys for Defendant T-H Agriculture & Nutrition Company 99 Court Street White Plains, New York 10601 (914) 946-8900 -23- a 15 1 You ask e d him t h a t q u e s t i o n about f i v e Q u e s t i o n s age 2 MS. ROTH: I a s k e d him t h a t q u e s t i o n w i t l 3 r e s p e c t to Barbara R iv k in d . This is with r e s p e c t tc 4 Ms. Robe r t s . 5 THE WI TNESS: I t h i n k t h e a n s w e r t o t h a t 6 i s no i n t h e s e n s e t h a t we d i d n ' t g e t i n t o p r o s and 7 cons of vie w p o in ts about th is kind of e v id e n c e . It 8 was m o s t ly p r o c e d u r a l g u i d a n c e she was g i v i n g me. 9 BY MS. ROTH: 10 Q. Did you r e v i e w d o c u m e n t s i n p r e p a r a t i o n 11 f o r y o u r d e p o s i t i o n ? 12 A . Y e s . 13 Q. . . Di d y o u r e v i e w t hem w i t h a n y o n e ? 14 A. No . 15 Q; Di d y o u r e v i e w d o c u m e n t s o t h e r t h a n t h e 16 o n e s t h a t w e r e p r o v i d e d t o y o u by u s ? 17 A. No . 18 Q. Di d y o u b r i n g t h e d o c u m e n t s p r o v i d e d 19 a l o n g w i t h y o u ? 20 , A. Yes. \ 21 Q. Di d y o u d i s c u s s y o u r r e v i e w o f t h e 22 d o c u m e n t s w i t h a n y o n e ? 23 A . No . 24 Q. When we p r o v i d e d t h e d o c u m e n t s t o y o u 25 i n c l u d e d i n t h a t t h e l e t t e r a c c o m p a n y i n g t h e 9799 16 1 documents was a r e q u e s t fo r p r o d u c tio n o f o th e r 2 d o c u m e n ts . Did you c o n d u c t a s e a r c h o f your f i l e s ? 3 A . No . 4 Q. Di d y o u b r i n g a n y o t h e r d o c u m e n t s w i t h 5 you today? 6 A . No . 7 Q. O t h e r t h a n y o u r c u r r i c u l u m v i t a e -- 8 MR. F I ORE L L A : L e t me make an i n q u i r y . 9 Did you s u p p l y d o c u m e n t s d i r e c t l y to th e w i t n e s s ? 10 MS. ROTH: No. 11 MR. F I O R E L L A : You s a i d t o t h e w i t n e s s . 12 You i m p l i e d b y y o u r q u e s t i o n i n g , b y t h e u s e o f " y o u " 13 t h a t y o u had s u p p l i e d d o c u m e n t s t o t h i s w i t n e s s 14 d i r e c t l y and you had s e n t a l e t t e r to t h i s w i t n e s s 15 d i r e c t l y . Did y o u do t h a t ? 16 MS. ROTH: I h a v e n o t f i n i s h e d my 17 q u e s t i o n s . 18 MR. F I O RE L L A: T h i s r e l a t e s t o t h e l a s t 19 two q u e s t i o n s . 20 MS. ROTH: I a s k e d D r . B a k e r i f he 21 c o n d u c t e d a s e a r c h o f h i s f i l e s f o r d o c u m e n t s . 22 MR. F I O R E L L A : A s k D r . B a k e r i f he 23 r e c e i v e d y o u r d o c u m e n t s , t h e d o c u m e n t s you s e n t h i m . 24 B u t go a h e a d , f i n i s h , a s l o n g a s i t i s on t h e r e c o r d 25 MS. ROTH: Ms. R o b e r t s , d i d y o u . r e c e i v e 1 a 17 1 r e q u e s t for documents in co n n e c tio n with t h i s 2 d e p o sitio n along with the documents th at were 3 provided to the w itness? 4 MS. ROBERTS: T h e r e i s a r e q u e s t f o r 5 documents in the December 9 l e t t e r from you to Mr. 6 Arvin Maskin of the J u s tic e Department. 7 MS. ROTH: Do y o u know i f a n y s e a r c h w a s 8 made f o r t h e d o c u m e n t s d e s c r i b e d in t h e d o c u m e n t 9 request? 10 MS. ROBERTS: I t h i n k t h e w i t n e s s h a s 11 a n s w e r e d t h a t . 12 MS. ROTH: He h a s n o t made a s e a r c h . I 13 am w o n d e r i n . g i f y o u h a v e made a s e a r c h o r know 14 w h e t h e r one h a s b e e n made? 15 MS. ROBERTS: No, I d o n ' t . 16 MS. ROTH: Do y o u know i f s u c h a s e a r c . h 17 i s o n g o i n g , in p r o c e s s ? 18 . MS. ROBERTS: N o , I d o n ' t , o t h e r t h a n t h e 19 s e a r c h e s t h a t a r e b e i n g made in d i s c o v e r y in t h i s 20 c a s e . 21 BY MS. ROTH: 22 Q. . Did y o u d i s c u s s t h e f a c t t h a t y o u w e r e t o 23 be d e p o s e d t o d a y w i t h a n y o n e ? 24 A . My w i f e . 25 Q. Di d y o u s p e a k w i t h a n y o f y o u r c u r r e n t o-r Waaa a n d S p i n e l l i C e r tifie d Shorthand PeDorters 11 2 [3 14 15 16 ft 7 18 19 l : 10 ft 1 1 ft 12 ft 13 1 14 jv' 15 ft- 16 1 " 17 18 i'ftpt'M j f t f3vj .20 g i 22 spfc. fifti1 * ^ ^ K `24 |*St.25 Fi shbei n 51 d i s c o v e r what was known about 2 , 4 , 5-T? A. R e s e a r c h meaning j u s t an e x a m in a t io n o f the l i t e r a t u r e , not research in a study, per se. Q. Y e s , n o t p r i m a r y r e s e a r c h . Di d y o u do a l i t e r a t u r e re v ie w to a s c e r t a i n what was known about 2 , 4 , 5-T? A. To some e x t e n t . Q. Ca n y o u t e l l me w h a t y o u r e a d ? A. The i n i t i a l e x a m in a t i o n would be compendium o f compounds th a t had a lr e a d y been stu d ie d for tu m o rig e n ic ity or c a r c in o g e n ic ity . Q. Had 2 , 4 , 5 - T a l r e a d y b e e n s t u d i e d f o r j tu m o r ig e n ic ity or c a r c in o g e n ic ity ? A. N o t t o my b e s t k n o w l e d g e . Q. How u i d y o u g o a b o u t d o i n g r e s e a r c h on 2 , 4 , 5-T? A. R e s e a r c h -- Q. When I s a y r e s e a r c h , I mean t h e l i t e r a t u r e r e s e a r c h , to d i s c o v e r what was known about it? A. T h e r e a re bound compendiums pu t o u t by th e PHS, 9802 of compounds th a t have -- P u b lic H ealth S e r v ic e , compounds th a t e i t h e r have been s tu d ie d fo r 02 O CO ^ tu m o rig e n icity , c a r c in o g e n ic ity and/or to the best o f my r e c o l l e c t i o n , c o m p o u n d s on s t u d y a n d i t ' ' Fishbein 52 1 i n c l u d e d compounds b e i n g s t u d i e d or t h a t had beer, 2 s t u d i e d b y t h e C a n c e r I n s t i t u t e o r a g a i n , t o my t 3 r e c o lle c t io n , of a worldwide review of the 4 l i t e r a t u r e o f compounds th a t had been t e s t e d for 5 or tu m o r ig e n ic ity . 6 Q. ' Do y o u r e c a l l i f 2 , 4 , 5 - T w a s o n e o f t h 7 compounds th a t was in c lu d e d in the P u b li c H ealth 8 S e r v ic e compendiums of compounds th a t had been 9 t e s t e d f o r t u m o r i g e n i c i t y o r c< 10 , i t w a s n o t . My 11 12 Q I t w a s n o t r e c o m m e n d e d i n y o u r 13 r e c o l l e c t i o n ? 14 I t was n o t 15 Q A r e t h e s e v o l u m e s u p d a t e d p e r i o d i c a l l y 16 Y e s 17 Q Do y o u k n o w how o f t e n t h e y ' r e u p d a t e d ? 18 A . No . 19 Q. Do y o u k n o w t h e l o c a t i o n o f t h e -- do \ 20 know i f th e v o lu m e s t h a t you u t i l i z e d in 21 a p p r o x i m a t e l y 1 9 G 3 t o s e e k i n f o r m a t i o n on t h e 22 c h e m i c a l s t h a t w e r e b e i n g c o n s i d e r e d f o r t h e 23 B i o n e t i c s s t u d y a r e s t i l l i n e x i s t e n c e ? * 24 A . I w o u l d s a y y e s , s t i l l i n e x i s t e n c e . : 25 Q. Do y o u k n o w w h e r e t h e y a r e ? 9803$ Fishbein 1 A. N a t i o n a l I n s t i t u t e s o f H e a lt h w ould be a 2 primary source. 3 Q. A r e t h e s e c o n t a i n e d i n p u b l i c l i b r a r 4 A. Not p u b li c l i b r a r i e s . 5 Q. What s o r t o f - 6 A. P u b l i c m e a n i n g , l i k e , t h e New Y o r k P u b l i c 7 Q. A r e t h e y c o n t a i n e d i n u n i v e r s i t y 8 libraries? 9 A. Not g e n e r a l l y . They can be o b t a i n e d by th 10 l i b r a r i a n , b u t g e n e r a l l y , t h e y a r e n o t w i d e l y 11 d i s s e m i n a t e d t o t h e a v e r a g e u n i v e r s i t y l i b r a r y , 12 c o s t w o u l d p r e c l u d e i t . 13 Q . Who d o e s t h e w o r k t h a t r e s u l t s i n t h e 14 i n f o r m a t i o n c o n t a i n e d i n t h e s e P u b l i c H e a l t h S e r 15 v o l m e s ? 16 A . I d o n ' t know 17 IB 19 A. I t c o u l d be d o n e by - - I d o n ' t know 20 s p e c i f i c a l l y , t o a n s w e r t h a t . I t c o u l d b e d o n e 1 21 r e g u l a r GS -- G o v e r n m e n t e m p l o y e e s , c i v i l s c r v a n i 22 who a r e n o t -- o r c o u l d be do ne on c o n t r a c t . I 23 s p e c i f i c a l l y c o u l d n ' t a n s w e r t h a t . i 24 Q. When y o u w a n t e d t o l o o k a t t h e s e v o l u i 25 how d i d y o u g o a b o u t g e t t i n g t h e m ? w aaa and sninelli --- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- X In re: "AGENT ORANGE" Product Liability Litigation F 'L E D W M. u. s.r" ^PR 2 0 1 9 8 3 * TIME -- P.M--- MDL No. 381 (ALL CASES) X DEFENDANTS' MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DOCUMENTS____ 9805 C A D W A L A D E R , W IC K ER SH A M &. T A P T A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPOR ATIO N S O n e W a ll Street N ew Y ork, N .Y . 10005 (212) 908-7000 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------------------------- x In re : "AGENT ORANGE" Product L ia b ilit y L itigation MDL No. 381 (ALL CASES) x DEFENDANTS' MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DOCUMENTS PRELIMINARY STATEMENT D e f e n d a n t s move p u r s u a n t t o Fed. R. C i v . P. 37 f o r an order com pelling production from the United States of ce rta in documents in the p o s s e s s io n , custody, or c o n tr o l of the Depart ment of Defense. Those documents have p r e v i o u s l y been re q u e s t e d by defendants, but have not been produced.^ Defendants r e s p e c t f u l l y r e q u e s t t h a t an o r d e r be e n t e r e d s e t t i n g a s p e c i f i c d a t e not l a t e r than A p r i l 22, 1983 fo r p ro d uctio n of the documents requested by t h i s motion. I . RELEVANCE OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DISCOVERY The need f o r p r o d u c t i o n o f the documents r e q u e s t e d by th is motion is urgent because of the clear relevance of those 1. Defendants' v a rio u s l e t t e r re q u e sts and the government's v a r io u s n o t i c e s responding to those l e t t e r s are annexed as E x h i b i t 1 t o t h i s memorandum in c h r o n o l o g i c a l o r d e r . De f e nda nt s Request f o r Pro duct i on o f Documents D i r e c t e d to th e United S t a t e s o f A m e r i c a Re: U n i t e d S t a t e s Army C h e m i c a l Corps I n t e l l i g e n c e Agency, d a t e d Oc t o b e r 4, 1982, i s annexed as E x h i b i t 2. 9806 documents to the government c o n t r a c t defense, and the imminent of the June 27, 1983 d at e f o r commencement o f the Phase I t r i a l As more f u l l y s e t f o r t h b e l o w , t h o s e documents have been e i t h e r s p e c i f i c a l l y i d e n t i f i e d and r e q u e s t e d at d e p o s i t i o n s of forme: g o v e r n m e n t e m p l o y e e s o r o t h e r w i s e s p e c i f i c a l l y r e q u e s t e d b^ d e f e n d a n t s . None, ho we v e r , has been produced by t h e g o v e r n m e n t . 2 A. A i r - F o r c e Envi ronmental He a l t h L a b o r a t o r y The A i r Force Environmental Health Laboratory, locatec at Eglin Air Force Base, conducted studies of in te r e s t to the Air F o r c e L o g i s t i c s Command. The A i r F o r c e L o g i s t i c s Command, through th e San A n tonio A i r M a t e r i a l a r e a , was r e s p o n s i b l e f o i o r d e r i n g h e r b i c i d e s f o r use i n South Vi et nam. Dr. W a l t e r Mel vi n, C h i e f o f th e E n v i r o n m e n t a l H e a l t h L a b o r a t o r y , t e s t i f i e d he was o r d e r e d by t h e Command Surgeon o f t h e A i r F o r c e L o g i s t i c s Commanc to conduct t e s ts evalu atin g the e f f e c t s of h erb icid e in the e n v i r o n m e n t . Dr. M e l v i n t e s t i f i e d t h a t he began t h e s e e v a l u a t i o n s i n t h e e a r l y t o mid 1 9 6 0 ' s . ( M e l v i n Tr. a t 5 5) . As p a r t of h i s e v a l u a t i o n s , he c o n d u c t e d a b r i e f l i t e r a t u r e s e a r c h and read t h e a r t i c l e on o c c u p a t i o n a l c h l o r a c n e by Kimmig & S c h u l z . At t h a t t i m e Dr. M e l v i n was a w a r e t h a t d i o x i n was a p o s s i b l e 2. The government i n d i c a t e d by l e t t e r d a t e d March 1 1 , 1983 t h a t a group of documents from the Advanced Research P r o j e c t s Agency has become a v a i l a b l e f o r m i c r o f i l m i n g from b a t c h e s 1972 and 1973. Pendi ng r e v i e w o f t h o s e d o c u m e n t s , d e f e n d a n t s make no r e q u e s t f o r ARPA documents a t t h i s t i me . 