Document zQLzzD5rjX5yEEb0gjBGZvNva

FILE NAME Bechtel BECH DATE 1995 June 29 DOC BECH037 DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION Legal - Testimony of Sherman Draniy 30 grad at Bechtel 1937-1979 36 office 37 became corp 1950 1951 1951 41 became a director late 1960s bus 71 Bechtel corp existed from 1898 as constructionconstruction his career 1955 there PROPERTY OF TIGERMAN TIGERMAN Ptr 243092 L THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO BEFORE THE HONORABLE ALFRED G. CHIANTELLI JUDGE DEPARTMENT NO 9 000-- ANGELO VIALE ET AL 10 11 VS. PLAINTIFFS NO 965247 12 BECHTEL CORP 13 14 DEFENDANT TESTIMONY OF SHERMAN / DRANIY DRANIY 15 16 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS JUNE 29 1995 17 18 APPEARANCES 19 FOR THE PLAINTIFF 20 21 22 23 FOR THE DEFENDANT 24 25 ORIGINAL ORIGINAL 26 WARTNICK CHABER ET AL ATTORNEYS AT LAW 101 CALIFORNIA STREET 26TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111 BY STEPHEN M. TIGERMAN ESQUIRE THELEN MARRIN JOHNSON ET AL ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2 EMBARCADERO CENTER SUITE 2100 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111 BY RONALD F. LOPEZ ESQUIRE & PETER GILBERT ESQUIRE 27 28 REPORTED BY MILDRED BAKER CSR 3505 FILE COPY - WITNESS INDEX SHERMAN DRANIY DIRECT EXAMINATION BY eee ee ees ....--- MR TIGERMAN EXAMINATION BY MR LOPEZ ...... 16 REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY .....-.+---- MR TIGERMAN EXAMINATION BY MR LOPEZ 204 15 10 ANNE VIALE 11 DIRECT EXAMINATION BY .....-....-+-- 12 MR TIGERMAN 13 14 EXHIBIT INDEX 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 59 DEF'S INTERROGS & ANSWERS ....- 39 _ 49 DOCUMENT ....- cece reece eee eee 69 49 49 49 60 DOCUMENT ....- ee - eee. er- e e0 ee0 es 76 DOCUMENT ...- 2. 2 e - ee e- ee - ter- es 85 DOCUMENT .. 2. 22-2. e ee. eee e- es 105 DOCUMENTS 2... cee eee eee ee erent 189 22 23 71 24 49 A rr a ie 25 49 - B e 26 27 28 15 24 10 10 10 11 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 IN CHAMBERS THE COURT ON THE RECORD YES MR GILBERT LET ME TELL YOU WHAT THIS IS ABOUT OFF THE RECORD MR GILBERT I AM PETER GILBERT ONE OF THE ATTORNEYS FOR THE DEFENDANT I JUST WANT TO BRING TO THE COURT'S ATTENTION THAT JUROR NUMBER 5 WHO IS A MALE GENTLEMAN ELDERLY AND AN ACTOR WAS IN TEARS YESTERDAY AFTER THE PLAINTIFF'S SON WAS ON THE STAND AND HE HAS BEEN CLOSE TO TEARS AT LEAST TWO OTHER TIMES WHEN THE WITNESSES WERE TESTIFYING ABOUT MR VIALE AND HIS CONDITION AND WHAT KIND OF PERSON MR VIALE WAS I AM A LITTLE CONCERN ABOUT THAT IN TERMS OF CAN THIS JUROR BE FAIR NOT BE INFLUENCED BY SYMPATHY PASSION OR PREJUDICE AND I WANT TO BRING THAT TO THE COURT'S ATTENTION I DON'T KNOW WHETHER WE SHOULD TALK TO HIM INDIVIDUALLY OR WHETHER THAT WOULD DO MORE HARM THAN GOOD WHETHER WE SHOULD MOVE FOR A MISTRIAL BASED UPON THE SYMPATHY THAT HE HAS PRESENTED OR EXACTLY WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT BUT IT IS A PROBLEM I AM ALSO CONCERN BECAUSE THE WIFE IS GOING TO BE TAKING THE STAND NOW AND I SENSE THAT IS GOING TO BE MORE OF THE TYPE OF TESTIMONY THAT CAUSES A REACTION IN THIS PARTICULAR JUROR ADDUCED BY MR TIGERMAN DURING THE COURSE OF THE DIRECT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 EXAMINATION SO HERE WE GO AGAIN THE COURT ALL RIGHT LET ME INDICATE THIS I HAVE NOT SEEN THIS WHAT I WILL DO IS JUST WAIT UNTIL THE WIFE IS CALLED SEE WHAT THE REACTION IS AGAIN AND THEN DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT I AM GOING TO TALK TO HIM OR NOT BUT I HAVEN'T SEEN SUCH A SENSITIVE SCENE THAT -- MR TIGERMAN NO I HAVEN'T SEEN THAT THE COURT OFF THE RECORD OFF RECORD MR TIGERMAN THERE IS A WITNESS COMING ON NEXT HE IS THE FORMER DIRECTOR OF BECHTEL SHERMAN DRANIY HE WAS SUBPOENAED AND HE HAS SHOWN UP WITH A LAWYER