Document wq74ygzdyQKBoOey5Vk2vMgXo

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA _________________________________________________________ JO ANN BISHOP, ET AL, Plaintiffs, vs. Case No.:07-2832 SHELL OIL CO., ET AL, Defendants. _____________________________/ VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION of KENNETH MUNDT, PH.D., held on June 29, 2009, at 161 Devonshire Street, Boston, Massachusetts, commencing at 3:00 p.m., before Maryellen Coughlin, Court Reporter and Notary Public in and for the State of Massachusetts. 1 2 APPEARANCES: 2 K. MUNDT, PH.D. 3 4 Representing the Plaintiffs (via phone): 5 WILLIAMS LAW OFFICE, LLC 6 3021 35th Street, Suite B 7 Metairie, Louisiana 70001 8 BY: L. Eric Williams, Esq. 9 (504) 832-9898 (504) 832-9838 10 E-mail: eric@toxictortlaw.net 11 12 Representing the Plaintiffs (via phone): 13 RICHARD J. FERNANDEZ, LLC 14 3000 West Esplanade Ave, Suite 200 15 Metairie, Louisiana 70002 16 BY: Richard J. Fernandez, Esq. 17 (504) 834-8500 (504) 834-1511 18 E-mail: rick@rjfernandezlaw.com 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 1 K. MUNDT, PH.D. 2 APPEARANCES: (CONT'D.) 3 4 Representing Shell Oil Co.: 5 HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP 6 One Houston Center 7 1221 McKinney Street, Suite 2100 8 Houston, Texas 77010 9 BY: Stan Perry, Esq. 10 (713) 547-2039 (713) 236-5455 11 E-mail: stan.perry@haynesboone.com 12 13 Representing Shell Oil, Marathon & El Paso 14 (Via phone): 15 BY: GARY BEZET, ESQ. 16 Post Office Box 3513 17 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70821 18 (225) 382-3407 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4 1 K. MUNDT, PH.D. 2 APPEARANCES: (CONT'D.) 3 4 Representing Murphy Oil USA, Inc.: 5 SHER GARNER CAHILL RICHTER KLEIN & 6 HILBERT, L.L.C. 7 909 Poydras Street, 28th Floor 8 New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 9 BY: Christopher T. Chocheles, Esq. 10 (504) 299-2123 (504) 299-2323 11 E-mail: cchocheles@shergarner.com 12 13 Representing Radiator Specialty (via phone): 14 COATS ROSE 15 3 Greenway Plaza, Suite 2000 16 Houston, Texas 77046 17 BY: Tom Aubry, Esq. 18 (713) 653-7373 19 E-mail: taubry@coatsrose.com 20 21 VIDEOGRAPHER: Patrick Battle 22 23 24 25 5 1 K. MUNDT, PH.D. 2 INDEX TO EXHIBITS 3 4 DESCRIPTION 5 6 EXHIBIT-1 7 Notice of deposition 8 9 EXHIBIT-2 10 DVD 11 12 EXHIBIT-3 13 Federal Register Volume 52 No. 176 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MARKED 9 13 66 6 1 K. MUNDT, PH.D. 2 VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF 3 KENNETH A. MUNDT, PH.D. 4 JUNE 29, 2009 5 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The videotape 6 recording has commenced, and we are now on 7 the record. 8 Today is June 29th, 2009. The time 9 is approximately 3:11 p.m. My name is 10 Patrick Battle, and I'm the legal video 11 specialist for Accurate Court Reporting, Inc. 12 whose business address is 24650 Sandhill 13 Boulevard, Suite 401, Punta Gorda, Florida, 14 33983. 15 This is the deposition of Kenneth 16 Mundt, M.D. in the matter of Jo Ann Bishop 17 versus Shell Oil Company, et al., Case No. 18 07-2832 in the United States District Court, 19 Eastern District of Louisiana. 20 This deposition is being taken at 21 the Club Quarters, 161 Devonshire Street, 22 Boston Massachusetts, 02110. The court 23 reporter is Maryellen Coughlin. 24 Will counsel please identify 25 yourselves for the record stating your name, 7 1 K. MUNDT, PH.D. 2 address and you who represent. 3 MR. WILLIAMS: Eric Williams and 4 Rick Fernandez, 34 35th Street, Suite B, 5 Metairie, Louisiana 70005 for the plaintiffs. 6 MR. BEZET: This is Gary Bezet, Post 7 Office Box 3513, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 8 70821 for the defendant Shell Oil Company, 9 Marathon Oil Company and El Paso. 10 MR. CHOCHELES: Chris Chocheles -11 MR. AUBRY: Tom Aubry in Houston, 12 Texas for Radiator Specialty. 13 MR. CHOCHELES: Chris Chocheles, 909 14 Poydras, Suite 28, New Orleans, Louisiana. 15 MR. PERRY: Stan Perry for Shell 16 1221 McKinney Street, Suite 2100, Houston, 17 Texas, 77010. 18 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The notary public 19 and court reporter will stenographically 20 record the testimony today. At this time 21 will the reporter please swear in the 22 witness. 23 THEREUPON, 24 KENNETH A. MUNDT, Ph.D., 25 having been first duly sworn, was examined 8 1 K. MUNDT, PH.D. 2 and testified as follows: 3 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Thank you. 4 Counsel, please proceed. 5 MR. WILLIAMS: Are we ready? 6 THE COURT REPORTER: Yes. 7 EXAMINATION 8 BY-MR.WILLIAMS: 9 Q. Good evening. Dr. Mundt, could you 10 please state your full name and address for 11 the record? 12 A. Yes, sir, Kenneth Arthur Mundt, 260 13 Lincoln Avenue, Amherst, Massachusetts. 14 Q. Okay. And what's your date of 15 birth, sir? 16 A. December 27, 1959. 17 Q. And what degrees have you earned 18 thus far? 19 A. I earned a bachelor's degree from 20 Dartmouth College, a master's degree from 21 University of Virginia, another master's 22 degree from the University of Massachusetts, 23 and a Ph.D. from the University of North 24 Carolina Chapel Hill. 25 Q. And can you tell me what's the year 9 1 K. MUNDT, PH.D. 2 and the major for each degree that you have 3 received? 4 A. My college degree I majored in 5 English. My first master's degree was in 6 English literature composition; my second 7 master's degree was in epidemiology; and my 8 Ph.D. was in epidemiology. 9 Q. Doctor, did you receive a notice for 10 this deposition? 11 A. Yes, sir. 12 Q. Okay. And do you have that with 13 you? 14 A. I do. 15 Q. Okay. I would like to mark that as 16 Exhibit-1. 17 (Whereupon, Exhibit-1 was marked for 18 identification.) 19 BY-MR.WILLIAMS: 20 Q. Doctor, what did you bring in 21 response to the deposition notice? 22 A. Well, if I may refer to the request. 23 I brought as many of the items that I have 24 available on that list. 25 Q. Okay, let's go one by one. Tell me 10 1 K. MUNDT, PH.D. 2 for the first item. 3 A. Yes. No. 1, I have a listing of 4 all the documents that were provided to me, 5 which essentially is the log index that my 6 staff uses to track materials as they come 7 into our office. 8 I did not bring copies of those 9 documents, those are quite voluminous, but 10 they all are available should you need any 11 one of them. 12 No. 2, I had no exhibits to my 13 expert report. No. 3, I brought a file 14 containing all of the scientific literature 15 that I've relied upon, as well as other 16 published materials, all of those. In fact, 17 all of the materials that I brought are 18 contained on a DVD that I have here with me. 19 Q. All right. 20 A. I have brought a list of all cases 21 that I've testified in I believe in the last 22 five years, which I have maintained for cases 23 in general. 24 I do not have an itemized statement 25 of the time spent, but I did an inquiry of 11 1 K. MUNDT, PH.D. 2 our accounting system and determined the 3 number of hours and the amount that has been 4 charged against this case as of about 10 5 days. 6 I interpret No. 6 as synonymous with 7 No. 3, a listing of all the materials I rely 8 upon. 9 No. 7, my file is essentially all 10 the materials we're discussing, but I have 11 additionally an electronic document which 12 summarizes the numerical results of the 13 epidemiological studies I rely upon. 14 I have also a folder containing 15 communications between me and the attorneys 16 in this case on this DVD. 17 I don't have any college or graduate 18 transcripts. I don't have any documents 19 satisfying No. 10 or 11. 20 I did bring copies of all expert 21 reports provide in multiple myeloma cases, 22 and they are two cases, including this one. 23 And as far as a list of all cases I 24 have served as expert witness involving 25 multiple myeloma, are these same two cases, 12 1 K. MUNDT, PH.D. 2 plus one case that I testified in at a trial 3 10 or 12 years ago that I don't recall the 4 name specifically, but I could research that 5 if it were important, for which there was no 6 report or deposition. 7 Q. Anything else, Doctor? 8 A. Oh, yes, sir, I have a volume that 9 I received just the other day which is Dr. 10 Infante's deposition and Exhibits-1 through 11 27. This is contained in a single 12 three-ring binder. 13 And I have the volume from the 14 Annals of the New York Academy of Science 15 that contains Dr. Infante's publication 16 entitled, "Benzene Exposure and Multiple 17 Myeloma." 18 Q. Anything else? 19 A. That's it. 20 Q. Okay. If I understood you 21 correctly, you have a list of the documents 22 that came in the office. We'll mark that as 23 No. 2. 24 A. Everything is on a DVD. 25 Q. All those items are on a DVD? 13 1 K. MUNDT, PH.D. 2 A. Yes, sir. 3 Q. Are they all on one DVD? 4 A. Yes, sir. 5 Q. Oh, fair enough, then. We'll mark 6 that DVD for everything that he's just talked 7 about as No. 2. 8 (Whereupon, Exhibit-2 was marked for 9 identification.) 10 BY-MR.WILLIAMS: 11 Q. Dr. Mundt, where do you work 12 currently? 13 A. I'm employed full-time by Environ 14 International Corporation. I'm based -15 Q. How long have you been at that 16 company? 17 A. I'm based in the Amherst, 18 Massachusetts office. 19 Q. And how long have you been with 20 Enviro International? 21 A. Since November of 2003. 22 Q. Okay. And where did you work before 23 that? 24 A. I was employed by Applied 25 Epidemiology, Incorporated in Amherst, 14 1 K. MUNDT, PH.D. 2 Massachusetts. 3 Q. Okay. What time period did you work 4 there? 5 A. Roughly 2000 until -- I'm sorry, I 6 worked there full time roughly from 2000 7 until, until I joined Environ in 2003. I 8 worked part-time with Applied Epidemiology 9 since 1991, I believe. 10 Q. Okay. What year did you get your 11 master's in epidemiology? 12 A. I believe that was in 1986. 13 Q. Doctor, how old are you? 14 A. I'm almost 50. 15 Q. Almost what? 16 A. 50. 17 Q. 60, okay. 18 A. No, 5-0, 50. 19 Q. 5-0, okay. I don't want to make 20 you older. What year did you get your 21 Ph.D., sir? 22 A. 1989. 23 Q. Okay. Where did you work prior to 24 Applied Epidemiology? 25 A. I was for 10 years on the faculty 15 1 K. MUNDT, PH.D. 2 of the School of Public Health, University of 3 Massachusetts, Amherst. 4 Q. And were you a full-time professor? 5 A. Yes, I was. 6 Q. Okay. And what is your current 7 title where you're at now? 8 A. I'm a principal in the firm, and I'm 9 the director of epidemiology. 10 Q. Okay. What percentage of your work 11 involves litigation? 12 A. It varies from month to month, but I 13 would say probably 40 percent of my work in 14 the last half year has been litigation 15 related. 16 Q. Okay. And how many cases involve 17 chemicals with causation issues? 18 A. Most of them do. 19 Q. Okay. Have you ever served as an 20 expert for a plaintiff in a chemical cancer 21 case? 22 A. Yes, I have. 23 Q. Okay. Have you ever found that a 24 chemical caused a plaintiff's disease? 25 A. Yes, I have. 16 1 K. MUNDT, PH.D. 2 Q. Okay. How about benzene? 3 A. No, sir. I've not served in a 4 benzene case on behalf of a plaintiff. 5 Q. You have not? 6 A. That's correct. 7 Q. Okay. What case -- what type of 8 case did you serve for the plaintiffs? 9 A. The specific one I was referring to 10 -- I've served on, on more than that, but 11 the one I was specifically referring to had 12 to do with a skin sensitization agent, a 13 contact exposure resulting in an extreme 14 allergic reaction. 15 Q. Okay. Did you ever serve a 16 plaintiff where the plaintiff was alleging 17 exposure which caused a cancer? 18 A. No, sir. 19 Q. Earlier you brought up the cases of 20 multiple myeloma. In how many cases have 21 you served as an expert regarding multiple 22 myeloma? 23 A. Three. 24 Q. And was benzene the substance that 25 was alleged to be the cause for all three? 17 1 K. MUNDT, PH.D. 2 A. In two of the three. 3 Q. Okay. And what was the one that 4 you testified in 10 to 12 years ago, what 5 chemical did that involve? 6 A. That involved herbicides. 7 Q. Herbicide. And, Doctor, you're not 8 a medical doctor, correct? 9 A. That is correct. 10 Q. And you're not a toxicologist? 11 A. That's correct. 12 Q. And you're not board certified in 13 occupational medicine? 14 A. Correct. 15 Q. Industrial hygiene? 16 A. Correct. 17 Q. But you can offer opinions at trial 18 in any of these fields? 19 A. Well, as an epidemiologist, I'm well 20 familiar with aspects of industrial hygiene, 21 toxicology and occupational medicine, since 22 epidemiology falls in the middle of these 23 disciplines, but I don't put myself forward 24 as an expert on those. I defer to the 25 actual experts in those areas. 18 1 K. MUNDT, PH.D. 2 Q. Okay. Doctor, can benzene cause 3 blood malignancies? 4 A. Yes, I believe so, under certain 5 circumstances. 6 Q. Can benzene cause myelodysplastic 7 syndrome? 8 A. I've not researched that specifically 9 for purposes of causation. I understand that 10 there's evidence supportive of that 11 conclusion. 12 Q. What about AML leukemia? 13 A. Similarly. I think that that, 14 however, has stronger evidence support of a 15 causal association in adequately high doses 16 of exposure. 17 Q. What about CLL leukemia? 18 A. I don't believe that the evidence is 19 sufficient to draw a causal conclusion for 20 CLL. 21 Q. ALL? 22 A. I've not looked at that specifically. 23 Q. Okay. What about non-Hodgkin's 24 lymphoma? 25 A. I believe that the evidence is 19 1 K. MUNDT, PH.D. 2 insufficient to draw that causal conclusion. 3 Q. Myelofibrosis? 4 A. I've not looked at that. 5 Q. Okay. Would you have an opinion one 6 way or the other with myelofibrosis? 7 MR. PERRY: Object to form. 8 A. Not unless I researched it. 9 Q. Okay. What about CML leukemia? 10 A. I have not looked at CML that I 11 recall. 12 Q. Okay. Earlier I asked you if 13 benzene could cause blood malignancies. Are 14 you aware of any other blood malignancies 15 that benzene may cause? 16 A. I'm aware that there is one that is 17 generally substantiated by the scientific 18 literature, and that was AML. 19 Q. Okay. Can benzene cause any other 20 type of blood disorder? 21 A. Yes, there are all sorts of blood 22 dyscrasias that benzene may be able -23 capable of inducing. 24 Q. Can you name some types? 25 A. Well, I'm thinking of aplastic 20 1 K. MUNDT, PH.D. 2 anemias, for example. This is not my area 3 of expertise, and I've not looked into it, 4 but I'm aware that there are concerns 5 associated with benzene poisoning and the 6 affects on the blood system. 7 Q. Okay. Is benzene a known human 8 carcinogen? 9 A. Benzene has been classified as a 10 known human carcinogen, and I'm aware that 11 the literature pertaining to exposures to 12 high-level benzene and AML is reasonable for 13 drawing a causal conclusion. 14 Q. Doctor, what is your definition of 15 association? And when I say association, a 16 chemical associated with a certain disease? 17 A. Yes, it's a term that we use 18 somewhat loosely epidemiologically, but what 19 it essentially means is that there's some 20 correlation statistically between some measured 21 risk factor or exposure and the rate or 22 occurrence of that disease. It's a starting 23 point for a -24 Q. Would association mean risk factor to 25 you? 21 1 K. MUNDT, PH.D. 2 A. There's a good deal of overlap. I 3 think that we use the term risk factor when 4 we see an association because we don't know 5 much more than that, that it's a, let's say 6 it's a possible risk factor, something that 7 correlates with in certain studies an 8 increased occurrence of the disease. It 9 doesn't necessarily imply a causal 10 relationship, but certainly suggests a 11 statistical association. 12 Q. Okay. Doctor, if a study in the 13 peer-reviewed literature shows that there is 14 a 2.0 greater -- or greater relative risk 15 with a confidence interval above a 1, would 16 you call that an association with a disease 17 and a chemical? 18 A. Well, some of that's not necessary 19 to identify an association. The first step 20 is to evaluate what you called correctly the 21 relative risk. And if the relative risk is 22 different from 1, then you could then say 23 there is evidence of an association. It 24 could be above 1 where it's positively 25 associated. It could be less than 1 where 22 1 K. MUNDT, PH.D. 2 it's negatively associated. Whether or not 3 that association is statistically significant 4 is a second level of evaluation. 5 Q. Okay. And my question is, if a 6 chemical we're dealing with has a relative 7 risk above a 2.0 with a greater than a 1.0 8 confidence interval, is that an assoc -- does 9 that rise to the level of an association or 10 a risk factor in your opinion? 11 MR. PERRY: Object to the form. 12 A. Well, it's a bit vague because 13 chemicals don't have relative risks. It's a 14 constructive and epidemiological study where 15 risks of persons with a certain exposure 16 group are compared with risks of persons in 17 another exposure group, and it describes the 18 relationship between those. 19 Q. Correct, Doctor. I'm aware that 20 chemicals don't have risks. I'm trying to 21 give you an example to see if you can answer 22 my question. Let me try a little, a little 23 different approach. 24 There are studies that show a 2.0 or 25 greater relative risk with a higher than a 1 23 1 K. MUNDT, PH.D. 2 confidence interval for benzene exposure in 3 multiple myeloma. Does that rise to the 4 level of association for you, Doctor? 5 A. Well, I guess I don't understand the 6 terminology you're using "rising to the level 7 of association" when I in my earlier answer 8 described to you that a departure from a 9 relative risk of 1 suggests an association. 10 Q. Okay. So does the Infante meta 11 analysis demonstrate an association for 12 benzene and multiple myeloma to you, Doctor? 13 A. Well, I think all of these questions 14 prior to this point were abstract. We're 15 talking about epidemiological methods. 16 Something that you've jumped over is what is 17 the validity of the study that generated that 18 result. 19 We can have a statistically 20 significant finding in any number of studies 21 that might have resulted from errors in study 22 design or execution, so perhaps you could 23 make it a hypothetical that I could answer. 24 Q. Well, I gave you a question. Does 25 that -- do the results of the Infante 2006 24 1 K. MUNDT, PH.D. 2 meta analysis demonstrate an association with 3 benzene in most myeloma to you, Doctor? 4 A. Well, again, I don't know what you 5 mean in the terminology "demonstrating an 6 association." He derives based on the 7 selected studies he chose and the data he 8 selects from those studies to combine, they 9 demonstrate that, that there is a statistical 10 correlation that one could describe as an 11 association. Not to say -12 Q. Okay. Thank you, Doctor. 13 A. -- whether it's valid or not. That's 14 a separate question. 15 Q. Okay. Doctor, was that study done 16 by Mr. -- Dr. Infante in 2006 peer reviewed? 17 A. First of all, it's not a primary 18 study. It is a pooling of some results from 19 several other studies. So I just want to 20 make sure that we differentiate a primary 21 epidemiologically study from let's say a 22 review or some other combination of existing 23 data from other studies. 24 Q. Is that your definition of meta 25 analysis, a review? 25 1 K. MUNDT, PH.D. 2 A. I didn't say that. 3 Q. Okay. And I didn't say primary 4 study, so. I asked you if the meta analysis 5 done by Dr. Infante was peer reviewed, 6 Doctor. 7 A. My understanding is that it had been 8 reviewed by others. I don't know the 9 mechanism that was used for that peer review. 