8807 -2 - f*- c o n t a m i n a n t i n t h e m a n u f a c t u r e o f 2 , 4 , 5 - T . He a l s o had b e e n aware si n c e the mid-1950's th at ch lorac ne was a s s o c i a t e d w ith the manufacture of 2 , 4 , 5-T. (Melvin Tr. a t 1 1 1 ) . Dr. Me l v i n s t a t e d t h a t he s u b m i t t e d r e g u l a r r e p o r t s on t h e r e s u l t s o f h i s e v a l u a t i o n s t o t h e Command Surgeon o f t h e A i r F o r c e L o g i s t i c s Command and p o s s i b l y t o t h e A i r F o r c e S u r g e o n G e n e r a l . (Xd. a t 27 ). C o l. N i c h o l a s Cox, o f E g l i n A i r F o rce Base, has also t e s t i f i e d about the te stin g of herbicides at Eglin and t h a t he was aware of d i o x i n in th e m id -19 6 0 's. (Cox Tr. at 36) . b. Army Sh.rgg.Qn_Gen-exal The i n t e r e s t i n h e r b i c i d e s o f t h e O f f i c e o f t h e Army Surgeon General dates from at l e a s t the e a rly 1960's. Research f o r t h e 1962 a r t i c l e by J o n e s & K r i z e k , "A T e c h n i c f o r T e s t i n g Acnegenic Potency in Rabbits," which i d e n t i f i e s dioxin as a p o t e n t acnegen, was s u p p o r te d by a g r a n t from the Research Devel opment D i v i s i o n o f t h e O f f i c e o f t h e Army Surgeon G e n e r a l . Defendants have thus f a r been unable to determine what prompted the Surgeon General's O ffic e to fund that research project. The Army En v i r o n me n t a l Hygi ene Agency (AEHA) was p a r t o f t h e Army S ur g e o n G e n e r a l ' s O f f i c e . In 1 9 6 2 , i n r e s p o n s e t o r e q u e s t s f r o m b a s e c o m m a n d e r s f o r i n f o r m a t i o n , AEHA commenced research into the t o x i c i t y of several p e sticid e s including 2,4-D and S i l v e x , p a r t i c u l a r l y w ith r e s p e c t to usage around w ater supplies. ( K a p l a n Tr . a t 3 8 - 3 9 ) . AEHA c o r r e s p o n d e d w i t h - 3 - ors s e v e r a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s and a g e n c i e s in t h i s r e g a r d , i n c l u d i n g Dow, t h e Food and Drug A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , t he Department o f A g r i c u l t u r e , and t h e P u b l i c H e a l t h S e r v i c e . As a r e s u l t o f t h i s r e s e a r c h , t he Army S ur g e o n G e n e r a l d r a f t e d a c i r c u l a r t o a l l b a s e commanders l im it in g the use of h e rb ic id e s around water su pplies. (id. at 1 6 - 1 7 ) . At t h e t i m e t h e c i r c u l a r was d r a f t e d , AEHA w a s a w a r e t h a t t h e same h e r b i c i d e t h e y were r e s t r i c t i n g d o m e s t i c a l l y was b e i n g u s e d i n V i e t n a m f o r d e f o l i a t i o n . A t l e a s t some o f AEHA's r e s e a r c h a p p a r e n t l y was b e i n g f o r w a r d e d t o Army Surgeon General headquarters, (id. at 16). In 1968 t h e O c c u p a t i o n a l H e a l t h D i v i s i o n o f AEHA commented on a pr opose d m i l i t a r y s p e c i f i c a t i o n f o r Agent Orange, recommending th at the product contain a precautionary label s t a t i n g : " C a u t i o n . May c a u s e s k i n i r r i t a t i o n . A v o i d c o n t a c t s w i t h e y e s , s k i n and c l o t h i n g . " ( S i n c l i t i c o Tr . a t 70, and Ex. 11) . On August 3 1 , 1 966, Ralph Wands o f t h e A d v i s o r y Cent er on T o x i c o l o g y , N a t i o n a l Academy o f S c i e n c e s (NAS), s e n t a l e t t e r t o t h e C h i e f , P r e v e n t a t i v e Me d i c i n e D i v i s i o n , O f f i c e of t h e Army Surgeon G eneral, in response to a J u ly 22, 1966 req u est for t o x i c i t y i n f o r m a t i o n on "2,4-D; 2 , 4 , 5 - T ; C a c o d y l i c A c i d , and Tordon." The A u g u s t 3 1 , 1966 l e t t e r s t a t e s t h a t c h l o r a c n e had been observed as a r e s u l t of s k i n c o n t a c t w i t h 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T, and t h a t the problem of c h lo r a c n e was somewhat c o n t r o v e r s i a l , n o t i n g t h a t a d d i t i o n a l data was needed to c o nf ir m or r e f u t e those observations. The J u l y 22, 1966 l e t t e r from th e Surgeon General * QRnQ -4 - was not found in the documents r e c e n t l y produced f o r and r e v i e w e d : by d e f e n d a n t s a t NAS on March 24, 1 9 8 3 . A l t h o u g h Wand' s l e t t e r states that enclosures were attached, the enclosures also were; not i n t h e NAS documents. De f e n da n t s r e q u e s t e d t h e J u l y 22, 1966 l e t t e r and t h e e n c l o s u r e s by l e t t e r f r o m A. W h i t e t o A. M a s k i n , dat ed March 28, 1983. C. Hare.. Surgeon G e n e r a l On J u l y 6, 1966 t h e B u r e a u o f M e d i c i n e and S u r g e r y o f t h e D e p a r t m e n t o f t h e Na v y t r a n s m i t t e d a r e q u e s t t o NAS a ski ng f o r i n t e r a l i a , t o x i c o l o g y i n f o r m a t i o n on th e d e r m a t o l o g i c a l e f f e c t s o f 2 , 4 , 5 - T . NAS r e s p o n d e d on J u l y 26, 1966 w i t h i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t p o r p h y r i a and c h l o r a c n e had been c l i n i c a l l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h 2 , 4 , 5 - T . The Navy Surgeon G e n e r a l ' s r e q u e s t and t h e r e s p o n s e from NAS o c c u r r e d w i t h i n weeks o f t h e s i m i l a r c o r r e s p o n d e n c e b e t w e e n t h e Army S u r g e o n G e n e r a l and NAS, d e s c r i b e d j above. D efen d an ts f i r s t l e a r n e d o f the Navy Surgeon G e n e r a l ' s ; i n t e r e s t i n 2 , 4 , 5 - T d u r i n g t h e i r r e c e n t r e v i e w o f NAS f i l e s on March 24, 1983. De f e n da n t s r e q u e s t e d t h o s e documents c o n c e r n i n g j j t h e Navy Surgeon G e n e r a l ' s i n t e r e s t by l e t t e r from A. Whi te t o A. j Maskin, d a t e d March 28, 1983. > D. Def ens e G e n e r a l Suppl y Agency The Department of D efense, Defense General Supply A g e n c y ( DGSA) r e q u e s t e d t h a t t h e B u s i n e s s and D e f e n s e S e r v i c e s A d m i n i s t r a t i o n (BDSA) ( a l s o known a s t h e O f f i c e o f I n d u s t r i a l i M o b i l i z a t i o n ) o f the Department o f Commerce assume r e s p o n s i b i l i t y -5 - 8810 I*'. f o r f a c i l i t a t i n g t h e p u r c h a s e and d e l i v e r y of Agent Orange and c e r t a i n o f i t s c h e m i c a l c o m p o n e n t s . BDSA u n d e r t o o k t h o s e r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s fo r app roxim ately a tw o-year p e rio d , from, Septem ber 1966 to Septem ber 1968. In p e rfo rm in g i t s r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , BDSA i s s u e d m a n d a t e s s e t t i n g f o r t h d e l i v e r y sch edu les f o r Agent Orange and demanding f u l l compliance from a l l manufacturers. In order to assess f u l l y each manufacturer's production c a p a b i l i t i e s , BDSA g a i n e d a c c e s s t o i n f o r m a t i o n c o n c e r n i n g defendants' manufacturing p r o c e s s e s , including production methods and d i f f i c u l t i e s . Defendants b e l i e v e t h a t i n f o r m a t i o n was then communicated to the Department of Defense. DGSA's f u n c t i o n was t o manage, p r o c u r e , and s t o r e m i l i t a r y s u p p l i e s , i n c l u d i n g h e r b i c i d e s , used by the Armed F o r c e s . P u r c h a s e d e s c r i p t i o n s f o r h e r b i c i d e s , w e r e r e v i e w e d by DGSA chemists to assess the h erb icid e's s u i t a b i li t y for use in pro c u r e m e n t . A f t e r a p p r o v a l o f a s p e c i f i c a t i o n , DGSA s o l i c i t e d industry for proposals to supply the product. In a Notice to A ll Counsel dated A p r il 15, 1981, the g o ve r nment i n f o r m e d d e f e n d a n t s t h a t " a p p r o x i m a t e l y 90 documents" r e l e v a n t to t h i s l i t i g a t i o n were generated by the Department of Commerce in c o n n e c tio n w ith i t s r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s under the D efen se P r o d u c t i o n A c t , but w ere c l a i m e d to be p r i v i l e g e d . The government has refused to produce those m aterials or to furnish additional information necessary for defendants to determine the 9811 -6 - t: s i g n if ic a n c e of those documents. (See Notice to A ll Counsel d a t e d A p r i l 1 5 , 1 9 8 1 , and l e t t e r f r o m M. Gordon t o J. B e r n o t t d a t e d May 4, 1 9 8 1 . ) E. Chemi cal Corps Board The Chemical Corps Board (the "Board") c o n s i s t e d of a p p r o x i m a t e l y 75 t o 100 c i v i l i a n s c i e n t i s t s and s e n i o r Army C h em ical Corps o f f i c e r s , whose f u n c t i o n s included making recommendations on l o n g - r a n g e p l a n s f o r r e s e a r c h , development, and use of c h e m ic a l weapons. (Delmore Tr. a t 7 -14 ). General Fred Delmore, the President of the Board from 1957 to 1959, t e s t i f i e d t h a t Dr. H o f f m a n n ' s t r i p r e p o r t s w e r e r e v i e w e d by t h e Board to keep "up to d a t e as to th e s t a t u s of th e s e a r c h f o r new c h e m i c a l s t h a t might be used in the weapons sy stem s of the Chemical Corps." (Delmore Tr. a t 18). Defendants were unaware of the existe n ce of the Board u n t i l G e n e r a l D e l m o r e ' s d e p o s i t i o n on F e b r u a r y 2, 1 9 8 3 . On February 16, 1983, defendants requested Board documents r e l a t i n g to d i o x i n , 2 ,4 ,5 - T , Agent P u rp le, Agent Orange and the Hoffmann T r i p R e p o r t . ( S e e l e t t e r f r o m P. Tuohy t o A. M a s k i n , d a t e d F ebruary 16, 1983). The req ue ste d documents have not y e t been produced. F. Edoewood A r s e n a l The U.S. Army C h e m i c a l and M e d i c a l R e s e a r c h L a b o r a t o r i e s a t Edgewood A r s e n a l (the " L a b o r a t o r i e s " ) a re of. p a r t i c u l a r i m p o r t a n c e to d e f e n d a n t s ' Phase I d i s c o v e r y . The L a b o r a t o r i e s 9812 -7- ev a lu a te d the t o x i c i t y of h e r b ic id e s c o n ta in in g 2,4 ,5 -T in th e a r l y 1 9 6 0 ' s , and i t was Dr. B e r n a r d McNamara, C h i e f o f th L a b o r a t o r i e s ' T o x i c o l o g y D i v i s i o n , who b r i e f e d t h e P r e s i d e n t ' ^ S c i e n c e A d v i s o r y Committee on p o s s i b l e h e a l t h h a za r ds o f 2 , 4 , 5 and 2,4-D compounds "as r e l a t e d to d e f o l i a t i o n o p e r a t i o n s i Vietnam." ( See V o c c i Tr. Ex. 8). S h o r t l y b e f o r e then, o c o u r s e , Dr. F r i e d r i c h Ho f f ma nn o f t h e L a b o r a t o r i e s ' A g e n t Re search Branch i d e n t i f i e d d io x in as a p o t e n t i a l chemical warfar> agent in the "Hoffmann T rip Report." (See, e .g ., Sultan Tr. a 87-88; Jandorf Tr. at 95-96, 243). A l t h o u g h t h e g o v e r n m e n t has a n s w e r e d many o f d e f e n da nt s ' r e q u e s t s w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e L a b o r a t o r i e s , i t s t i l l has noproduced s e v e r a l documents d e s c r i b e d by Edgewood deponents, f See e . g . . l e t t e r s f r o m M. Gordon t o A. M a s k i n , d a t e d D e c e m b e r 6 anc 23, 1982). In a Notice to A ll Counsel dated February 23, 1983, the government represented that ad d ition al documents r e l a t i n g tc t h e d e p o s i t i o n s o f t h r e e o f t h e L a b o r a t o r i e s d e p o n e n t s , Dr. Van Sim, L e s t e r M i l l e r and John F. C a l l a h a n , had been t r a n s m i t t e d to th e Department o f J u s t i c e by t h e Army on F e b r u a r y 9, 1983 and had been sent out fo r m icro film in g . That m a t e r ia l, however, s t i l l has not been released to the p a r t i e s for review. Defendants also ha v e r e c e i v e d no r e p o r t on t h e s t a t u s o f r e q u e s t e d d o c u me n t s d e s c r i b e d by another L a b o r a t o r i e s deponent, Frank V o c c i , the s e a r c h f o r which was to have been com pleted by the end of F e b r u a r y ( Se e I d .: L e t t e r f r o m S. P i e r c e t o A. M a s k i n , d a t e d December 6, 1982). In a d d it io n , defendants have r e c e n t ly SS13 -8 - requested copies of relev a n t correspondence from the personal f i l e s o f Dr. W i l l i a m H. S umme r s o n , who s e r v e d a s D i r e c t o r o f Research and C h i e f S c i e n t i s t a t Edgewood in the l a t e 195 0's and e a rly 1960's. Defendants also requested a copy of the tr ip r e p o r t t h a t Dr. Summerson t e s t i f i e d he p r e p a r e d f o r G en eral Del mo r e' s o f f i c e a f t e r a v i s i t he made t o Vi et nam t o i n s p e c t t h e h e r b i c i d e program. (Summerson Dep. Tr. a t 10, 83; L e t t e r from J. Ma r i a n i t o A. Maskin, d a t e d A p r i l 5, 1983). G. U. S. Army Chemi cal Corps I n t e l l i g e n c e Agency A "DA I n t e l l i g e n c e R e p o r t " i n d e x p a g e a t t a c h e d t o t h e re d ac ted copy of the Hoffmann T r ip Report t h a t was produced by th e go vernment s t a t e s not o n l y t h a t Dr. Hoffmann was th e s o u r c e for the information contained in the Trip Report, but also that t h e R e po rt was p r e p a r e d by t h e U.S. Army "CCIA," t h e m i l i t a r y a b b r e v i a t i o n f o r t h e Army Ch e mi c a l Corps I n t e l l i g e n c e Agency. An im p o r ta n t f u n c t i o n of the CCIA was to t r a n s m i t i n f o r m a t i o n i t a c q u i r e d from abroad c o n c e r n i n g new c h e m i c a l a g e n t s to the L a b o r a t o r i e s f o r f u r t h e r exa mi na ti o n . A p p a r e n t l y , the CCIA main t a i n e d an o f f i c e a t Edgewood to h e l p p e r f o r m t h a t f u n c t i o n , and Laboratories deponents have t e s t i f i e d to various con tacts with the CCIA. (See, e . g .. Horton Tr. a t 83-93.) Thus, a c l e a r t i e in e x i s t s betw een th e i n f o r m a t i o n c o n c e r n i n g d i o x i n t h a t Dr. Hoffmann o b t a i n e d dur i ng h i s 1959 v i s i t t o Germany and t he work o f t he CCIA. D e s p i t e t h i s c o n n e c t i o n , t h e government has not y e t responded to any of defendants' req uests fo r d is co v e ry from the V 8814 -9 - CCI A. Not e v e n t h e C C I A ' s own c o p y o r c o p i e s o f t h e Hof f mann Trip Report, which presumably must e x i s t , have been produced. On O c t o b e r 4, 1 9 8 2 , d e f e n d a n t s s e r v e d on t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s a R u l e 34 r e q u e s t f o r d o cu me n t s i n t h e p o s s e s s i o n o f t h e CCIA o r i t s s u c c e s s o r a g e n c y , t h e Army F o r e i g n S c i e n c e and Technology Center. (See E x h i b i t 2). That r e q u e st sought the same c a t e g o r i e s of d ocu m ents t h a t had been r e q u e s t e d in d e fe n d a n ts ' subpoenas to the Chemical L a b o r a t o r i e s and i t s s u c c e s s o r d e p a r t me n t s . In a N o t i c e t o A l l Counsel d a t e d November 12, 1982, the government r e p o r t e d t h a t "pre-1962 CCIA m a t e r i a l s most l i k e l y have n ot been s e a r c h e d " and t h a t t h e Army woul d "begin and com plete t h a t s e a r c h in the most e x p e d i t i o u s manner p o s s i b l e . " In i t s response to def enda nts ' motion f o r an adjour n ment of the Phase I t r i a l , the government s t a t e d o n ly th a t the Army had "managed to l o c a t e a s m a l l group" o f r e s p o n s i v e do cu ments, t h a t i t was r e v ie w in g those documents fo r d e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , and t h a t i t e x p e c t e d p r o d u c t i o n by t h e end o f A p r i l . At the A p r i l 4, 1983 p r e - t r i a l co n fe r e n ce the S p e c i a l Master directed the government to expedite production of those docu ments. (See Tr. at 3895). H. Army R e s e a r c h O f f i c e Dr. F r a n c i s M o r t h l a n d t e s t i f i e d a t h i s d e p o s i t i o n on F e b r u a r y 23, 1983, t h a t he had been an e m p l o y e e o f t h e Army Re sea rc h O f f i c e and t h a t i n t h e c o u r s e o f h i s d u t i e s he prepared c e rta in relevant documents, including a report of a meeting held t o d i s c u s s and e v a l u a t e th e t o x i c i t y of 2,4-D and 2 , 4 , 5 - T com pounds a t Edgewood A r s e n a l on A p r i l 26, 1963. Dr. Mort hl and a l s o -1 0 - 9815 t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e