FROM DEFENDANT'S LAW FIRM THELEN MARRIN JOHNSON AND BRIDGES INASMUCH AS HE IS REPRESENTED BY OPPOSING COUNSEL I WOULD LIKE THIS COURT TO ALLOW ME TO DO AN EXAMINATION UNDER 776. THIS MAN IS ADVERSE HE IS A FORMER OFFICER AND DIRECTOR OF THE CORPORATION HE IS REPRESENTED BY DEFENSE COUNSEL AND HIS INTERESTS ARE CLEARLY NOT ALIGNED WITH THE PLAINTIFF MR LOPEZ WELL THIS MAN HAS BEEN RETIRED FROM BECHTEL SINCE 1974 MR TIGERMAN CALLED HIM AND WHEN HE WAS SUBPOENAED AND ASKED THEM TO SIGN A NOTICE TO APPEAR AND HE ASKED HIM WHO IS THE DEFENDANT AND HE SAID MANHATTAN RAYBESTO BUT WAS +5 TOLD BY MR TIGERMAN MR TIGERMAN'S OFFICE THAT IT HAD NOTHING TO WITH BECHTEL MR TIGERMAN THAT IS UNTRUE MR LOPEZ BESIDES THE POINT THAT WAS A _ MISREPRESENTATION MR TIGERMAN I TALKED TO HIM THAT IS 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MR LOPEZ WELL WE HAVE TALKED TO HIM THAT IS WHAT HE TOLD US MR TIGERMAN THE SUBPOENA SAID RAYBESTOS BECAUSE THAT WAS THE FIRST DEFENDANT BUT CLEARLY TOLD HIM WHAT I WAS GOING TO TALK ABOUT BUT DIDN'T TELL HIM -- THE COURT I WON'T LET YOU DO IT UNDER 776 BUT IF HE APPEARS TO BE A HOSTILE WITNESS I CAN NOT ALLOW YOU TO ASK QUESTIONS RIGHT MR LOPEZ ONE OTHER THING COULD WE HAVE A CONTINUING OBJECTION TO RELEVANCE IF WE ARE GOING TO GET INTO THE AREA OF PREDECESSOR CORPORATION AND RELATIONSHIP AND HE IS NOT ABLE TO TIE IT UP LATER IT HAS NO RELEVANCE TO BECHTEL CORPORATION WHICH CAME INTO EXISTENCE AFTER THE WAR THAT EVIDENCE WILL BE SUBJECT TO AN IRRELEVANT OBJECTION AND A MOTION TO STRIKE THE COURT APPARENTLY WHAT IS BASICALLY HAPPENING IF YOU GO INTO THAT MATTER RATHER THAN HAVING A 402 HEARING YOU ARE GOING TO BE PRESENTING THIS TYPE OF EVIDENCE IN THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 76 WHICH CAN BE DONE ALL RIGHT THAT IS BASICALLY IT SO MAY BE IRRELEVANT IF I DON'T FIND SINGLE ENTERPRISE THEORY ULTRA INTERNAL OR IMPUTED KNOWLEDGE THEORY MR TIGERMAN IF THE COURT FINDS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO GO TO THE JURY THEN OBVIOUSLY I WOULDN'T GO FORWARD ON THOSE THEORIES TO THE JURY MR LOPEZ MY POINT WOULD BE AT THE TIME HAVE THE TESTIMONY STRICKEN THE COURT OTHER THING STILL DOING SOME MORE WORK ON JUDICIAL NOTICE AND SO ON I DON'T KNOW WHAT IS THE LEGAL EFFECT OF UNPUBLISHED FEDERAL REGULATIONS I DON'T KNOW THAT MR GILBERT BEATS ME THE COURT SECOND OF ALL IN READING THIS STUFF I CAN RELY UPON HEARSAY MATTERS FOR PURPOSES OF TAKING JUDICIAL NOTICE BUT I CANNOT TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF HEARSAY MATTERS MR TIGERMAN RIGHT THE COURT I CAN TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF ORDERS I CAN TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF FINDINGS OF FACT CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND SO ON COUPLE OF THINGS YOU ARE GOING TO SHOW ME WHAT YOU WANT TO READ FROM THE MINUTES MR TIGERMAN I HAVE IT THE COURT THEN THERE IS SOMETHING ELSE YOU WERE SUPPOSE TO DO 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 7 MR TIGERMAN I WAS GOING TO REORGANIZE THE DOCUMENTS WHICH I DID TAKING OUT ALL DUPLICATE PAGES _ WHAT HAPPENED WAS A WOMAN WHO HAD BEEN ON AT OUR OFFICE WHO NO LONGER IS THERE COPIED THE DOCUMENTS VERY POORLY NEW COPIES WERE MADE WE EVEN TOOK THE LUXURY OF BATES STAMPING THE DOCUMENTS FOR THE COURT SO WE CAN ALL REFER TO THE SAME PAGE I WILL DISTRIBUTE AN ORGANIZED COPY OF THE DOCUMENTS FOR EVERYBODY THE COURT YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO REMARK -MR TIGERMAN I HAVE IT AND HE CAN REMARK IT DO THE COURT HERE IS WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO I WANT THAT ONE THAT YOU PRESENTED THERE SO IT IS STILL IN EVIDENCE MR TIGERMAN YES IT IS THE COURT THEN GIVE THE NUMBER WHATEVER NUMBER IT IS GIVE IT AN -- MR TIGERMAN AN A. THE COURT <- A NUMBER