10 In other words, I don't know that it was 11 blindly sent to experts in the field for 12 their evaluation as one would do typically 13 for a peer-reviewed medical journal. 14 Q. Do you know what journal that 15 article was published in, Doctor? 16 A. It was published as a volume, as a 17 conference proceedings by the Annals of the 18 New York Academy of Science. 19 Q. Is that a reputable journal, Doctor? 20 A. Well, it's a reputable organization. 21 The organization is highly regarded. I 22 myself have been a member for years. 23 Q. Have you ever tried to contact that 24 organization to see whether or not the 25 article was peer reviewed? 26 1 K. MUNDT, PH.D. 2 A. Actually, no. I think that's a 3 great idea, however. It would be informative 4 to know who in fact reviewed it and what 5 their criticisms might have been. 6 Q. Well, we actually did that, Doctor. 7 We verified it through an affidavit from the 8 editor but in any event. 9 How many cases have you worked on 10 dealing with blood malignancies, Doctor? 11 MR. BEZET: Excuse me, Gary Bezet, 12 object to the form of the question. Go 13 ahead. 14 A. I've probably worked on somewhere 15 between 8 and 12. 16 Q. I'm listening, Doctor. I didn't 17 quite hear you. 18 A. I'm sorry, I'll repeat my answer. 19 I've worked on somewhere between 8 and 12. 20 Q. Okay. And what was your first 21 benzene blood malignancy case that you worked 22 on, Doctor? 23 A. You know, I don't recall offhand. 24 Q. Well, let me ask you this. When 25 did you start serving as an expert witness? 27 1 K. MUNDT, PH.D. 2 A. The first case I served as an expert 3 witness in was that Rhode Island case 10 or 4 12 years ago. 5 Q. So somewhere around 1997? 6 A. You know, I don't really recall the 7 year. It was a number of years after that 8 that I worked on my next case as an expert. 9 Q. Okay. Doctor, how many blood 10 malignancy cases did you find that the 11 benzene exposure was because of the 12 individual's disease? 13 A. Well, I don't recall any cases in 14 which I found that the epidemiological 15 evidence was supportive of a causal 16 conclusion. 17 Q. Okay. How many cases have you 18 served as an expert witness in your entire 19 career? 20 A. I don't know. I've got my list 21 from the last five years, and it looks like 22 about 30. 23 Q. 30 for the last five years? Is 24 that correct, Doctor. 25 A. It looks like 26 or 7, yes. I 28 1 K. MUNDT, PH.D. 2 tried to quickly count. There's not quite 3 30, yes. 4 Q. In any of those cases did you find 5 that the chemical at issue was the cause of 6 the plaintiff's disease? 7 MR. CHOCHELES: Objection, asked and 8 answered. 9 Q. Go ahead, Doctor. 10 A. These are cases that I have 11 testified in, and the specific conclusions in 12 these cases in which I have testified I have 13 not testified that the alleged exposure 14 indeed caused the disease. 15 Q. Okay. Doctor, how many hours did 16 you put in the Bishop case to do your 17 general causation analysis? 18 A. I'm not sure that I could break it 19 out that specifically. I can tell you 20 overall I've invested about 60 hours of my 21 time as of about 10 days ago. 22 Q. Okay. And how many hours did you 23 spend prior to or up until the completion of 24 your expert report? 25 A. I don't have it broken out that way. 29 1 K. MUNDT, PH.D. 2 Q. Okay. Do you know how many hours 3 it took you to do your report? 4 A. No, sir. 5 Q. Are you familiar with the Ben Brown 6 case, Doctor? 7 A. Yes, I am. 8 Q. Do you know how many hours it took 9 you to complete your expert report in that 10 case? 11 MR. PERRY: Object to form. 12 A. I didn't look that up, no, sir. 13 Q. Okay. Okay. Have you ever been 14 limited or excluded by a court of law? 15 A. Not that I'm aware of. 16 Q. Has anyone filed a Dolbear motion 17 against you besides this case? 18 A. No that I'm aware of. 19 Q. Have you ever published a study on 20 benzene and multiple myeloma? 21 A. No, sir. 22 Q. Have you ever published a study -23 and when I say study, I mean epidemiological 24 study -- on benzene or any other blood 25 malignancy? 30 1 K. MUNDT, PH.D. 2 A. I wouldn't consider benzene a blood 3 malignancy but. Maybe you could rephrase 4 that. 5 Q. Yes, have you ever published a study 6 involving benzene and a blood malignancy? 7 A. I see. Not specifically, no. 8 Q. Doctor, do you know the criteria, 9 IARC uses to classify chemicals as 10 carcinogens? 11 A. Yes, I do. 12 Q. Can you tell me what criteria they 13 look at? 14 A. Sure. First of all, it's based 15 entirely on published peer-reviewed scientific 16 evidence divided into three committees. 17 There's the epidemiology committee. There's 18 an animal studies committee. There's a 19 mechanism committee. There's also often an 20 exposure committee that helps the other 21 committees understand the relationship between 22 the exposures and the cancers at issue. 23 These committees review their 24 respective areas of expertise and as 25 comprehensively as possible the available 31 1 K. MUNDT, PH.D. 2 literature and formulate a preliminary opinion 3 as to whether that evidence is sufficient in 4 terms of quantity and quality and in terms 5 of strength of finding and consistency of 6 finding in order to render an opinion on 7 causation. 8 This then is folded together in a 9 plenary session where each committee offers 10 their perspectives, and an overall evaluation 11 is derived at that time. 12 Q. Doctor, have you ever served on any 13 of those panels for IARC? 14 A. Yes, sir. 15 Q. What chemicals are we talking about? 16 A. Titanium dioxide, carbon black, talc, 17 painting, firefighting and shift work. I 18 understand those are not chemicals, but those 19 were the topics for the IARC evaluations. 20 Q. And did the evaluation conclude that 21 any of those chemicals or substances were 22 carcinogenic to man? 23 A. Yes, sir. Of those I believe 24 painting was the only one that received a 25 Group 1 classification that is known human 1 2 carcinogen. 32 K. MUNDT, PH.D. 3 Q. And which one did you say? You're 4 fading in and out sometimes. 5 A. Painting. 6 Q. Painting? 7 A. Yes, sir. 8 Q. Okay. 9 MR. AUBRY: Eric, let me interrupt 10 for a second. Is it possible to move the 11 phone closer to Dr. Mundt, 'cause you're 12 having trouble hearing him, and he's a little 13 faint for me as well. 14 Doctor, can you do that? 15 THE WITNESS: We can try. 16 (Whereupon, Discussion off the 17 record.) 18 BY-MR.WILLIAMS: 19 Q. Doctor, are you there? 20 A. I'm still here. 21 Q. Okay, great. Earlier we were 22 talking about the procedure IARC uses. Do 23 you know if there are any epidemiological 24 studies that show an association between 25 benzene and multiple myeloma? 33 1 K. MUNDT, PH.D. 2 A. Yes, there are. 3 Q. Okay. Do you know if there are any 4 animal studies that show a relationship 5 between lymphomas and benzene? 6 A. I've not looked at the toxicology. 7 I'm an epidemiologist. 8 Q. Okay. And what about mechanism 9 studies, are there any mechanism studies that 10 would show a relationship between benzene and 11 the blood, such as lymphocytes? 12 A. I've not looked at that either, and 13 that's not my area of expertise. 14 Q. Fair enough. Doctor, did you look 15 at the material safety data sheets in this 16 case? 17 A. I'm not aware of any, no. 18 Q. Okay. Can you tell me how many 19 studies you need to form an opinion? And 20 let me rephrase. How many statistically 21 significant studies one needs to form an 22 opinion that a substance is capable of 23 causing a disease? 24 A. I think that that's not answerable. 25 I think that determining causation is much 34 1 K. MUNDT, PH.D. 2 more complicated than adding up numbers of 3 statistically significant studies. 4 Statistically significant studies can be 5 invalid, and it doesn't matter how many you 6 have. So I think that we would have to 7 describe more completely what that process is 8 and how causation is determined. 9 Q. Well, Doctor, as an epidemiologist, 10 can you tell me if a negative study proves 11 that a chemical cannot cause a disease? 12 A. My opinion is that a single study is 13 not adequate for making a causal 14 determination one way or the other. 15 Q. But does a negative study disprove a 16 causal relationship between a chemical and a 17 disease? 18 A. It doesn't boil down to a single 19 study proving or disproving but rather a 20 critical evaluation of the entire body of 21 literature and a weighting of the evidence, 22 including positive and negative studies, 23 looking at the relative weights and quality 24 weights -- by weight I mean size -- quality 25 of methods used and whether that body of 35 1 K. MUNDT, PH.D. 2 literature consistently supports the 3 association under different circumstances and 4 in different populations. 5 Q. Doctor, are you familiar with the 6 reference done on epidemiology out of the 7 Judicial Reference Manual? 8 A. Yes, I've seen it sometime ago. 9 Q. Do you know how many studies that 10 reference says that one needs to conclude 11 that an agent is more likely the cause of a 12 disease? 13 A. I don't, but I also don't consider 14 that a scientific document. It's a judicial 15 document. It's a guidance for 16 non-scientists. 17 Q. You don't consider the methodology in 18 the reference guide on epidemiology adequate 19 for this type of work? 20 MR. PERRY: Object to form. 21 A. I wouldn't teach a course on 22 epidemiological evaluation of causation using 23 it as a textbook. 24 Q. Okay. Do you know who authored the 25 reference guide on epidemiology? 36 1 K. MUNDT, PH.D. 2 A. I do believe I know one or more of 3 the authors. I can't recall them right now. 4 Q. Okay. Do you agree or disagree with 5 the methodology contained in that reference? 6 A. If depends on which methodology. I 7 think some of it's pretty good for a lay 8 accessible document. Some of it I think is 9 -- has been oversimplified, probably 10 necessarily, for its intended use. 11 Q. Does an expert need epidemiological 12 studies to render an opinion as to causation? 13 MR. PERRY: Object to form. 14 A. Well, certainly the preferred body of 15 evidence would derive from human studies 16 because human studies are by far the most 17 relevant. 18 There are examples where human 19 evidence is lacking and where a causal 20 determination was made because of the, I 21 think good understanding of the mechanism in 22 humans. It may be more experimentally than 23 epidemiologically or observationally. But I 24 think that most of the organizations, bodies, 25 authoritative bodies that determine causation 37 1 K. MUNDT, PH.D. 2 rely heavily upon and prefer human evidence 3 primarily. 4 Q. Did you review -- let me rephrase 5 it. 6 Are you aware of the mechanism 7 studies relating to benzene exposure? 8 A. I think earlier I indicated that was 9 not my area of expertise. I'm not -10 Q. I thought that's what you said. I 11 was just curious why you were bringing that 12 up. 13 So is it your opinion that sometimes 14 mechanism studies can be substituted for 15 epidemiological studies? 16 A. Well, if you understand the process 17 that IARC uses, there can be, on the basis 18 of animal studies combined with good 19 mechanistic understanding, a promotion of a 20 substance, a chemical to a Group 1 carcinogen 21 absent good epidemiologic studies. It is 22 possible. 23 Q. Okay. Doctor, what's general 24 causation? 25 A. In my opinion, general causation is 38 1 K. MUNDT, PH.D. 2 the ability of a substance, say, it doesn't 3 have to be a chemical in order to determine 4 causation or risk, but let's say stick to a 5 chemical agent. It's the ability of that 6 chemical to cause a specific disease, let's 7 say a cancer or any cancer, under any 8 circumstances. 9 Q. And can you define specific 10 causation, Doctor? 11 A. Yes, in my opinion, specific 12 causation pertains to an individual and 13 whether an individual's disease can 14 specifically be attributed to a specific 15 exposure. 16 Q. Okay. Doctor, did you disagree with 17 the results of the studies that Dr. Infante 18 relied on in his report? 19 A. Well, just to be clear, there are 20 the results of the studies that Dr. Infante 21 relied on in his expert report -22 Q. Yes, sir. 23 A. -- there are the results of the 24 studies Dr. Infante relied upon in his meta 25 analyst, and there are the results of the 39 1 K. MUNDT, PH.D. 2 studies that he derived from those studies 3 for his meta analysis, so we've got three 4 universes of results. Which one are you 5 referring to? 6 Q. His expert report? 7 A. And the question is, do I disagree 8 with the results of these studies? 9 Q. Yes. 10 A. Well, I think that's -- we'd have to 11 take those individually. First of all, 12 results are results, and if the studies are 13 well conducted, then they're open to 14 interpretation and discussion, and 15 epidemiologically that's what we spend a lot 16 of our time doing, is understanding whether 17 results that we generate or someone else 18 generates has use or meaning in understanding 19 causes of disease. 20 Q. All right. And, Doctor, my question 21 is, did Dr. Infante rely on epidemiological 22 studies that show a statistical significant 23 result for benzene and multiple myeloma? 24 A. Actually, no, there aren't so many 25 of those available. 40 1 K. MUNDT, PH.D. 2 Q. There aren't so many. I said did 3 he rely on any. 4 A. Yes, I believe he relied on Rinsky 5 87 that shows statistically significant 6 association. 7 Q. Did Kirkeleit show a statistically 8 significant association? 9 A. Yes. I didn't mean to say Rinsky 10 was the only one. I was just giving you an 11 example of one. 12 Q. Right. 13 A. Kirkeleit is another, yes. 14 Q. That's why I asked you generically 15 did he rely on studies that show a 16 statistically significant relationship between 17 benzene and multiple myeloma. 18 A. Well, yeah, that was your original 19 question, but let's take Kirkeleit. For 20 example, he relies on one of the many 21 results from that study, but he appears not 22 to rely on the rest of the study. What he 23 relies on specifically is the statistically 24 significant association they report. 25 Q. All right. Doctor, what are the 41 1 K. MUNDT, PH.D. 2 known causes of multiple myeloma? 3 A. I'm not sure that there are known 4 causes. There are certainly some risk 5 factors that are suspected. For instance, 6 ionizing radiation. 7 Q. Anything else? 8 A. I think that there -- excuse me, 9 there's been a interruption. 10 (Interruption.) 11 A. Okay. Sorry. There are other 12 characteristics, attributes of individuals that 13 appear to place them at increased risk for 14 multiple myeloma. Age, of course, is clearly 15 one, being of white race another, possibly 16 other individual characteristics, but as far 17 as environmental or what we consider 18 preventable risk factors, I don't think that 19 any rise to the level of known causes. 20 Q. Doctor, what caused Mr. Bishop's 21 multiple myeloma? 22 A. I don't know. I don't know that it 23 can be known at this point in our 24 understanding of the disease. 25 Q. Doctor, you're not going to try to 42 1 K. MUNDT, PH.D. 2 give any opinions at trial as to the levels 3 of exposure Mr. Bishop sustained from 4 benzene? 5 A. I will not be speculating on his 6 exposure levels to benzene. 7 Q. Do you know if pipe fitters were 8 exposed to high level of benzene in the 9 '70s? 10 MR. PERRY: Object to form. 11 A. This is a very broad category of 12 occupation, and so I would expect that some 13 proportion of pipe fitters might be. I 14 would expect others never were. 15 Q. Do you know the exposure pathways a 16 pipe fitter would encounter? 17 A. Yeah, I presume, as with any 18 chemical exposure that is volatile, it could 19 be ingested, it could be inhaled, it could 20 be contacted with the skin. 21 Q. Okay. Doctor, if a chemical can 22 cause one cancer, is it capable of causing 23 others? 24 MR. PERRY: Object to form. 25 A. No, not necessarily. There appears 43 1 K. MUNDT, PH.D. 2 to be a great specificity in the 3 relationships between exposures and -- or 4 carcinogens and the cancers they cause. 5 Q. Is benzene contained in gasoline, 6 Doctor? 7 A. I believe there are small quantities 8 of benzene in gasoline products. 9 Q. What about crude oil? 10 A. I believe there's some, again, small 11 quantities in crude oil and -12 Q. Is it contained in Pyrolysis Gas? 13 A. I'm sorry, I didn't hear the 14 beginning of your question. 15 Q. Is benzene contained in Pyrolysis 16 Gas? 17 A. I'm not sure. 18 Q. Do you know if Pyrolysis Gas is an 19 issue in this case? 20 A. I don't frankly know what that is. 21 Q. Do peak exposures play a role in 22 development of blood disorders, Doctor? 23 MR. PERRY: Object to form. 24 A. You need to define peak exposures, 25 but if you rely on how I would describe a 44 1 K. MUNDT, PH.D. 2 peak exposure, as some unusually high 3 exposure sustained over hopefully a short 4 period of time, I think there is some 5 evidence that those may be more harmful than, 6 say, that same quantity of exposure stretched 7 out over long periods of time. 8 Q. Okay. Doctor, would you say all 9 studies contain some type of flaw or 10 imperfection? 11 A. Well, in ours, observational science 12 is -- you're talking about epidemiological 13 studies I presume. 14 Q. Yes, sir. 15 A. Because they're observational studies, 16 they are inherently subject to various forms 17 of error, and that the real art of 18 epidemiology is to anticipate and prevent 19 those from occurring thereby increasing the 20 quality and the validity of the results of 21 the study. 22 Q. Okay. Doctor, do you know the 23 minimum benzene exposure level that is 24 required to cause a blood malignancy or blood 25 disorder? 45 1 K. MUNDT, PH.D. 2 A. I do not, no. 3 Q. Okay. Would that be something that 4 epidemiologists keep up with? 5 A. Well, I'm sure there are 6 epidemiologists who specialize in that area 7 that would know that area well. 8 Q. Okay. Doctor, do any of the studies 9 Dr. Infante rely on contain a dose response 10 for benzene and multiple myeloma? 11 A. Is your question do any of the 12 studies demonstrate a dose response. 13 Q. Yes. 14 A. I don't think there are any that 15 clearly do so, no. 16 Q. Are there any that show any type of 17 dose response relationship? 18 A. Well, there's some, you know, 19 irregular dose response. For example, 20 Collins has a study where he looks at 21 different levels of exposure, and it turns 22 out that the category with the highest 23 exposure also has the highest SMR. It's not 24 statistically significant, but I'm sure there 25 are people who would look at that and say 46 1 K. MUNDT, PH.D. 2 this appears to be a, a dose response 3 relationship, that is an increasing strength 4 of association with increasing exposure level, 5 but that's fairly weak. 6 Q. Does the 1987 Rinsky study show a 7 dose response for benzene in multiple 8 myeloma? 9 A. It can't. There's only four cases, 10 and you really need to have decent -- I 11 don't even think that the Collins had enough. 12 It wasn't much bigger than that. But you 13 need a good estimate of the risk at each of 14 the exposure levels in order to have any 15 confidence in the relationship between those 16 or across those categories of exposure. 17 Q. Doctor, are you familiar with the 18 1987 OSHA final benzene standard? 19 A. Yes, I am. 20 Q. Okay. And do you know if they used 21 the Rinsky study in that final benzene 22 standard? 