Army R e s e a r c h O f f i c e r e g u l a r l y r e c e i v e d and r e v i e w e d c o p i e s o f Dr. Hoffmann' s t r i p r e p o r t s . Def enda nt s have r e q u e s t e d p r o d u c t i o n o f t h e r e l e v a n t documents i d e n t i f i e d by Dr. Mort hl and, as w e l l as o t h e r r e l e v a n t r e c o r d s o f t h e Army R e s e a r c h O f f i c e . ( S e e l e t t e r f r o m W. Heck t o A. M a s k i n , d a t e d March 1 4 , 1983). None has been produced. I . "Weldon S p r i n g s " and " CS" Documents In 1966 the government became concerned about the i n a b i l i t y of p riv a te industry to keep pace w ith the m ilit a r y 's p r o j e c t e d r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r A g e n t O r a n g e . ( Se e . e . g . . Shead Dep. Ex. 20). A c c o r d i n g l y , s e v e r a l government a g e n c i e s , i n c l u d i n g t h e Weapons D e v e l o p m e n t and E n g i n e e r i n g L a b o r a t o r i e s ( WDEL) a t Edgewood A r s e n a l, were ordered to e v a lu a t e the problem. (S e e , e . g . . T r a u b Tr. a t 2 1 - 2 2 ) . The WDEL, and i n p a r t i c u l a r i t s Chemical P r o c e s s L a b o r a to r y , was charged w i t h d e t e r m in in g the f e a s i b i l i t y of converting a p re-existin g government f a c i l i t y into an Agent Orange p r o du ct i on p l a n t . (Eckhaus Tr. a t 59-61). | j Deponents have t e s t i f i e d t h a t during l a t e 1966 and | i e a r l y 1967 members o f t h e WDEL s t a f f , i n c l u d i n g Sigmund E c k h a u s , ; R o b e r t Cox and John G e r e t y , made numerous t r i p s t o d e f e n d a n t s ' j 2 ,4 ,5 - T and t r i c h l o r o p h e n o l p l a n t s to become f a m i l i a r w i t h the| | m anufacturing process fo r Agent Orange. ( S e e . e . g . , Eckhaus Tr. ; at 72-76; Cox. Tr. at 5 1-5 2). Sigmund Eckhaus t e s t i f i e d t h a t ! during those v i s i t s the government was informed of chloracne problems a s s o c i a t e d w ith 2,4,5-T. (Eckhaus Tr. at 75-76, 92, -1 1 - 8816 126, 1 7 7 - 7 8 ) . Eckhaus, Cox, and G eret y have t e s t i f i e d t h a t t r i p r e p o r ts of th e s e v i s i t s were p rep are d and d i s t r i b u t e d to i n t e r e s t e d p a r t i e s "up th e l i n e " (G ere ty Tr. a t 41-42) and " th ro u g h t h e c h a i n o f command" (Cox Tr. a t 5 4- 5 5 ; 99- 100). D e f e n d a n t s r e q u i r e t h o s e t r i p r e p o r t s t o d e t e r m i n e w h i c h WDEL personnel l ea rn ed about ch lo ra c n e and othe r p o s s i b l e h e a l t h e f f e c t s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e ma n u f a c t u r e of Agent Orange, when they a c q u i r e d t h a t i n f o r m a t i o n , and t o whom i t was communi cated. In 1967 the government decided to convert a f a c i l i t y in Weldon S p r i n g s , M i s s o u r i t o Agent Orange p r o d u c t i o n . In r e s p o n s e to the government's s o l i c i t a t i o n for bids for the design, con s t r u c t i o n , and o p e r a t i o n o f t h e Weldon S p r i n g s p l a n t , Dow, i n a se ries of le t t e r s , expressly alerted the government to the "chloracne problem" associated with the manufacture of tr ic h lo r o p h e n o l . ( S e e l e t t e r s d a t e d S e p t e m b e r 26 , 1 9 6 7 f r o m A. P. B e u t a l o f Dow t o C o l . C.G. S h e a d , Andr e w W. A n d e r s o n and W. G. K r a t z ) . One o f t h e Dow l e t t e r s was a d d r e s s e d t o Andrew W. Anderson, who, as Edgewood's Commodity Manager f o r Agent Orange, was r e s p o n s i b l e f o r o v e r s e e i n g and c o o r d i n a t i n g the co n v e rs io n and o p e r a t i o n o f t h e Weldon S p r i n g s p l a n t . (Anderson Tr. a t 2526). The "Commodity Managers C h a r t e r f o r H e r b i c i d e Orange," d a t e d A u g u s t 2 1 , 1967 ( S t o n e Tr. Ex. 5 and A nd er s on Tr. Ex. 1) , required Anderson to prepare and d i s t r i b u t e "Weekly S i g n i f i c a n t A c tio n Reports" to the Commanding General of the United S t a t e s Army M u n i t i o n s Command ("USAMUCOM"), " m i n u t e s o f a l l m e e t i n g s " and " [ a ] n y o t h e r s p e c i a l r e p o r t s t h a t may be deemed d e s i r a b l e by -1 2 - 3817 t h e Commandi ng G e n e r a l , USAMUCOM o r t h e Commanding G e n e r a l , Edgewood A r s e n a l . " D e f e n d a n t s b e l i e v e t h o s e d o c u m e n t s may r e f l e c t t h e i n f o r m a t i o n c o n t a i n e d i n t h e Dow l e t t e r s (or o t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n c o n c e r n i n g h e a l t h e f f e c t s ) , and need t o d e t e r m i n e who received copies of those documents. S e v e r a l depo nent s who were i n v o l v e d in t h e g o v e r n me n t ' s e f f o r t s to in cre a se production of Agent Orange t e s t i f i e d that t h e y l e a r n e d o f c h l o r a c n e much e a r l i e r t h a n t h e Weldon S p r i n g s p r o j e c t , p r o b a b ly p r i o r to 1962 and p o s s i b l y as e a r l y as 1959. They a cq u ire d th a t in fo r m a tio n in connection w ith Edgewood A r s e n a l ' s p r o du ct i on o f "CS", a r i o t c o n t r o l agent. (Eckhaus Tr. at 77-7 8 ; Cox Tr. a t 32-34; Ringenberg Tr. a t 16-23 ("sk in i r r i ta tio n " a ss o cia te d w ith the production of "CS")). Despite re peated r e q u e s t s by d e f e n d a n t s , however, the government has r e f u s e d t o p r o d u c e m a t e r i a l s p e r t a i n i n g t o "CS" and c h l o r a c n e on the grounds, in t e r a l i a , th at " [t]h e United States has taken the p o s i t i o n t h a t 'CS' i s i r r e l e v a n t to the 'Agent Orange' l i t i g a ti o n ." (Notice to A l l Counsel, dated December 16, 1982). The g o v e r n m e n t ' s p o s i t i o n i s w i t h o u t m e r i t . The "CS" documents req uested by d efen d an ts concern the in c id e n c e of c h l o r a c n e a t Edgewood and the governm ent's response to t h a t s i t u a t io n . Those m a te ria ls are l i k e l y to reveal the extent of the government's knowledge at that early date as to the causes of c h l o r a c n e , and are c l e a r l y r e l e v a n t . S8I8 -1 3 - J. MA-CY-Collection o f Documents The M i l i t a r y A s s i s t a n c e Command Vi et nam (MACV) c o l l e c t i o n of documents c o n s i s t s o f a p p r o x i m a t e l y 40,000 l i n e a r f e e t o combat, medical, and othe r records generated during the Vietnarr c o n f l i c t and r e t r i e v e d f r o m V i e t n a m . On March 3 , 1 9 8 3 , Judgi. P r a t t e n t e r e d P r e t r i a l Or d e r No. 4 6, a d o p t i n g i n f u l l "tht S p e c i a l M a s t e r ' s Recommended Order t o P r o t e c t t h e C o n f i d e n t i a l i t y o f Documents C o n t a i n e d w i t h i n t h e MACV C o l l e c t i o n o f Documents,' d a t e d F e b r u a r y 1 1 , 1983 ( t h e "MACV P r o t e c t i v e O r d e r " ) . S h o r t l y t h e r e a f t e r , on March 7 , 1 983, d e f e n d a n t s commenced t h e i r l i m i t e d r e v i e w o f t he MACV c o l l e c t i o n f o r t he pu r p o s e o f i d e n t i f y i n g t c the government the documents to be produced. They completed t h i s r e v i e w on March 1 6, 1983. Under t h e t e r m s o f t h e MACV P r o t e c t i v e O r d e r , t h e government must , w i t h i n 20 b u s i n e s s days o f t h e c o m p l e t i o n o f t he review, e i t h e r produce the documents to the p a r t i e s or f o l lo w the procedures for claim ing p r iv ile g e set fo rth in the Special M a s t e r ' s Recommended G u i d e l i n e s . (MACV P r o t e c t i v e Order, 11 10). Thus, the government has u n t i l A p r i l 13, 1983 to produce or a s s e r t a c la im of p r i v i l e g e as to each document i d e n t i f i e d by defendants. For t h i s reason defendants are not at t h i s time moving t o compel p r o d u c t i o n o f t h e MACV document s, b u t , pendi ng production of a l l documents by A p r i l 13, r e s e r v e t h e i r r i g h t to do so a t t h e a p p r o p r i a t e ti me . -14- Oij- QJL1 9 I I . DOCUMENTS REQUESTED For the reasons s e t f o r t h above, defendants req uest t h a t an order be e n t e r e d c o m p e l l i n g p r o du ct i on of th e f o l l o w i n g documents : 1 . Documents i n t h e p o s s e s s i o n o f t h e Army Surgeon General, e s p e c i a l l y the Research and Development D i v i s i o n , p e r t a i n i n g t o c o n t r a c t number VA-49-007MD-411 w i t h t h e Department o f De r ma t o l o g y o f t he U n i v e r s i t y of C h icago. (Requested by d e fe n d a n ts by l e t t e r f r o m M. Gordon t o J. B e r n o t t , d a t e d March 1 1 , 1982). 2. Documents in the p o s s e s s i o n of the Headquarters of t h e Army S u r g e o n G e n e r a l r e l a t i n g t o t h e Army E n v i r o n m e n t a l H y g i e n e A g e n c y ' s work on t h e r e s t r i c t i o n of the use of herbicides around water s u p p l i e s . (Requested by defendants by l e t t e r from M. Gor don t o J. B e r n o t t , d a t e d Marc h 1 1 , 1 9 8 2 ) . 3. Documents in the p o s s e s s io n of the P r e v e n t a t i v e M e d i c i n e D i v i s i o n o f t h e Army S u r g e o n G e n e r a l p e r t a in in g to i t s Ju ly 22, 1966 request to the N a t i o n a l Academy of S c i e n c e s f o r t o x i c i t y i n f o r ma t i o n on 2 , 4 , 5 - T and o t h e r h e r b i c i d e s . T h is r e quest in c lu d e s any information sent to the Preven t a t i v e Me d i c i n e D i v i s i o n by t h e N a t i o n a l Academy of S ci e n ce s and documents in the p o s s e s s i o n of the Army Surgeon G e n e r a l He a d q u a r t e r s r e l a t i n g t o t h i s r e q u e s t . (Requested by d efen d a n ts by l e t t e r from A. W h i t e t o A. M a s k i n , d a t e d Ma r c h 28, 1 9 8 3 ) . 4. Documents in th e p o s s e s s i o n o f t h e Army E n v i ronment a l Hygi ene Agency and/or t h e Army Surgeon Ge ne ral H e a d q u a r t e r s p e r t a i n i n g t o AEHA's r e c o m mendations on the proposed m i l i t a r y s p e c i f i c a t i o n MIL-H-51310, h e r b ic id e s , N-butyl e s t e r s , con c e r n i n g a p r e c a u t i o n a r y l a b e l on t h e p r o d u c t . AEHA t r a n s m i t t e d i t s recommendat i on on December 9, 1968. 5 . Documents i n t h e p o s s e s s i o n o f t h e Command Surgeon o f t h e A i r F o r c e L o g i s t i c s Command and t h e Head q u a r t e r s o f t h e A i r F o r c e L o g i s t i c s Command p e r t a i n i n g t o r e p o r t s from Dr. W a l t e r M e l v i n or h i s Agency concerning the r e s u lts of evalu atio n s of herbicides. -1 5 - SS20 6. Documents in the p o s se s si o n of the Surgeon General of the Air Force p e r t a in i n g to work at E glin Air F o r c e Base on e v a l u a t i o n s o f h e r b i c i d e s . 7 . The " a p p r o x i m a t e l y 90 documents" d e s c r i b e d i n t h e Government's Response to Defendants' Interroga t o r i e s and N o t ic e to A l l Counsel dated A p r i l 15, 1 9 8 1 , which were g e n e r a t e d by th e Commerce De partment in connection with it s resp o n sib ilities under the Defense Production Act. (See l e t t e r f r o m M. Gordon t o J. B e r n o t t , d a t e d May 4, 1 9 8 1 ) . 8. Correspondence and documents r e l a t i n g to the pr o duc tion of 2,4,5 -T and e x p l o s io n s in manufacturing p l a n t s in t he Unit ed S t a t e s , and more s p e c i f i c a l l y , a May 1 , 1 9 6 7 l e t t e r i n w h i c h BDSA a d v i s e d DGSA t h a t " t h e p r o d u c t i o n o f 2 , 4 , 5 - T i s more com p l e x and more dangerous than th e p r o d u c t i o n o f 2, 4-D and i n r e c e n t y e a r s s e v e r a l U.S. p l a n t s have exploded." (Requested by d efen d an ts by l e t t e r f r o m M. G o r d o n t o J . B e r n o t t , d a t e d May 4, 1982) . 9. C o r r e s p o n d e n c e and documents in th e f i l e s o f the DGSA c o n c e r n i n g t h e p r o c u r e m e n t o f 2 , 4 , 5 - T f r o m "off-shore sources," including m aterials which indicate fam iliarity with incidents of chloracne of knowledge concerning the dioxin assays of foreign manufacturers. 10. A l l documents r e f e r r i n g or r e l a t i n g t o compound 1 2 5 4 1 3 , i n c l u d i n g t h e name o f t h e s o u r c e o f t h a t compound. ( See l e t t e r s f r o m M. Gordon t o A. Maskin, dated November, 23, 1982 and March 14, 1983, and N o t i c e to A l l C o u n s e l, dated March 30, 1983) . 1 1 . Documents showi ng t h e i d e n t i t y o f t he s o u r c e who s u b m i t t e d CS 6642 2 t o t h e Army C h e m i c a l and Medical Research Laboratories' Industrial Liaison O f f i c e . f Se e L e t t e r f r o m M. Gordon t o A. M a s k i n , dated March 14, 1983, and N o tic e to A l l C oun sel, d a t e d March 30, 1983). 1 2 . C l a s s i f i e d p a p e r on u s e o f h e r b i c i d e s , p r e s e n t e d b y Gen. F. D e l m o r e a t A p r i l 26, 1963 m e e t i n g a t Edgewood A r se n a l. (Requested by d efen d an ts at d e p o s i t i o n o f Gen. F. D e l m o r e , Tr . a t 99, and by l e t t e r f r o m P. Tuohy t o A. M a s k i n , d a t e d F e b r u a r y 16, 1983). 1 3 . Copy of volume contain in g r e s u l t s of t o x i c o l o g i c a l s t u d i e s by Dr. B. McNamara, whi ch was t r a n s m i t t e d -1 6 - by him to v a r i o u s government o f f i c i a l s in or about 1962 or 1963 ( in c lu d in g the names of the o f f i c i a l s ) . (Requested by defendants a t d e p o s i t i o n o f W.C. Shaw, Tr . a t 2 7 9, and by l e t t e r f r o m J. Burke to A. Maskin, d a t e d Febr ua r y 1 , 1983). 14. A ll relevan t m aterial responsive to defendants' F i r s t Wave I n t e r r o g a t o r i e s dated January 1 5 , 1981 and to t h e subpo ena t o t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Army C h e m i c a l S y s t e m s L a b o r a t o r y , d a t e d May 1 7 , 1 9 8 2 , f r o m t h e p e r s o n a l f i l e s o f F. V o c c i , i n c l u d i n g , b u t n o t l i m i t e d t o : (a) n o t e s o f F. V o c c i p e r t a i n i n g t o a m e e t i n g o f t h e m e d i c a l p a n e l f o r NATO h e l d a t WRAIR; (b) h a n d o u t s and m i n u t e s d i s t r i b ut ed a t an e a r l i e r m e e t i n g a t WRAIR; and (c) l i s t of names o f t h o s e r e s p o n s i b l e f o r d i s t r i b u t i n g mi nut es o f NATO m e e t i n g . V o c c i s t a t e d d u r i n g h i s deposition that these materials are in his posses s i o n and t h a t he i s w i l l i n g to su p p ly them f o r p r o d u c t i o n . (Requested by d e f e n d a n t s a t the de p o s i t i o n of Frank V o c c i , Tr. a t 1 2 - 1 3 , and by l e t t e r from S. P i e r c e t o A. Maskin, d a t e d December 6, 1982). 