ALL RIGHT SO THAT WE KNOW WHAT I WAS REFERRING TO YESTERDAY AND WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO SUBSTITUTE IN ITS PLACE AND THEN I WILL HAVE MY EXTERN GO THROUGH IT COMPARE IT WITH THE DUPLICATE ORIGINAL WE WILL CALL IT RIGHT SEE WHETHER OR NOT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 IT MATCHES MR TIGERMAN NOW THE ISSUE OF THE BECHTEL BRIEF IS GOING TO COME UP THIS MORNING THAT IS THE COMPANY NEWSLETTER PUBLISHED BY THE PUBLIC RELATIONS DEPARTMENT UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC RELATIONS MANAGER I WILL ASK MR DRANIY ABOUT IT BUT I AM GOING TO SEEK TO INTRODUCE PORTIONS OF THIS DOCUMENT AS ADMISSIONS EITHER AUTHORIZED OR ADOPTED BY THE DEFENDANT BECAUSE IT WAS PUBLISHED BY THEM AND BY THE PUBLIC RELATIONS DEPARTMENT IT EVEN HAS LETTERS BY THE PRESIDENT THE COURT AS FAR AS AUTHENTICITY -- MR TIGERMAN THEY ADMIT THAT THE COURT NEWSPAPER IS A PRESUMPTION MR LOPEZ THE COURT WE ARE NOT WITH RELATIONS TO THE 600 SECTION IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY MR TIGERMAN THEY WERE SUBPOENAED FROM BECHTEL BECHTEL HAS ADMITTED AUTHENTICITY THE COURT THE QUESTION IS WHETHER IT IS AN ADMISSION MR LOPEZ HEARSAY MR TIGERMAN THE FACT THAT THE DOCUMENT IS AUTHORIZED IT IS PUBLISHED BY THE PUBLIC RELATIONS DEPARTMENT BY THE PUBLIC RELATIONS DEPARTMENT MANAGER PHERBS EDITED BY THEM ALSO BY THEIR PRESIDENT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 kg IT IS CERTAINLY NOT SOMETHING THEY WERE NOT AWARE IF IT UNDER THEIR VICE PRESIDENT WOULDN'T BE WRITING LETTERS TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE COMPANY IN -- IT SO MR LOPEZ THERE IS NO WAY THAT YOU CAN STAND HERE AND SAY EVERYTHING IN THE DOCUMENTS IN THE BECHTEL BRIEF IS AN ADOPTIVE ADMISSION IT IS NOT UNLIKE THE CHRONICLE WHO PUBLISHES THE CHRONICLE THEY OWN THE CHRONICLE THE COURT TELL THE CLERK TO TELL THEM TO TAKE FIFTEEN MINUTES WAIT WAIT LET'S GO ON IS NOT AN ADMISSION BY THE CHRONICLE LET ME GO OUT JUDGE STEP OUT TO EXCUSE JUROR FOR RECESS THE COURT ALL RIGHT MR TIGERMAN I HAVE CERTIFIED COPIES OF THOSE DOCUMENTS HERE THE CUSTODIAN'S DECLARATION _ AND CERTIFIED SEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MR LOPEZ WELL WE HAVE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT THEIR AUTHENTICITY MR TIGERMAN CERTIFIED COPY AND SEALED BY THE US US DISTRICT COURT THE COURT WHAT AREA DID YOU WANT TO GET INTO ON THESE BRIEFS BECHTEL BRIEFS MR TIGERMAN STATEMENTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL AND THE . COMPANY 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 to THE COURT WHERE MR TIGERMAN FIRST - THE COURT LET THE RECORD REFLECT AS FAR AS THESE BECHTEL BRIEFS WHICH IS THE BECHTEL NEWSPAPER PREPARED BY EMPLOYEES BUT RUN THROUGH THE PUBLIC RELATIONS DEPARTMENT OF BECHTEL THAT IS THE PROFFERED EVIDENCE I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THAT IS TRUE OR NOT AND IT IS BASED ON EITHER AUTHORIZED ADMISSION OR ON ACQUIESCENCE MR TIGERMAN THIS IS TO FIRST SHOW YOU WHAT THE NATURE OF IT IS IT IS UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS DEPARTMENT J F O'CONNELL HE IS A MAN AT THE '42 MEETING R. L. INGRAM PUBLIC RELATIONS MANAGER THIS IS THE PRODUCTION MANAGER AND THIS THAT ALSO -- THE COURT RL RL INGRAM PUBLIC RELATIONS MANAGER WAS THAT AN IMPORTANT REPORT TO THE MARINESHIP MEETING MR TIGERMAN O'CONNELL WAS THIS MAN HE WAS AT THE '42 MEETING BY THIS TIME HE IS VICE PRESIDENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS WORKS UNDER PUBLIC RELATIONS RL RL INGRAM HE IS THE GUY THAT WROTE THE BOOK THAT WE ALREADY SAW THE COURT BECHTEL BRIEFS PUBLISHED IN JUNE OF 1958 BY AND FOR THE EMPLOYEES OF BECHTEL CORPORATION ENGINEERS CONSTRUCTION SAN FRANCISCO CALIFORNIA AND PUBLISHED THE PUBLICATION UNDER