23 A. Yeah, I think that actually must 24 have been the impetus for that. It came out 25 around the same time. 47 1 K. MUNDT, PH.D. 2 Q. All right. And was the dose 3 response relationship between benzene and 4 multiple myeloma discussed in that OSHA final 5 rule? 6 A. I really don't know. I doubt it. I 7 don't think there was a dose response 8 relationship demonstrated in Rinsky. 9 Q. Do you know if OSHA states in that 10 rule whether or not there is sufficient 11 epidemiological evidence to demonstrate a 12 causal relationship between benzene and 13 multiple myeloma? 14 A. I'd have to look at the specific 15 document to see if it used those terms, but 16 I do understand that at that time they 17 believed that benzene causes multiple myeloma. 18 Q. And do you know which studies OSHA 19 used as a basis for that opinion? 20 A. Well, they do, they do list the 21 studies including, you know, Decoufle and 22 even Aksoy, which wasn't an epidemiologic 23 study, so I'm not sure that that's an 24 accurate representation, but they are listed 25 in the document. 48 1 K. MUNDT, PH.D. 2 Q. Okay. Do you know any other studies 3 that they listed as references for their 4 opinion? 5 A. Ah -6 Q. No, okay. 7 A. It's just a matter of looking at 8 that document. I don't -9 Q. Do you have that document handy, 10 Doctor? 11 A. I think there were -- I do. I do 12 have it here. 13 Q. Why don't you pull it out, Doctor. 14 Turn to page 34779. 15 A. I actually recall it was an exhibit 16 to Dr. Infante's deposition which is in front 17 of me. Okay, 34489. 18 Q. 34779. 19 A. 3479. I have it, yes. 20 Q. Okay. 21 A. Okay, I see the studies here, the 22 middle of the, the bottom of the middle 23 column. 24 Q. Why don't you read what OSHA says. 25 "Epidemiological studies demonstrate," start 1 2 there. 49 K. MUNDT, PH.D. 3 A. "Epidemiologic studies demonstrate 4 that benzene can cause leukemia, multiple 5 myeloma and perhaps other hemopoietic and 6 lymphatic cancers. Aplastic anemia and 7 several other blood diseases are also known 8 to be caused by benzene exposure. 9 Observations related to the above findings 10 have been demonstrated by a number of high 11 quality epidemiologic studies and case 12 reports, such as those by Rinsky, Wong, Ott, 13 Decoufle, Infante, Aksoy, Vigliani and 14 others." 15 Q. Okay. My question is, do you 16 disagree with OSHA's statement that those 17 were high quality studies? 18 A. Well, there are a couple problems 19 with this. I do disagree specifically with 20 these being necessarily good epidemiological 21 studies, although that's not exactly what it 22 says. It lumps a lot of things together, so 23 the language is not really scientifically 24 specific. 25 It's talking about many disease 50 1 K. MUNDT, PH.D. 2 entities, and it's talking about many 3 studies, so we'd have to talk about each one 4 individually for me to decide whether that 5 was a high quality epidemiologic study, 6 whether or not OSHA believed that it was a 7 high quality study of any sort. 8 Q. All right. Doctor, do you believe 9 benzene can cause multiple myeloma under any 10 circumstances? 11 A. I don't think that the 12 epidemiological evidence available to us to 13 date can support that conclusion. 14 Q. Okay. Doctor, do you believe that 15 concealment of data would under report the 16 incidence of myeloma in the public domain? 17 MR. PERRY: Object to form. 18 A. That's pretty vague. I don't know 19 what you're asking. 20 Q. Okay. If certain industries fail to 21 produce cases of employees with let's say 22 multiple myeloma, would there be a lack of 23 studies in the peer-review literature? 24 MR. PERRY: Object to form. 25 A. I think you're referring to two 51 1 K. MUNDT, PH.D. 2 different things. There are cases of 3 diseases that will occur, and there are 4 epidemiological studies that seek to determine 5 the rates at which those occur. 6 If studies, epidemiologic studies, 7 that ascertain the rates of those diseases 8 among employees exposed and non-exposed 9 showing associations, then you have something 10 close to an epidemiologic study, and my 11 belief is that those epidemiologic findings 12 should be published in peer-reviewed 13 scientific journals for the scientific 14 community to evaluate. 15 Q. Okay. Doctor, if I owned a oil 16 company and I had 150 cases of multiple 17 myeloma from 1960 to 2009 and I didn't 18 report that or publish a study on that, 19 would you have an interest or an opinion on 20 whether or not that could be statistically 21 significant? 22 MR. PERRY: Object to form. 23 A. Well, not as you described it. I 24 think it suggests that there might be a 25 large enough sample size around which a 52 1 K. MUNDT, PH.D. 2 proper epidemiologic study could be 3 constructed where the actual rates of 4 occurrence of those diseases or those cases 5 occur could be quantified. I think having a 6 number of cases doesn't itself suggest 7 whether it's large or small without knowing 8 the denominator of the population that 9 actually gave rise to those case. Maybe -10 Q. What if the denominator was 30,000 11 for my oil company and I had 150 cases of 12 multiple myeloma from 1960 to 2009, would 13 that, would that be of interest to you? 14 MR. PERRY: Eric, you mean 30,000 15 employees per year from 1960 until 2009 or 16 you mean 30,000 employees total from 1960 17 until 2009? 18 MR. WILLIAMS: 30,000 employees with 19 work, work lives of 20 to 40 years. 20 MR. PERRY: The same 30,000 21 employees for 49 years, is that the question? 22 MR. WILLIAMS: I'm asking the 23 Doctor. 24 Doctor, do 150 cases -- let me 25 rephrase my question. 53 1 K. MUNDT, PH.D. 2 Doctor, tell me one study in the 3 public domain that shows 150 cases of 4 multiple myeloma from one company. 5 MR. PERRY: Object to form. 6 A. I don't know about a single study. 7 There are many com -- many studies from 8 among the petroleum companies where there are 9 hundreds of cases total. 10 Q. And how many employees are we 11 talking? Hundreds of thousands of employees? 12 A. Well, the studies don't just take 13 number of cases out of number of employees. 14 All the studies you see with SMRs we 15 calculate person time. So we need to know 16 every person who worked in that facility and 17 the duration of time they worked in that 18 facility and every year that they're followed 19 until they die and we determine what the 20 cause of death was in those cases. So we 21 typically have hundreds of thousands of 22 person years that are necessary, then, to 23 calculate the rates at which the diseases are 24 occurring, and we then can more properly 25 compare those rates of diseases between 54 1 K. MUNDT, PH.D. 2 exposed subgroups and non-exposed subgroups or 3 even to the general population. But if we 4 only have counts of people and diseases, we 5 can't construct a valid epidemiological 6 measure of association. 7 Q. Okay. And, Doctor, I don't recall 8 what you said. Have you seen a -- one 9 company with 150 cases internally? 10 MR. PERRY: Object to form. 11 A. Not that I recall, no. 12 Q. Okay. Can you name a study 13 sponsored or conducted by Shell Oil that show 14 a statistically significant result for benzene 15 and multiple myeloma? 16 A. Not that I recall, no. 17 Q. How about Exxon, sir? 18 A. I'd have to refer to my summary. 19 There's so many studies. Let me -- if you 20 don't mind, I'll look at -21 Q. Absolutely. 22 A. -- the summary that I have and 23 provided you on this DVD. I believe not, 24 but there might be some here or there. You 25 know, you always have some positive and 55 1 K. MUNDT, PH.D. 2 potentially statistically significant findings 3 out of the majority that show no such 4 association. I don't believe that there was, 5 no. 6 Q. How about Chevron? 7 A. I believe not. 8 Q. Any other oil company? 9 MR. PERRY: Object to form. 10 A. I believe that, yes, Dr. Satin 2002 11 reports in refinery workers, I believe this 12 is a Canadian company -13 Q. And what were the results from that 14 study? 15 A. He had a total of 29 multiple 16 myelomas. 17 Q. Okay. 18 A. And the SMR was 1.56 -- I'm sorry, 19 1.59, and the confidence interval was 1.07 to 20 2.89. 21 Q. Okay. Have any other oil companies 22 shown a statistically significant result that 23 was greater than a 2.0? 24 A. Greater than a 2.0. I don't know 25 of one offhand. 56 1 K. MUNDT, PH.D. 2 Q. Okay. 3 A. There is the Kirkeleit, has relative 4 risks based on -5 Q. That was sponsored by an oil 6 company, you said? 7 A. I don't know what the sponsorship 8 was, but it was in oil employees. 9 Q. Doctor, in your report you say that 10 there are 19,920 new cases of multiple 11 myeloma diagnosed each year, paragraph 27. 12 Do you know what the U.S. incidence rate for 13 myeloma is? 14 A. As an aggregate, no. You really 15 should look at the incidence rate by age. 16 It depends strongly on age. 17 Q. Well, if I told you Dr. Nilsson 18 lesson testified that it was 4.3 per hundred 19 thousand, would you agree with that? 20 A. I think that I've seen estimates 21 around 4 or a little bit more than 4 for 22 the overall population which would be a 23 weighted average of all the age specific 24 rates. They do vary considerably across age 25 groups. 57 1 K. MUNDT, PH.D. 2 Q. Doctor, in your report, paragraph 31, 3 you talk about the Institute of Medicine. 4 Is that a governmental agency, Doctor? 5 A. Well, the Institute of Medicine is 6 part of our natural academies of science, and 7 its -- while it's important to our government 8 and it often deals with matters of science 9 for our Congress, it is intentionally 10 independent of government and industry and 11 all specific interests in order to render 12 high quality valid and unbiased scientific 13 opinions. 14 Q. Doctor, when you say "our," who are 15 you referring to? 16 A. U.S. citizens. 17 Q. Okay. Is it a nonprofit 18 organization? 19 A. I don't know their legal construct. 20 Q. Okay. Do they classify chemicals as 21 carcinogens? 22 A. They do do critical reviews of 23 epidemiologic and toxicologic literature and 24 often provide opinions as to carcinogenicity, 25 yes. 58 1 K. MUNDT, PH.D. 2 Q. Kind of like the American Cancer 3 Society, something similar to that? 4 A. I wouldn't use that specifically. I 5 think the American Cancer Society has another 6 purpose, but let's say they use a similar 7 approach as IARC or NTP would in evaluating 8 the epidemiological literature. 9 Q. But, again, they're not a 10 governmental agency, correct? 11 A. Well, I don't know their exact 12 classification, but they intend to be 13 independent of the government so that they 14 can render objective opinions to the 15 government for litigation and decision making. 16 MR. PERRY: Wait. Eric, let him 17 finish. 18 THE COURT REPORTER: We didn't get 19 that question. There was an interruption. 20 MR. PERRY: Eric, let him -21 BY-MR.WILLIAMS: 22 Q. Do you know if they rendered any 23 peer-review opinions as relates to benzene 24 and multiple myeloma? 25 A. I'm not sure what you mean by a 59 1 K. MUNDT, PH.D. 2 peer-review opinion. They have in fact 3 published language in review documents that 4 were the products of the large and diverse 5 committee of experts that underwent additional 6 peer-review drawing the conclusion that the 7 evidence was insufficient for such a 8 conclusion. 9 Q. What journal was that published in, 10 Doctor? 11 A. I'm sorry, I don't understand that I 12 ever indicated it was published in a journal. 13 It was published in an official report of 14 the IOM. 15 Q. Mm-hmm. Doctor, if you look at your 16 reference list in your report, can you tell 17 me what studies are benzene cohort studies? 18 A. Well, I don't have a specific 19 notation of that, but I believe that the 20 Ireland and Collins, Sorahan, Rinsky, Wong. 21 The Australian study series there are several 22 reports on some, various over time. 23 Schnatter -24 Q. Anything else, Doctor? 25 A. I'm still going. Schnatter, Lewis, 60 1 K. MUNDT, PH.D. 2 Satin, Huebner, Tsai, Divine, Thomas, Dement, 3 Rushton, Kirkeleit. I think those are most 4 of the cohort studies. 5 Q. Doctor, can you define benzene cohort 6 for us? 7 A. Well, I assume you're referring to 8 cohorts exposed to benzene. 9 Q. Yes, I'm asking your definition of a 10 benzene cohort. 11 A. Well, I'm not sure that that's a 12 standard term, but I take it as meaning a 13 defined group of people, which is simply the 14 definition of a cohort, where exposure is 15 either known or presumed, and that depends on 16 what kinds of records might be available. 17 Q. And what would make the study that 18 you just listed different from other benzene 19 epidemiological studies as it relates to 20 being called a benzene cohort? 21 A. I really don't understand your 22 question. 23 Q. Well, how do we -- how does one 24 know if we're looking at a benzene cohort 25 study or just an epidemiological study 61 1 K. MUNDT, PH.D. 2 involving benzene and blood malignancies? 3 A. I'm sorry, I still don't understand 4 what your question is. 5 Q. Okay. Well, if you don't understand 6 the question, I don't know how else to ask 7 it. 8 Do you know what type of studies Dr. 9 Infante used in his meta analysis? 10 A. He claims to have selected 7 of the 11 8 available cohort studies on benzene 12 exposure and multiple myeloma. 13 Q. Okay. Now, let's go to that word 14 claims. Why don't you define that for us. 15 A. That's what he says in his report. 16 Q. Okay. And what is he saying about 17 7 of 8 benzene cohorts? 18 A. He, again, claims, meaning he 19 describes in his report that these are 20 studies where he has a high level of 21 certainty that the cases were exposed. 22 Q. Does he state that there are other 23 known benzene cohorts? 24 A. I think he does. 25 Q. Besides the 8 studies that you just 1 2 referred to? 62 K. MUNDT, PH.D. 3 A. I'd have to -- you know, I don't 4 know what he would define a benzene cohort 5 as, and I don't recall specifically if he 6 mentions others. I believe he mentions a 7 larger number of studies but then ends up 8 not incorporating them in his analysis. 9 Q. Okay. And is there a standard 10 epidemiological definition for benzene cohort 11 that you know of? 12 A. Well, as I said earlier, I don't 13 think that that's a standard term to begin 14 with. I think loosely you're referring to 15 groups of people where there's some 16 probability that benzene exposure occurred. 17 Sometimes it's a subset of a larger cohort, 18 so I don't know that it has inherent meaning 19 as a technical term. 20 Q. Okay, I understand. Doctor, did you 21 look at the 1977 Joyner/Stallone study? 22 MR. PERRY: Object to form. 23 A. Yes, I -- I'm sorry, I -- 24 Q. Did you review Dr. Infante's expert 25 report in this case? 63 1 K. MUNDT, PH.D. 2 A. Excuse me, I didn't finish my 3 previous answer. 4 Q. I apologize. 5 A. I looked at reports from Stallone. 6 You're referring to the unpublished reports 7 of the surveillance system? Not the 8 surveillance system; of the death 9 certificates? 10 Q. For the 77 Stallone study? 11 A. Yes, I'm just trying to clarify that 12 we're talking about the same document. 13 Q. Yeah, the one with the 8 cases of 14 multiple myeloma in it, that one. 15 A. Okay. Yes, I've seen that report. 16 Q. Okay. And did you look at Dr. 17 Infante's calculation for those 8 cases of 18 myeloma? 19 A. I believe I did, but on the other 20 hand, this is not a peer-reviewed, published 21 epidemiologic study. And, secondly, it uses 22 a kind of a quick and dirty analytic 23 methodology that is not of the caliber of 24 what one does in conducting a cohort study. 25 Q. Did you say quick and dirty? 64 1 K. MUNDT, PH.D. 2 A. Yeah, that's what I would refer to a 3 PMR analysis. 4 Q. Okay. Why is it quick and dirty? 5 A. Well, typically it's done when you 6 have a bunch of death certificates and you 7 want to make some sense out of them or 8 generate some hypotheses. It's done, you 9 know, for that purpose often, and it's very 10 inexpensive to do. It might lead one to 11 conclude that a cohort study might be 12 worthwhile. It might also suggest that there 13 aren't enough, you know, cases to actually 14 pursue a cohort study which can be quite 15 time-consuming and expensive. So it has its 16 purpose, but its purpose is -- among these 17 purposes is not determining causation. 18 Q. Do the results indicate that they 19 are statistically significant? 20 MR. PERRY: Object to form. 21 A. Statistically significant what? 22 Q. For benzene and myeloma. 23 A. Well, first of all, I'm not sure 24 there was any measure of exposures, including 25 benzene in that report. I think that this 65 1 K. MUNDT, PH.D. 2 was a collection of death certificates from a 3 company which included people who might have 4 been exposed to benzene and others who might 5 not have. 6 Q. Okay. Do you know if those results 7 were ever reported to OSHA, Doctor? 8 A. The results on multiple myeloma? 9 Q. Yeah, the 8 cases of myeloma. 10 A. I don't, I don't know that those 11 were sought by OSHA. I think that OSHA was 12 looking for studies on leukemias. 13 Q. Is blood dyscrasia also -- is 14 multiple myeloma also referred to as blood 15 dyscrasia? 16 MR. PERRY: Object to form. 17 A. I don't know if that's what -- if 18 that's the right terminology, so I just don't 19 know. 20 Q. Have you ever referred to multiple 21 myeloma as blood dyscrasia? 22 MR. PERRY: Object to form. 23 A. Not that I know of. 24 Q. Okay. One second, Doctor. Do you 25 think 150 cases in a company is enough to 66 1 K. MUNDT, PH.D. 2 perform an epidemiological study to determine 3 if there's an excess of multiple myeloma? 4 MR. PERRY: Object to form. 5 A. Well, epidemiologically 150 cases is 6 certainly much more attractive than studies 7 with 8 or 10 or 22 or 50. 8 Q. I agree with you on that, Doctor. I 9 don't think I have any other questions at 10 this time. Do you have any Stan? 11 MR. PERRY: No, sir. 12 MR. WILLIAMS: Anybody else? 13 MR. CHOCHELES: No. 14 MR. WILLIAMS: Okay, I don't think I 15 heard anybody else, Ms. Court Reporter. 16 I want to mark the OSHA document as 17 the next exhibit. I don't think he had that 18 in his CD-ROM. 19 (Whereupon, Exhibit-3 was marked for 20 identification.) 21 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The deposition is 22 now concluded, and the time is approximately 23 4:27. This concludes tape No. 1 of 1 of 24 the deposition of Kenneth Mundt, M.D. and we 25 are off the record. 67 1 K. MUNDT, PH.D. 2 (Whereupon, the Deposition of KENNETH 3 MUNDT, M.D. concluded at 4:30 p.m.) 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 68 1 K. MUNDT, PH.D. 2 CERTIFICATE 3 4 I, Maryellen Coughlin, a RPR/CRR and 5 Notary Public of the Commonwealth of 6 Massachusetts, do hereby certify that the 7 foregoing is a true and accurate transcript 8 of my stenographic notes of the deposition of 9 KENNETH A. MUNDT, Ph.D., who appeared before 10 me, satisfactorily identified themself, and 11 was by me duly sworn, taken at the place and 12 on the date hereinbefore set forth. 13 I further certify that I am neither 14 attorney nor counsel for, nor related to or 15 employed by any of the parties to the action 16 in which this deposition was taken, and 17 further that I am not a relative or employee 18 of any attorney or counsel employed in this 19 case, nor am I financially interested in this 20 action. 21 22 23 MARYELLEN COUGHLIN, RPR/CRR 24 25 Dated: July 3, 2009 69 1 K. MUNDT, PH.D. 2 CAPTION 3 The Deposition of KENNETH MUNDT, 4 PH.D., taken in the matter, on the date, and 5 at the time and place set out on the title 6 page hereof. 7 It was requested that the deposition 8 be taken by the reporter and that same be 9 reduced to typewritten form. 10 It was agreed by and between counsel 11 and the parties that the Deponent will read 12 and sign the transcript of said deposition. 