1 5 . The f i l m , "The CRDL S t o r y , " and o t h e r f i l m s r e l a t ing to r e s e a rc h done at Edgewood A r se n a l, in clud ing r a b b i t ear t e s t s and methods of i n t r o d u c t i o n of t o x i c s u b s t a n c e s . (Requested by d e f e n d a n t s a t t h e d e p o s i t i o n o f F. V o c c i , Tr . a t 3 1 , and by l e t t e r f r o m S. P i e r c e t o A. M a s k i n , d a t e d December 6, 1982). 16. Reports re la tin g to herbicides, dioxins or furans s e n t t o F. V o c c i upon c o m p l e t i o n o f " t a s k f o r c e " p r o j e c t s . (Requested by defendants a t the de p o si t i o n o f F. V o c c i , and by l e t t e r f r o m S. P i e r c e t o A. Maskin, d a t e d December 6, 1982). 1 7 . Da t a b o o k s o f Dr. B. McNamara, C. P u n t e , F. V o c c i or others r e l a t in g to t e s t i n g w ith resp ect to t o x i c i t y of h e r b i c i d e s , d i o x i n s or f u r a n s . (Re q u e s t e d by d e f e n d a n t s a t t h e d e p o s i t i o n o f F. V o c c i , T r . a t 204, and by l e t t e r f r o m S. P i e r c e t o A. Maskin, d a t e d December 6, 1982). 18. Tables of o rg a n iza tio n , or l i s t s w ith s p e c i f i c names, of those a ssig n ed at Edgewood Arsenal to the p o s i t i o n of Branch Chief and above during the 1960's. (Requested by defen d an ts a t the d e p o s i t i o n o f F. V o c c i , Tr . a t 2 1 7 , and by l e t t e r f r o m S. P i e r c e t o A. Maskin, d a t e d December 6, 1982). -1 7 - nooo 19. A ll relevant m aterial responsive to defendants' F i r s t Wave I n t e r r o g a t o r i e s d a t e d J a n u a r y 1 5 , 1981 and to t h e su bp o en a t o t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Army C h e m i c a l S y s t e m s L a b o r a t o r y d a t e d May 1 7 , 1 9 8 2 , f r o m t h e p e r s o n a l f i l e s o f Dr . W i l l i a m A. Summerson. (Requested by d e f e n d a n t s a t t h e depo s i t i o n o f Dr. Summerson, Tr. a t 10, and by l e t t e r f r o m J. M a r i a n i t o A. M a s k i n , d a t e d A p r i l 5, 1983) . 20. The T r i p R e p o r t p r e p a r e d by Dr. Summerson describing his t r i p to Vietnam in the mid-1960's. (Request ed by d e f e n d a n t s a t t h e d e p o s i t i o n o f Dr. Summerson, Tr. a t 83, and by l e t t e r from J. Ma r i a n i t o A. Mas ki n, d a t e d A p r i l 5 , 1983). 21. Complete copies of those a r t i c l e s from the rep rint f i l e s o f Dr. B. Mc Na ma r a t h a t c o n t a i n a n y u n d e r l i n i n g or a n n o t a t i o n and which were a s s i g n e d th e f o l l o w i n g i d e n t i f y i n g numbers by L e s t e r M i l l e r : 5 9 2 4 , 59 85 , 60 87 , 6 1 7 8 a n d 6 6 3 6 . ( R e q u e s t e d by d e f e n d a n t s a t t h e d e p o s i t i o n o f L. M i l l e r , T r . a t 1 1 9 , and by l e t t e r f r o m M. Gordon t o A. Maskin, d a t e d December 6, 1982). 22. A l l copies of t e s t r e s u l t s for any d io x in , 2,4,5-T or t r i c h l o r o p h e n o l compound whi ch a r e l o c a t e d in the former f i l e s of the Toxicity Screening Branch, in c l u d in g a l l 8 1/2" by 10" data s h e e t s t h a t were p r e p a r e d f o r t h o s e compounds. (R eq uested by d e f e n d a n t s a t t h e d e p o s i t i o n o f L. M i l l e r , Tr . a t 5 1 , 53 and 1 4 1 , and by l e t t e r f r o m M. Go r do n t o A. Maskin dated December 6, 1982). 23. The group o f documents e n t i t l e d " F o l l o w - u p Produc t i o n : Sim, M i l l e r , Cox, C a ll a h a n d e p o s i t i o n s and CSL New F i n d , " d e s i g n a t e d by t h e g o v e r n m e n t as B a t c h No. 1 9 6 8 ( S e e N o t i c e t o A l l C o u n s e l , d a t e d F e b r u a r y 23 , 1983). 24. T r i p Re por t s o f v i s i t s by Sigmund Eckhaus, Robert E. Cox, John G e r e t y and o t h e r s f r o m t h e Weapons Development and E n gi n e er i ng L a b o r a t o r y a t Edgewood Arsenal to commercial 2,4,5-T and t r i c h l o r o p h e n o l plants in connection with the project to create a government f a c i l i t y for the production of Agent Orange. (Requested by d efen d an ts a t the d e p o s i t io n of Sigmund Eckhaus, Tr. at 94-95, and a t the d e p o s i t i o n o f Rob er t Cox, Tr. a t 1 4 6 , and by l e t t e r f r o m E. M a t t h e w s t o A. M a s k i n , d a t e d October 28, 1982). -18 9323 25. The "Weekly S i g n i f i c a n t A c ti o n Re port s" , "minutes of a l l m eet in gs" , and " s p e c i a l r e p o r t s " , which the Commodity Manager f o r t h e Weldon S p r i n g s p r o j e c t was r e q u i r e d to p r e p a r e and d i s t r i b u t e under the terms of h is Charter. (Requested by defendants at t h e d e p o s i t i o n o f W i l l i a m W. S t o n e , J r . , Tr. a t 144) . 26. A l l documents r e l a t i n g to any i n c id e n t s in vo lvin g s k i n d i s o r d e r s , i n c l u d i n g c h l o r a c n e , among p r o d u c e r s o f t h e A n t i - R i o t Agent "CS" a t Edgewood Arsenal, including a ll "after-action " reports which were f i l e d or prepared as a r e s u l t of any such i n c i d e n t s . (R eq uested by d e f e n d a n t s by l e t t e r s f r o m S. P i e r c e t o A. M a s k i n and f r o m E. M a t t h e w s t o A. M a s k i n , d a t e d O c t o b e r 1 , 1982 and October 28, 1982, r e s p e c t i v e l y ) . 27. A l l d o c u m e n t s r e l a t i n g t o h e a l t h e f f e c t s among producers and/or users of "CS", in c lu d in g a l l medical records or other documents concerning tr e a tm e n t of any Edgewood A rsenal employees or others a f f l i c t e d with chloracne or skin disorders. (Request ed by d e f e n d a n t s by l e t t e r s from S. P i e r c e t o A. M a s k i n and f r o m E. M a t t h e w s t o A. M a s k i n , d a t e d O c t o b e r 1 , 1982 and O c to b e r 28, 1982, respectively). 28. A l l c o p i e s of r e c o r d s p e r t a i n i n g to "CS" which have been tra n s ferred to c i v i l i a n manufacturers of "CS", i n c l u d i n g The F i s h e r C hem ical Company, B run sw ick and Thyocol Chemical Companies and Federal Laboratories. (Requested by defendants by l e t t e r f rom E. Mat thews t o A. Maskin, d a t e d Oc t o ber 28, 1982). 29. A ll documents which re fe r to research a c t i v i t i e s to determine the cause or causes of health e f f e c t s among p r o d u c e r s or u s e r s o f "CS". ( R e q u e s t e d by d e f e n d a n t s by l e t t e r f r o m S. P i e r c e t o A. M a s k i n , dated October 1, 1982). 30. A ll documents r e l a t i n g to the sy nth esis or produc t i o n o f "CS" and any p r e c u r s o r s , i n t e r m e d i a t e s and raw m a t e r i a ls used in i t s production. (Requested by d e f e n d a n t s by l e t t e r f r o m S. P i e r c e t o A. Maskin, dated October 1 , 1982). 31. Minutes of meetings of the Chemical Corps Board r e la t in g to d io xin , 2,4,5-T, Agent Purple, Agent Orange or the Hoffmann T r i p Report f o r th e period 1955-1970. (Requested by d efen d an ts by l e t t e r -1 9 - ftJt Co' f r o m P. Tuohy t o A. M a s k i n , d a t e d F e b r u a r y 1 6 , 1983) . 32. A l l documents of the Chemical Corps Board r e la t in g to d io x in , 2,4,5-T, Agent Purple, Agent Orange or th e Hoffmann Tr ip Report f o r the pe rio d 1955-1970. ( R e q u e s t e d by d e f e n d a n t s by l e t t e r f r o m P. Tuo hy t o A. Maski n, d a t e d F e b r ua r y 1 6 , 1983). 33. W r i t t e n n o t e s and r e p o r t s p r e p a r e d by Dr. F. Morthland in connection with the meeting held to d is c u s s and e v a lu a t e the t o x i c i t y of 2,4-D and 2 , 4 , 5 - T compounds a t Edgewood A r s e n a l on A p r i l 26, 1963 , and the meeting of the P r e s i d e n t 's S c ie n c e A d v i s o r y Commi t t ee on May 9, 1963. ( I d e n t i f i e d a t t h e d e p o s i t i o n o f F. M o r t h l a n d , T r . a t 64 - 65 , and r e q u e s t e d by d e f e n d a n t s by l e t t e r from W. Heck t o A. Mas ki n, dat ed March 1 4 , 1983.) 34. A ll documents r e l a t i n g to d io x in , 2,4,5-T, Agent Purple, Agent Orange or the Hoffmann Trip Report (including the Report it s e lf ) in the f i l e s of the Army R e s e a r c h O f f i c e , and any p r e d e c e s s o r or successor o f f i c e , prepared prior to 1970. (Iden t i f i e d a t t h e d e p o s i t i o n o f F. M o r t h l a n d , Tr . a t 64-65 and 105, and r e q u e s t e d by d e f e n d a n t s by l e t t e r f r o m W. Heck t o A. M a s k i n , d a t e d March 1 4 , 1983) . CONCLUSION Defendants r e s p e c t f u l l y request th a t th e ir motion tc compel production of Department of Defense documents be grantee Dated: New Y o r k , New York A p r i l 8, 1983 Respectfully submitted, CADWALADER, WICKERSHAM & TAFT Attorneys for Defendant Diamond Shamrock C o r p o r a t i o n One Wa l l S t r e e t New Y o r k , New York 10005 (212) 908-7000 -2 0 - TOWNLEY & UPDIKE Attorney for Defendant Monsanto Company 405 L e x i n g t o n Avenue New Y o r k , New York 10017 (212) 682-4567 KELLEY DRYE & WARREN Attorney for Defendant Hercules Incorporated 101 Park Avenue New Y o r k , New York 10178 (212) 808-7800 RIVKIN, LEFF, SHERMAN & RADLER Attorneys for Defendant The Dow Chemi cal Company 100 Garden C i t y P l a z a Garden C i t y , New York 11530 (516) 746-7500 ARTHUR DRY & KALISH, P.C. Attorneys for Defendant Uniroyal, Inc. 1230 Avenue of the Americas New Y o r k , New York 10020 (212) 841-9300 BUDD, LARNER, KENT, GROSS PICILLO & ROSENBAUM Attorneys for Defendant Thompson Ch e mi c a l s C o r p o r a t i o n 33 Washi ngton S t r e e t Newark, New J e r s e y 07102 (201) 622-7400 CLARK, GAGLIARDI & MILLER Attorneys for Defendant T H Agriculture & Nutrition Company, I n c . The Inns of Court 99 C o u r t S t r e e t Whi te P l a i n s , New York 10601 (914) 946-8900 -21- Ci ^xzdu> adxc/& 7-i 'fftc & r o rris C TO P M TWWI w A 0 A. ADO ^ACX AOCLAN W (O C LL - A LCO. JA. stcw w cn o. A u rri J O DOTCR C T C K O A ftO CC M O W M WILLIAM CLAARC O O H C T * . DATA OAMICL C . OAAACA D .avids t c v c e . rocuCMcCT P. JA T ru O C A C N j o r. ro tT T s T C A C M C C f. OILHCAWT dom alo a. D L A seocr. ja . STCANCN P O T T U ti ALAN W INfTO N 4AM W CLL D a n T CAIW O L D n a J0 C. RUST o s e ? c. lawacmcc m JA T . MCDOWCLL WILLIAM J. OSI Ka r l n. c m s C " J O J . 0 * 0 ADT s dot A iftc rr ovcll co o c a c te A n C O W I DAVID O D C T * O M A D L C T s. O C MAVC C. O O SC V tLT STCVC A. U SA I TmOMAS A. U SSO JCMOMC SMCLST O C A L D T. L E V IN t e A D O T. TATLO COUDTLAM D W. TDOUTM AM tH C O D O D C A. ULRICH JO N A TM A N M. WAIMWDIOMT JO M J. WALS MALCOLM P. W ATTM A DICMADO J . W IEN ER fDAW R WILLS ADmOLO J . 2UCM CD, JD . M. C L A T T O C O O R . J D . D O a lO O. C A S T ** D O D C T T. LA SR T JA M C B W. M O O A N JAM CS a . DOSS S T C < N H. SMULMA j\ u r<3 U l, S 0 5 tC w r.- 7SS~fOOC -jj/- -V-/--..- yt u / . -- . 30L>-. f2M 6lS67# 6S fJSJj JfS -JJJS fJ/Jj 7S~fSJ May 4, 1981 ftpceuu. e o iM ic i D U O L tT J . C tA ^ P , jn. coum scl A D O LO W. COMDOT D tC M A D D M. C D O C R C T * C T A LLC MARK M O * C C P. M O U LT O * J O A. SULLIVAN U S D t w M A M S C AVC W A SM IN OTO. D .C . 2 0 0 (2011 tS S 'S S O O T w ic 7 1 0 -D S 2 -IS JA Ba s d o t a l a l m u t DALM E A C H , S L A . S 2 A U O I) O O TWZ: 1 0 * D 2 * ? 2 DOT ALSCDT OVCLL CAlOCHT R*TC Joan M. Bernott, Esq. Torts Branch, Civil Division U. S. Department of Justice Safeway Building, Room 904D 521 12th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 Re: In re "Agent Orange" Product Liability Litigation, MDL No. 381 Dear Joan: Defendants Diamond Shamrock, Dow, Hercules, Monsanto, Thoropson-Haywara, Thompson, Oniroyal and Hooker are in receipt of your April 15, 1981 "Notice to All Counsel," in which you update the Government's prior Notice and Response of February 13. As discussed below, however, your continuing failure to comply with defendants' Interrogatories and address the need for first wave discovery limited to Phase I issues has in large part defeated the point of your update, and makes only a limited response to your inquiries possible. 