THE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 DIRECTION OF THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS DEPARTMENT AND THIS J F O'CONNELL IF HE IS AN EMPLOYEE IS IN THE HIERARCHY OF EMPLOYEES AS VICE PRESIDENT AND HE IS THE PERSON THAT ATTENDS THE MARINESHIP MEETING SO THIS WOULD APPEAR TO FALL UNDER ACQUIESCENCE 1221 POSSIBLY 1220 COULD I GET MY EVIDENCE CODE BOOK HERE IN FOR THE RECORD MR TIGERMAN I WILL GET MINE MR GILBERT I WILL GET MINE TOO TWO ATTORNEY LEAVE CHAMBERS THE COURT WE ARE STILL HERE THIS IS IN REFERENCE TO THE BECHTEL BRIEFS UNDER 1221 ADOPTIVE ADMISSION AS EVIDENCE OF STATEMENTS OFFERED AGAINST A PARTY IS NOT MADE INADMISSIBLE BY THE HEARSAY RULE THIS STATEMENT IS ONE OF WHICH THE PARTY WITH KNOWLEDGE OF THE CONTENTS THEREOF HAS BEEN - WORDS OR OTHER CONDUCT MANIFESTED ITS ADOPTION OR HIS BELIEF IN ITS TRUTH THAT'S ADOPTIVE ADMISSION THEN THE OTHER MATTER IS AUTHORIZED ADMISSION THERE IT IS EVIDENCE OF STATEMENTS OFFERED AGAINST A PARTY IS NOT MADE INADMISSIBLE BY THE HEARSAY RULE IF THE STATEMENT IS MADE BY A PERSON AUTHORIZED BY THE PARTY TO MAKE A STATEMENT OR STATEMENTS FOR HIM CONCERNING THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE STATEMENT AND THE EVIDENCE IS OFFERED EITHER 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 12 AFTER ADMISSION OF THE EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAINED A FINDING SUCH AUTHORITY OR IN COURT DISCRETION AS TO ORDER OF TRUTH SUBJECT TO THE ADMISSION OF SUCH EVIDENCE IT APPEARS FROM WHAT YOU HAVE SHOWN BUT I AM NOT MAKING A FINAL RULING ON THIS THAT THERE WERE ARTICLES HERE BY EMPLOYEES BUT IT IS ALL PUBLISHED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS DEPARTMENT OF WHICH J F O'CONNELL IS THE VICE PRESIDENT AND MR RL RL INGRAM WHO WROTE THE HISTORY BOOKS I GUESS AT BECHTEL AS PUBLIC RELATIONS MANAGER SO IT APPEARS MORE TO FALL UP UNDER ADOPTIVE ADMISSION THE ONLY QUESTION IS THIS I CAN SEE WHAT THE DEFENSE IS SAYING YOU HAVE THE CHRONICLE YOU HAVE AN EDITOR AND IT IS PUBLISHED RIGHT IN THE SAN FRANCISCO NEWSPAPER CORPORATION THE MERE FACT THAT A COLUMN THAT'S WRITTEN - BY HERB CAEN DOES NOT INDICATE THAT THE EDITOR ADOPTS WHAT HERB CAEN SAYS IN HIS COLUMN PWHRAOR LOOSE OR THE REPORTER MR TIGERMAN FIRST OF ALL -- THE COURT MR LOPEZ WHAT OR A LOOSE REPORTER OUT IN THE FIELD RECORD ON SOME THIRD PARTY EVENT THE COURT ALMOST LIKE IN TV YOU KNOW WHERE THEY SAY ALTHOUGH WE ARE ALLOWING THIS PROGRAM THIS PROGRAM DOES NOT DOES NOT INDICATE THE OPINION 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 13 OF THE EDITORIAL STAFF OF THE STATION MR TIGERMAN YES EXCEPT THIS IS NOT JOURNALISM THAT PURPORTS TO BE NEUTRAL THEREBY THE COURT FOR THE COMPANY THE PURPOSE OF THIS IS PUBLIC RELATIONS AND TO COMMUNICATES WITH THE OUTSIDE WORLD ITS EMPLOYMENT THERE IS ALSO A CASE YOU SHOULD KNOW ABOUT YOU DO KNOW ABOUT I AM SURE THAT SAYS IN THE EVENT OF ADOPTIVE ADMISSION AND THERE IS A CASE ABOUT INTERNAL COMPANY REPORT LEVY CENTER IS THE CASE IN THAT CASE SOMEBODY OPINED ABOUT AS TO THE CASE THE COURT SOMEONE FORMED AN OPINION GAVE AN OPINION AS THE CAUSE OF FIRM MR TIGERMAN IN THIS CASE IT WAS HELD NO PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE WAS NECESSARY BY THOSE THAT ADOPTED THE ADMISSION MR O'CONNELL AND MR ON FINE NEED NOT HAVE - ANY PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF THIS IN ORDER TO ADOPT IT THE COURT CAN I ASK YOU A QUESTION MR TIGERMAN THE OBVIOUS IS WORRISOME FOR ME WHAT IS THE DECLARATION THAT YOU WANT TO PRESENT. MR LOPEZ YES WE WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH EACH MR TIGERMAN WE SHOULDN'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH EACH ONE MR LOPEZ SURE WE SHOULD 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 114 THE COURT COULD I JUST ASK YOU