13 . 14 . 15 . 16 . 17 . 18 . 19 . 20 . 21 . 22 . 23 . 24 . 25 1 2 . 70 K. MUNDT, PH.D. CERTIFICATE 3 STATE OF : 4 COUNTY/CITY OF : 5 Before me, this day, personally 6 appeared, KENNETH MUNDT, PH.D., who, being duly 7 sworn, states that the foregoing transcript 8 of his/her Deposition, taken in the matter, 9 on the date, and at the time and place set 10 out on the title page hereof, constitutes a 11 true and accurate transcript of said 12 deposition. 13 14 KENNETH MUNDT, PH.D. 15 . 16 SUBSCRIBED and SWORN to before me this 17 day of , 2009 in the 18 jurisdiction aforesaid. 19 20 My Commission Expires Notary Public 21 . 22 . 23 . 24 . 25 . 71 1 K. MUNDT, PH.D. . DEPOSITION ERRATA SHEET . RE: Accurate Case Caption: VS. SHELL OIL Court Reporting, Inc. JOANN BISHOP, ET AL. COMPANY, ET AL. . DEPONENT: KENNETH MUNDT, PH.D. DEPOSITION DATE: June 29, 2009 . To the Reporter: I have read the entire transcript of my Deposition taken in the captioned matter or the same has been read to me. I request that the following changes be entered upon the record for the reasons indicated. I have signed my name to the Errata Sheet and the appropriate Certificate and authorize you to attach both to the original transcript. . _________________________________________________ _________________________________________________ _________________________________________________ _________________________________________________ _________________________________________________ _________________________________________________ _________________________________________________ _________________________________________________ _________________________________________________ _________________________________________________ _________________________________________________ _________________________________________________ _________________________________________________ _________________________________________________ _________________________________________________ _________________________________________________ _________________________________________________ _________________________________________________ _________________________________________________ _________________________________________________ _________________________________________________ _________________________________________________ _________________________________________________ _________________________________________________ _________________________________________________ . SIGNATURE:_______________________DATE:___________ KENNETH MUNDT, PH.D. VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF KENNETH MUNDT, M.D., JUNE 29, 2009 Page 72 A ability 38:2,5 able 19:22 absent 37:21 Absolutely 54:21 abstract 23:14 academies 57:6 Academy 12:14 25:18 accessible 36:8 accounting 11:2 accurate 6:11 47:24 68:7 70:11 71:4 action 68:15,20 actual 17:25 52:3 adding 34:2 additional 59:5 additionally 11:11 address 6:12 7:2 8:10 adequate 34:13 35:18 adequately 18:15 affidavit 26:7 aforesaid 70:18 age 41:14 56:15,16 56:23,24 agency 57:4 58:10 agent 16:12 35:11 38:5 aggregate 56:14 ago 12:3 17:4 27:4 28:21 35:8 agree 36:4 56:19 66:8 agreed 69:10 Ah 48:5 ahead 26:13 28:9 Aksoy 47:22 49:13 al 1:4,7 6:17 71:5,6 alleged 16:25 28:13 alleging 16:16 allergic 16:14 American 58:2,5 Amherst 8:13 13:17 13:25 15:3 AML 18:12 19:18 20:12 amount 11:3 analysis 23:11 24:2 24:25 25:4 28:17 39:3 61:9 62:8 64:3 analyst 38:25 analytic 63:22 anemia 49:6 anemias 20:2 animal 30:18 33:4 37:18 Ann 1:4 6:16 Annals 12:14 25:17 answer 22:21 23:7,23 26:18 63:3 answerable 33:24 answered 28:8 anticipate 44:18 anybody 66:12,15 aplastic 19:25 49:6 apologize 63:4 appear 41:13 APPEARANCES 2:2 3:2 4:2 appeared 68:9 70:6 appears 40:21 42:25 46:2 Applied 13:24 14:8 14:24 approach 22:23 58:7 appropriate 71:17 approximately 6:9 66:22 area 20:2 33:13 37:9 45:6,7 areas 17:25 30:24 art 44:17 Arthur 8:12 article 25:15,25 ascertain 51:7 asked 19:12 25:4 28:7 40:14 asking 50:19 52:22 60:9 aspects 17:20 assoc 22:8 associated 20:5,16 21:25 22:2 association 18:15 20:15,15,24 21:4 21:11,16,19,23 22:3,9 23:4,7,9,11 24:2,6,11 32:24 35:3 40:6,8,24 46:4 54:6 55:4 associations 51:9 assume 60:7 attach 71:18 attorney 68:14,18 attorneys 11:15 attractive 66:6 attributed 38:14 attributes 41:12 Aubry 4:9 7:11,11 32:9 Australian 59:21 authored 35:24 authoritative 36:25 authorize 71:18 authors 36:3 available 9:24 10:10 30:25 39:25 50:12 60:16 61:11 Ave 2:14 Avenue 8:13 average 56:23 aware 19:14,16 20:4 20:10 22:19 29:15 29:18 33:17 37:6 B B 2:6 7:4 bachelor's 8:19 based 13:14,17 24:6 30:14 56:4 basis 37:17 47:19 Baton 3:17 7:7 Battle 4:12 6:10 beginning 43:14 behalf 16:4 belief 51:11 believe 10:21 14:9 VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF KENNETH MUNDT, M.D., JUNE 29, 2009 Page 73 14:12 18:4,18,25 31:23 36:2 40:4 43:7,10 50:8,14 54:23 55:4,7,10,11 59:19 62:6 63:19 believed 47:17 50:6 Ben 29:5 benzene 12:16 16:2,4 16:24 18:2,6 19:13 19:15,19,22 20:5,7 20:9,12 23:2,12 24:3 26:21 27:11 29:20,24 30:2,6 32:25 33:5,10 37:7 39:23 40:17 42:4,6 42:8 43:5,8,15 44:23 45:10 46:7 46:18,21 47:3,12 47:17 49:4,8 50:9 54:14 58:23 59:17 60:5,8,10,18,20,24 61:2,11,17,23 62:4 62:10,16 64:22,25 65:4 Bezet 3:15 7:6,6 26:11,11 bigger 46:12 binder 12:12 birth 8:15 Bishop 1:4 6:16 28:16 42:3 71:5 Bishop's 41:20 bit 22:12 56:21 black 31:16 blindly 25:11 blood 18:3 19:13,14 19:20,21 20:6 26:10,21 27:9 29:24 30:2,6 33:11 43:22 44:24,24 49:7 61:2 65:13,14 65:21 board 17:12 bodies 36:24,25 body 34:20,25 36:14 boil 34:18 BOONE 3:5 Boston 1:12 6:22 bottom 48:22 Boulevard 6:13 Box 3:16 7:7 break 28:18 bring 9:20 10:8 11:20 bringing 37:11 broad 42:11 broken 28:25 brought 9:23 10:13 10:17,20 16:19 Brown 29:5 bunch 64:6 business 6:12 BY-MR.WILLIAMS 8:8 9:19 13:10 32:18 58:21 C CAHILL 4:3 calculate 53:15,23 calculation 63:17 caliber 63:23 call 21:16 called 21:20 60:20 Canadian 55:12 cancer 15:20 16:17 38:7,7 42:22 58:2 58:5 cancers 30:22 43:4 49:6 capable 19:23 33:22 42:22 Caption 69:2 71:5 captioned 71:13 carbon 31:16 carcinogen 20:8,10 32:2 37:20 carcinogenic 31:22 carcinogenicity 57:24 carcinogens 30:10 43:4 57:21 career 27:19 Carolina 8:24 case 1:6 6:17 11:4 11:16 12:2 15:21 16:4,7,8 26:21 27:2,3,8 28:16 29:6,10,17 33:16 43:19 49:11 52:9 62:25 68:19 71:5 cases 10:20,22 11:21 11:22,23,25 15:16 16:19,20 26:9 27:10,13,17 28:4 28:10,12 46:9 50:21 51:2,16 52:4 52:6,11,24 53:3,9 53:13,20 54:9 56:10 61:21 63:13 63:17 64:13 65:9 65:25 66:5 categories 46:16 category 42:11 45:22 causal 18:15,19 19:2 20:13 21:9 27:15 34:13,16 36:19 47:12 causation 15:17 18:9 28:17 31:7 33:25 34:8 35:22 36:12 36:25 37:24,25 38:4,10,12 64:17 cause 16:25 18:2,6 19:13,15,19 28:5 32:11 34:11 35:11 38:6 42:22 43:4 44:24 49:4 50:9 53:20 caused 15:24 16:17 28:14 41:20 49:8 causes 39:19 41:2,4 41:19 47:17 causing 33:23 42:22 cchocheles@sherga... 4:6 CD-ROM 66:18 Center 3:6 certain 18:4 20:16 VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF KENNETH MUNDT, M.D., JUNE 29, 2009 Page 74 21:7 22:15 50:20 certainly 21:10 36:14 41:4 66:6 certainty 61:21 Certificate 68:2 70:2 71:18 certificates 63:9 64:6 65:2 certified 17:12 certify 68:6,13 changes 71:15 Chapel 8:24 characteristics 41:12,16 charged 11:4 chemical 15:20,24 17:5 20:16 21:17 22:6 28:5 34:11,16 37:20 38:3,5,6 42:18,21 chemicals 15:17 22:13,20 30:9 31:15,18,21 57:20 Chevron 55:6 Chocheles 4:5 7:10 7:10,13,13 28:7 66:13 chose 24:7 Chris 7:10,13 Christopher 4:5 circumstances 18:5 35:3 38:8 50:10 citizens 57:16 claims 61:10,14,18 clarify 63:11 classification 31:25 58:12 classified 20:9 classify 30:9 57:20 clear 38:19 clearly 41:14 45:15 CLL 18:17,20 close 51:10 closer 32:11 Club 6:21 CML 19:9,10 COATS 4:8 cohort 59:17 60:4,5 60:10,14,20,24 61:11 62:4,10,17 63:24 64:11,14 cohorts 60:8 61:17 61:23 collection 65:2 college 8:20 9:4 11:17 Collins 45:20 46:11 59:20 column 48:23 com 53:7 combination 24:22 combine 24:8 combined 37:18 come 10:6 commenced 6:6 commencing 1:13 Commission 70:20 committee 30:17,18 30:19,20 31:9 59:5 committees 30:16,21 30:23 Commonwealth 68:5 communications 11:15 community 51:14 companies 53:8 55:21 company 6:17 7:8,9 13:16 51:16 52:11 53:4 54:9 55:8,12 56:6 65:3,25 71:6 compare 53:25 compared 22:16 complete 29:9 completely 34:7 completion 28:23 complicated 34:2 composition 9:6 comprehensively 30:25 concealment 50:15 concerns 20:4 conclude 31:20 35:10 64:11 concluded 66:22 67:3 concludes 66:23 conclusion 18:11,19 19:2 20:13 27:16 50:13 59:6,8 conclusions 28:11 conducted 39:13 54:13 conducting 63:24 conference 25:17 confidence 21:15 22:8 23:2 46:15 55:19 Congress 57:9 consider 30:2 35:13 35:17 41:17 considerably 56:24 consistency 31:5 consistently 35:2 constitutes 70:10 construct 54:5 57:19 constructed 52:3 constructive 22:14 contact 16:13 25:23 contacted 42:20 contain 44:9 45:9 contained 10:18 12:11 36:5 43:5,12 43:15 containing 10:14 11:14 contains 12:15 CONT'D 3:2 4:2 copies 10:8 11:20 Corporation 13:14 correct 16:6 17:8,9 17:11,14,16 22:19 27:24 58:10 correctly 12:21 21:20 correlates 21:7 correlation 20:20 24:10 Coughlin 1:14 6:23 68:4,23 counsel 6:24 8:4 VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF KENNETH MUNDT, M.D., JUNE 29, 2009 Page 75 68:14,18 69:10 count 28:2 counts 54:4 COUNTY/CITY 70:4 couple 49:18 course 35:21 41:14 court 1:2,14 6:11,18 6:22 7:19 8:6 29:14 58:18 66:15 71:4 criteria 30:8,12 critical 34:20 57:22 criticisms 26:5 crude 43:9,11 curious 37:11 current 15:6 currently 13:12 D Dartmouth 8:20 data 24:7,23 33:15 50:15 date 8:14 50:13 68:12 69:4 70:9 71:9 72:23 Dated 68:25 day 12:9 70:5,17 days 11:5 28:21 deal 21:2 dealing 22:6 26:10 deals 57:8 death 53:20 63:8 64:6 65:2 December 8:16 decent 46:10 decide 50:4 decision 58:15 Decoufle 47:21 49:13 defendant 7:8 Defendants 1:8 defer 17:24 define 38:9 43:24 60:5 61:14 62:4 defined 60:13 definition 20:14 24:24 60:9,14 62:10 degree 8:19,20,22 9:2,4,5,7 degrees 8:17 Dement 60:2 demonstrate 23:11 24:2,9 45:12 47:11 48:25 49:3 demonstrated 47:8 49:10 demonstrating 24:5 denominator 52:8,10 departure 23:8 depends 36:6 56:16 60:15 Deponent 69:11 71:8 deposition 1:11 5:7 6:2,15,20 9:10,21 12:6,10 48:16 66:21,24 67:2 68:8 68:16 69:3,7,12 70:8,12 71:2,9,13 derive 36:15 derived 31:11 39:2 derives 24:6 describe 24:10 34:7 43:25 described 23:8 51:23 describes 22:17 61:19 DESCRIPTION 5:4 design 23:22 determination 34:14 36:20 determine 36:25 38:3 51:4 53:19 66:2 determined 11:2 34:8 determining 33:25 64:17 development 43:22 Devonshire 1:12 6:21 diagnosed 56:11 die 53:19 different 21:22 22:23 35:3,4 45:21 51:2 60:18 differentiate 24:20 dioxide 31:16 director 15:9 dirty 63:22,25 64:4 disagree 36:4 38:16 39:7 49:16,19 disciplines 17:23 discussed 47:4 discussing 11:10 discussion 32:16 39:14 disease 15:24 20:16 20:22 21:8,16 27:12 28:6,14 33:23 34:11,17 35:12 38:6,13 39:19 41:24 49:25 diseases 49:7 51:3,7 52:4 53:23,25 54:4 disorder 19:20 44:25 disorders 43:22 disprove 34:15 disproving 34:19 District 1:2,3 6:18 6:19 diverse 59:4 divided 30:16 Divine 60:2 doctor 9:9,20 12:7 14:13 17:7,8 18:2 20:14 21:12 22:19 23:4,12 24:3,12,15 25:6,15,19 26:6,10 26:16,22 27:9,24 28:9,15 29:6 30:8 31:12 32:14,19 33:14 34:9 35:5 37:23 38:10,16 39:20 40:25 41:20 41:25 42:21 43:6 43:22 44:8,22 45:8 46:17 48:10,13 50:8,14 51:15 52:23,24 53:2 54:7 56:9 57:2,4,14 59:10,15,24 60:5 VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF KENNETH MUNDT, M.D., JUNE 29, 2009 Page 76 62:20 65:7,24 66:8 document 11:11 35:14 35:15 36:8 47:15 47:25 48:8,9 63:12 66:16 documents 10:4,9 11:18 12:21 59:3 doing 39:16 Dolbear 29:16 domain 50:16 53:3 dose 45:9,12,17,19 46:2,7 47:2,7 doses 18:15 doubt 47:6 Dr 8:9 12:9,15 13:11 24:16 25:5 32:11 38:17,20,24 39:21 45:9 48:16 55:10 56:17 61:8 62:24 63:16 draw 18:19 19:2 drawing 20:13 59:6 duly 7:25 68:11 70:6 duration 53:17 DVD 5:10 10:18 11:16 12:24,25 13:3,6 54:23 dyscrasia 65:13,15 65:21 dyscrasias 19:22 E earlier 16:19 19:12 23:7 32:21 37:8 62:12 earned 8:17,19 Eastern 1:3 6:19 editor 26:8 either 33:12 60:15 El 3:13 7:9 electronic 11:11 employed 13:13,24 68:15,18 employee 68:17 employees 50:21 51:8 52:15,16,18,21 53:10,11,13 56:8 encounter 42:16 ends 62:7 English 9:5,6 entered 71:15 entire 27:18 34:20 71:12 entirely 30:15 entities 50:2 entitled 12:16 Enviro 13:20 Environ 13:13 14:7 environmental 41:17 epidemiologic 37:21 47:22 49:3,11 50:5 51:6,10,11 52:2 57:23 63:21 epidemiological 11:13 22:14 23:15 27:14 29:23 32:23 35:22 36:11 37:15 39:21 44:12 47:11 48:25 49:20 50:12 51:4 54:5 58:8 60:19,25 62:10 66:2 epidemiologically 20:18 24:21 36:23 39:15 66:5 epidemiologist 17:19 33:7 34:9 epidemiologists 45:4 45:6 epidemiology 9:7,8 13:25 14:8,11,24 15:9 17:22 30:17 35:6,18,25 44:18 Eric 2:8 7:3 32:9 52:14 58:16,20 eric@toxictortlaw... 2:10 Errata 71:2,17 error 44:17 errors 23:21 Esplanade 2:14 Esq 2:8,16 3:9,15 4:5,9 essentially 10:5 11:9 20:19 estimate 46:13 estimates 56:20 et 1:4,7 6:17 71:5,6 evaluate 21:20 51:14 evaluating 58:7 evaluation 22:4 25:12 31:10,20 34:20 35:22 evaluations 31:19 evening 8:9 event 26:8 evidence 18:10,14,18 18:25 21:23 27:15 30:16 31:3 34:21 36:15,19 37:2 44:5 47:11 50:12 59:7 exact 58:11 exactly 49:21 EXAMINATION 8:7 examined 7:25 example 20:2 22:21 40:11,20 45:19 examples 36:18 excess 66:3 excluded 29:14 excuse 26:11 41:8 63:2 execution 23:22 exhibit 48:15 66:17 exhibits 5:2 10:12 Exhibits-1 12:10 Exhibit-1 5:6 9:16 9:17 Exhibit-2 5:9 13:8 Exhibit-3 5:12 66:19 existing 24:22 expect 42:12,14 expensive 64:15 experimentally 36:22 expert 10:13 11:20 11:24 15:20 16:21 17:24 26:25 27:2,8 27:18 28:24 29:9 VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF KENNETH MUNDT, M.D., JUNE 29, 2009 Page 77 36:11 38:21 39:6 62:24 expertise 20:3 30:24 33:13 37:9 experts 17:25 25:11 59:5 Expires 70:20 exposed 42:8 51:8 54:2 60:8 61:21 65:4 exposure 12:16 16:13 16:17 18:16 20:21 22:15,17 23:2 27:11 28:13 30:20 37:7 38:15 42:3,6 42:15,18 44:2,3,6 44:23 45:21,23 46:4,14,16 49:8 60:14 61:12 62:16 exposures 20:11 30:22 43:3,21,24 64:24 extreme 16:13 Exxon 54:17 E-mail 2:10,18 3:11 4:6,10 F facility 53:16,18 fact 10:16 26:4 59:2 factor 20:21,24 21:3 21:6 22:10 factors 41:5,18 faculty 14:25 fading 32:4 fail 50:20 faint 32:13 fair 13:5 33:14 fairly 46:5 falls 17:22 familiar 17:20 29:5 35:5 46:17 far 8:18 11:23 36:16 41:16 Federal 5:13 Fernandez 2:13,16 7:4 field 25:11 fields 17:18 file 10:13 11:9 filed 29:16 final 46:18,21 47:4 financially 68:19 find 27:10 28:4 finding 23:20 31:5,6 findings 49:9 51:11 55:2 finish 58:17 63:2 firefighting 31:17 firm 15:8 first 7:25 9:5 10:2 21:19 24:17 26:20 27:2 30:14 39:11 64:23 fitter 42:16 fitters 42:7,13 five 10:22 27:21,23 flaw 44:9 Floor 4:4 Florida 6:13 folded 31:8 folder 11:14 followed 53:18 following 71:15 follows 8:2 foregoing 68:7 70:7 form 19:7 22:11 26:12 29:11 33:19 33:21 35:20 36:13 42:10,24 43:23 50:17,24 51:22 53:5 54:10 55:9 62:22 64:20 65:16 65:22 66:4 69:9 forms 44:16 formulate 31:2 forth 68:12 forward 17:23 found 15:23 27:14 four 46:9 frankly 43:20 front 48:16 full 8:10 14:6 full-time 13:13 15:4 further 68:13,17 G GARNER 4:3 Gary 3:15 7:6 26:11 Gas 43:12,16,18 gasoline 43:5,8 general 10:23 28:17 37:23,25 54:3 generally 19:17 generate 39:17 64:8 generated 23:17 generates 39:18 generically 40:14 give 22:21 42:2 giving 40:10 go 9:25 26:12 28:9 61:13 going 41:25 59:25 good 8:9 21:2 36:7 36:21 37:18,21 46:13 49:20 Gorda 6:13 government 57:7,10 58:13,15 governmental 57:4 58:10 graduate 11:17 great 26:3 32:21 43:2 greater 21:14,14 22:7,25 55:23,24 Greenway 4:8 group 22:16,17 31:25 37:20 60:13 groups 56:25 62:15 guess 23:5 guidance 35:15 guide 35:18,25 H half 15:14 hand 63:20 handy 48:9 VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF KENNETH MUNDT, M.D., JUNE 29, 2009 Page 78 harmful 44:5 HAYNES 3:5 Health 15:2 hear 26:17 43:13 heard 66:15 hearing 32:12 heavily 37:2 held 1:12 helps 30:20 hemopoietic 49:5 Herbicide 17:7 herbicides 17:6 hereinbefore 68:12 hereof 69:6 70:10 high 18:15 42:8 44:2 49:10,17 50:5,7 57:12 61:20 higher 22:25 highest 45:22,23 highly 25:21 high-level 20:12 HILBERT 4:4 Hill 8:24 his/her 70:8 hopefully 44:3 hours 11:3 28:15,20 28:22 29:2,8 Houston 3:6,8 4:9 7:11,16 Huebner 60:2 human 20:7,10 31:25 36:15,16,18 37:2 humans 36:22 hundred 56:18 hundreds 53:9,11,21 hygiene 17:15,20 hypotheses 64:8 hypothetical 23:23 I IARC 30:9 31:13,19 32:22 37:17 58:7 idea 26:3 identification 9:18 13:9 66:20 identified 68:10 identify 6:24 21:19 imperfection 44:10 impetus 46:24 imply 21:9 important 12:5 57:7 incidence 50:16 56:12,15 included 65:3 including 11:22 34:22 47:21 64:24 Incorporated 13:25 incorporating 62:8 increased 21:8 41:13 increasing 44:19 46:3,4 independent 57:10 58:13 index 5:2 10:5 indicate 64:18 indicated 37:8 59:12 71:16 individual 38:12 41:16 individually 39:11 50:4 individuals 41:12 individual's 27:12 38:13 inducing 19:23 industrial 17:15,20 industries 50:20 industry 57:10 inexpensive 64:10 Infante 23:10,25 24:16 25:5 38:17 38:20,24 39:21 45:9 49:13 61:9 Infante's 12:10,15 48:16 62:24 63:17 informative 26:3 ingested 42:19 inhaled 42:19 inherent 62:18 inherently 44:16 inquiry 10:25 instance 41:5 Institute 57:3,5 insufficient 19:2 59:7 intend 58:12 intended 36:10 intentionally 57:9 interest 51:19 52:13 interested 68:19 interests 57:11 internally 54:9 International 13:14 13:20 interpret 11:6 interpretation 39:14 interrupt 32:9 interruption 41:9,10 58:19 interval 21:15 22:8 23:2 55:19 invalid 34:5 invested 28:20 involve 15:16 17:5 involved 17:6 involves 15:11 involving 11:24 30:6 61:2 IOM 59:14 ionizing 41:6 Ireland 59:20 irregular 45:19 Island 27:3 issue 28:5 30:22 43:19 issues 15:17 item 10:2 itemized 10:24 items 9:23 12:25 J J 2:13,16 Jo 1:4 6:16 JOANN 71:5 joined 14:7 journal 25:13,14,19 59:9,12 journals 51:13 VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF KENNETH MUNDT, M.D., JUNE 29, 2009 Page 79 Joyner/Stallone 62:21 judicial 35:7,14 July 68:25 jumped 23:16 June 1:12 6:4,8 71:9 jurisdiction 70:18 K keep 45:4 Kenneth 1:11 6:3,15 7:24 8:12 66:24 67:2 68:9 69:3 70:6,14 71:8 72:24 kind 58:2 63:22 kinds 60:16 Kirkeleit 40:7,13,19 56:3 60:3 KLEIN 4:3 know 21:4 24:4 25:8 25:10,14 26:4,23 27:6,20 29:2,8 30:8 32:23 33:3 35:9,24 36:2 41:22 41:22 42:7,15 43:18,20 44:22 45:7,18 46:20 47:6 47:9,18,21 48:2 50:18 53:6,15 54:25 55:24 56:7 56:12 57:19 58:11 58:22 60:24 61:6,8 62:3,4,11,18 64:9 64:13 65:6,10,17 65:19,23 knowing 52:7 known 20:7,10 31:25 41:2,3,19,23 49:7 60:15 61:23 L L 2:8 lack 50:22 lacking 36:19 language 49:23 59:3 large 51:25 52:7 59:4 larger 62:7,17 law 2:5 29:14 lay 36:7 lead 64:10 legal 6:10 57:19 lesson 56:18 let's 9:25 21:5 24:21 38:4,6 40:19 50:21 58:6 61:13 leukemia 18:12,17 19:9 49:4 leukemias 65:12 level 22:4,9 23:4,6 41:19 42:8 44:23 46:4 61:20 levels 42:2,6 45:21 46:14 Lewis 59:25 limited 29:14 Lincoln 8:13 list 9:24 10:20 11:23 12:21 27:20 47:20 59:16 listed 47:24 48:3 60:18 listening 26:16 listing 10:3 11:7 literature 9:6 10:14 19:18 20:11 21:13 31:2 34:21 35:2 50:23 57:23 58:8 litigation 15:11,14 58:15 little 22:22,22 32:12 56:21 lives 52:19 LLC 2:5,13 LLP 3:5 log 10:5 long 13:15,19 44:7 look 29:12 30:13 33:14 45:25 47:14 54:20 56:15 59:15 62:21 63:16 looked 18:22 19:4,10 20:3 33:6,12 63:5 looking 34:23 48:7 60:24 65:12 looks 27:21,25 45:20 loosely 20:18 62:14 lot 39:15 49:22 Louisiana 1:3 2:7,15 3:17 4:5 6:19 7:5 7:7,14 lumps 49:22 lymphatic 49:6 lymphocytes 33:11 lymphoma 18:24 lymphomas 33:5 L.L.C 4:4 M maintained 10:22 major 9:2 majored 9:4 majority 55:3 making 34:13 58:15 malignancies 18:3 19:13,14 26:10 61:2 malignancy 26:21 27:10 29:25 30:3,6 44:24 man 31:22 Manual 35:7 Marathon 3:13 7:9 mark 9:15 12:22 13:5 66:16 marked 5:4 9:17 13:8 66:19 Maryellen 1:13 6:23 68:4,23 Massachusetts 1:13 1:16 6:22 8:13,22 13:18 14:2 15:3 68:6 master's 8:20,21 9:5 9:7 14:11 material 33:15 