1. You have attached to your April 15 Notice as a cryptic index of approximately 11,000 pages of documents that purportedly "are not available for purchase or inspection." It is impossible from the index to determine whether the referenced documents pertain to Phase I issues. However, if those documents are responsive to defendants' Interrogatories, please comply with Instruction 8 by adequately identifying them and describing the privileges claimed. (Your February 13 Notice merely asserts that the documents are protected by "the government privilege and other privileges, including provisions of the Privacy Act.") v ^o w'*"96 *i7 Joan M. Bernott, Esq. -2 - May 4, 1981 Pretrial Order No. 26, my letters of February 27 and March 20, and Mr. Mattingly's letter of March 25 should have made it clear to you by now that d o c u m e n t s not responsive to defendants* Interrogatories are not to be identified or produced at this time. 2. Your treatment of the 335 pages of invento received by the Department of Army in response to two TWIX's sent to Army installations, referenced by Batches 1902 and 1903 on the two updated pages of the summary index attached as Tab B to your April 15 letter, exemplifies the reasons for defendants' dissatisfaction with the Government's performance to date in connection with Phase I discovery. Simply by producing an index that indiscriminately references al 1 documentation at Army installations which may at some time or other be relevant to this litigation, the Government has neither responded to defendants' Interrogatories nor participated in Phase I discovery. In open court, you agreed to accept first wave interrogatories directed to Phase I issues. Accordingly, please review the documents referenced on the inventories received by the Department of Army and identify all documents that are responsive to defendants' Interrogatories. The Government is helping no one to prepare for Phase I trial by providing hundreds of pages of indexes to documents that have apparently not even, been reviewed to determine whether they have any relevance to Phase I issues. In this connection, your letter dated April 7, 1981 to Mr. Mattingly concerning the MACV documents is particularly disconcerting. In my letter to Judge Pratt of March 20, and again in Mr. Mattingly's letter to you of March 25, defendants emphasized that all MACV documents pertaining to Phase I issues must be identified by the Government in response to defendants' Interrogatories. Indeed, Mr. Mattingly specifically reiterated that the Interrogatories "supersede ana are independent of all prior informal discovery requests," and requested that the Government "please concentrate on complying with Pretrial Order No. 26 by providing a complete response to our First Wave Interrogatories rather than producing documents for our review that do not relate to the Government Contract Defense." * In disregard of our admonitions, you state in your April 7 letter to Mr. Mattingly: "I take it from your letter of March 25, 1981, that defendants' request for production of particular MACV documents is withdrawn. s/ hi Joan M. Bernott, Esq. -3- May 4, 1981 If you desire to re-examine the locator data for materials pertinent to the Phase I trial, please let me know how many persons will be looking at the data and what date or dates are convenient. * * * [I]f you wish to prepare efficiently for the Phase I trial, you should proceed as quickly as possible with examination of the locator data." Defendants' Phase I Interrogatories, however, nowhere exclude MACV materials from their ambit. Your apparent confusion concerning defendants' earlier request for particular MACV documents, made before Pretrial Order No. 26 was issued, will not relieve the Government from its commitment to review the MACV files and identify all documents that are responsive to our Interrogatories. 3. Attachment C to your letter is a cursory listing of the contents of several boxes of documents "apparently generated" by agencies at Fort Detrick, which you have stated the Government will make available upon request to the extent that they are not privileged or classified. Although a few of the descriptions appear relevant to Phase I issues (e. q,, "Proceedings of the First Defoliation Conference 29-30 July 63 Jan 64"), in most instances the listings are too obscure to indicate whether the documents are part of Phase I di scovery (e .g . , "Commanders Conference" or "Administrative Report FY 54"). In compliance with defendants' Interrogatories, please review the 20 feet of documents encompassed by Tab C, determine which are relevant to Phase I issues, and either identify them pursuant to Definition 1(g) or produce them. 4. Parag rap h ^4" of your April 15 letter and the accompanying Attachments D, E and F describe three sets of documents that are purportedly sensitive or privileged. a. Your description of the Department of Commerce documents (Tab D) is confusing and unhelpful, and it is unclear whether Tab D is an attempt to respond to Interrogatory 19, or instead simply part of the Government's unfocused production of documents without regard to Phase I issues. According to your letter, there are only about 90 documents that were generated by the Depart m e n t of Co mmerce in connec t i o n with h e r b i c i d e production, while the description set forth in Tab D seems to indicate that there we r e c o n s i d e r a b l y more. (From the description, defendants are unable to d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r 9829 Joan M. Bernott, Esq. -4- May 4, 1981 defendants' monthly report forms, the files of Special Priorities Assistance Requests in the Office of Industrial Mobilization and applications for special priorities assistance are included in the."ninety document" figure). In any event, there is no basis for the Government's failure to comply with Instruction 8 by supplying the requested information for each Phase I document that is claimed to be privileged. When that information is received, defendants will be able to determine whether a motion to compel the production of the Department of Commerce documents is warranted. In addition, if there are any, pl e a s e .identify documents responsive to Interrogatory 19 which you do not claim are privileged. b. As to the National Security Council materials (Tab E ) , again defendants are unable on the basis of the descriptions provided to determine which of the documents pertain to Phase I issues. Obviously, however, with respect to the documents that are responsive to defendants' Phase I Interrogatories, the National .Security Council should have already made the."formal determination as to assertion of privilege" referred to in your letter, since such documents have already been requested by us. c. Based on our review of Tab F, it does not appear that the documents from the Office of Management and Budget are responsive to defendants' Interrogatories, and therefore they should not have been cited in your letter. Nevertheless, please review those documents to confirm that our conclusion is accurate. If it turns out that one or more of the OMB documents does need to be identified in answer to our Interrogatories, please furnish the information requested by Instruction 8. 5. With respect to the Army documents awai disposition which are referred to in paragraph "5 " of your letter, we reiterate that only those documents responsive to defendants' Interrogatories are to be identified or produced at this time. Thus, for example, the several feet of documents stored at Aberdeen Proving Ground and referenced in paragraph 5(c) must be reviewed by the Govern m e n t in order to limit discovery to Phase I issues, as required by Pretrial Order No. 26. We also await identification by the Government of other documents that are responsive to defendants' Interrogatories, such as those in the files of the United States Department of Agriculture and the Environmental Protection Agency. Very fcruly yours, BY COURIER cc: Attached Service List Michael M. Gordon w* V *3 0 A P A ftT N C R ftM t IM C U JO IM O P 0 rC S 0 A L C O A P O M A T IO M S f r t e s % f -ee isA teu p tyo?^ , Y O ?O 5 JS^U-wr (2*2) S06-7000 CABUC AD O R C S C LABCLLUM T tLC JC 1 1 4 /S B 7 S S R A P IT A *; d l l ) 1 > 1 3 1 1 XCRO X: (111) 7 B S -IB 3 0 March 11, 1982 Joan M. Bernott, Esq. Torts Branch, Civil Division U.S. Department of Justice Safeway Building, Room 904D 521 12th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 Re: In-re "Agent Orange" Product Liability Litigation, MDL No. 381 Dear Joan: This letter confirms the subject of our discussions in Washington, D.C. on March 4, 1982. Also in attendance were Barbara Rivkind of your office, William Krohley of Kelley Drye & Warren, and Leslie Bennett and Marjorie Feldheim of Rivkin, Leff, Sherman & Radler. 1. U.S. Department of Agriculture documents. You advised us that approximately five million pages of USDA documents pertaining to phenoxy herbicides have never been reviewed in connection with either the Government's voluntary document production or the preparation of the Government's Response to defendants' Phase I First Wave Interrogatories. At our request, you have now agreed to review the files of the USDA's Agricultural Research Service, as well as the files of all USDA facilities located in Beltsville, Maryland. I refer you to page A-2 of defendants' Interrogatories for certain divisions and operations of the ARS which defendants believe will be particularly important sources of information. You hav also agreed to determine to what extent the pesticide registra tion materials referenced at page 2 of your Notice to All Counsel dated February 13 1981 have been included in the Government's document production. Any USDA files relating to the Advisory Committee on 2,4,5-T (not discussed during our meeting) should also be reviewed for documents responsive to defendants' Interrogatories. Joan M. Bernott, Esq. -2- March 11, 1982 Based on your descriptions of the types of documents contained in the files of other divisions of the DSDA, defend ants have agreed to hold off for the time being on further requests for USDA documents. We of course reserve our right to request production of additional USDA documents (and those of any other agency) that appear relevant to Phase I issues. During our meeting, we expressed our continuing interest in the files of the Forest Service and the Science and Education Administration. 2. Environmental Protection Agency files. The Government stated at page 19 of its Response to defendants' Interrogatories that the EPA had not participated in the preparation of that Response, and that its answers would be provided by Supplement. Defendants, however, still have received no response from the EPA. Tou stated at our meeting that approximately one million pages of EPA documents need to be reviewed. Defendants requested a description of the EPA files, with particular attention to pesticide registration materials transferred from the USDA. 3. Military Assistance Command Vietnam documents. At our request, you agreed to retrieve the documents described in the "First List" of MACV documents sent to you by Sandy Mattingly on December 5, 1980, and advised us that you will require three to four months to respond. You have also agreed, in order to-expedite any further review of the MACV materials that may be necessary, to attempt to identify those persons most familiar with the contents, organization and storage of the MACV cartons. We understand that there is someone pre paring a history of the Vietnam conflict who has acquired extensive knowledge of the MACV documents, and suggest that you contact him. M . Inventories received by the Department of the Army in response to inquiries sent to worldwide Army installa tions . Defendants are in the process of reviewing the inven tories referenced in your April 15, 1981 Notice to All Counsel. We expect to complete that review within the next several days and will advise you shortly of which documents are to be pro duced . 5. Documents withheld on grounds of privilege. The Government has thus far asserted claims of privilege with respect to seven different groups of documents totaling several thousand pages. During our meeting, you requested that the Government's assertions of privilege be resolved by a motion to compel made returnable before Judge Pratt. You noted that such Joan M. Bernott, Esq. -3- March 11, 1982 a motion would qualify as a request to declassify and auto matically trigger a review of the documents sought by defendants. You also stated that the Government would not object to such a motion on the grounds that it is no longer a party to MDL No. 381. However, on March 8 you telephoned to request that defen dants defer any motion to compel pending further advice from you as to the most efficient means for resolving the Government's privilege claims. Notwithstanding defendants' Interrogatories, you stated that the Government has not yet commenced any declassification process or review of privilege claims. 6. Gaps in productions by agencies that have a ready participated in the Government's document production. Defendants have become increasingly aware of highly relevant documents located in Government files which are missing from the Government's own document production. During our meeting, defendants stressed their concern at the apparent incomplete ness of the productions made to date by the participating Government agencies. You indicated that you shared our con cern, and were aware of this problem. You further stated that there is a follow-up or checking process that can be implemented by the agencies to uncover and remedy these gaps, and accordingly agreed to attempt to formulate a proposal for identifying and eliminating the gaps in production that have occurred. At your request, I enclose several examples of relevant documents that we have-vlocated in the Government's files, but which were omitted from the Government's production in MDL No. 381: (a) Special Report "ZZ" entitled "Classification of Butyl 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetate, LNA, and Butyl 2,4,5-Tricholorophenoxyacetate, LNB, as BW Anticrop Agents," dated November 5, 1952, pre pared by Department of the Army, Office of the Chief Chemical Officer, Chemical Corps Technical Committee, Army Chemical Center, Maryland; (b) Military Specification MIL-V-51239B, dated October 27, 1969, for "Vegetation Control Agent; Orange;" (c) 17 documents prepared in 1963 and 1964 pertain ing to the use of herbicides in water supplies, located in the files of the Army Environmental Hygiene Agency; and nooa OJ (d) Letter dated March 13, 1956 from Office of the Surgeon General, Department of the Army, to Commanding Officer, Army Environmental Health Laboratory, Army Chemical Center, Maryland, and attached draft of technical bulletin on health hazards of insecticides, rodenticides and herbi cides. Joan M. Bernott, Esq. -4- March 11, 1982 7 Documents from the "Edgewood Historical Collec tion" . Your Notice to All Counsel dated June 10, 1981 stated that the "Edgewood Historical Collection*1 was being inventoried for materials relating to this litigation, and that an inven tory would be completed at the end of June 1981. Although your Notice to All Counsel dated August 20, 1981 attached an index to allegedly privileged documents from the Edgewood Historical Collection, no mention was made of an inventory of non-privileged materials. At our meeting, you agreed to check to determine whether an inventory of non-privileged materials was ever pro duced to the parties. On a related matter, your Notice to All Counsel dated April 15, 1981 attached an inventory of 20 feet of herbicide-related, documents that were apparently generated by agencies at Fort Detrick. In your June 10, 1981 Notice, how ever, you appear to indicate that materials from that inventory "relating to the subject matter of this litigation" were then selected by- you and placed on microfilm. Defendants are unclear whether any of the documents listed in the inventory produced on April 15 were omitted from the actual microfilm production. If omissions were made, please identify them. 8. Contracts, specifications and shipping documents. Defendants repeated our request "for a complete production of ail herbicide contracts, specifications, shipping documents and related materials in the Government's files. In.view of the April 22, 1982 deadline set forth in Pretrial Order No. 33, a prompt and exhaustive response by the Government is obviously of the greatest importance. 