SOMETHING WHO DO YOU HAVE HERE TO TESTIFY MR TIGERMAN MR DRANIY SHOW SHOULD I { PHAOPL WITH DID YOU WROTE MR O'CONNELL HAVE READ THIS AND SO ON WHAT WAS MR TIGERMAN OR JUST HEARD MR LOPEZ TELL LAWYER FOR THE WITNESS FROM BECHTEL BRIEFS MR LOPEZ THAT'S NOT TRUE ABSOLUTELY FALSE I AM REALLY SICK AND TIRED OF YOU MAKING FALSE ACCUSATIONS YOU ASKED ME WHAT ARE YOU WE DOING I SAID WE ARE GOING OVER THE BECHTEL BRIEFS WHAT WAS WRONG WITH THAT THE COURT NOTHING WRONG MR TIGERMAN EXCEPT HE REPRESENTS THE WITNESS NOW WILL COMMUNICATE WITH HIM ABOUT THE SUBJECT MATTER MR LOPEZ HE KNEW WE WERE GOING TO GO THROUGH THE BECHTEL BRIEFS ANY WAY MR GILBERT OH JUST A SECOND RON ALL THE TIMES I'VE SEEN YOU OUT THERE IN THE HALL DURING BREAKS TALKING TO EXPERTS DURING THE COURSE OF CROSS EXAMINATION . I DON'T THINK IT IS APPROPRIATE TO MAKE THAT KIND OF REMARK MR TIGERMAN JUST WAS CONCERNED HE WAS PREPARING THE WITNESS FOR WHAT WAS TO COME MR GILBERT IT IS HIS JOB TO PREPARE THE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5 WITNESS JUST AS IT WOULD BE YOUR JOB TO PREPARE YOUR WITNESSES. MR TIGERMAN I BROUGHT THIS UP TO THE COURT TO TRY TO EXPEDITE IN COURT WITNESS HAS BEEN TYPED OFF BUT THE POINT IS THIS WITNESSES WILL BE ASKED ABOUT THE NATURE OF THIS LETTER WHAT IT WAS FOR HOW IT WAS DISTRIBUTED WHAT IS HIS UNDERSTANDING OF THE PURPOSE WHO THOSE PEOPLE ARE O'CONNELL AND THE OTHER -- THE COURT NOT GOING INTO ANY DECLARATIONS MR TIGERMAN THEN WE ARE GOING TO GO INTO THE SUBJECT MATTER BECAUSE IN THE SUBJECT MATTER ARE NUMEROUS STATEMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE THE COURT GIVE ME ONE EXAMPLE OF ONE MR TIGERMAN I WILL GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE OF ONE THIS WILL BE EASY MR LOPEZ HE WANTS TO PUBLISH THESE TO THE JURY WITH THE OVERHEAD IS WHAT HE IS PLANNING ON DOING YOU WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH EACH PAGE DETERMINE IF THERE IS AN ADMISSION ON EACH PAGE IF THERE ARE NONE ADMISSIONS THE COURT COULD JUST TELL YOU SOMETHING MR LOPEZ CAN'T JUST TAKE A NEWSPAPER THE COURT WAIT WAIT WAIT THE NEWSPAPER IS HEARSAY AND IT DOES NOT QUALIFY AS A 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 NNN 28 16 EXCEPTION UNDER 1341 OF THE EVIDENCE CODE BECAUSE IT IS NOT A PUBLICATION CONCERNING FACTOSF GENERAL NOTORIETY AND INTEREST A IT IS NOT HISTORICAL WORK A WORK OF _ SCIENCE OR ART MR TIGERMAN NO NOT WHERE WE COME FROM THE COURT ALL RIGHT MR TIGERMAN THAT COMES IN AS AN ADMISSION ADOPTIVE ADMISSION AUTHORIZED ADMISSION THE COURT JUST GIVE ME ONE EXAMPLE MR TIGERMAN OKAY FOR EXAMPLE WHAT WE HAVE I HAVE THE HARD COPY OUTSIDE GIVEN THE HARD COPY I BY THE WAY IT IS PROBABLY SITTING ON YOUR DESK A HUGE SET I HAVE THE 65TH ANNIVERSARY EDITION PUBLISHED IN 1962 THE COURT WAIT WAIT MR TIGERMAN THAT IS THE PAPER THE FIRST PAGE OF THAT TALKS HAS A LETTER FROM IT BY THE COMPANY PRESIDENT STEVEN D. BECHTEL JUNIOR AND IT SAYS FOR EXAMPLE THIS IS OUR 65TH ANNIVERSARY OF BECHTEL ORGANIZATIONS START IN BUSINESS IT PROVES THAT WHEN THE COMPANY HAS HELD ITSELF OUT IT HAS MADE NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN SO CALL PREDECESSORS IT IS THEY CONSIDER THEMSELVES A SINGLE ORGANIZATION AGAIN THERE ARE OTHER STATEMENTS MADE BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE COMPANY IN THE SAME PAPER IT SAYS IN REVIEWING OUR BUSINESS HISTORY 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 17 I AM GRATIFIED BY OUR ADHERENCE TO TWO IMPORTANT POLICIES THAT ARE TRADITION OR TRADITIONAL WITH BECHTEL COMPANY FAIR DEALING AND GOOD HOUSEKEEPING BOTH AS ARE AS OLD AS THE 65 YEAR OLD BUSINESS ITSELF THESE ARE STATEMENTS THAT ARE MADE -- THE COURT WHAT WAS HIS POSITION MR TIGERMAN PRESIDENT BOARD OF DIRECTORS MR LOPEZ HE IS NOT IMPEACHING STEVEN D. BECHTEL MR TIGERMAN HE