materials 10:6,16,17 11:7,10 VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF KENNETH MUNDT, M.D., JUNE 29, 2009 Page 80 matter 6:16 34:5 48:7 69:4 70:8 71:13 matters 57:8 McKinney 3:7 7:16 mean 20:24 24:5 29:23 34:24 40:9 52:14,16 58:25 meaning 39:18 60:12 61:18 62:18 means 20:19 measure 54:6 64:24 measured 20:20 mechanism 25:9 30:19 33:8,9 36:21 37:6 37:14 mechanistic 37:19 medical 17:8 25:13 medicine 17:13,21 57:3,5 member 25:22 mentions 62:6,6 meta 23:10 24:2,24 25:4 38:24 39:3 61:9 Metairie 2:7,15 7:5 methodology 35:17 36:5,6 63:23 methods 23:15 34:25 middle 17:22 48:22 48:22 mind 54:20 minimum 44:23 Mm-hmm 59:15 month 15:12,12 motion 29:16 move 32:10 multiple 11:21,25 12:16 16:20,21 23:3,12 29:20 32:25 39:23 40:17 41:2,14,21 45:10 46:7 47:4,13,17 49:4 50:9,22 51:16 52:12 53:4 54:15 55:15 56:10 58:24 61:12 63:14 65:8 65:14,20 66:3 Mundt 1:11 6:3,16 7:24 8:9,12 13:11 32:11 66:24 67:3 68:9 69:3 70:6,14 71:8 72:24 Murphy 4:3 myelodysplastic 18:6 myelofibrosis 19:3,6 myeloma 11:21,25 12:17 16:20,22 23:3,12 24:3 29:20 32:25 39:23 40:17 41:2,14,21 45:10 46:8 47:4,13,17 49:5 50:9,16,22 51:17 52:12 53:4 54:15 56:11,13 58:24 61:12 63:14 63:18 64:22 65:8,9 65:14,21 66:3 myelomas 55:16 M.D 6:16 66:24 67:3 N name 6:9,25 8:10 12:4 19:24 54:12 71:16 natural 57:6 necessarily 21:9 36:10 42:25 49:20 necessary 21:18 53:22 need 10:10 33:19 36:11 43:24 46:10 46:13 53:15 needs 33:21 35:10 negative 34:10,15,22 negatively 22:2 neither 68:13 never 42:14 new 4:5 7:14 12:14 25:18 56:10 Nilsson 56:17 nonprofit 57:17 non-exposed 51:8 54:2 non-Hodgkin's 18:23 non-scientists 35:16 North 8:23 notary 1:14 7:18 68:5 70:20 notation 59:19 notes 68:8 notice 5:7 9:9,21 November 13:21 NTP 58:7 number 11:3 23:20 27:7 49:10 52:6 53:13,13 62:7 numbers 34:2 numerical 11:12 O object 19:7 22:11 26:12 29:11 35:20 36:13 42:10,24 43:23 50:17,24 51:22 53:5 54:10 55:9 62:22 64:20 65:16,22 66:4 Objection 28:7 objective 58:14 observational 44:11 44:15 observationally 36:23 Observations 49:9 occupation 42:12 occupational 17:13 17:21 occur 51:3,5 52:5 occurred 62:16 occurrence 20:22 21:8 52:4 occurring 44:19 53:24 offer 17:17 offers 31:9 offhand 26:23 55:25 office 2:5 3:16 7:7 VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF KENNETH MUNDT, M.D., JUNE 29, 2009 Page 81 10:7 12:22 13:18 official 59:13 Oh 12:8 13:5 oil 1:7 3:4,13 4:3 6:17 7:8,9 43:9,11 51:15 52:11 54:13 55:8,21 56:5,8 71:6 okay 8:14 9:12,15,25 12:20 13:22 14:3 14:10,17,19,23 15:6,10,16,19,23 16:2,7,15 17:3 18:2,23 19:5,9,12 19:19 20:7 21:12 22:5 23:10 24:12 24:15 25:3 26:20 27:9,17 28:15,22 29:2,13,13 32:8,21 33:3,8,18 35:24 36:4 37:23 38:16 41:11 42:21 44:8 44:22 45:3,8 46:20 48:2,6,17,20,21 49:15 50:14,20 51:15 54:7,12 55:17,21 56:2 57:17,20 61:5,13 61:16 62:9,20 63:15,16 64:4 65:6 65:24 66:14 old 14:13 older 14:20 open 39:13 opinion 19:5 22:10 31:2,6 33:19,22 34:12 36:12 37:13 37:25 38:11 47:19 48:4 51:19 59:2 opinions 17:17 42:2 57:13,24 58:14,23 order 31:6 38:3 46:14 57:11 organization 25:20 25:21,24 57:18 organizations 36:24 original 40:18 71:19 Orleans 4:5 7:14 OSHA 46:18 47:4,9,18 48:24 50:6 65:7,11 65:11 66:16 OSHA's 49:16 Ott 49:12 overall 28:20 31:10 56:22 overlap 21:2 oversimplified 36:9 owned 51:15 P page 48:14 69:6 70:10 painting 31:17,24 32:5,6 panels 31:13 paragraph 56:11 57:2 part 57:6 parties 68:15 69:11 part-time 14:8 Paso 3:13 7:9 pathways 42:15 Patrick 4:12 6:10 peak 43:21,24 44:2 peer 24:16 25:5,9,25 peer-review 50:23 58:23 59:2,6 peer-reviewed 21:13 25:13 30:15 51:12 63:20 people 45:25 54:4 60:13 62:15 65:3 percent 15:13 percentage 15:10 perform 66:2 period 14:3 44:4 periods 44:7 Perry 3:9 7:15,15 19:7 22:11 29:11 35:20 36:13 42:10 42:24 43:23 50:17 50:24 51:22 52:14 52:20 53:5 54:10 55:9 58:16,20 62:22 64:20 65:16 65:22 66:4,11 person 53:15,16,22 personally 70:5 persons 22:15,16 perspectives 31:10 pertaining 20:11 pertains 38:12 petroleum 53:8 phone 2:4,12 3:14 4:7 32:11 Ph.D 1:11 6:3 7:24 8:23 9:8 14:21 68:9 69:4 70:6,14 71:8 72:24 pipe 42:7,13,16 place 41:13 68:11 69:5 70:9 plaintiff 15:20 16:4 16:16,16 plaintiffs 1:5 2:4 2:12 7:5 16:8 plaintiff's 15:24 28:6 play 43:21 Plaza 4:8 please 6:24 7:21 8:4 8:10 plenary 31:9 plus 12:2 PMR 64:3 point 20:23 23:14 41:23 poisoning 20:5 pooling 24:18 population 52:8 54:3 56:22 populations 35:4 positive 34:22 54:25 positively 21:24 possible 21:6 30:25 32:10 37:22 possibly 41:15 Post 3:16 7:6 potentially 55:2 VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF KENNETH MUNDT, M.D., JUNE 29, 2009 Page 82 Poydras 4:4 7:14 prefer 37:2 preferred 36:14 preliminary 31:2 presume 42:17 44:13 presumed 60:15 pretty 36:7 50:18 prevent 44:18 preventable 41:18 previous 63:3 primarily 37:3 primary 24:17,20 25:3 principal 15:8 prior 14:23 23:14 28:23 probability 62:16 probably 15:13 26:14 36:9 problems 49:18 procedure 32:22 proceed 8:4 proceedings 25:17 process 34:7 37:16 produce 50:21 products 43:8 59:4 professor 15:4 promotion 37:19 proper 52:2 properly 53:24 proportion 42:13 proves 34:10 provide 11:21 57:24 provided 10:4 54:23 proving 34:19 public 1:14 7:18 15:2 50:16 53:3 68:5 70:20 publication 12:15 publish 51:18 published 10:16 25:15,16 29:19,22 30:5,15 51:12 59:3 59:9,12,13 63:20 pull 48:13 Punta 6:13 purpose 58:6 64:9,16 64:16 purposes 18:9 64:17 pursue 64:14 put 17:23 28:16 Pyrolysis 43:12,15 43:18 p.m 1:13 6:9 67:3 Q quality 31:4 34:23 34:24 44:20 49:11 49:17 50:5,7 57:12 quantified 52:5 quantities 43:7,11 quantity 31:4 44:6 Quarters 6:21 question 22:5,22 23:24 24:14 26:12 39:7,20 40:19 43:14 45:11 49:15 52:21,25 58:19 60:22 61:4,6 questions 23:13 66:9 quick 63:22,25 64:4 quickly 28:2 quite 10:9 26:17 28:2 64:14 R race 41:15 radiation 41:6 Radiator 4:7 7:12 rate 20:21 56:12,15 rates 51:5,7 52:3 53:23,25 56:24 reaction 16:14 read 48:24 69:11 71:12,14 ready 8:5 real 44:17 really 27:6 46:10 47:6 49:23 56:14 60:21 reasonable 20:12 reasons 71:16 recall 12:3 19:11 26:23 27:6,13 36:3 48:15 54:7,11,16 62:5 receive 9:9 received 9:3 12:9 31:24 record 6:7,25 7:20 8:11 32:17 66:25 71:15 recording 6:6 records 60:16 reduced 69:9 refer 9:22 54:18 64:2 reference 35:6,7,10 35:18,25 36:5 59:16 references 48:3 referred 62:2 65:14 65:20 referring 16:9,11 39:5 50:25 57:15 60:7 62:14 63:6 refinery 55:11 regarded 25:21 regarding 16:21 Register 5:13 related 15:15 49:9 68:14 relates 58:23 60:19 relating 37:7 relationship 21:10 22:18 30:21 33:4 33:10 34:16 40:16 45:17 46:3,15 47:3 47:8,12 relationships 43:3 relative 21:14,21,21 22:6,13,25 23:9 34:23 56:3 68:17 relevant 36:17 relied 10:15 38:18 38:21,24 40:4 relies 40:20,23 rely 11:7,13 37:2 VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF KENNETH MUNDT, M.D., JUNE 29, 2009 Page 83 39:21 40:3,15,22 43:25 45:9 render 31:6 36:12 57:11 58:14 rendered 58:22 repeat 26:18 rephrase 30:3 33:20 37:4 52:25 report 10:13 12:6 28:24 29:3,9 38:18 38:21 39:6 40:24 50:15 51:18 56:9 57:2 59:13,16 61:15,19 62:25 63:15 64:25 reported 65:7 reporter 1:14 6:23 7:19,21 8:6 58:18 66:15 69:8 71:11 Reporting 6:11 71:4 reports 11:21 49:12 55:11 59:22 63:5,6 represent 7:2 representation 47:24 Representing 2:4,12 3:4,13 4:3,7 reputable 25:19,20 request 9:22 71:14 requested 69:7 required 44:24 research 12:4 researched 18:8 19:8 respective 30:24 response 9:21 45:9 45:12,17,19 46:2,7 47:3,7 rest 40:22 result 23:18 39:23 54:14 55:22 resulted 23:21 resulting 16:13 results 11:12 23:25 24:18 38:17,20,23 38:25 39:4,8,12,12 39:17 40:21 44:20 55:13 64:18 65:6,8 review 24:22,25 25:9 30:23 37:4 59:3 62:24 reviewed 24:16 25:5 25:8,25 26:4 reviews 57:22 Rhode 27:3 Richard 2:13,16 RICHTER 4:3 Rick 7:4 rick@rjfernandezl... 2:18 right 10:19 36:3 39:20 40:12,25 47:2 50:8 65:18 Rinsky 40:4,9 46:6 46:21 47:8 49:12 59:20 rise 22:9 23:3 41:19 52:9 rising 23:6 risk 20:21,24 21:3,6 21:14,21,21 22:7 22:10,25 23:9 38:4 41:4,13,18 46:13 risks 22:13,15,16,20 56:4 role 43:21 ROSE 4:8 Rouge 3:17 7:7 roughly 14:5,6 RPR/CRR 68:4,23 rule 47:5,10 Rushton 60:3 S safety 33:15 sample 51:25 Sandhill 6:12 Satin 55:10 60:2 satisfactorily 68:10 satisfying 11:19 saying 61:16 says 35:10 48:24 49:22 61:15 Schnatter 59:23,25 School 15:2 science 12:14 25:18 44:11 57:6,8 scientific 10:14 19:17 30:15 35:14 51:13,13 57:12 scientifically 49:23 second 9:6 22:4 32:10 65:24 secondly 63:21 see 21:4 22:21 25:24 30:7 47:15 48:21 53:14 seek 51:4 seen 35:8 54:8 56:20 63:15 selected 24:7 61:10 selects 24:8 sense 64:7 sensitization 16:12 sent 25:11 separate 24:14 series 59:21 serve 16:8,15 served 11:24 15:19 16:3,10,21 27:2,18 31:12 serving 26:25 session 31:9 set 68:12 69:5 70:9 Sheet 71:2,17 sheets 33:15 Shell 1:7 3:4,13 6:17 7:8,15 54:13 71:6 SHER 4:3 shift 31:17 short 44:3 show 22:24 32:24 33:4,10 39:22 40:7 40:15 45:16 46:6 54:13 55:3 showing 51:9 shown 55:22 shows 21:13 40:5 53:3 VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF KENNETH MUNDT, M.D., JUNE 29, 2009 Page 84 sign 69:12 SIGNATURE 72:23 signed 71:16 significant 22:3 23:20 33:21 34:3,4 39:22 40:5,8,16,24 45:24 51:21 54:14 55:2,22 64:19,21 similar 58:3,6 Similarly 18:13 simply 60:13 single 12:11 34:12 34:18 53:6 sir 8:12,15 9:11 12:8 13:2,4 14:21 16:3,18 29:4,12,21 31:14,23 32:7 38:22 44:14 54:17 66:11 size 34:24 51:25 skin 16:12 42:20 small 43:7,10 52:7 SMR 45:23 55:18 SMRs 53:14 Society 58:3,5 somewhat 20:18 Sorahan 59:20 sorry 14:5 26:18 41:11 43:13 55:18 59:11 61:3 62:23 sort 50:7 sorts 19:21 sought 65:11 specialist 6:11 specialize 45:6 Specialty 4:7 7:12 specific 16:9 28:11 38:6,9,11,14 47:14 49:24 56:23 57:11 59:18 specifically 12:4 16:11 18:8,22 28:19 30:7 38:14 40:23 49:19 58:4 62:5 specificity 43:2 speculating 42:5 spend 28:23 39:15 spent 10:25 sponsored 54:13 56:5 sponsorship 56:7 staff 10:6 Stallone 63:5,10 Stan 3:9 7:15 66:10 standard 46:18,22 60:12 62:9,13 stan.perry@haynes... 3:11 start 26:25 48:25 starting 20:22 state 1:16 8:10 61:22 70:3 statement 10:24 49:16 states 1:2 6:18 47:9 70:7 stating 6:25 statistical 21:11 24:9 39:22 statistically 20:20 22:3 23:19 33:20 34:3,4 40:5,7,16 40:23 45:24 51:20 54:14 55:2,22 64:19,21 stenographic 68:8 stenographically 7:19 step 21:19 stick 38:4 Street 1:12 2:6 3:7 4:4 6:21 7:4,16 strength 31:5 46:3 stretched 44:6 stronger 18:14 strongly 56:16 studies 11:13 21:7 22:24 23:20 24:7,8 24:19,23 30:18 32:24 33:4,9,9,19 33:21 34:3,4,22 35:9 36:12,15,16 37:7,14,15,18,21 38:17,20,24 39:2,2 39:8,12,22 40:15 44:9,13,15 45:8,12 47:18,21 48:2,21 48:25 49:3,11,17 49:21 50:3,23 51:4 51:6,6 53:7,12,14 54:19 59:17,17 60:4,19 61:8,11,20 61:25 62:7 65:12 66:6 study 21:12 22:14 23:17,21 24:15,18 24:21 25:4 29:19 29:22,23,24 30:5 34:10,12,15,19 40:21,22 44:21 45:20 46:6,21 47:23 50:5,7 51:10 51:18 52:2 53:2,6 54:12 55:14 59:21 60:17,25,25 62:21 63:10,21,24 64:11 64:14 66:2 subgroups 54:2,2 subject 44:16 SUBSCRIBED 70:16 subset 62:17 substance 16:24 33:22 37:20 38:2 substances 31:21 substantiated 19:17 substituted 37:14 sufficient 18:19 31:3 47:10 suggest 52:6 64:12 suggests 21:10 23:9 51:24 Suite 2:6,14 3:7 4:8 6:13 7:4,14,16 summarizes 11:12 summary 54:18,22 support 18:14 50:13 supportive 18:10 27:15 VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF KENNETH MUNDT, M.D., JUNE 29, 2009 Page 85 supports 35:2 sure 24:20 28:18 30:14 41:3 43:17 45:5,24 47:23 58:25 60:11 64:23 surveillance 63:7,8 suspected 41:5 sustained 42:3 44:3 swear 7:21 sworn 7:25 68:11 70:7,16 syndrome 18:7 synonymous 11:6 system 11:2 20:6 63:7,8 T T 4:5 take 39:11 40:19 53:12 60:12 taken 6:20 68:11,16 69:4,8 70:8 71:13 talc 31:16 talk 50:3 57:3 talked 13:6 talking 23:15 31:15 32:22 44:12 49:25 50:2 53:11 63:12 tape 66:23 taubry@coatsrose.com 4:10 teach 35:21 technical 62:19 tell 8:25 9:25 28:19 30:12 33:18 34:10 53:2 59:16 term 20:17 21:3 60:12 62:13,19 terminology 23:6 24:5 65:18 terms 31:4,4 47:15 testified 8:2 10:21 12:2 17:4 28:11,12 28:13 56:18 testimony 7:20 Texas 3:8 4:9 7:12 7:17 textbook 35:23 Thank 8:3 24:12 themself 68:10 things 49:22 51:2 think 18:13 21:3 23:13 26:2 33:24 33:25 34:6 36:7,8 36:21,24 37:8 39:10 41:8,18 44:4 45:14 46:11,23 47:7 48:11 50:11 50:25 51:24 52:5 56:20 58:5 60:3 61:24 62:13,14 64:25 65:11,25 66:9,14,17 thinking 19:25 Thomas 60:2 thought 37:10 thousand 56:19 thousands 53:11,21 three 16:23,25 17:2 30:16 39:3 three-ring 12:12 time 6:8 7:20 10:25 14:3,6 28:21 31:11 39:16 44:4,7 46:25 47:16 53:15,17 59:22 66:10,22 69:5 70:9 time-consuming 64:15 Titanium 31:16 title 15:7 69:5 70:10 today 6:8 7:20 told 56:17 Tom 4:9 7:11 topics 31:19 total 52:16 53:9 55:15 toxicologic 57:23 toxicologist 17:10 toxicology 17:21 33:6 track 10:6 transcript 68:7 69:12 70:7,11 71:12,19 transcripts 11:18 trial 12:2 17:17 42:2 tried 25:23 28:2 trouble 32:12 true 68:7 70:11 try 22:22 32:15 41:25 trying 22:20 63:11 Tsai 60:2 Turn 48:14 turns 45:21 two 11:22,25 17:2 50:25 type 16:7 19:20 35:19 44:9 45:16 61:8 types 19:24 typewritten 69:9 typically 25:12 53:21 64:5 U unbiased 57:12 understand 18:9 23:5 30:21 31:18 37:16 47:16 59:11 60:21 61:3,5 62:20 understanding 25:7 36:21 37:19 39:16 39:18 41:24 understood 12:20 underwent 59:5 United 1:2 6:18 universes 39:4 University 8:21,22 8:23 15:2 unpublished 63:6 unusually 44:2 USA 4:3 use 20:17 21:3 36:10 39:18 58:4,6 uses 10:6 30:9 32:22 VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF KENNETH MUNDT, M.D., JUNE 29, 2009 Page 86 37:17 63:21 U.S 56:12 57:16 V vague 22:12 50:18 valid 24:13 54:5 57:12 validity 23:17 44:20 varies 15:12 various 44:16 59:22 vary 56:24 verified 26:7 versus 6:17 video 6:10 VIDEOGRAPHER 4:12 6:5 7:18 8:3 66:21 videotape 6:5 VIDEOTAPED 1:11 6:2 Vigliani 49:13 Virginia 8:21 volatile 42:18 volume 5:13 12:8,13 25:16 voluminous 10:9 vs 1:6 71:6 W Wait 58:16 want 14:19 24:19 64:7 66:16 wasn't 46:12 47:22 way 19:6 28:25 34:14 weak 46:5 weight 34:24 weighted 56:23 weighting 34:21 weights 34:23,24 West 2:14 We'll 12:22 13:5 we're 11:10 22:6 23:14 60:24 63:12 we've 39:3 white 41:15 Williams 2:5,8 7:3,3 8:5 52:18,22 66:12 66:14 witness 7:22 11:24 26:25 27:3,18 32:15 Wong 49:12 59:20 word 61:13 words 25:10 work 13:11,22 14:3 14:23 15:10,13 31:17 35:19 52:19 52:19 worked 14:6,8 26:9 26:14,19,21 27:8 53:16,17 workers 55:11 worthwhile 64:12 wouldn't 30:2 35:21 58:4 Y yeah 40:18 42:17 46:23 63:13 64:2 65:9 year 8:25 14:10,20 15:14 27:7 52:15 53:18 56:11 years 10:22 12:3 14:25 17:4 25:22 27:4,7,21,23 52:19 52:21 53:22 York 12:14 25:18 0 02110 6:22 07-2832 1:6 6:18 1 1 10:3 21:15,22,24 21:25 22:25 23:9 31:25 37:20 66:23 66:23 1.0 22:7 1.07 55:19 1.56 55:18 1.59 55:19 10 11:4,19 12:3 14:25 17:4 27:3 28:21 66:7 11 11:19 12 12:3 17:4 26:15 26:19 27:4 1221 3:7 7:16 13 5:9 150 51:16 52:11,24 53:3 54:9 65:25 66:5 161 1:12 6:21 176 5:13 19,920 56:10 1959 8:16 1960 51:17 52:12,15 52:16 1977 62:21 1986 14:12 1987 46:6,18 1989 14:22 1991 14:9 1997 27:5 2 2 10:12 12:23 13:7 2.0 21:14 22:7,24 55:23,24 2.89 55:20 20 52:19 200 2:14 2000 4:8 14:5,6 2002 55:10 2003 13:21 14:7 2006 23:25 24:16 2009 1:12 6:4,8 51:17 52:12,15,17 68:25 70:17 71:9 2100 3:7 7:16 22 66:7 225 3:18 236-5455 3:10 24650 6:12 26 27:25 260 8:12 27 8:16 12:11 56:11 28 7:14 28th 4:4 29 1:12 6:4 55:15 VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF KENNETH MUNDT, M.D., JUNE 29, 2009 Page 87 71:9 29th 6:8 299-2123 4:6 299-2323 4:6 3 3 4:8 10:13 11:7 68:25 3:00 1:13 3:11 6:9 30 27:22,23 28:3 30,000 52:10,14,16 52:18,20 3000 2:14 3021 2:6 31 57:2 33983 6:14 34 7:4 34489 48:17 34779 48:14,18 3479 48:19 35th 2:6 7:4 3513 3:16 7:7 382-3407 3:18 4 4 56:21,21 4.3 56:18 4:27 66:23 4:30 67:3 40 15:13 52:19 401 6:13 49 52:21 7 7 11:9 27:25 61:10 61:17 70s 42:9 70001 2:7 70002 2:15 70005 7:5 70112 4:5 70821 3:17 7:8 713 3:10,10 4:10 77 63:10 77010 3:8 7:17 77046 4:9 8 8 26:15,19 61:11,17 61:25 63:13,17 65:9 66:7 832-9838 2:9 832-9898 2:9 834-1511 2:17 834-8500 2:17 87 40:5 9 9 5:6 909 4:4 7:13 5 5-0 14:18,19 50 14:14,16,18 66:7 504 2:9,9,17,17 4:6 4:6 52 5:13 547-2039 3:10 6 6 11:6 60 14:17 28:20 653-7373 4:10 66 5:12 VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF KENNETH MUNDT, M.D., JUNE 29, 2009 Page 1 11 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 3 EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA _________________________________________________________ 2 3 4 JO ANN BISHOP, ET AL, 5 4 5 Plaintiffs, 6 6 vs. 7 Case No.:07-2832 7 8 SHELL OIL CO., ET AL, 8 Defendants. 9 10 9 _____________________________/ 11 10 11 12 VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION of KENNETH MUNDT, PH.D., 13 12 held on June 29, 2009, at 161 Devonshire Street, Boston, 13 14 15 Massachusetts, commencing at 3:00 p.m., before Maryellen 16 14 Coughlin, Court Reporter and Notary Public in and for the 17 15 18 16 State of Massachusetts. 17 18 19 20 19 21 20 21 22 22 23 23 24 24 25 25 APPEARANCES: (CONT'D.) Page 3 Representing Shell Oil Co.: HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP One Houston Center 1221 McKinney Street, Suite 2100 Houston, Texas 77010 BY: Stan Perry, Esq. (713) 547-2039 (713) 236-5455 E-mail: stan.perry@haynesboone.com Representing Shell Oil, Marathon & El Paso (Via phone): BY: GARY BEZET, ESQ. Post Office Box 3513 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70821 (225) 382-3407 Page 2 Page 4 11 2 APPEARANCES: 3 2 APPEARANCES: (CONT'D.) 3 Representing Murphy Oil USA, Inc.: SHER GARNER CAHILL RICHTER KLEIN & 4 Representing the Plaintiffs (via phone): 4 HILBERT, L.L.C. 5 WILLIAMS LAW OFFICE, LLC 6 3021 35th Street, Suite B 909 Poydras Street, 28th Floor 5 New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 BY: Christopher T. Chocheles, Esq. 7 Metairie, Louisiana 70001 6 (504) 299-2123 (504) 299-2323 8 BY: L. Eric Williams, Esq. 9 (504) 832-9898 (504) 832-9838 E-mail: cchocheles@shergarner.com 7 Representing Radiator Specialty (via phone): 10 E-mail: eric@toxictortlaw.net 8 COATS ROSE 11 3 Greenway Plaza, Suite 2000 12 Representing the Plaintiffs (via phone): 9 Houston, Texas 77046 BY: Tom Aubry, Esq. 13 RICHARD J. FERNANDEZ, LLC 10 (713) 653-7373 14 3000 West Esplanade Ave, Suite 200 15 Metairie, Louisiana 70002 16 BY: Richard J. Fernandez, Esq. E-mail: taubry@coatsrose.com 11 12 VIDEOGRAPHER: Patrick Battle 13 17 (504) 834-8500 (504) 834-1511 18 E-mail: rick@rjfernandezlaw.com 19 14 15 16 17 20 18 21 19 20 22 21 23 22 24 23 24 25 25 1 (Pages 1 to 4) VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF KENNETH MUNDT, M.D., JUNE 29, 2009 1 2 INDEX TO EXHIBITS 3 4 DESCRIPTION 5 6 EXHIBIT-1 7 Notice of deposition 8 9 EXHIBIT-2 10 DVD 11 12 EXHIBIT-3 13 Federal Register Volume 52 No. 176 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 5 MARKED 9 13 66 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 7 address and you who represent. MR. WILLIAMS: Eric Williams and Rick Fernandez, 34 35th Street, Suite B, Metairie, Louisiana 70005 for the plaintiffs. MR. BEZET: This is Gary Bezet, Post Office Box 3513, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 70821 for the defendant Shell Oil Company, Marathon Oil Company and El Paso. MR. CHOCHELES: Chris Chocheles -MR. AUBRY: Tom Aubry in Houston, Texas for Radiator Specialty. MR. CHOCHELES: Chris Chocheles, 909 Poydras, Suite 28, New Orleans, Louisiana. MR. PERRY: Stan Perry for Shell 1221 McKinney Street, Suite 2100, Houston, Texas, 77010. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The notary public and court reporter will stenographically record the testimony today. At this time will the reporter please swear in the witness. THEREUPON, KENNETH A. MUNDT, Ph.D., having been first duly sworn, was examined Page 6 Page 8 11 2 VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF 2 and testified as follows: 3 KENNETH A. MUNDT, PH.D. 3 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Thank you. 4 JUNE 29, 2009 4 Counsel, please proceed. 5 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The videotape 5 MR. WILLIAMS: Are we ready? 