Document ypmJaX3JGzB5J91j5xxM9z516

Scott Trial Testimony September i,, 19 87 1646 1 MS. BAKER: We would like Monte C. 2 Throdahl by deposition. 3 THE COURT: All right. 4 MS. BAKER: And plaintiffs' offer 5 begins at Page 4, line 23. 6 7 (Reading from video deposition) 8 Q Will you state your full name for the 9 record, please, sir. 10 A Monte C. Throdahl. 11 (End of reading) 12 13 MR. LACEY: Continues on Page 28, line 14 3 o 15 16 (Reading from video deposition) 17 Q So, you were a board member from 1966 until 18 1984? 19 A That's right. 20 Q And throughout that entire period of time, 21 you also remained a corporate officer in the 22 sense that the company uses that word? 23 A Yes. 24 (End of reading) 25 1647 1 MS. BAKER: And continuing on Page 3 2, 2 line 7. 3 4 (Reading from video deposition) 5 Q But the major -- what I would call "meat of 6 the company decisions" went to this development 7 committee, administrative committee, and 8 management committee? 9 A Yes. They didn't exercise simultaneously, 10 you understand. 11 Q Okay. Well, let me see. Are those 12 basically three different names for essentially 13 the same type of body? 14 A Yes. That's what I was trying to tell you. 15 (End of reading) 16 17 MS. BAKER: And continuing on Page 36, 18 line 20. 19 20 (Reading from video deposition) 21 Q So, this -- this administrative or 22 management committee -- 23 A Uh-huh. 24 Q -- was basically a group of senior 25 management that the board expected to give the 1648 1 president advice, but basically he would make the 2 decision? 3 A You bet. 4 Q On what was brought to him? 5 A Make no mistake. 6 (End of reading) 7 8 MS.. BAKER: And continuing at Page 38, 9 line 20. 10 11 (Reading from video deposition) 12 Q How often did the group typically meet on a 13 schedule, if it had a schedule? 14 A They were usuallyweekly. 15 (End of reading) 16 17 MS. BAKER: And continuing on Page 39 , 18 line 4. 19 20 (Reading from video deposition) 21 Q Minutes, formal minutes were kept of these 22 meetings? 23 A Yes. 24 Q Were they reviewed by the committee for 25 their accuracy after they were prepared? HARTOLDMON0037382 1 A Yes. There was always a secretary of the 2 committee that was a -- it was -- it was an 3 appintive job, and it was -- it was a difficult 4 one because he had to -- 5 Q Write it all down? 6 A Well, he had to write it all down and he had 7 to keep track of the -- of the agenda items and 8 how often they would come up for reexamination or 9 whatever. So, that was a full-time job for him. 10 MS. BAKER: And continuing at -Page 84 . 11 12 (Reading from video deposition) 13 Q The document -- 14 (End of reading) 15 16 MR. MUSSLEWHITE: Wait one moment, Your 17 Honor. 18 MR. LACEY: Let' s just go on, I guess 19 MS. BAKER: Okay. 20 MR. LACEY: Don ' t worry about it. 21 22 (Reading from video deposition) 23 Q Let me just -- the type of document that we 24 have here at 22295 through 22319 is the sort of 25 prepared text that often would accompany a HARTOLDMON0037383 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 165Q 1 presentation to the corporate development 2 committee? 3 A Yes. _ 4 Q And it's the type of prepared text that a 5 member of the corporate development committee 6 would receive either with the agenda for the 7 meeting -- if it was desired that he review it 8 all before the meeting -- or after the meeting, 9 along with the minutes of the meeting? 10 A Yes. 11 (End of reading) 12 13 MS. BAKER: And continuing on Page 86 14 at line 6. 15 16 (Reading from video deposition) 17 Q And it describes there the sales figures for 18 Monsanto, both in terms of quantity and price and 19 those things? 20 A That's right. 21 Q There is an indication on there of, at one 22 point, "M/I." What is that? 23 A Oh, that's "Monsanto over industry." That 24 is what is -- a percentage of the total industry 25 participation . And it would be 62 percent. HARTOLDMON0037384 1651 1 Q So, then Monsanto was producing 62 percent 2 of the entire PCBs being produced worldwide? 3 A That was their estimate, yes. 4 (End of reading) 5 6 MS. BAKER: And continuing at Page 94, 7 line 11. 8 9 (Reading from video deposition) 10 Q From time to time, matters relating to 11 Monsanto1s production of PCBs came to the 12 management committee? . 13 A Uh-huh. 14 (End of reading) 15 16 MS. BAKER: At Line 24. 17 18 (Reading from video deposition) 19 Q Well, were you aware of the fact that they 20 were one of the better-performing products, in 21 terms of profit, that Monsanto made? 22 A Yes, in this -- in that sense. 23 (End of reading) 24 25 MS. BAKER: And continuing at Page 99, HARTOLDMON0037385 1652 1 line 6. 2 3 (Reading from video deposition) 4 Q The alternatives that wereconsidered and 5 presented to the committee - 6 A Uh-huh. 7 Q -- included the alternative ofgetting out 8 of the business, did it not? 9 A Yes. 10 (End of reading) 11 12 MS. BAKER: And continuing at line 17. 13 14 (Reading from video deposition) ' 15 Q Getting out of the business was not the 16 alternative that the committee and the company 17 adopted? - 18 A Well, it was later on. Not in this time. 19 (End of reading) 20 21 MS. BAKER: And continuing at Page 100, 22 line 2 -- no. I'm sorry. Strike that23 Page 101, lines 1 through 13. 24 25 (Reading from video deposition) HARTOLDMON0037386 16 5 3 1 Q And had Monsanto, for example, chosen the 2 alternative in 1969 to simply go out of the 3 business, then would you have had to close down 4 four different production facilities: one in 5 Anniston, Alabama; one in East St. Louis, 6 Illinois, or Sauget; one in the United Kingdom; . 