IS THE DIRECTOR MR LOPEZ NOT EVEN AUTHORIZED TO MAKE AN ADMISSION THE COURT WAIT I KNOW THAT THE DEFENSE HAS INDICATED THAT A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS IN ORDER TO FIND A CORPORATION MUST HAVE A QUORUM OF MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS BUT THAT APPLIES TO BINDING A CORPORATION TO A CONTRACT SO ON BUT DOESN'T QUALIFY FOR THE EVIDENTIARY PURPOSE OF ADMISSION MR TIGERMAN FURTHERMORE HE IS THE OFFICER AT THIS POINT HE IS ALSO AN OFFICER MR LOPEZ NOT STEVEN D. BECHTEL CAN'T AT THAT POINT HE IS RETIRED THE COURT WHEN HE WRITES THIS MR LOPEZ YES THINK WHEN HE WROTE THAT AT THAT TIME I THINK HE WAS RETIRED AS AN OFFICER OF 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 18 THE CORPORATION THAT MANDATORY RETIREMENT MR TIGERMAN HE MAY BE RIGHT HE WAS DIRECTOR MR LOPEZ HE WAS DIRECTOR THE COURT ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS MR LOPEZ HE WAS ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS HE IS NOT AUTHORIZED TO MAKE ANY ADMISSIONS FOR THE COMPANY AS DIRECTOR I DON'T CARE IF HE WAS AN OFFICER BEFORE CAN'T GO AROUND MAKING ADMISSIONS FOR THE COMPANY AS IF HE IS ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS THE COURT HE WAS A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS CAN'T MAKE ADMISSIONS FOR THE CORPORATION MR LOPEZ HE SURE CAN'T MR TIGERMAN FURTHERMORE I THINK -- MR GILBERT YOU JUST GOT -- MR LOPEZ LOOK AT 1222 MR TIGERMAN I THINK HE MAY BE CHAIRMAN AT THAT POINT MR LOPEZ WELL HE IS ON THE BOARD MR TIGERMAN HE IS CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD THAT IS SUFFICIENT THAT IS SUFFICIENT WE I LEE IACOCCA AS CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD FOR CHRYSLER -- MR LOPEZ BUT HE WAS ALSO -- THE COURT YOU THINK THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS GAVE HIM AUTHORITY FOR ALL THE STATEMENTS HE MADE IN HIS COMMERCIALS AND ALL THE REST 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 19 MR LOPEZ HE WAS ALSO AN OFFICER OF THE CORPORATION MR TIGERMAN HE MAKES AN ADMISSION ABOUT THE IN THE COMMERCIAL ABOUT THE SAFETY OF THE AUTOMOBILE IT TURNS OUT NOT TO BE SAFE THE PLAINTIFF CAN INTRODUCE THAT STATEMENT FROM THE | COMMERCIAL MR LOPEZ UNLESS HE IS ACTING ON BEHALF OF THE CORPORATION WAS AUTHORIZED TO ACT ON BEHALF OF THE CORPORATION THE COURT COULD JUST TELL YOU SOMETHING SO FAR WHAT HE HAS SHOWN APPEARS TO BE RELEVANT IT APPEARS AND UNDER A SHOWING UNDER 403 IT GOES TO ITS SUFFICIENCY AND SO THEREFORE I WILL ALLOW YOU TO ASK THOSE QUESTIONS PROCEEDING TO THIS MR TIGERMAN OTHER AREAS THE COURT KEEPING IN MIND AGAIN UNDER 403 THAT THERE WILL BE AN INSTRUCTION THAT YOU WILL HAVE TO WORK OUT TOGETHER FOR THE JURY THAT IS GOING TO BE THE ULTIMATE TRIER OF FACT MR LOPEZ LET ME MAKE VERY CLEAR THAT WE OBJECT TO THE USE OF THE BECHTEL BRIEFS TO FUZZ UP ESSENTIALLY CORPORATE IDENTITY ISSUE WE HAVE SUBMITTED TO THE COURT A DETAILED BRIEF SHOWING THE SEPARATENESS OF THE COMPANY FROM BECHTEL CORPORATION WHICH CAME INTO EXISTENCE IN THE MID 1940'S I THINK IT WAS '45 OR '46 FROM MARINESHIP WAY 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 50 IT WAS A TOTAL SEPARATE INDEPENDENT COMPANY TO THE OTHER COMPANIES THAT MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE HAD A RELATIONSHIP WITH BECHTEL IT IS IMPROPER I THINK FOR HIM TO TAKE _ WHAT IS SIMPLY A STATEMENT OF AN ORGANIZATION AND TO SUGGEST TO THE JURY THAT THAT SOMEHOW VITIATE A CLEAR DISTINCTION OF CORPORATE IDENTITY IT IS NOT AN ADMISSION THAT THE BECHTEL CORPORATION WAS THE SAME AS MARINESHIP WAS THE SAME AS W. A. BECHTEL CORPORATION BECHTEL WHEN THE GENTLEMAN STARTED THE COMPANY IN 1898 WITH HIS HORSE AND PLOY THE COURT CAN YOU SHOW THAT AS THIS IS A QUESTION OF FACT MR GILBERT WELL JUST JUST ONE THING IN TERMS OF