6 recording has commenced, and we are now on 6 THE COURT REPORTER: Yes. 7 the record. 7 EXAMINATION 8 Today is June 29th, 2009. The time 8 BY-MR.WILLIAMS: 9 is approximately 3:11 p.m. My name is 9 Q. Good evening. Dr. Mundt, could you 10 Patrick Battle, and I'm the legal video 10 please state your full name and address for 11 specialist for Accurate Court Reporting, Inc. 11 the record? 12 whose business address is 24650 Sandhill 12 A. Yes, sir, Kenneth Arthur Mundt, 260 13 Boulevard, Suite 401, Punta Gorda, Florida, 13 Lincoln Avenue, Amherst, Massachusetts. 14 33983. 14 Q. Okay. And what's your date of 15 This is the deposition of Kenneth 15 birth, sir? 16 Mundt, M.D. in the matter of Jo Ann Bishop 16 A. December 27, 1959. 17 versus Shell Oil Company, et al., Case No. 17 Q. And what degrees have you earned 18 07-2832 in the United States District Court, 18 thus far? 19 Eastern District of Louisiana. 19 A. I earned a bachelor's degree from 20 This deposition is being taken at 20 Dartmouth College, a master's degree from 21 the Club Quarters, 161 Devonshire Street, 21 University of Virginia, another master's 22 Boston Massachusetts, 02110. The court 22 degree from the University of Massachusetts, 23 reporter is Maryellen Coughlin. 23 and a Ph.D. from the University of North 24 Will counsel please identify 24 Carolina Chapel Hill. 25 yourselves for the record stating your name, 25 Q. And can you tell me what's the year 2 (Pages 5 to 8) VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF KENNETH MUNDT, M.D., JUNE 29, 2009 Page 9 Page 11 11 2 and the major for each degree that you have 2 our accounting system and determined the 3 received? 3 number of hours and the amount that has been 4 A. My college degree I majored in 4 charged against this case as of about 10 5 English. My first master's degree was in 5 days. 6 English literature composition; my second 6 I interpret No. 6 as synonymous with 7 master's degree was in epidemiology; and my 7 No. 3, a listing of all the materials I rely 8 Ph.D. was in epidemiology. 8 upon. 9 Q. Doctor, did you receive a notice for 9 No. 7, my file is essentially all 10 this deposition? 10 the materials we're discussing, but I have 11 A. Yes, sir. 11 additionally an electronic document which 12 Q. Okay. And do you have that with 12 summarizes the numerical results of the 13 you? 13 epidemiological studies I rely upon. 14 A. I do. 14 I have also a folder containing 15 Q. Okay. I would like to mark that as 15 communications between me and the attorneys 16 Exhibit-1. 16 in this case on this DVD. 17 (Whereupon, Exhibit-1 was marked for 17 I don't have any college or graduate 18 identification.) 18 transcripts. I don't have any documents 19 BY-MR.WILLIAMS: 19 satisfying No. 10 or 11. 20 Q. Doctor, what did you bring in 20 I did bring copies of all expert 21 response to the deposition notice? 21 reports provide in multiple myeloma cases, 22 A. Well, if I may refer to the request. 22 and they are two cases, including this one. 23 I brought as many of the items that I have 23 And as far as a list of all cases I 24 available on that list. 24 have served as expert witness involving 25 Q. Okay, let's go one by one. Tell me 25 multiple myeloma, are these same two cases, Page 10 Page 12 11 2 for the first item. 2 plus one case that I testified in at a trial 3 A. Yes. No. 1, I have a listing of 3 10 or 12 years ago that I don't recall the 4 all the documents that were provided to me, 4 name specifically, but I could research that 5 which essentially is the log index that my 5 if it were important, for which there was no 6 staff uses to track materials as they come 6 report or deposition. 7 into our office. 7 Q. Anything else, Doctor? 8 I did not bring copies of those 8 A. Oh, yes, sir, I have a volume that 9 documents, those are quite voluminous, but 9 I received just the other day which is Dr. 10 they all are available should you need any 10 Infante's deposition and Exhibits-1 through 11 one of them. 11 27. This is contained in a single 12 No. 2, I had no exhibits to my 12 three-ring binder. 13 expert report. No. 3, I brought a file 13 And I have the volume from the 14 containing all of the scientific literature 14 Annals of the New York Academy of Science 15 that I've relied upon, as well as other 15 that contains Dr. Infante's publication 16 published materials, all of those. In fact, 16 entitled, "Benzene Exposure and Multiple 17 all of the materials that I brought are 17 Myeloma." 18 contained on a DVD that I have here with me. 18 Q. Anything else? 19 Q. All right. 19 A. That's it. 20 A. I have brought a list of all cases 20 Q. Okay. If I understood you 21 that I've testified in I believe in the last 21 correctly, you have a list of the documents 22 five years, which I have maintained for cases 22 that came in the office. We'll mark that as 23 in general. 23 No. 2. 24 I do not have an itemized statement 24 A. Everything is on a DVD. 25 of the time spent, but I did an inquiry of 25 Q. All those items are on a DVD? 3 (Pages 9 to 12) VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF KENNETH MUNDT, M.D., JUNE 29, 2009 Page 13 Page 15 11 2 A. Yes, sir. 2 of the School of Public Health, University of 3 Q. Are they all on one DVD? 3 Massachusetts, Amherst. 4 A. Yes, sir. 4 Q. And were you a full-time professor? 5 Q. Oh, fair enough, then. We'll mark 5 A. Yes, I was. 6 that DVD for everything that he's just talked 6 Q. Okay. And what is your current 7 about as No. 2. 7 title where you're at now? 8 (Whereupon, Exhibit-2 was marked for 8 A. I'm a principal in the firm, and I'm 9 identification.) 9 the director of epidemiology. 10 BY-MR.WILLIAMS: 10 Q. Okay. What percentage of your work 11 Q. Dr. Mundt, where do you work 11 involves litigation? 12 currently? 12 A. It varies from month to month, but I 13 A. I'm employed full-time by Environ 13 would say probably 40 percent of my work in 14 International Corporation. I'm based -- 14 the last half year has been litigation 15 Q. How long have you been at that 15 related. 16 company? 16 Q. Okay. And how many cases involve 17 A. I'm based in the Amherst, 17 chemicals with causation issues? 18 Massachusetts office. 18 A. Most of them do. 19 Q. And how long have you been with 19 Q. Okay. Have you ever served as an 20 Enviro International? 20 expert for a plaintiff in a chemical cancer 21 A. Since November of 2003. 21 case? 22 Q. Okay. And where did you work before 22 A. Yes, I have. 23 that? 23 Q. Okay. Have you ever found that a 24 A. I was employed by Applied 24 chemical caused a plaintiff's disease? 25 Epidemiology, Incorporated in Amherst, 25 A. Yes, I have. Page 14 Page 16 11 2 Massachusetts. 2 Q. Okay. How about benzene? 3 Q. Okay. What time period did you work 3 A. No, sir. I've not served in a 4 there? 4 benzene case on behalf of a plaintiff. 5 A. Roughly 2000 until -- I'm sorry, I 5 Q. You have not? 6 worked there full time roughly from 2000 6 A. That's correct. 7 until, until I joined Environ in 2003. I 7 Q. Okay. What case -- what type of 8 worked part-time with Applied Epidemiology 8 case did you serve for the plaintiffs? 9 since 1991, I believe. 9 A. The specific one I was referring to 10 Q. Okay. What year did you get your 10 -- I've served on, on more than that, but 11 master's in epidemiology? 11 the one I was specifically referring to had 12 A. I believe that was in 1986. 12 to do with a skin sensitization agent, a 13 Q. Doctor, how old are you? 13 contact exposure resulting in an extreme 14 A. I'm almost 50. 14 allergic reaction. 15 Q. Almost what? 15 Q. Okay. Did you ever serve a 16 A. 50. 16 plaintiff where the plaintiff was alleging 17 Q. 60, okay. 17 exposure which caused a cancer? 18 A. No, 5-0, 50. 18 A. No, sir. 19 Q. 5-0, okay. I don't want to make 19 Q. Earlier you brought up the cases of 20 you older. What year did you get your 20 multiple myeloma. In how many cases have 21 Ph.D., sir? 21 you served as an expert regarding multiple 22 A. 1989. 22 myeloma? 23 Q. Okay. Where did you work prior to 23 A. Three. 24 Applied Epidemiology? 24 Q. And was benzene the substance that 25 A. I was for 10 years on the faculty 25 was alleged to be the cause for all three? 4 (Pages 13 to 16) VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF KENNETH MUNDT, M.D., JUNE 29, 2009 Page 17 Page 19 11 2 A. In two of the three. 2 insufficient to draw that causal conclusion. 3 Q. Okay. And what was the one that 3 Q. Myelofibrosis? 4 you testified in 10 to 12 years ago, what 4 A. I've not looked at that. 5 chemical did that involve? 5 Q. Okay. Would you have an opinion one 6 A. That involved herbicides. 6 way or the other with myelofibrosis? 7 Q. Herbicide. And, Doctor, you're not 7 MR. PERRY: Object to form. 8 a medical doctor, correct? 8 A. Not unless I researched it. 9 A. That is correct. 9 Q. Okay. What about CML leukemia? 10 Q. And you're not a toxicologist? 10 A. I have not looked at CML that I 11 A. That's correct. 11 recall. 12 Q. And you're not board certified in 12 Q. Okay. Earlier I asked you if 13 occupational medicine? 13 benzene could cause blood malignancies. Are 14 A. Correct. 14 you aware of any other blood malignancies 15 Q. Industrial hygiene? 15 that benzene may cause? 16 A. Correct. 16 A. I'm aware that there is one that is 17 Q. But you can offer opinions at trial 17 generally substantiated by the scientific 18 in any of these fields? 18 literature, and that was AML. 19 A. Well, as an epidemiologist, I'm well 19 Q. Okay. Can benzene cause any other 20 familiar with aspects of industrial hygiene, 20 type of blood disorder? 21 toxicology and occupational medicine, since 21 A. Yes, there are all sorts of blood 22 epidemiology falls in the middle of these 22 dyscrasias that benzene may be able -- 23 disciplines, but I don't put myself forward 23 capable of inducing. 24 as an expert on those. I defer to the 24 Q. Can you name some types? 25 actual experts in those areas. 25 A. Well, I'm thinking of aplastic Page 18 Page 20 11 2 Q. Okay. Doctor, can benzene cause 2 anemias, for example. This is not my area 3 blood malignancies? 3 of expertise, and I've not looked into it, 4 A. Yes, I believe so, under certain 4 but I'm aware that there are concerns 5 circumstances. 5 associated with benzene poisoning and the 6 Q. Can benzene cause myelodysplastic 6 affects on the blood system. 7 syndrome? 7 Q. Okay. Is benzene a known human 8 A. I've not researched that specifically 8 carcinogen? 9 for purposes of causation. I understand that 9 A. Benzene has been classified as a 10 there's evidence supportive of that 10 known human carcinogen, and I'm aware that 11 conclusion. 11 the literature pertaining to exposures to 12 Q. What about AML leukemia? 12 high-level benzene and AML is reasonable for 13 A. Similarly. I think that that, 13 drawing a causal conclusion. 14 however, has stronger evidence support of a 14 Q. Doctor, what is your definition of 15 causal association in adequately high doses 15 association? And when I say association, a 16 of exposure. 16 chemical associated with a certain disease? 17 Q. What about CLL leukemia? 17 A. Yes, it's a term that we use 18 A. I don't believe that the evidence is 18 somewhat loosely epidemiologically, but what 19 sufficient to draw a causal conclusion for 19 it essentially means is that there's some 20 CLL. 20 correlation statistically between some measured 21 Q. ALL? 21 risk factor or exposure and the rate or 22 A. I've not looked at that specifically. 22 occurrence of that disease. It's a starting 23 Q. Okay. What about non-Hodgkin's 23 point for a -- 24 lymphoma? 24 Q. Would association mean risk factor to 25 A. I believe that the evidence is 25 you? 5 (Pages 17 to 20) VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF KENNETH MUNDT, M.D., JUNE 29, 2009 Page 21 Page 23 11 2 A. There's a good deal of overlap. I 2 confidence interval for benzene exposure in 3 think that we use the term risk factor when 3 multiple myeloma. Does that rise to the 4 we see an association because we don't know 4 level of association for you, Doctor? 5 much more than that, that it's a, let's say 5 A. Well, I guess I don't understand the 6 it's a possible risk factor, something that 6 terminology you're using "rising to the level 7 correlates with in certain studies an 7 of association" when I in my earlier answer 8 increased occurrence of the disease. It 8 described to you that a departure from a 9 doesn't necessarily imply a causal 9 relative risk of 1 suggests an association. 10 relationship, but certainly suggests a 10 Q. Okay. So does the Infante meta 11 statistical association. 11 analysis demonstrate an association for 12 Q. Okay. Doctor, if a study in the 12 benzene and multiple myeloma to you, Doctor? 13 peer-reviewed literature shows that there is 13 A. Well, I think all of these questions 14 a 2.0 greater -- or greater relative risk 14 prior to this point were abstract. We're 15 with a confidence interval above a 1, would 15 talking about epidemiological methods. 16 you call that an association with a disease 16 Something that you've jumped over is what is 17 and a chemical? 17 the validity of the study that generated that 18 A. Well, some of that's not necessary 18 result. 19 to identify an association. The first step 19 We can have a statistically 20 is to evaluate what you called correctly the 20 significant finding in any number of studies 21 relative risk. And if the relative risk is 21 that might have resulted from errors in study 22 different from 1, then you could then say 22 design or execution, so perhaps you could 23 there is evidence of an association. It 23 make it a hypothetical that I could answer. 24 could be above 1 where it's positively 24 Q. Well, I gave you a question. Does 25 associated. It could be less than 1 where 25 that -- do the results of the Infante 2006 Page 22 Page 24 11 2 it's negatively associated. Whether or not 2 meta analysis demonstrate an association with 3 that association is statistically significant 3 benzene in most myeloma to you, Doctor? 4 is a second level of evaluation. 4 A. Well, again, I don't know what you 5 Q. Okay. And my question is, if a 5 mean in the terminology "demonstrating an 6 chemical we're dealing with has a relative 6 association." He derives based on the 7 risk above a 2.0 with a greater than a 1.0 7 selected studies he chose and the data he 8 confidence interval, is that an assoc -- does 8 selects from those studies to combine, they 9 that rise to the level of an association or 9 demonstrate that, that there is a statistical 10 a risk factor in your opinion? 10 correlation that one could describe as an 11 MR. PERRY: Object to the form. 11 association. Not to say -- 12 A. Well, it's a bit vague because 12 Q. Okay. Thank you, Doctor. 13 chemicals don't have relative risks. It's a 13 A. -- whether it's valid or not. That's 14 constructive and epidemiological study where 14 a separate question. 15 risks of persons with a certain exposure 15 Q. Okay. Doctor, was that study done 16 group are compared with risks of persons in 16 by Mr. -- Dr. Infante in 2006 peer reviewed? 17 another exposure group, and it describes the 17 A. First of all, it's not a primary 18 relationship between those. 18 study. It is a pooling of some results from 19 Q. Correct, Doctor. I'm aware that 19 several other studies. So I just want to 20 chemicals don't have risks. I'm trying to 20 make sure that we differentiate a primary 21 give you an example to see if you can answer 21 epidemiologically study from let's say a 22 my question. Let me try a little, a little 22 review or some other combination of existing 23 different approach. 23 data from other studies. 24 There are studies that show a 2.0 or 24 Q. Is that your definition of meta 25 greater relative risk with a higher than a 1 25 analysis, a review? 6 (Pages 21 to 24) VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF KENNETH MUNDT, M.D., JUNE 29, 2009 Page 25 Page 27 11 2 A. I didn't say that. 2 A. The first case I served as an expert 3 Q. Okay. And I didn't say primary 3 witness in was that Rhode Island case 10 or 4 study, so. I asked you if the meta analysis 4 12 years ago. 5 done by Dr. Infante was peer reviewed, 5 Q. So somewhere around 1997? 6 Doctor. 6 A. You know, I don't really recall the 7 A. My understanding is that it had been 7 year. It was a number of years after that 8 reviewed by others. I don't know the 8 that I worked on my next case as an expert. 9 mechanism that was used for that peer review. 9 Q. Okay. Doctor, how many blood 10 In other words, I don't know that it was 10 malignancy cases did you find that the 11 blindly sent to experts in the field for 11 benzene exposure was because of the 12 their evaluation as one would do typically 12 individual's disease? 13 for a peer-reviewed medical journal. 13 A. Well, I don't recall any cases in 14 Q. Do you know what journal that 14 which I found that the epidemiological 15 article was published in, Doctor? 15 evidence was supportive of a causal 16 A. It was published as a volume, as a 16 conclusion. 17 conference proceedings by the Annals of the 17 Q. Okay. How many cases have you 18 New York Academy of Science. 18 served as an expert witness in your entire 19 Q. Is that a reputable journal, Doctor? 19 career? 20 A. Well, it's a reputable organization. 20 A. I don't know. I've got my list 21 The organization is highly regarded. I 21 from the last five years, and it looks like 22 myself have been a member for years. 22 about 30. 23 Q. Have you ever tried to contact that 23 Q. 30 for the last five years? Is 24 organization to see whether or not the 24 that correct, Doctor. 25 article was peer reviewed? 25 A. It looks like 26 or 7, yes. I Page 26 Page 28 11 2 A. Actually, no. I think that's a 2 tried to quickly count. There's not quite 3 great idea, however. It would be informative 3 30, yes. 4 to know who in fact reviewed it and what 4 Q. In any of those cases did you find 5 their criticisms might have been. 5 that the chemical at issue was the cause of 6 Q. Well, we actually did that, Doctor. 6 the plaintiff's disease? 7 We verified it through an affidavit from the 7 MR. CHOCHELES: Objection, asked and 8 editor but in any event. 8 answered. 9 How many cases have you worked on 9 Q. Go ahead, Doctor. 10 dealing with blood malignancies, Doctor? 10 A. These are cases that I have 11 MR. BEZET: Excuse me, Gary Bezet, 11 testified in, and the specific conclusions in 12 object to the form of the question. Go 12 these cases in which I have testified I have 13 ahead. 13 not testified that the alleged exposure 14 A. I've probably worked on somewhere 14 indeed caused the disease. 15 between 8 and 12. 15 Q. Okay. Doctor, how many hours did 16 Q. I'm listening, Doctor. I didn't 16 you put in the Bishop case to do your 17 quite hear you. 17 general causation analysis? 18 A. I'm sorry, I'll repeat my answer. 18 A. I'm not sure that I could break it 19 I've worked on somewhere between 8 and 12. 19 out that specifically. I can tell you 20 Q. Okay. And what was your first 20 overall I've invested about 60 hours of my 21 benzene blood malignancy case that you worked 21 time as of about 10 days ago. 22 on, Doctor? 22 Q. Okay. And how many hours did you 23 A. You know, I don't recall offhand. 23 spend prior to or up until the completion of 24 Q. Well, let me ask you this. When 24 your expert report? 25 did you start serving as an expert witness? 25 A. I don't have it broken out that way. 7 (Pages 25 to 28) VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF KENNETH MUNDT, M.D., JUNE 29, 2009 Page 29 Page 31 11 2 Q. Okay. Do you know how many hours 2 literature and formulate a preliminary opinion 3 it took you to do your report? 