7 and one in Japan, correct? 8 A (Witness nods head.) 9 Q Is that correct? 10 A Yes , yes. 11 Q And if those facilities were closed down at 12 that point in time, you would have had a lot of 13 idle plants, a lot of investment that would have 14 had to be written of f, and a substantial loss, 15 correct? 16 A Yes. 17 (End of reading) 18 19 MS. BAKER; Continuing at Page 152, 20 line 7. 21 22 (Reading from video deposition) 23 Q According to those minutes of June 14th, 24 1976, Monsanto made the decision in December of 25 1975 to terminate the production and sales of HARTOLDMON0037387 1654 1 PCBs for dielectrics, correct? I believe it' s 2 about the third or fourth line there? 3 A Yeah. _ 4 Q The question I'm trying to get clear in my 5 mind is whether or not that decision that was 6 made in December of 1975 was a decision that 7 would have been made by the corporate -- 8 A Yeah. ` 9 Q -- administrative committee? 10 A That's right. 11 Q Okay. 12 (End of reading) 13 14 MS. BAKER: And continuing at Page 176, 15 line 25. 16 17 (Reading from video deposition ) 18 Q One of the advantages to the company in 19 conti nuing to produce PCBs as dielectrics and 2 0 sell them through 1976 or ' 77 was that it allowed 21 the company to get out of the PCB business 22 without suffering a loss? 23 That was a resultant -- it was a resultant 24 which was fortuitous. It had the -- had the 25 company got out of the business in 1975 -- no, HARTOLDMON0037388 1655 1 1969 -- and not made an effort to find substitute 2 products, they would never have known whether 3 they would have been successful or not. The fact 4 that they tried and gave it every effort and 5 still failed and then had the benefit of moving 6 out without a write-off loss, I guess that' s a 7 plus. No question about that. 8 Q Well, isn't that one of the things that was 9 referred to as being in the company's own 10 interest in selecting that alternative initially? 11 A I don't think so. I think that the -- the 12 own interest was to stay in the business of 13 supplying customers with fire-safe, appropriate 14 hydraulic and dielectric fluidsAnd I don't 15 believe that in 19 -- I think, 1969 -- had the 16 prognosis for failure been paramount, I suspect 17 that decision would have been made then to get 18 out and take the write-off because you would have 19 used that expense money to do something else with 20 it. . 21 Q If I understand, what you're saying is that 22 had the company been able to see in 1969 that it 23 would not be successful in developing alternative 24 fluids to the dielectrics that it was able to 2 5 sell, it probably would have gone out of the PCB 1656 1 business right then? 2 A That would be my judgment. 3 ( End of reading )_ 4 5' MS. BAKER: That ends the plaintiffs1 6 offer, Your Honor. 7 MR. FREEMAN: Your Honor, defendant 8 would offer one question from the 9 deposition. It's found on Page 94. If Mr. 10 Lacey would read the answer? 11 MR. LACEY: I will be happy to. Let me 12 get to the page. All right. 13 MR. FREEMAN: Line 15 is the question. 14 15 (Reading from video deposition) 16 Q Did you ever gain an understanding of 17 whether or not PCBs were a profitable product for 18 Monsanto? 19 A Sure. They were profitable. They 20 weren't -- they weren't the most profitable thing 21 to be made, but they were very important products 22 to us. And certainly they fitted -- they fitted 23 not only an economic need but they also had a 24 societal need which they served admirably. And 25 . that's what they were originally created for. HARTOLDMON0037390 1657 1 (End of reading) 2 3 MR, FREEMAN: Thank you. 4 THE COURT: All right. Who will you 5 have next? 6 MS. BAKER: Your Honor, may I check 7 something with the defense counsel right ` 8 quick, please? 9 THE COURT: Yes, you may. 10 11 (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD) 12 13 MS. BAKER: Your Honor, we would like 14 to call Dr. George Roush, Jr., by 15 deposition. In order to facilitate this, we 16 would like to provide a brief Rule 1006 17 summary of our plaintiffs' offer, describing 18 his position in line of command at Monsanto 19 Company, before continuing with question and 20 answer. 21 THE COURT: Do you have something to 22 say, Mr. Jones? 23 MR. JONES s Your Honor, Monsanto the 24 company would object to any of this 25 testimony so far as it relates to IBT HARTOLDMON00373S 1658 1 matters. We anticipate, based upon the 2 designations that the plaintiffs have made, 3 that they will be getting into such matters. 4 And we object to it on the ground that such 5 testimony is irrelevant, it's immaterial, 6 and it's inflammatory. 7 In particular, Your Honor, Monsanto 8 objects as it being not relevant to these 9 proceedings pursuant to Rule 402 unless and 10 until they show two things: No. 1, that any 11 of the alleged deficiencies of IBT would 12 affect the validity of those studies; and 2, 13 that Monsanto was aware of those alleged 14 deficiencies. Until such time as they do 15 that, that testimony would be inappropriate. 16 And they have failed to do that so far. 17 In addition, Your Honor, we would refer 18 the Court to the brief and memorandum that 19 we submitted to the Court in connection with 20 our motion in limine for the remainder of 21 the objections. We don't want to belabor 22 the point, and we do that for the interest 23 of time. 24 THE COURT: The Court understands your 25 objection, Mr. Jones; and your objection HARTOLDMONOQ37392