PRELIMINARY THE COURT IT IS A QUESTION OF FACT MR GILBERT IN TERMS OF PRELIMINARY FOUNDATION MR TIGERMAN HAS GOT TO SHOW THAT WHO EVERYBODY THAT MADE THOSE STATEMENTS WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE PARTIES TO MAKE THE STATEMENTS MR TIGERMAN OR THAT THEY WERE ADOPTED TO -- MR GILBERT IT IS NOT SHOWING THAT THIS PARTICULAR PERSON AT THAT PARTICULAR TIME HAD THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE THOSE STATEMENTS THE COURT YOU HAVE AN EMPLOYEE NEWSPAPER SPONSORED WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE PUBLIC RELATIONS 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 521 DEPARTMENT OF BECHTEL BY THE OFFICERS OF THAT CORPORATION THAT PUBLISHED THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTOR'S STATEMENT THAT THIS IS A 65 YEAR OLD ORGANIZATION NOW WHEN THAT IS COUNSEL IS USING THAT AS A TRYING TO PROVE A FACT THAT THAT INDICATES THAT THE PREDECESSOR CORPORATIONS WERE IN FACT PART OF THE PART OF THE BECHTEL ORGANIZATION THAT'S A MATTER AS TO SUFFICIENCY WHICH I THINK HE HAS SHOWN WHETHER I AGREE WITH IT OR NOT IS A JURY QUESTION YOU CAN PRESENT EVIDENCE DEFINITELY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTOR HAD JUICE BAR ETHICS LICENSE IN HIS WRITING THAT IT HAD NO LEGAL SIGNIFICANT AS TO THE TRUTH AS TO WHETHER OR NOT W. H. BECHTEL CORPORATION WAS IN FACT THE BECHTEL CORPORATION ALL RIGHT SAYING MR GILBERT UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE WHAT I AM TRYING TO SAY IS IT IS NOT AN EVIDENCE CODE 1221 ISSUES THE COURT IT LOOKS LIKE 1221 MR GILBERT THAT IS WHAT HE WAS TALKING ABOUT NOW UNDER 1221 HE HAS GOT TO SHOW BY WORDS OTHER CONDUCT THAT BECHTEL CORPORATION ADOPTED THAT THE COURT LOOK LIKE IT ADOPTED IT WHEN IT ACQUIESCED PUBLISHED IT AND THEY HAD THE PUBLIC RELATIONS PERSON RIGHT THERE ONE AND THE PERSON WHO MADE THE STATEMENT IS A CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 22 DIRECTORS YOU KNOW -- MR GILBERT JUST WANT TO BE SURE WHAT SECTION OF THE EVIDENCE CODE ARE WE GOING ON BECAUSE THEY ARE A LITTLE DIFFERENT -- THE COURT IT APPEARS TO BE OVERLAPPING IN ANY EVENT IN THIS OVERLAPPING I AM MAKING IT A 403 MR LOPEZ WELL I WOULD STATE THAT IF THE CHRONICLE PUBLISHED -- THE COURT I AM MAKING IT THE LAW INDICATES THE 403 ISSUES CERTAINLY ON 1221 FROM -- MR LOPEZ IF THE CHRONICLE PUBLISHES A REMARK BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF THE CHRONICLE MR TIGERMAN ABOUT THE CHRONICLE MR LOPEZ THAT THAT BY VIRTUE -- THE COURT WILLIAM RANDOLPH HEARST HAS AN EDITORIAL ALL RIGHT THAT'S THE PAPER'S CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD HE WRITES THE EDITORIAL -- MR LOPEZ BUT HE IS NOT AN OFFICER OF THE CORPORATION THE COURT THAT'S RIGHT HE IS NOT AN OFFICER OF THE CORPORATION HE IS CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD HE WRITES AN EDITORIAL MR LOPEZ THE EDITOR DECIDES WE WILL PUBLISH IT - THE COURT THAT'S CORRECT AND THE ARTICLE CONCERNS THE FACT THAT THE EXAMINER LET'S SAY IS 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 CELEBRATING ITS 65TH ANNIVERSARY MR LOPEZ OKAY THE COURT ADMISSIBLE ALL RIGHT MR LOPEZ NO THE COURT UP TO THE JURY TO DETERMINE THAT MR LOPEZ NO I WOULD SAY THAT THE CHRONICLE OR THE EXAMINER OR THE CHRONICLE BECAUSE OF THE EXAMINER WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE BECAUSE THEY THINK IT IS NEWSWORTHY TO PUBLISH THAT EDITORIAL THE FACT THEY DONE THAT JUST PUT SOMETHING NEWSWORTHY IN THEIR PAPER DOESN'T MEAN IT IS AN ADMISSION OF THE PAPER MR TIGERMAN IT IS BY THEM IT ABOUT THEM IT BY SOMEBODY WHO BY THEIR PUBLIC RELATIONS DEPARTMENT ABOUT THEM MR LOPEZ BUT THAT'S WHAT THEY DO PUBLISH THINGS THEY THE COURT WHAT THEY PUBLISHED HERE YOU SEE TOO CREATE EMPLOY GOOD EMPLOYEE RELATIONS AND NOW BECHTEL COMES UP WITH AN ARTICLE THAT