3 as to whether that evidence is sufficient in 4 A. No, sir. 4 terms of quantity and quality and in terms 5 Q. Are you familiar with the Ben Brown 5 of strength of finding and consistency of 6 case, Doctor? 6 finding in order to render an opinion on 7 A. Yes, I am. 7 causation. 8 Q. Do you know how many hours it took 8 This then is folded together in a 9 you to complete your expert report in that 9 plenary session where each committee offers 10 case? 10 their perspectives, and an overall evaluation 11 MR. PERRY: Object to form. 11 is derived at that time. 12 A. I didn't look that up, no, sir. 12 Q. Doctor, have you ever served on any 13 Q. Okay. Okay. Have you ever been 13 of those panels for IARC? 14 limited or excluded by a court of law? 14 A. Yes, sir. 15 A. Not that I'm aware of. 15 Q. What chemicals are we talking about? 16 Q. Has anyone filed a Dolbear motion 16 A. Titanium dioxide, carbon black, talc, 17 against you besides this case? 17 painting, firefighting and shift work. I 18 A. No that I'm aware of. 18 understand those are not chemicals, but those 19 Q. Have you ever published a study on 19 were the topics for the IARC evaluations. 20 benzene and multiple myeloma? 20 Q. And did the evaluation conclude that 21 A. No, sir. 21 any of those chemicals or substances were 22 Q. Have you ever published a study -- 22 carcinogenic to man? 23 and when I say study, I mean epidemiological 23 A. Yes, sir. Of those I believe 24 study -- on benzene or any other blood 24 painting was the only one that received a 25 malignancy? 25 Group 1 classification that is known human Page 30 Page 32 11 2 A. I wouldn't consider benzene a blood 2 carcinogen. 3 malignancy but. Maybe you could rephrase 3 Q. And which one did you say? You're 4 that. 4 fading in and out sometimes. 5 Q. Yes, have you ever published a study 5 A. Painting. 6 involving benzene and a blood malignancy? 6 Q. Painting? 7 A. I see. Not specifically, no. 7 A. Yes, sir. 8 Q. Doctor, do you know the criteria, 8 Q. Okay. 9 IARC uses to classify chemicals as 9 MR. AUBRY: Eric, let me interrupt 10 carcinogens? 10 for a second. Is it possible to move the 11 A. Yes, I do. 11 phone closer to Dr. Mundt, 'cause you're 12 Q. Can you tell me what criteria they 12 having trouble hearing him, and he's a little 13 look at? 13 faint for me as well. 14 A. Sure. First of all, it's based 14 Doctor, can you do that? 15 entirely on published peer-reviewed scientific 15 THE WITNESS: We can try. 16 evidence divided into three committees. 16 (Whereupon, Discussion off the 17 There's the epidemiology committee. There's 17 record.) 18 an animal studies committee. There's a 18 BY-MR.WILLIAMS: 19 mechanism committee. There's also often an 19 Q. Doctor, are you there? 20 exposure committee that helps the other 20 A. I'm still here. 21 committees understand the relationship between 21 Q. Okay, great. Earlier we were 22 the exposures and the cancers at issue. 22 talking about the procedure IARC uses. Do 23 These committees review their 23 you know if there are any epidemiological 24 respective areas of expertise and as 24 studies that show an association between 25 comprehensively as possible the available 25 benzene and multiple myeloma? 8 (Pages 29 to 32) VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF KENNETH MUNDT, M.D., JUNE 29, 2009 Page 33 Page 35 11 2 A. Yes, there are. 2 literature consistently supports the 3 Q. Okay. Do you know if there are any 3 association under different circumstances and 4 animal studies that show a relationship 4 in different populations. 5 between lymphomas and benzene? 5 Q. Doctor, are you familiar with the 6 A. I've not looked at the toxicology. 6 reference done on epidemiology out of the 7 I'm an epidemiologist. 7 Judicial Reference Manual? 8 Q. Okay. And what about mechanism 8 A. Yes, I've seen it sometime ago. 9 studies, are there any mechanism studies that 9 Q. Do you know how many studies that 10 would show a relationship between benzene and 10 reference says that one needs to conclude 11 the blood, such as lymphocytes? 11 that an agent is more likely the cause of a 12 A. I've not looked at that either, and 12 disease? 13 that's not my area of expertise. 13 A. I don't, but I also don't consider 14 Q. Fair enough. Doctor, did you look 14 that a scientific document. It's a judicial 15 at the material safety data sheets in this 15 document. It's a guidance for 16 case? 16 non-scientists. 17 A. I'm not aware of any, no. 17 Q. You don't consider the methodology in 18 Q. Okay. Can you tell me how many 18 the reference guide on epidemiology adequate 19 studies you need to form an opinion? And 19 for this type of work? 20 let me rephrase. How many statistically 20 MR. PERRY: Object to form. 21 significant studies one needs to form an 21 A. I wouldn't teach a course on 22 opinion that a substance is capable of 22 epidemiological evaluation of causation using 23 causing a disease? 23 it as a textbook. 24 A. I think that that's not answerable. 24 Q. Okay. Do you know who authored the 25 I think that determining causation is much 25 reference guide on epidemiology? Page 34 Page 36 11 2 more complicated than adding up numbers of 2 A. I do believe I know one or more of 3 statistically significant studies. 3 the authors. I can't recall them right now. 4 Statistically significant studies can be 4 Q. Okay. Do you agree or disagree with 5 invalid, and it doesn't matter how many you 5 the methodology contained in that reference? 6 have. So I think that we would have to 6 A. If depends on which methodology. I 7 describe more completely what that process is 7 think some of it's pretty good for a lay 8 and how causation is determined. 8 accessible document. Some of it I think is 9 Q. Well, Doctor, as an epidemiologist, 9 -- has been oversimplified, probably 10 can you tell me if a negative study proves 10 necessarily, for its intended use. 11 that a chemical cannot cause a disease? 11 Q. Does an expert need epidemiological 12 A. My opinion is that a single study is 12 studies to render an opinion as to causation? 13 not adequate for making a causal 13 MR. PERRY: Object to form. 14 determination one way or the other. 14 A. Well, certainly the preferred body of 15 Q. But does a negative study disprove a 15 evidence would derive from human studies 16 causal relationship between a chemical and a 16 because human studies are by far the most 17 disease? 17 relevant. 18 A. It doesn't boil down to a single 18 There are examples where human 19 study proving or disproving but rather a 19 evidence is lacking and where a causal 20 critical evaluation of the entire body of 20 determination was made because of the, I 21 literature and a weighting of the evidence, 21 think good understanding of the mechanism in 22 including positive and negative studies, 22 humans. It may be more experimentally than 23 looking at the relative weights and quality 23 epidemiologically or observationally. But I 24 weights -- by weight I mean size -- quality 24 think that most of the organizations, bodies, 25 of methods used and whether that body of 25 authoritative bodies that determine causation 9 (Pages 33 to 36) VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF KENNETH MUNDT, M.D., JUNE 29, 2009 Page 37 Page 39 11 2 rely heavily upon and prefer human evidence 2 studies that he derived from those studies 3 primarily. 3 for his meta analysis, so we've got three 4 Q. Did you review -- let me rephrase 4 universes of results. Which one are you 5 it. 5 referring to? 6 Are you aware of the mechanism 6 Q. His expert report? 7 studies relating to benzene exposure? 7 A. And the question is, do I disagree 8 A. I think earlier I indicated that was 8 with the results of these studies? 9 not my area of expertise. I'm not -- 9 Q. Yes. 10 Q. I thought that's what you said. I 10 A. Well, I think that's -- we'd have to 11 was just curious why you were bringing that 11 take those individually. First of all, 12 up. 12 results are results, and if the studies are 13 So is it your opinion that sometimes 13 well conducted, then they're open to 14 mechanism studies can be substituted for 14 interpretation and discussion, and 15 epidemiological studies? 15 epidemiologically that's what we spend a lot 16 A. Well, if you understand the process 16 of our time doing, is understanding whether 17 that IARC uses, there can be, on the basis 17 results that we generate or someone else 18 of animal studies combined with good 18 generates has use or meaning in understanding 19 mechanistic understanding, a promotion of a 19 causes of disease. 20 substance, a chemical to a Group 1 carcinogen 20 Q. All right. And, Doctor, my question 21 absent good epidemiologic studies. It is 21 is, did Dr. Infante rely on epidemiological 22 possible. 22 studies that show a statistical significant 23 Q. Okay. Doctor, what's general 23 result for benzene and multiple myeloma? 24 causation? 24 A. Actually, no, there aren't so many 25 A. In my opinion, general causation is 25 of those available. Page 38 Page 40 11 2 the ability of a substance, say, it doesn't 2 Q. There aren't so many. I said did 3 have to be a chemical in order to determine 3 he rely on any. 4 causation or risk, but let's say stick to a 4 A. Yes, I believe he relied on Rinsky 5 chemical agent. It's the ability of that 5 87 that shows statistically significant 6 chemical to cause a specific disease, let's 6 association. 7 say a cancer or any cancer, under any 7 Q. Did Kirkeleit show a statistically 8 circumstances. 8 significant association? 9 Q. And can you define specific 9 A. Yes. I didn't mean to say Rinsky 10 causation, Doctor? 10 was the only one. I was just giving you an 11 A. Yes, in my opinion, specific 11 example of one. 12 causation pertains to an individual and 12 Q. Right. 13 whether an individual's disease can 13 A. Kirkeleit is another, yes. 14 specifically be attributed to a specific 14 Q. That's why I asked you generically 15 exposure. 15 did he rely on studies that show a 16 Q. Okay. Doctor, did you disagree with 16 statistically significant relationship between 17 the results of the studies that Dr. Infante 17 benzene and multiple myeloma. 18 relied on in his report? 18 A. Well, yeah, that was your original 19 A. Well, just to be clear, there are 19 question, but let's take Kirkeleit. For 20 the results of the studies that Dr. Infante 20 example, he relies on one of the many 21 relied on in his expert report -- 21 results from that study, but he appears not 22 Q. Yes, sir. 22 to rely on the rest of the study. What he 23 A. -- there are the results of the 23 relies on specifically is the statistically 24 studies Dr. Infante relied upon in his meta 24 significant association they report. 25 analyst, and there are the results of the 25 Q. All right. Doctor, what are the 10 (Pages 37 to 40) VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF KENNETH MUNDT, M.D., JUNE 29, 2009 Page 41 11 2 known causes of multiple myeloma? 2 3 A. I'm not sure that there are known 3 4 causes. There are certainly some risk 4 5 factors that are suspected. For instance, 5 6 ionizing radiation. 6 7 Q. Anything else? 7 8 A. I think that there -- excuse me, 8 9 there's been a interruption. 9 10 (Interruption.) 10 11 A. Okay. Sorry. There are other 11 12 characteristics, attributes of individuals that 12 13 appear to place them at increased risk for 13 14 multiple myeloma. Age, of course, is clearly 14 15 one, being of white race another, possibly 15 16 other individual characteristics, but as far 16 17 as environmental or what we consider 17 18 preventable risk factors, I don't think that 18 19 any rise to the level of known causes. 19 20 Q. Doctor, what caused Mr. Bishop's 20 21 multiple myeloma? 21 22 A. I don't know. I don't know that it 22 23 can be known at this point in our 23 24 understanding of the disease. 24 25 Q. Doctor, you're not going to try to 25 Page 43 to be a great specificity in the relationships between exposures and -- or carcinogens and the cancers they cause. Q. Is benzene contained in gasoline, Doctor? A. I believe there are small quantities of benzene in gasoline products. Q. What about crude oil? A. I believe there's some, again, small quantities in crude oil and -Q. Is it contained in Pyrolysis Gas? A. I'm sorry, I didn't hear the beginning of your question. Q. Is benzene contained in Pyrolysis Gas? A. I'm not sure. Q. Do you know if Pyrolysis Gas is an issue in this case? A. I don't frankly know what that is. Q. Do peak exposures play a role in development of blood disorders, Doctor? MR. PERRY: Object to form. A. You need to define peak exposures, but if you rely on how I would describe a Page 42 Page 44 11 2 give any opinions at trial as to the levels 2 peak exposure, as some unusually high 3 of exposure Mr. Bishop sustained from 3 exposure sustained over hopefully a short 4 benzene? 4 period of time, I think there is some 5 A. I will not be speculating on his 5 evidence that those may be more harmful than, 6 exposure levels to benzene. 6 say, that same quantity of exposure stretched 7 Q. Do you know if pipe fitters were 7 out over long periods of time. 8 exposed to high level of benzene in the 8 Q. Okay. Doctor, would you say all 9 '70s? 9 studies contain some type of flaw or 10 MR. PERRY: Object to form. 10 imperfection? 11 A. This is a very broad category of 11 A. Well, in ours, observational science 12 occupation, and so I would expect that some 12 is -- you're talking about epidemiological 13 proportion of pipe fitters might be. I 13 studies I presume. 14 would expect others never were. 14 Q. Yes, sir. 15 Q. Do you know the exposure pathways a 15 A. Because they're observational studies, 16 pipe fitter would encounter? 16 they are inherently subject to various forms 17 A. Yeah, I presume, as with any 17 of error, and that the real art of 18 chemical exposure that is volatile, it could 18 epidemiology is to anticipate and prevent 19 be ingested, it could be inhaled, it could 19 those from occurring thereby increasing the 20 be contacted with the skin. 20 quality and the validity of the results of 21 Q. Okay. Doctor, if a chemical can 21 the study. 22 cause one cancer, is it capable of causing 22 Q. Okay. Doctor, do you know the 23 others? 23 minimum benzene exposure level that is 24 MR. PERRY: Object to form. 24 required to cause a blood malignancy or blood 25 A. No, not necessarily. There appears 25 disorder? 11 (Pages 41 to 44) VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF KENNETH MUNDT, M.D., JUNE 29, 2009 Page 45 Page 47 11 2 A. I do not, no. 2 Q. All right. And was the dose 3 Q. Okay. Would that be something that 3 response relationship between benzene and 4 epidemiologists keep up with? 4 multiple myeloma discussed in that OSHA final 5 A. Well, I'm sure there are 5 rule? 6 epidemiologists who specialize in that area 6 A. I really don't know. I doubt it. I 7 that would know that area well. 7 don't think there was a dose response 8 Q. Okay. Doctor, do any of the studies 8 relationship demonstrated in Rinsky. 9 Dr. Infante rely on contain a dose response 9 Q. Do you know if OSHA states in that 10 for benzene and multiple myeloma? 10 rule whether or not there is sufficient 11 A. Is your question do any of the 11 epidemiological evidence to demonstrate a 12 studies demonstrate a dose response. 12 causal relationship between benzene and 13 Q. Yes. 13 multiple myeloma? 14 A. I don't think there are any that 14 A. I'd have to look at the specific 15 clearly do so, no. 15 document to see if it used those terms, but 16 Q. Are there any that show any type of 16 I do understand that at that time they 17 dose response relationship? 17 believed that benzene causes multiple myeloma. 18 A. Well, there's some, you know, 18 Q. And do you know which studies OSHA 19 irregular dose response. For example, 19 used as a basis for that opinion? 20 Collins has a study where he looks at 20 A. Well, they do, they do list the 21 different levels of exposure, and it turns 21 studies including, you know, Decoufle and 22 out that the category with the highest 22 even Aksoy, which wasn't an epidemiologic 23 exposure also has the highest SMR. It's not 23 study, so I'm not sure that that's an 24 statistically significant, but I'm sure there 24 accurate representation, but they are listed 25 are people who would look at that and say 25 in the document. Page 46 Page 48 11 2 this appears to be a, a dose response 2 Q. Okay. Do you know any other studies 3 relationship, that is an increasing strength 3 that they listed as references for their 4 of association with increasing exposure level, 4 opinion? 5 but that's fairly weak. 5 A. Ah -- 6 Q. Does the 1987 Rinsky study show a 6 Q. No, okay. 7 dose response for benzene in multiple 7 A. It's just a matter of looking at 8 myeloma? 8 that document. I don't -- 9 A. It can't. There's only four cases, 9 Q. Do you have that document handy, 10 and you really need to have decent -- I 10 Doctor? 11 don't even think that the Collins had enough. 11 A. I think there were -- I do. I do 12 It wasn't much bigger than that. But you 12 have it here. 13 need a good estimate of the risk at each of 13 Q. Why don't you pull it out, Doctor. 14 the exposure levels in order to have any 14 Turn to page 34779. 15 confidence in the relationship between those 15 A. I actually recall it was an exhibit 16 or across those categories of exposure. 16 to Dr. Infante's deposition which is in front 17 Q. Doctor, are you familiar with the 17 of me. Okay, 34489. 18 1987 OSHA final benzene standard? 18 Q. 34779. 19 A. Yes, I am. 19 A. 3479. I have it, yes. 20 Q. Okay. And do you know if they used 20 Q. Okay. 21 the Rinsky study in that final benzene 21 A. Okay, I see the studies here, the 22 standard? 22 middle of the, the bottom of the middle 23 A. Yeah, I think that actually must 23 column. 24 have been the impetus for that. It came out 24 Q. Why don't you read what OSHA says. 25 around the same time. 25 "Epidemiological studies demonstrate," start 12 (Pages 45 to 48) VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF KENNETH MUNDT, M.D., JUNE 29, 2009 Page 49 Page 51 11 2 there. 2 different things. There are cases of 3 A. "Epidemiologic studies demonstrate 3 diseases that will occur, and there are 4 that benzene can cause leukemia, multiple 4 epidemiological studies that seek to determine 5 myeloma and perhaps other hemopoietic and 5 the rates at which those occur. 6 lymphatic cancers. Aplastic anemia and 6 If studies, epidemiologic studies, 7 several other blood diseases are also known 7 that ascertain the rates of those diseases 8 to be caused by benzene exposure. 8 among employees exposed and non-exposed 9 Observations related to the above findings 9 showing associations, then you have something 10 have been demonstrated by a number of high 10 close to an epidemiologic study, and my 11 quality epidemiologic studies and case 11 belief is that those epidemiologic findings 12 reports, such as those by Rinsky, Wong, Ott, 12 should be published in peer-reviewed 13 Decoufle, Infante, Aksoy, Vigliani and 13 scientific journals for the scientific 14 others." 14 community to evaluate. 15 Q. Okay. My question is, do you 15 Q. Okay. Doctor, if I owned a oil 16 disagree with OSHA's statement that those 16 company and I had 150 cases of multiple 17 were high quality studies? 