9. Depositions of present and former Government employees. At our request, you have undertaken to determine whether the Government will voluntarily produce current employ ees for depositions or require that they be subpoenaed. You have taken under advisement defendants' request that Government employees be made available for preliminary interviews in order to expedite discovery by avoiding cumulative or unproductive depositions. In addition, defendants requested that you furnish the parties with the current or last known addresses and job titles of the present and former Government employees identified in your Response to defendants' Interrogatories to facilitate scheduling and permit prompt service of any subpoenas that may be required. You stated that you were unwilling to provide this information. 10. Timetable for discovery. You estimated tha approximately six months would be required for the Government to respond to or resolve the requests mace during our meeting. 9C34 Joan M. Bernott, Esq. -5- March 11, 1982 You also expressed your view that depositions of present and former Government employees should not commence until the end of that six month period. Defendants reiterate that our March 4 meeting was a preliminary attempt to identify areas of the Government's document production in which further responses are required. Undoubtedly, additional areas will be identified as defendants continue their review of the documents thus far produced and proceed with other discovery. Neither our discussions on March 4 nor this letter is to be construed in any way as a waiver of any defendant's right to seek to compel discovery from the Govern ment or as acquiescence in the manner in which the Government has chosen to respond to defendants' Phase I Interrogatories. If this letter does not accurately summarize the sub stance of our discussions on March A , please contact me at your earliest convenience. Very truly yours, M M G :slk Enclosures BY COURIER cc: William A. Krohley, Esq. Leslie R. Bennett, Esq. John C. Sabetta, Esq. Morton B. Silberman, Esq. Thomas Beck, Esq. Edwin R. Matthews, Esq. Dennis Rothman, Esq. LAW o f f i c e s R i v k i n .L e f f , S h e r m a n & R a d l e r lOO GARDEN CITY PLAZA GARDEN CITY, KEV YORK 11530 tclc* honc (S*6 1 7 4 6 -7 5 0 0 telex 6 A S -0 T A cable ao d bess at l a w g RCy t c l c c o <*i e b ( S 16) Ta 7 * ? B A3 s l u e J J O O O O nOBTm LASALLE STSCCC h ICAGO. ILLINOIS 6 0 6 0 ? (312) T 6 2 - 6 6 6 0 O ctober 1 , 1982 Arvin Maskin, Esq. T rial Attorney Torts Branch, C iv il D ivision United S tates Department of J u stice Washington, D.C. 20530 Re: In re Agent Orange Product L i a b i l i t y L i t i g a t i o n ___________ Dear A rvin: We h e r e b y r e q u e s t t h a t t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s p r o m p t l y produce the follow ing documents: 1 . A l l documents r e l a t i n g to an i n c i d e n t i n v o l v i n g s k i n d i s o r d e r s ( c h l o r a c n e ) among p r o d u c e r s o f t h e A n t i - R i o t A g e n t , CS a t Edgewood A r s e n a l , as s e t f o r t h i n t h e d e p o s i t i o n o f Sigmund Eckhaus, pertinent portions of which are attached hereto. 2. A l l documents r e l a t i n g to any h e a lth e f f e c t s among p r o d u c e r s a n d / o r u s e r s o f CS, i n c l u d i n g t h e i n c i d e n t d e s c r i b e d by Mr. E c k h a u s , and any and a l l o t h e r such i n c i d e n t s . 3. A l l documents which r e f e r to re se a rc h a c t i v i t i e s t o d e t e r m i n e t h e c a u s e o r c a u s e s o f h e a l t h e f f e c t s among producers or u sers o f CS, in clu d in g but not lim ite d to medical r e c o r d s , tre a tm e n t r e c o r d s , o t h e r r e p o r t s , agen d as, and minutes or summaries o f m eetings. 4. A l l documents r e l a t i n g to the s y n th e s is or production of CS, including but not lim ited to the precursors, in t e r m e d ia t e s and raw m a t e r i a l s used in such p r o d u c tio n . 5. A ll documents r e la t in g to health e f f e c t s in r e s p e c t to th e p r o c e s s and m a t e r i a l s r e f e r r e d to i n Paragraph 4. T H E P A R T N E R S H IP IN C L U D E S O N E O R M O R E P R O F E S S IO N A L C O R P O R A T IO N S 3S R t v k i n .L e f f , S h e r m a n & R a d l e r -2 - Arvin Maskin, Esq. October 1 , 1982 Re: In r e A g e n t Orange P r o d u c t L i a b i l i t y L i t i g a t i o n ______ A r v i n , t h e te rm CS may a l s o be fo u n d as CS-1 or CS-2, and i s o f te n ch e m ic a lly i d e n t i f i e d as: o-C hlorobenzalm alononitrile, or 2-Chlorobenzalm alononitrile, or o-chlorobenzylidene m alon on itrile, or 2-chlorobenzylidene m alononitrile o t h e r c h e m i c a l synonyms h a v e a l s o b een u s e d . At t h i s time, I further request that the documents id e n t if ie d by John Bu ckley d u rin g h i s d e p o s i t i o n , c o n s i s t i n g o f m a t e r i a ls m ain tain e d a t h i s home, be produced. S i n c e t h e d e p o s i t i o n s o f Mr. Eckhaus and Dr. B u ck ley have n o t been co m p leted , you r prompt a t t e n t i o n t o these m atters would be s i n c e r e l y a p p re c ia te d . With thanks in advance f o r your c o o p e r a t io n , and w i t h my b e s t p e r s o n a l r e g a r d s , I am, Very tru ly yours, Copies to: Attached l i s t SP/bb Stanley Pierce CP ' 2 - A W OFFICES R iv k in , Le f f , S h er m a n & Rad ler lOO GARDEN CITY PU.ZA GARDEN CITY, NEW YORK 11530 TELEPHONE (516)746-750 0 TELEX 645-0 74 CABLE ADDRESS AT LAW O R C Y TELECOPIER (sie) 7 4 7-2 6 4 3 SUITE 3 6 0 0 - 3 0 NORTH LASALLE STREET CH ICAGO. ILLINOIS 6 0 6 0 2 - (312) 7 6 2 - 5 6 6 0 FEDERAL EXPRESS October 6, 1982 CW&T Arvin Maskin, Esq. Torts Branch, Civil Division United States Department of Justice Safeway Building 521 12th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 R e c ' d i - i - s ? W B A ji. Re: "Agent Orange" Product Liability Litigation - MDL No. 381 Dear Arvin: Pursuant to the Special Master's order, we enclose herewith documents which, based upon currently available information, may be used at the deposition of Joseph Avellino currently scheduled for October 20, 1982. A list of these documents is appended to this letter. Please arrange for the review of the enclosures by the deponent in advance of the deposition in accordance with the Master's instructions. By copy of this letter, copies of the enclosures are also being forwarded to lead counsel for plaintiffs. In order to insure that all pertinent documents are available for completion of the Avellino deposition, we ask that you make the following documents available as promptly as possible: (a) All documents contained in any personal files in Mr. Avellino's possession, custody or control, which are responsive to the Phase I interrogatories and docu ment requests served by the defendants upon the United States on January 15, 1981. THC PARTNERSHIP IMCLUOCS ONC 0 * MORE PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS R t v k i n .L e f f , S h e r m a n c* R a d l e r Arvin Maskin, Esq. October 6, 1982 Page 2 (b) The Ennis letter (or letters) referred to in the Minutes of the July 29, 1963 Meeting of the Subcommittee on Herbicides (item 7 on attached list) and the memo by McCall & Avellino dated July 30, 1963 (item 8); (c) Copies of all minutes of the Interdepart mental Committee on Pest Control, including any and all drafts thereof); (d) The Draft Circular dated March 15, 1963 entitled "Use of Chemicals as Herbicides" referred to at page 15 of the Minutes of the Meeting of the Interdepartmental Committee on Pest Control on June 13, 1963 (item 9); (e) Comments on Draft Circular by Colonel C.B. Lyle, Corps of Engineers, Chief, Repairs & Utilities Division, dated April 15, 1963, referred to at pp. 16-17 of the Minutes of the Meeting of the Inter departmental Committee on Pest Control on June 13, 1963 (item 9); (f) All enclosures to the memorandum by Colonel R.J. Phillips dated August 6, 1963 (item 6); (g) Letter from H.P. Haller to Lt. Colonel Converse R. Lewis dated July 18, 1963 referred to in the memo by Colonel R.J. Phillips dated August 6, 1963 (item 6); (h) The final and all modified, revised or updated versions of a Technical Bulletin on Pesticides prepared by the Army Environ mental Health Laboratory (see March 19, 1956 letter of Robert T. Callison to Commanding Officer, Army Environmental Health Laboratory with attachment (item 17)). R i v k i n ,L e f f , S h e r m a n R adier Arvin Maskin, Esq. October 6, 1982 Page 3 Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Very truly yours, RIVKIN, LEFF, SHERMAN & RADLER LR3:mae Enclosures By: Leslie R. Bennett cc: Victor J. Yannacone, Jr., Esq. (with enclosures)(Federal Express) cc: Attached Service List (without enclosures S840 Documents Which May Be Used At D eposition of JoseDh A v e llin o 1. Memo of Robert G. McCall and Joseph D. Avellino dated July 30, 1963 regarding a draft of DA Circular, "Use of Chemicals as Herbicides." 2. Letter from Richard J. Phillips to Regional Program Director, Region IV, USPHS dated September 20, 1963. 3. Memo, by Avellino dated October.18, 1963.of telephone or verbal conversation with Dr. Wayland Hayes. 4. Disposition Form, dated September 9, 1963 by Alois Peczenik. 5. Letter from Richard J. Phillips to Justus C. Ward dated October 6, 1963. .6. Memo by Richard J. Phillips dated August 6, 1963 re: Draft of DA Circular, "Use of Chemicals as Herbicides." 7. Minutes of Meeting of Subcommittee on Herbicides dated July 29, 1963. 8. Memo of Robert G. McCall and Joseph D. Avellino dated July 30, 1963 re: Draft of DA Circular, "Use of Chemicals as Herbicides." 9. Minutes of Interdepartmental Committee on Pest Control dated August 20, 1963. 10. Report on trip to Europe (U), CWL Special Publication 1-12, by Friedrich W. Hoffmann, dated October 5, 1959. 11. Extract of CWL Special Publication 1-12, item no. 10. 12. "Use of Pesticides," A Report of the President's Science Advisory Committee dated May 15, 1963. 13. Kimmig, J., Schulz, K.H.: Chlorierte aromatische zyklische ther als Ursache der sogenannten Chlorakne, Naturwissenschaften 44, 337-338 (1957). 8841 9 -- 14. Kimmig, J. , Schulz, K.H.: Occupational Chloracne Caused By Aromatic Cyclic Esters, Dermatologica 115, 540-546 (1957). 15. Bleiburg, J., Wallen, M . , Brodkin, R., Appelbaum, I.L.: Industrially acquired porphyria, Arch. Dermatol. 89, 793-797 (1964). 16. E. Linn Jones & Helen Krizek, A Technic for Testing Acnegenic Potency in Rabbits, Applied to the Potent Acnegen, 2,3,7,8tetrochlorodibenzo-P-dioxin, Journal of Investigative Dermatology 511, 517 (1962). 17. Letter, Robert T. Callison to Commanding Officer, Army Environmental Health Laboratory, dated March 19, 1956 with attached draft of Health Hazards from Insecticides, Rodenticides and Herbicides. 18. Key, N.M. and Birmingham, D.J., "Occupational Chloracne", Proceedings of 15th Inti. Congress of Occupational Health, Vienna, 1966.. C ( , Z-AVk- O F F I C E S R iv k in , Le f f . S h erm an & R adler lOO GARDEN CITY P L aZJl GARDEN CITY, KEW YORK 11530 t c i.c * h o n c ( s it- 7 A 6-7 50C telex Ca b l e a o d b e s s 6A S -O T * AT LAW e n CV t e l e c o w ie i' . s u r re 3 o o o o K O riH la a le e s tr e e t (SIC ) T A 7 -E B 4 2 CHICAG O. ILLIN O IS 6 0 6 3 2 (i!2 > 7 S ? > B C B 0 6- ^ October 22, 19E2 ImKiuC' ^' Arvin Maskin, Esq. Torts Branch, Civil Division United States Department of Justice Safeway Building 521 12th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 Re: "Agent Orange" Product Liability Litigation - MDL No. 381 Dear Arvin: At the deposition of Carlton G. Shead, I asked the Government to search for and determine whether other documents similar to Exhibits 15 and 16, which bear the title and consist of a chronological summary of events relating to herbicides, are available in Government files, and if so, to produce them. Additionally, I asked that to the extent that Exhibits 15 and 16 and any similar documents located referred to other documents, that those documents be searched for and produced. Please consider this letter a formal request for the production o f the above documents. For your convenience, I enclose here with copies of Shead Exhibits 15 and 16. At the deposition of Joseph Avellino, held on October 20, counsel for the Government, Judith Wheeler, Esq., advised that she was unaware of the requests for documents set forth in my October 6, 1982 letter to you. As you will recall, that letter sought the production of documents for possible use at the deposition of Dr. Avellino. Since we did not receive any of the documents requested in my letter in advance of the deposition, the deposition was concluded subject to the production of additional documents. We would appreciate receiving a prompt response to our request.' THC PARTNERSHIP INCLUDES ONE O O R E PROFESSIO NAL CORPORATIONS R iv k ix , L e f p . Sh e r m a x & H a d l e r Arvin Maskin, Esq. October 22, 1982 Page 2 Thank you for your anticipated cooperation. Very truly yours, RIVKIN, LEFF, SHERMAN & RADLER LR3:mae Enc. cc: Attached Service List iP By: Leslie R. Bennett BU D D , LARNER, KENT, GROSS. PIC1LLO & ROSENBAUM A P R O F E S S IO N A L C O R PO R A TIO N C O U N S E L L O R S AT LAW 2 2 W A SH IN G T O N STR EE T NEWARK. N. J . 