17 myeloma from 1960 to 2009 and I didn't 18 A. Well, there are a couple problems 18 report that or publish a study on that, 19 with this. I do disagree specifically with 19 would you have an interest or an opinion on 20 these being necessarily good epidemiological 20 whether or not that could be statistically 21 studies, although that's not exactly what it 21 significant? 22 says. It lumps a lot of things together, so 22 MR. PERRY: Object to form. 23 the language is not really scientifically 23 A. Well, not as you described it. I 24 specific. 24 think it suggests that there might be a 25 It's talking about many disease 25 large enough sample size around which a Page 50 Page 52 11 2 entities, and it's talking about many 2 proper epidemiologic study could be 3 studies, so we'd have to talk about each one 3 constructed where the actual rates of 4 individually for me to decide whether that 4 occurrence of those diseases or those cases 5 was a high quality epidemiologic study, 5 occur could be quantified. I think having a 6 whether or not OSHA believed that it was a 6 number of cases doesn't itself suggest 7 high quality study of any sort. 7 whether it's large or small without knowing 8 Q. All right. Doctor, do you believe 8 the denominator of the population that 9 benzene can cause multiple myeloma under any 9 actually gave rise to those case. Maybe -- 10 circumstances? 10 Q. What if the denominator was 30,000 11 A. I don't think that the 11 for my oil company and I had 150 cases of 12 epidemiological evidence available to us to 12 multiple myeloma from 1960 to 2009, would 13 date can support that conclusion. 13 that, would that be of interest to you? 14 Q. Okay. Doctor, do you believe that 14 MR. PERRY: Eric, you mean 30,000 15 concealment of data would under report the 15 employees per year from 1960 until 2009 or 16 incidence of myeloma in the public domain? 16 you mean 30,000 employees total from 1960 17 MR. PERRY: Object to form. 17 until 2009? 18 A. That's pretty vague. I don't know 18 MR. WILLIAMS: 30,000 employees with 19 what you're asking. 19 work, work lives of 20 to 40 years. 20 Q. Okay. If certain industries fail to 20 MR. PERRY: The same 30,000 21 produce cases of employees with let's say 21 employees for 49 years, is that the question? 22 multiple myeloma, would there be a lack of 22 MR. WILLIAMS: I'm asking the 23 studies in the peer-review literature? 23 Doctor. 24 MR. PERRY: Object to form. 24 Doctor, do 150 cases -- let me 25 A. I think you're referring to two 25 rephrase my question. 13 (Pages 49 to 52) VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF KENNETH MUNDT, M.D., JUNE 29, 2009 Page 53 Page 55 11 2 Doctor, tell me one study in the 2 potentially statistically significant findings 3 public domain that shows 150 cases of 3 out of the majority that show no such 4 multiple myeloma from one company. 4 association. I don't believe that there was, 5 MR. PERRY: Object to form. 5 no. 6 A. I don't know about a single study. 6 Q. How about Chevron? 7 There are many com -- many studies from 7 A. I believe not. 8 among the petroleum companies where there are 8 Q. Any other oil company? 9 hundreds of cases total. 9 MR. PERRY: Object to form. 10 Q. And how many employees are we 10 A. I believe that, yes, Dr. Satin 2002 11 talking? Hundreds of thousands of employees? 11 reports in refinery workers, I believe this 12 A. Well, the studies don't just take 12 is a Canadian company -- 13 number of cases out of number of employees. 13 Q. And what were the results from that 14 All the studies you see with SMRs we 14 study? 15 calculate person time. So we need to know 15 A. He had a total of 29 multiple 16 every person who worked in that facility and 16 myelomas. 17 the duration of time they worked in that 17 Q. Okay. 18 facility and every year that they're followed 18 A. And the SMR was 1.56 -- I'm sorry, 19 until they die and we determine what the 19 1.59, and the confidence interval was 1.07 to 20 cause of death was in those cases. So we 20 2.89. 21 typically have hundreds of thousands of 21 Q. Okay. Have any other oil companies 22 person years that are necessary, then, to 22 shown a statistically significant result that 23 calculate the rates at which the diseases are 23 was greater than a 2.0? 24 occurring, and we then can more properly 24 A. Greater than a 2.0. I don't know 25 compare those rates of diseases between 25 of one offhand. Page 54 Page 56 11 2 exposed subgroups and non-exposed subgroups or 2 Q. Okay. 3 even to the general population. But if we 3 A. There is the Kirkeleit, has relative 4 only have counts of people and diseases, we 4 risks based on -- 5 can't construct a valid epidemiological 5 Q. That was sponsored by an oil 6 measure of association. 6 company, you said? 7 Q. Okay. And, Doctor, I don't recall 7 A. I don't know what the sponsorship 8 what you said. Have you seen a -- one 8 was, but it was in oil employees. 9 company with 150 cases internally? 9 Q. Doctor, in your report you say that 10 MR. PERRY: Object to form. 10 there are 19,920 new cases of multiple 11 A. Not that I recall, no. 11 myeloma diagnosed each year, paragraph 27. 12 Q. Okay. Can you name a study 12 Do you know what the U.S. incidence rate for 13 sponsored or conducted by Shell Oil that show 13 myeloma is? 14 a statistically significant result for benzene 14 A. As an aggregate, no. You really 15 and multiple myeloma? 15 should look at the incidence rate by age. 16 A. Not that I recall, no. 16 It depends strongly on age. 17 Q. How about Exxon, sir? 17 Q. Well, if I told you Dr. Nilsson 18 A. I'd have to refer to my summary. 18 lesson testified that it was 4.3 per hundred 19 There's so many studies. Let me -- if you 19 thousand, would you agree with that? 20 don't mind, I'll look at -- 20 A. I think that I've seen estimates 21 Q. Absolutely. 21 around 4 or a little bit more than 4 for 22 A. -- the summary that I have and 22 the overall population which would be a 23 provided you on this DVD. I believe not, 23 weighted average of all the age specific 24 but there might be some here or there. You 24 rates. They do vary considerably across age 25 know, you always have some positive and 25 groups. 14 (Pages 53 to 56) VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF KENNETH MUNDT, M.D., JUNE 29, 2009 Page 57 Page 59 11 2 Q. Doctor, in your report, paragraph 31, 2 peer-review opinion. They have in fact 3 you talk about the Institute of Medicine. 3 published language in review documents that 4 Is that a governmental agency, Doctor? 4 were the products of the large and diverse 5 A. Well, the Institute of Medicine is 5 committee of experts that underwent additional 6 part of our natural academies of science, and 6 peer-review drawing the conclusion that the 7 its -- while it's important to our government 7 evidence was insufficient for such a 8 and it often deals with matters of science 8 conclusion. 9 for our Congress, it is intentionally 9 Q. What journal was that published in, 10 independent of government and industry and 10 Doctor? 11 all specific interests in order to render 11 A. I'm sorry, I don't understand that I 12 high quality valid and unbiased scientific 12 ever indicated it was published in a journal. 13 opinions. 13 It was published in an official report of 14 Q. Doctor, when you say "our," who are 14 the IOM. 15 you referring to? 15 Q. Mm-hmm. Doctor, if you look at your 16 A. U.S. citizens. 16 reference list in your report, can you tell 17 Q. Okay. Is it a nonprofit 17 me what studies are benzene cohort studies? 18 organization? 18 A. Well, I don't have a specific 19 A. I don't know their legal construct. 19 notation of that, but I believe that the 20 Q. Okay. Do they classify chemicals as 20 Ireland and Collins, Sorahan, Rinsky, Wong. 21 carcinogens? 21 The Australian study series there are several 22 A. They do do critical reviews of 22 reports on some, various over time. 23 epidemiologic and toxicologic literature and 23 Schnatter -- 24 often provide opinions as to carcinogenicity, 24 Q. Anything else, Doctor? 25 yes. 25 A. I'm still going. Schnatter, Lewis, Page 58 Page 60 11 2 Q. Kind of like the American Cancer 2 Satin, Huebner, Tsai, Divine, Thomas, Dement, 3 Society, something similar to that? 3 Rushton, Kirkeleit. I think those are most 4 A. I wouldn't use that specifically. I 4 of the cohort studies. 5 think the American Cancer Society has another 5 Q. Doctor, can you define benzene cohort 6 purpose, but let's say they use a similar 6 for us? 7 approach as IARC or NTP would in evaluating 7 A. Well, I assume you're referring to 8 the epidemiological literature. 8 cohorts exposed to benzene. 9 Q. But, again, they're not a 9 Q. Yes, I'm asking your definition of a 10 governmental agency, correct? 10 benzene cohort. 11 A. Well, I don't know their exact 11 A. Well, I'm not sure that that's a 12 classification, but they intend to be 12 standard term, but I take it as meaning a 13 independent of the government so that they 13 defined group of people, which is simply the 14 can render objective opinions to the 14 definition of a cohort, where exposure is 15 government for litigation and decision making. 15 either known or presumed, and that depends on 16 MR. PERRY: Wait. Eric, let him 16 what kinds of records might be available. 17 finish. 17 Q. And what would make the study that 18 THE COURT REPORTER: We didn't get 18 you just listed different from other benzene 19 that question. There was an interruption. 19 epidemiological studies as it relates to 20 MR. PERRY: Eric, let him -- 20 being called a benzene cohort? 21 BY-MR.WILLIAMS: 21 A. I really don't understand your 22 Q. Do you know if they rendered any 22 question. 23 peer-review opinions as relates to benzene 23 Q. Well, how do we -- how does one 24 and multiple myeloma? 24 know if we're looking at a benzene cohort 25 A. I'm not sure what you mean by a 25 study or just an epidemiological study 15 (Pages 57 to 60) VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF KENNETH MUNDT, M.D., JUNE 29, 2009 Page 61 Page 63 11 2 involving benzene and blood malignancies? 2 A. Excuse me, I didn't finish my 3 A. I'm sorry, I still don't understand 3 previous answer. 4 what your question is. 4 Q. I apologize. 5 Q. Okay. Well, if you don't understand 5 A. I looked at reports from Stallone. 6 the question, I don't know how else to ask 6 You're referring to the unpublished reports 7 it. 7 of the surveillance system? Not the 8 Do you know what type of studies Dr. 8 surveillance system; of the death 9 Infante used in his meta analysis? 9 certificates? 10 A. He claims to have selected 7 of the 10 Q. For the 77 Stallone study? 11 8 available cohort studies on benzene 11 A. Yes, I'm just trying to clarify that 12 exposure and multiple myeloma. 12 we're talking about the same document. 13 Q. Okay. Now, let's go to that word 13 Q. Yeah, the one with the 8 cases of 14 claims. Why don't you define that for us. 14 multiple myeloma in it, that one. 15 A. That's what he says in his report. 15 A. Okay. Yes, I've seen that report. 16 Q. Okay. And what is he saying about 16 Q. Okay. And did you look at Dr. 17 7 of 8 benzene cohorts? 17 Infante's calculation for those 8 cases of 18 A. He, again, claims, meaning he 18 myeloma? 19 describes in his report that these are 19 A. I believe I did, but on the other 20 studies where he has a high level of 20 hand, this is not a peer-reviewed, published 21 certainty that the cases were exposed. 21 epidemiologic study. And, secondly, it uses 22 Q. Does he state that there are other 22 a kind of a quick and dirty analytic 23 known benzene cohorts? 23 methodology that is not of the caliber of 24 A. I think he does. 24 what one does in conducting a cohort study. 25 Q. Besides the 8 studies that you just 25 Q. Did you say quick and dirty? Page 62 Page 64 11 2 referred to? 2 A. Yeah, that's what I would refer to a 3 A. I'd have to -- you know, I don't 3 PMR analysis. 4 know what he would define a benzene cohort 4 Q. Okay. Why is it quick and dirty? 5 as, and I don't recall specifically if he 5 A. Well, typically it's done when you 6 mentions others. I believe he mentions a 6 have a bunch of death certificates and you 7 larger number of studies but then ends up 7 want to make some sense out of them or 8 not incorporating them in his analysis. 8 generate some hypotheses. It's done, you 9 Q. Okay. And is there a standard 9 know, for that purpose often, and it's very 10 epidemiological definition for benzene cohort 10 inexpensive to do. It might lead one to 11 that you know of? 11 conclude that a cohort study might be 12 A. Well, as I said earlier, I don't 12 worthwhile. It might also suggest that there 13 think that that's a standard term to begin 13 aren't enough, you know, cases to actually 14 with. I think loosely you're referring to 14 pursue a cohort study which can be quite 15 groups of people where there's some 15 time-consuming and expensive. So it has its 16 probability that benzene exposure occurred. 16 purpose, but its purpose is -- among these 17 Sometimes it's a subset of a larger cohort, 17 purposes is not determining causation. 18 so I don't know that it has inherent meaning 18 Q. Do the results indicate that they 19 as a technical term. 19 are statistically significant? 20 Q. Okay, I understand. Doctor, did you 20 MR. PERRY: Object to form. 21 look at the 1977 Joyner/Stallone study? 21 A. Statistically significant what? 22 MR. PERRY: Object to form. 22 Q. For benzene and myeloma. 23 A. Yes, I -- I'm sorry, I -- 23 A. Well, first of all, I'm not sure 24 Q. Did you review Dr. Infante's expert 24 there was any measure of exposures, including 25 report in this case? 25 benzene in that report. I think that this 16 (Pages 61 to 64) VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF KENNETH MUNDT, M.D., JUNE 29, 2009 Page 65 Page 67 11 2 was a collection of death certificates from a 2 (Whereupon, the Deposition of KENNETH 3 company which included people who might have 3 MUNDT, M.D. concluded at 4:30 p.m.) 4 been exposed to benzene and others who might 4 5 not have. 5 6 Q. Okay. Do you know if those results 6 7 were ever reported to OSHA, Doctor? 7 8 A. The results on multiple myeloma? 8 9 Q. Yeah, the 8 cases of myeloma. 9 10 A. I don't, I don't know that those 10 11 were sought by OSHA. I think that OSHA was 11 12 looking for studies on leukemias. 12 13 Q. Is blood dyscrasia also -- is 13 14 multiple myeloma also referred to as blood 14 15 dyscrasia? 15 16 MR. PERRY: Object to form. 16 17 A. I don't know if that's what -- if 17 18 that's the right terminology, so I just don't 18 19 know. 19 20 Q. Have you ever referred to multiple 20 21 myeloma as blood dyscrasia? 21 22 MR. PERRY: Object to form. 22 23 A. Not that I know of. 23 24 Q. Okay. One second, Doctor. Do you 24 25 think 150 cases in a company is enough to 25 Page 66 Page 68 11 2 perform an epidemiological study to determine 2 CERTIFICATE 3 if there's an excess of multiple myeloma? 3 4 MR. PERRY: Object to form. 4 I, Maryellen Coughlin, a RPR/CRR and 5 A. Well, epidemiologically 150 cases is 5 Notary Public of the Commonwealth of 6 certainly much more attractive than studies 6 Massachusetts, do hereby certify that the 7 with 8 or 10 or 22 or 50. 7 foregoing is a true and accurate transcript 8 Q. I agree with you on that, Doctor. I 8 of my stenographic notes of the deposition of 9 don't think I have any other questions at 9 KENNETH A. MUNDT, Ph.D., who appeared before 10 this time. Do you have any Stan? 10 me, satisfactorily identified themself, and 11 MR. PERRY: No, sir. 11 was by me duly sworn, taken at the place and 12 MR. WILLIAMS: Anybody else? 12 on the date hereinbefore set forth. 13 MR. CHOCHELES: No. 13 I further certify that I am neither 14 MR. WILLIAMS: Okay, I don't think I 14 attorney nor counsel for, nor related to or 15 heard anybody else, Ms. Court Reporter. 15 employed by any of the parties to the action 16 I want to mark the OSHA document as 16 in which this deposition was taken, and 17 the next exhibit. I don't think he had that 17 further that I am not a relative or employee 18 in his CD-ROM. 18 of any attorney or counsel employed in this 19 (Whereupon, Exhibit-3 was marked for 19 case, nor am I financially interested in this 20 identification.) 20 action. 21 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The deposition is 21 22 now concluded, and the time is approximately 22 23 4:27. This concludes tape No. 1 of 1 of 23 MARYELLEN COUGHLIN, RPR/CRR 24 the deposition of Kenneth Mundt, M.D. and we 24 25 are off the record. 25 Dated: July 3, 2009 17 (Pages 65 to 68) VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF KENNETH MUNDT, M.D., JUNE 29, 2009 Page 69 Page 71 11 2 CAPTION 2. DEPOSITION ERRATA SHEET 3 The Deposition of KENNETH MUNDT, 3. 4 PH.D., taken in the matter, on the date, and 4 RE: Accurate Court Reporting, Inc. 5 at the time and place set out on the title 5 Case Caption: JOANN BISHOP, ET AL. 6 page hereof. 6 VS. SHELL OIL COMPANY, ET AL. 7 It was requested that the deposition 7 . 8 be taken by the reporter and that same be 8 DEPONENT: KENNETH MUNDT, PH.D. 9 reduced to typewritten form. 9 DEPOSITION DATE: June 29, 2009 10 It was agreed by and between counsel 10 . 11 and the parties that the Deponent will read 11 To the Reporter: 12 and sign the transcript of said deposition. 12 I have read the entire transcript of my 13 . 13 Deposition taken in the captioned matter or the 14 . 14 same has been read to me. I request that the 15 . 15 following changes be entered upon the record for 16 . 16 the reasons indicated. I have signed my name 17 . 17 to the Errata Sheet and the appropriate 18 . 18 Certificate and authorize you to attach both to 19 . 19 the original transcript. 20 . 20 . 21 . 21 _________________________________________________ 22 . 22 _________________________________________________ 23 . 23 _________________________________________________ 24 . 24 _________________________________________________ 25 25 _________________________________________________ Page 70 Page 72 11 2. CERTIFICATE 2 _________________________________________________ 3 STATE OF : 3 _________________________________________________ 4 COUNTY/CITY OF : 4 _________________________________________________ 5 Before me, this day, personally 5 _________________________________________________ 6 appeared, KENNETH MUNDT, PH.D., who, being duly 6 _________________________________________________ 7 sworn, states that the foregoing transcript 7 _________________________________________________ 8 of his/her Deposition, taken in the matter, 8 _________________________________________________ 9 on the date, and at the time and place set 9 _________________________________________________ 10 out on the title page hereof, constitutes a 10 _________________________________________________ 11 true and accurate transcript of said 11 _________________________________________________ 12 deposition. 12 _________________________________________________ 13 13 _________________________________________________ 14 KENNETH MUNDT, PH.D. 14 _________________________________________________ 15 . 15 _________________________________________________ 16 SUBSCRIBED and SWORN to before me this 16 _________________________________________________ 17 day of , 2009 in the 17 _________________________________________________ 18 jurisdiction aforesaid. 18 _________________________________________________ 19 19 _________________________________________________ 20 My Commission Expires Notary Public 20 _________________________________________________ 21 . 21 _________________________________________________ 22 . 22 . 23 . 23 SIGNATURE:_______________________DATE:___________ 24 . 24 KENNETH MUNDT, PH.D. 25 . 25 18 (Pages 69 to 72)