0 7 10 2 j o - s j o s e **- b u o : c o d o n l kcnt Da v id K. C R O SS m a r t in C. tC lL L C MARK 0 . LARNER m i C m a L L M. R O S E n R ix*m m CNRY A. LA R N E* Da v id J . N O v a CK DENNIS M. R Q N IC X c l En n R. C a l l a h a n c . Th o m a s S C h CTTin S am u el a. larn er O*-CDuHSCL 201*622 0 * 0 0 C A M D E N C O U N T Y O F F IC E 21 6 .H A .D D O N A V EN U E. W ESTM ONT. N. J . OB 1OB 60**eD6*6M CD C Y N T H IA A. M A T H E K E a n t m o n t . C a r u s o LA U REN CE M. SH E V L A N O ROBERT NOv a CK SEBASTIAN *. LOM BARDI E D W IN R_ M A T T H E W S A L B E R T M. D A N T O N ARTHUR 0. BROMBERG STEVEN A. W EIN ER M ARIE A. CA RET G a r y a. c a r b o n e l l o JOH N C . CUTCT Joh n r. e r r el ALBERT L. REia RETER J . n u --r i JA M ES M. M ASCELLI ALAN C . W HITE October 28, 1982 Gretchen -Witt, Esc Trial Smtorney Torts Branch, Civil HEivision U_.S . Dspt. of Justice Washington, D.C. 20530 Re: t re Agent Orange Product Liability LdLitigation. Dear Qretchen: Rsi-erence is made to the deposition of Mr. Simund R. E c k h a u s , taken o n September 23, 1982 and continued on October 6, 1982. Mr:- Sckhaus related information concerning the presence of chloracne during the manufacture and production of the riot agent, C S , at Edgewood Arsenal. Mr. Eckhas testified that, in preparation for his deposition, he reviewed personal files con taining documents end correspondence relating to the production anc manufacture of Herbicide Orange. Consistent with our prior,' oral agreement, the purpose of this letter is to formally request that copies of all relevant documents be provided to the defendants. In order to expedite his search for these documents, we specifically request copies, of the following: 1. Any and all documents in Mr. Eck h a u s '' personal files which deal with Herbicide Orange or CS or which he may have reviewed in preparation for h i s 'deposition. 'SUDD. L A R N E R , KENT. G R O S S . PICIL'LO & R O S E N B A U M A C R e rC S S IO N A L C O R P O R A T IO N Page 2 2. Any doc'nner.iE which contain -the minutes or summaries of any and all meetings held between 1962 ana 1966 during which Eagewood Arsenal personnel would have reviewed the specifications and purchase descriptions for any and all herbicides which they produced. 2. Any and ail documents which refer to the.work Mr. Eckhaus performed subsequent to December of 1966 on the project to create a facility which would enable the government to manufacture Herbicide Orange.. Such a review wouid included any and all reports which he ' submitted in January of 1967 to either the Department of the Army or the AMC.. 4. Any and all medical records or other documents conc e m i n g the treatment of any employees or others,who may have been afflicted with chloracne during the manufacture of CS. 5. A Trip Report which he would have filed subsequent' to his visit to the Diamond Alkali Plant. 6. Any and all sick lists, even if they only incTuaed military personnel, which were circulated during the period 1962 thru 1966. 7. Any "after-action" reports which would have been filed or prepared .as a result of the CS manufacturing process 8. Any and all copies of records which have been trans ferred to the civilian manufacturers of C S , speci fically, The Pisher Chemical Company, The Brunswick and Thyocol Chemical Company and Federal Laboratories. 9. Any and all trip reports, either in Mr. Eckhaus' own files, or elsewhere, which describe his visit to in dustrial plants which produced trichlorophenol. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter. Should you have any questions on the' above, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours ERM/cc Edwin R. Matthews US. Department "Justice C/ -c j JArGLWittbf * 157-0-107 Washington. D . C 2DS30 November 12, 1982 Telephone: (202) 724-6725 NOTICE TO ALL COUNSEL Re: In re "Agent Orange* Product Liability LitiGation MDL No. 381 This Notice responds to Les Bennett's November 1, 1982 letter concerning outstanding document requests. We have attempted to get as complete responses as possible to each request in the short time available. Reouests Related to Particular Deoositions 1. October 1, 1982 Letter from S. Pierce re Mr. Eckhaus and Dr, Buckley___________ |______ ' ________________________ __ a. Mr. Eckhaus: Army has indicated that it currently is working to respond to this request. b. Dr. Buckley: We have requested that Dr. Buckley review the files he indicated that he had in his possession for any responsive or relevant documents. Since Dr. Buckley is retired and is merely acting in cooperation with the government, we cannot exert undue pressure on Dr. Buckley. If we have not received a response from him in 10 days, we will contact him again. 2. October 22, 1982 Letter from L. Bennett re Col. Shead Mr. Bennett requested production of all documents similar to Shead Exhibits 15 and 16 as well as all documents referenced by those Exhibits. Exhibits 15 and 16 are nothing more than inventories of documents contained in the file in which they were located. In other words, all documents mentioned on those Exhibits can be found in the microfilm batches from which they were taken, i.e., batches 513 and 512, respectively. If any ether documents similar to Exhibits 15 and 16 exist, they have been produced and microfilmed and are in the hands of the parties. Similarly, any documents referenced in any documents like Exhibits 15 and 16 are in the hands of the parties as well. The custodian of this material has i ed its previous production 3. October 26, 1982 Letter from B. Roth re Dr. Firestone The request was forwarded to the Bureau of Foods for response. As indicated in the accompanying Notice to All Counsel, Dr. Firestone is the only individual thoroughly familiar with all of the relevant files. Dr. Firestone currently is hospitalized and will not return to work for another month. Upon his return, he will conduct the search for the requested materials. 4. Notice of Deposition served May 27, 1982 The Notice requests production of documents responsive to defendants' Phase I Interrogatories and the personal files of the individual witnesses. The government has either produced or is in the process of producing responsive documents from the personal files of witnesses that are in the possession of the government. Responsive documents from the personal files of the witnesses that are in the witnesses' possession have proved more difficult to obtain. As counsel for all parties are fully aware, the amount of time between the date a particular witness deposition is scheduled and the date of the deposition itself is often quite short. In the rare instances where the witness has had personal files in his possession, the process involved has prevented the government from getting any responsive documents to the parties prior to the deposition. To locate ar documents related to the witness' work for the United States, he must search his files and send the documents to the relevant agency for privilege review. Once that review is completed the documents can be released for microfilming and production to t: parties. The situation involving Dr. Benjamin Harris is a perfect example. The government scheduled his November 10 deposition during the last week of October. He searched his files and go all of his relevant documents to the government by November 8. Those documents have been sent to Army for review and then microfilming. It simply was impossible to obtain and release the documents any faster. The government cannot impose deadli on retired employees and cannot unduly pressure these individu who are cooperating without risking the loss of their cooperat The government will continue to attempt to produce these docuirr in the most expeditious manner possible, but the parties must recognize the difficulties inherent in'the process. 5. October 20, 1982 Letter from James Tyrell listing eleven requests for documents.___________________________________ The United States has given a report on the status of these requests in the accompanying Notice to All Counsel. i S848 Recruests Not Related to Particular Depositions 1. June 18, 1982 Letter from M. Gordon summarizing outstanding reouests. a. Privilege Material: An accompanying Notice to All Consel addresses these items. b. Non privileged Edgevood documents; The searches and document production from Edgewood are completed except for the outstanding issue of the SF 135 "locator data" and any "new finds" that might be discovered from unlikely sources during the course of regular operations at Edgewood. Personnel at Edgewood have developed a special sensitivity to the need to produce herbicide and dioxin related records and have forwarded "new finds" when they come upon relevant records in files that were not files in which these documents were rationally expected to be located. Any such future finds will be produced, but other than those types of finds, the production from Edgewood is complete. c. EPA documents; The EPA document production has been resolved by a proposed Protective Order and procedure outlined at the October 5, 1982 hearing before the Special Master. The defendants have yet to sign the order, thus preventing the government from proceeding with the devised document production procedures. As soon as the defendants see fit to sign the order, the appropriate notice will be published in the Federal Register and examination of the documents by the parties can begin. d. USDA documents: Counsel for the government have requested an update from the agency representative and anticipate a response by November 16. e. MACV documents; The government will announce its plar for the production of this material within the week, and expects production to begin soon thereafter. ( 2. April 14, 1981 Letter from L. Rivkin re Ranch Hand Report. The United States has produced copies of Major Buckingham's Ranch Hand report to the parties. The Air Force currently is segregating the classified materials from the non-classified prime source documents for the report. When the Air Force has completed that segregation, the non-classified materials will be produced for microfilming. At that time, the Air Force will undertake a declassification review for the classified material and either produce the newly declassified documents or -eek U.'S. v. Reynolds affidavits for any remaining classified documents. In addition, the Air Force will attempt to locate any existing drafts of the report. It is likely that the Air Force will claim privilege for any such drafts. Russell v. Department of the Air Force, 6S2 F.2d 1045 (D.C. Cir. 1982). 3. July 8, 1982 Letter from L. Bennett re SF 135s The government provided the SF 135s in an attempt to make expedient production of relevant documents. Apparently, the defendants found the first installment of the SF 135s unintel ligible. The Army has since provided the defendants with a glossary of military abbreviations as a useful first step in better understanding the materials. The government contemplated that the next step would be a meeting at the defendants' request to discuss the SF 135s. While the government has been available to discuss the subject, the defendants have failed to request any such meeting. 4. Julv 28, 1982 Letter from M. Gordon As previously stated, the searches and document produc tion from Edgewood are completed except for the outstanding issue of the SF 135 "locator data" and any "new finds" that might be discovered from unlikely sources during, the course of regular operations at Edgewood. Personnel at Edgewood have developed a special sensitivity to the need to produce herbicide and dioxin related records and have forwarded "new finds" when they come upon relevant records in files that were not files in which these documents were rationally expected to be located. Any such future finds will be pro duced, but other than those types of finds, the production from Edgewood is complete. 4 8250 5. July 16, 1982 Letter from S. Pierce re Kapalama documents The United States has produced all responsive Kapalama documents. The materials are being microfilmed and will be released under the batch title "Kapalama, Hawaii Entomology/ Herbicide Records". The vast majority of these documents have little or no relevance to this litigation. The government has gone to considerable effort and expense to produce this material and intends to formally seek the Army's cost of production in the sum of $3,781.16. 6. August 20, 1982 Letter from S. Pierce re Report on CBR Weapons The Army currently is attempting to locate this document. 7. September 13, 1982 Letter from M. Feldheim re Dr. McNamara The Army states that all requested materials pertaining to Dr. McNamara have already been produced and has confirmed that fact with the Chemical Systems Laboratory. 8. October 4, 1982 Production Request concerning Army Chemica Corps Intelligence Agency (CCIA) and Army Foreign Science and Technology Center (FSTC). ________________________ ;______ FSTC materials were searched in 1980 in response to the first Army worldwide discovery search. Government records reflect that five documents were discovered and produced on microfilm. .The government's understanding is that FSTC was established on August 1, 1962 to replace the concurrently discontinued Army technical service intelligence agencies, including CCIA. The pre-1962 CCIA materials most likely have not been searched. However, Army will begin and complete that search in the most expeditious manner possible. If and when more documents or information are available, we will inform the parties, Very truly yours, GRETCHEN LEAH WITT Trial Attorney^-- Sorts Branch YV ^ A Z zA occA su A s^ r, & \sA cy$s A M R T N e tS H O INCLUDING PR O FE SSIO N AL CO R PO R ATIO N S 1 232 NEW H A H ^ S H IItt A V E , ' WASHINGTON, D.C. 2 0 0 2 S (202) 2 * 3 * 6 3 0 0 TWx: 7 10" B2S"1 9 3 * SOS SUfivn* (MJ!) S-7000 *' OVAI AtN SCACH, FLA. (2 0 S ) 6 SB * S TWX: S I O " 9 S 2 * " c a b l e a d d r e s s : lasellu m TELEX: 1 2 * )A / e?A 6 B A firA x ; (212) 2 S B -2 1 2 1 XCHOx: (212) 7 S E - l e 3 0 November 23, 1 9 8 2 Arvin Maskin, Esq. Torts Branch, Civil Division United States Department of Justice Safeway Building 521 12th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 Re: In re "Agent Orange" Product Liability Litigation, MDL No. 381 ( Dear Arvin: Pursuant to our discussions at yesterday's pre-trial conference, I enclose copies of the transcript and exhibits for the deposition of Lester L. Wilier, taken on November 9, 1982. Mr. Miller's testimony concerning the alteration of documents produced by the United States without notice of the alterations to the parties occurs at pages 67 to 77 of the transcript.. In accordance with the request.of Special Waster Schreiber at the pre-trial conference,, please furnish as soon as possible a. descript ion and explanation from Mr. Ron Kassel and other appropriate Go.vernme nt representatives of the alterations that were made. In addition Dlease furnish immediately copies cf the documents in cuestion in their original form, together with all documents referring cr relat ing to the redacted "CS number" for "Compound B," such as Commerci al Source Sample Record Logs and Review 'Point Committee minutes. If you-have any questions, please contact me at once so that you will be able to respond at the next pre-trial conference, schedule d for December 3, 19*82. As I advised Mr. Cormier, I will send a letter shortly f 9852 VO Arvin Maskin J jlsq . 2- - November 23, i which confirms defendants' requests for production by the United States of certain documents described by Mr. Miller during his deposition. Thank you for your attention to this matter. 'Very truly yours, MM C-/mam Enclosures BY COURIER cc(w/o e n d s .): Kon. Sol Schreiber Attached Service List Michael M. Gordon LAW O F F IC E S Rivkin , Le f f , Sherman & Radler lOO GARDEN CITY PLAZA GARDEN CITY, NEW YORK 11530 telephone ( S 16I 7 A 8 -T S O O TELEX 6A 5-0TA CABLE AOORESS A Tlaw CBCt T E L E C O P IE (s i 6 ) 7 7 2 B a 3 SUITE 3 0 0 0 * 3 0 NORTH LASALLE St * E E T CHICAGO. ILLINOIS 6 0 6 0 2 (312) 7 B 2 - B S O December 6, 1982 Arvin Maskin, Esq. Torts Branch C iv il D ivision United States Dept, of Ju stice Safeway Building 521 - 1 2 t h S t r e e t , N.W. W ashington, D.C. 20530 Dear Arvin: During the d ep osition of Frank V occi, se veral requests fo r documents were made. These in clu d e: 1 . R e l e v a n t m a t e r i a l s from t h e p e r s o n a l f i l e s o f Mr. V o c c i . 2. N otes o f Mr. V o c c i p e r t a i n i n g t o a m e e tin g o f a m e d ic a l p a n e l f o r NATO h e l d a t WRAIR.. 3. Handouts and m inutes d i s t r i b u t e d a t an e a r l i e r m eeting a t WRAIR. 4. L i s t o f names o f t h o s e r e s p o n s i b l e f o r s e n d in g o u t m in u t e s o f su ch NATO m e e t i n g s . The above a r e i n Mr. V o c c i ' s p o s s e s s i o n , and he has i n dicated his w illingness to supply these m aterials. A dditionally, a t t h i s same d e p o s i t i o n , Mr. V o c c i i d e n t i f i e d t h e f o l l o w i n g do cu me nts f o r w hich we r e q u e s t p r o d u c t i o n . 5. The c l i n i c a l document worked on w ith Dr. S e i d e l l , which i s p r o b a b l y a t t h e o f f i c e s o f t h e Army S u r g e o n G e n e r a l . 6. A f i l m -- "The CRDL S t o r y " . 7. Other film s r e l a t i n g to re s e a r c h done a t Edgewood A rsen al and in c lu d in g r a b b i t e a r t e s t s , and methods o f in t r o d u c tion of toxic substances. TnCPARTNERS'INCLUDESONEO* ORE PROPESSlONALCORPORATIONS 9854 /k in , Le f f , S h erm an & Ra d l e r Arvin Maskin, Esq. December 6, 1982 Page 2 8. R e p o rts s e n t t o Mr. V o c c i upon c o m p le t io n o f " t a s k f o r c e " p ro jects-- our in terest is in those relatin g to herbicides and/or dioxins or furans. 9. Data books o f B e rn ard McNamara, Frank V o c c i , C h a r l e s Punte or others, rela tin g to testin g in respect to to x ic ity of herbicides and/or dioxins or furans. ID. T a b le s o f o r g a n i z a t i o n , o r l i s t s w ith th e s p e c i f i c names o f th o se a s s ig n e d a t Edgewood A r se n a l during the 1 9 6 0 's , to the p o s it io n s o f Branch C h ie f and above. Please note th a t fo r each request appropriate pages from the d e p o s i t i o n t r a n s c r i p t o f Mr. V o c c i a r e e n c l o s e d . Thank you f o r your co o p e ra tio n in th e s e m a tte r s . Very tru ly yours RIVKJV, LEFF, SHERMAN & PADLER P :mk nc. tn pi I r* A R AR Tn C R S H IR IN C L U D 'N G R R O P E S S IO N A l. C O R P O R A T IO N S 1 3 3 3 N E W H A M P S H I R E AVE-, N.W. WASHINGTON, O.C. 2 0 0 3 6 (202) 2 0 3 * 6 3 0 0 Twx: 71 *622*193* JV fy .S O StfATM*-: (*2) S0S-7OO 2H ROTAI, RAL^ rRa l m b c a c h , r l a . (30S) 6 5 5 -9 S tw *: s i o - a s z * - cable a d d r e s s : labcllum t e l e x : i2 i* e /e e ? * e s RARIPAX: (212) 2 0 0 - 2 3 2 1 x e r o x : (2 1 2 ) 7 a s - i e s o December 6, 1982 Arvin, Maskin, Esq. Torts Branch, Civil Division U. S. Department of Justice Safeway Building 521 12th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 Re: In re "Agent Orange" Product Liability Litigation, MDL No.' 38T_______________ Dear Arvin: This letter confirms defendants' requests for produc tion by the United States of certain documents described by Lester Miller during his deposition on November 9, 1982, or for additional information concerning such documents. Please refer also to my letter of November 23, 1982, which requested that the Government furnish immediately copies of all altered Edgewood documents in their original form together with all documents referring or relating to the redacted "CS Number" for "Compound B", such as Commercial Source Sample Record Logs and Review Point Committee minutes. rP'K 2^' "C^ ^SCUS^t 8-9 The curriculum vitae for Mr. Miller. In accordance with defendants' standing request-, and in order to save time at the depositions, please also have all present and former Government emplojrees bring their respective curricula vitae to future depositions. 3C5B Arvin Maskin, Esq. Transcript 63 80 83 91-92 ^Oil 119 n^.".3/.=; 1*11 I -2- December 6, 1982 Reauest All Agent Status Reports that refer to a "CS" or "EA" number assigned to any dioxin compound. All Unit Work Guides _tha.t refer to a "CS" or "EA" number assigned1 to any dioxin compound. All interoffice memos prepared at Edgewood which report receipt of a sample of any dioxin compound. All Technical Data Brochures that refer to a dioxin compound or to a "CS" or "EA." number assigned to a dioxin compound. All correspondence or other records that refer or relate to the transmission to a commercial or other source of informa tion concerning toxicity testing at Edgewood of any dioxin compound, or of trichlorophenol or 2,*1,5-T. Complete copies of those articles from Dr. Bernard McNamara's reprint files which- contain any underlining or annotation and were assigned the following identify ing numbers by Mr. Miller: 592*1; 5985; 6 0 8 7 ; 6178; 6 6 3 6 . In addition, please identify the title and source of the folder or folders that contain the documents referenced by microfilm frame numbers 256 and 258 in Batch 1933- Please furnish the title and source of the folder in which Miller Deposition Exhibit No. 8 (Dr. Jandorf's June 5 , 1970 memo for Director of Research Laboratories) was located. All copies of test results for any dioxin, 2,4,5-T or trichlorophenol compound which are located in the former files of the Toxicity Screening Branch. This request includes all 8 1/2" x 10" data sheets that 9857 Arvin Maskin, Esq. -3- December 6, Transcript Request were prepared for such compounds (see Tr. at 51, 53)-. _ _ Very truly yours, MMG/mam EY COURIER cc : Hon. Sol Schreiber Attached Service List Michael M. Gordon ( V S , Departmc fJustice JA : G L w i 1 t : t f 157-0-107 Oecemo.-r 1?, 1982 T e le phone : (202) 724-o725 NOTICE TO ALL COUNSEL Re: D e p o s itio n Document Requests f o r In re "Agent O r a n g e " P r o d u c t L i a b i l i t y L i t i g a t i o n , MDL N o . 381 T h is N o tic e concerns a number of the o u ts ta n d in g re qu e sts for documents that have a ris e n out of government w itness depos i t io n s . 1. Dr P a r r o w : On D e c e m b e r 14, t h e Army p r o v i d e d o u r o f f ic e with re le v a n t m a te ria ls c u lle d from the p e rso n a l f i l e s o f D r . D a r r o w . On D e c e m b e r 1 6 , we s e n t t h i s m a t e r i a l f o r m ic ro film in g as Batch 194S, e n t i t l e d "Dr. Robert A. D arrow 's ' P e r s o n a l F i l e s ' . " The m i c r o f i l m s h o u l d be a v a i l a b l e t o the p a rtie s fo r purchase in a few weeks. T h is completes the G o v e r n m e n t ' s p r o d u c t i o n i n r e s p o n s e t o the .September 1, 1932 request from Mr. Matthews and th a t p o r t i o n of the September 9, 1982 r e q u e s t fr o m M r. M a t t i n g l y r e l a t i n g t o D r . D a r r o w . 2. D r . B u c k l e y . On D e c e mb e r 13, o u r o f f i c e r e c e i v e d r e l e v a n t m a t e r i a l s from D r . B u c k l e y t h a t he f o u n d i n h i s p e r s o n a l f i l e s . On D e c e m b e r 16, we f o r w a r d e d t h e m a t e r i a l fo r e x p e d it io u s re vie w by the E x e c u tiv e O f f ic e of the P re s id e n t p r i o r t o r e l e a s e . As s o o n as t h a t r e v i e w i s c o m p l e t e , we w i l l have the m a t e r i a l m ic r o f ilm e d on a p r i o r i t y b a s is . 3. M r . C o x . We h a v e f o r w a r d e d f o u r n o t e b o o k s c o n t a i n i n g e n t r i e s about "Agent Orange" th a t Mr. Cox mentioned at h is d e p o s i t i o n to the Army f o r r e v i e w p r i o r to r e l e a s e . As soon a s t h a t r e v i e w i s c o m p l e t e , we w i l l h a v e t h e n o t e b o o k s m i c r o filmed for release to the p a rtie s . 9859 -2- !n a -? O t i i e r 'A X ... --' i i 1- . J.. 1. i v- -b .. i p j : d t i " A 1 n o t e d o _> k s p ; v _. ] 1r r < * van s t, n f i: r t ' i (.r 1e r t a ning .1r w a r.m th a t th e oo>- t- n h e h a s u r n ' * .d * - o ef i o n , M r. C '\ x v-~ a l i p e d he .m p lo y.n *n t at E d .g o vo o d . t. - tb of t he n o te >se te ria bo o k s 1a t o a re u s. e not v is o have been l -.'.t v . - , - r d f - " . ) to th e Arm y to n p t e r m : ne j. \ t i ) *- { r c o n ten ts have any re le v a n c e to th e litig a tio n . Ij le v a t e n t tm i e s are r-lease to the p a rtie s . fo u n d , to ey w ill be m i c r o f i l m e d fo r . Mr . E c k h a u s : a. " CS" m a t e r i a l s : In r e u e e s ts dated O c t o b e r 1 and O c t o b e r 23, M e s s rs . P ie r c e and M atthew s, r e s p e c t i v e l y , re q u e s t e d m a t e r i a l s c o n c e rn in g the R io t C o n t r o l Agent " CS" and c h lo r a c n e . On S e p t e m b e r 29, 1982 t h e A r m y r e c e i v e d a F . O . I . A . r e q u e s t c o n c e rn in g "CS" and c h lo r a c n e from L is e Andre of R i v x i n , L e f f , Sherman and R a d le r. By l e t t e r dated. December 10, the Army responded to the F . o . i . A . r e q u e s t fro m Ms. A n d r e arid s e n t a l l r e s p o n s i v e m a te ria l to her. The U nited S ta te s has taken the p o s i t i o n tha t tha t "CS" is ir r e le v a n t to the "Agent Orange" l i t i g a t i o n . Unless the p a rtie s demonstrate the relevance of "CS", the Army has d e c id e d t h a t i t s re sp o n se to the F . O . I . A r e q u e s t c l o s e s the "CS" m a tte rs c o n t a in e d in Messers P ie r c e and Matthews' requests. I t w i l l not produce any other m a te ria l on "CS" in the "Agent Orange" d is c o v e r y . b. " A g e n t O r a n g e " M a t e r i a l s : On December 14, t h e Army p r o v i d e d o u r o f f i c e w i t h m a t e r i a l s r e s p o n d i n g t o b o t h M r. P i e r c e and Mr. M a t t h e w s ' r e q u e s t s . On December 16, tho se m a t e r ia ls were sent f o r m ic r o f il m i n g as Batch 1947, e n t i t l e d "Sigmund E c k h a u s ' ' P e r s o n a l F i l e s ' , ' " and B a t c h 1946 , e n t i t l e d "'Eckhaus D e p o sitio n M a te r ia ls Responsive to Mr. M a t t h e w s ' R e q ue st da t e c O c t o b e r 28, The m ic r o film s h o u l d oe a v a i l a b l e t o the p a r t i e s f o r p u r c h a s e i n a few weeks. This completes the Government's response to the O c t o b e r 1 , .1.982 r e q u e s t o f M r . P i e r c e r e l a t i n g t o M r . E c k h a u s and t h e S e p t e m b e r 23, 1982 r e q u e s t o f Mr. M a t t h e w s . 5. M a j o r B u c k i n g h a m . On D e ce mbe r 14, t h e A i r F o r c e provided our o ffice with a ll unclassified footnote m aterial f r o m O p e r a t i o n R a n c h H a n d . We s e n t t h i s m a t e r i a l f o r m i c r o f i l m i n g on December 16, 1932, as Batch 1945, e n t i t l e d "Ranch Hand U n c l a s s i f i e d F o o t n o t e M a t e r i a l . " The m i c r o f i l m s h o u l d be a v a i l a b l e t o the p a r t i e s f o r p u r c h a s e i n a few weeks. ( -3 - We have a t t a c h e d the t r a n s m i t t a l l e t t e r from Major P a r r of the A i r Force which o u t l i n e s the s t e p s taken by the A i r f o r c e and a t t a c h e s a f i l e in v e n t o r y of a l l f o o t n o t e m a t e r i a l , c l a s s i f i e d o r u n c l a s s i f i e d . The A ir Force w i l l attem pt to d e c l a s s i f y the c l a s s i f i e d m ateria l in the most e x p e d itio u s manner p o s s i b l e . 6. Dr. H a r r i s : P r i o r to h i s d e p o s i t i o n , Dr. H a r ris re v ie w e d c e r t a i n p e r s o n a l f i l e s . At our r e q u e s t , he turned t h o s e f i l e s o v e r t o the A m y . f o r r e v i e w . On December 3, we s e n t t h e s e f i l e s f o r m i c r o f i l m i n g a s B a t c h 194 2, e n t i t l e d " P e rs o n a l F i l e s of Dr. Benjamin H a r r i s . " The m ic r o film should be a v a i l a b l e to the p a r t i e s f o r p u rch ase soon. 7. Dr. U p h o l t ; As announced in our November 11 N o t ic e to A l l C o u n s e l , EPA l o c a t e d t h r e e b o x e s o f m a t e r i a l a r c h i v e d by the F e d e r a l Working Group on P e s t Management ( f o r m e r l y th e F e d e r a l Committee on P e s t C o n t r o l ) . Dr. U p h o l t and an EPA rep re sen ta tive searched fo r documents with information p e r t a i n i n g t o 2 , 4 , 5 - T , 2,4 -D , phenoxy and ch lorop h en oxy h e r b i c i d e s , d i o x i n , Agent Orange, d e f o l i a n t use in Vietnam and the B io n e tic s study. They p u lle d a l l re le v a n t documents and t r a n s m i t t e d them t o our o f f i c e on December 1 6 . On December 16 , we s e n t t h i s m a t e r i a l f o r m i c r o f i l m i n g as B a t c h 19 4 9 , e n t i t l e d " R e c o r d s From the F e d e r a l Committee on P e s t C o n t r o l . " The m ic r o fi lm sh o u ld be a v a i l a b l e to the p a r t i e s fo r purchase in a few weeks. This completes the Government's response to that p o rtio n of the September 9, 1982 re q u e st from Mr. M a t t i n g l y r e l a t i n g t o Dr. U p h o l t . Very tru ly yours, GRETCHEN EAH WITT T r ia l A ttorn ey, Torts Branch C ivil Division Enclosures , ARVIN MASKIN T r ia l Attorney, Torts Branch C iv il Division 9861