MAKES THESE EMPLOYEES FEEL PROUD OF THE FACT THAT THEY HAVE BEEN IN A FAMILY OF BECHTEL FOR THE PAST 65 YEARS MR LOPEZ LET ME FURTHER STATE THAT I DON'T THINK IT IS APPROPRIATE FOR HIM HE HAS SHOWN US TWO THINGS STEVE TIGERMAN HAS SHOWN US TWO EXCERPTS HE WANTS TO PUBLISH ASSUME HE HAS A STAKE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 34 IN THIS THE COURT . UNFORTUNATELY MR LOPEZ WE'VE HAD LOTS OF SIDEBARS HE IS TRYING TO PULL OUT -- THE COURT I CAN TELL SOMETHING I AM NOT GOING TO HAVE MR TIGERMAN SLIP ANYTHING UNDER ME ALL RIGHT I WANT YOU TO UNDERSTAND THAT MR TIGERMAN I UNDERSTAND THE COURT ALL RIGHT YOU KNOW I MIGHT HE GETS TOO BAD MIGHT JUST DISMISS THE JURORS WE GO THROUGH THEM OUT OF THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY ALL RIGHT MR TIGERMAN ALL RIGHT I AM NOT SURE WE SHOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH ALL OF THEM ONCE WE ESTABLISH THE STATEMENTS ARE IN PAPER YOUR HONOR THE PAPER IS PUBLISHED BY THEM AND IT IS PUBLISHED BY THEM TO GIVE PEOPLE INFORMATION THE COURT ALL RIGHT MR TIGERMAN THIS IS WHAT THEY TOLD ME THEN THIS IS WHAT THEY TOLD PEOPLE THE COURT THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE IN LIMINE IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE BEFORE I PICKED A JURY WE SHOULD HAVE DONE IT WITHOUT HAVING THE JURY PRESENT IT IS CAUSING A LOT OF DELAYS IT NOT MY FAULTS MR TIGERMAN SORRY YOUR HONOR THE COURT ALL RIGHT SO LET'S GO -- IN OPEN COURT 25 THE COURT ALL RIGHT LET THE RECORD REFLECT THE JURY IS PRESENT SO ARE THE ATTORNEYS I AM SORRY FOR THE DELAY IT WAS SOME MATTER THAT CAME UP THAT I WAS : UNAWARE OF AND I HAD TO RESOLVE THAT MATTER YOU ARE TO NOT SPECULATE WHAT IT INVOLVED BUT ONE THING I CAN TELL YOU IT WILL HELP IN THE EFFICIENT PRESENTATION OF THE CASE ALL RIGHT WITH THAT IN MIND THEN YOU HAVE 10 YOUR NEXT WITNESS 11 MR TIGERMAN YES WE WOULD LIKE TO CALL 12 NEXT MR CHARLES DRANIY 13 THE CLERK PLEASE STEP FORWARD SIR TO BE 14 SWORN 15 CHARLES DRANIY 16 CALLED AS A WITNESS BY THE PLAINTIFF AFTER BEING FIRST 17 DULY SWORN TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS 18 THE CLERK PLEASE BE SEATED STATE YOUR 19 . NAME FOR THE RECORD AND SPELL IT FOR THE REPORTER 20 THE WITNESS NAME CHARLES DRANIY 21 A Y. 22 MR PLACIER YOUR HONOR IF I MAY PHILIP 23 PLACIER I AM AN ATTORNEY FROM THELEN MARRIN 24 JOHNSON AND BRIDGES I AM APPEARING HERE ALONG WITH 25 MR LOPEZ ALSO AS COUNSEL FOR MR DRANIY 26 THE COURT ALL RIGHT 27 .000- 28 DIRECT EXAMINATION 26 MR TIGERMAN GOOD MORNINMGR DRANIY GOOD MORNING _ HOW ARE YOU I SUBPOENAED YOU HERE TODAY A. BEG PARDON Q. A. Q. DID I SEND YOU A SUBPOENA YES YOU DID ARE YOU HERE BECAUSE OF THAT SUBPOENA 10 A. YES 11 0 OKAY YOU ARE BEING REPRESENTED BY A LAWYER 12 HERE TODAY IS THAT CORRECT 13 A. THAT IS CORRECT 14 Q. THAT LAWYER IS MR PLACIER 15 A. YES 16 Q. 17 CORRECT HE IS FROM THE THELEN MARRIN LAW FIRM IS THAT 18 A. THAT IS CORRECT 19 Q. HE IS WITH THE THELEN FIRM CAN YOU TELL ME 20 WHETHER THE THELEN FIRM HAS REPRESENTED BECHTEL FOR MANY 21 YEARS 22 A. THAT IS SORT OF A BROAD NUMBER BUT YES AS FAR 23 AS I KNOW THEY HAVE FOR MANY YEARS 24 Q. IN FACT ONE OF THE RETIRED SENIOR PARTNERS 25 MR BRIDGES MR BRIDGES HAS BEEN AN ADVISOR TO THE 26 BECHTEL ENTITIES SINCE THE 1940'S ISN'T THAT TRUE 27 A. AS FAR AS I KNOW 28 Q. NOW YOU USE TO WORK WITH BECHTEL DIDN'T YOU 27 A. I DID Q. YOU YOU STARTED WORKING A LONG TIME AGO DIDN'T DIDN'T A. I DID Q. WHEN DID YOU START WORKING A. AUGUST OF 1937 Q. WHAT DID YOU DO FOR THEM A. WELL I STARTED OUT AS AN ENGINEER IN VARIOUS ENGINEERING DUTIES 10 MR LOPEZ LET ME JUST OBJECT THAT IS 11 VAGUE AMBIGUOUS AND I MOVE TO STRIKE WHAT HE SAID 12 THEN IS UNCLEAR 13 THE COURT BECHTEL PREVIOUSLY ASKED WHEN 14 HE STARTED HE SAID AUGUST '37 FOR BECHTEL ASKED 15 WHAT HE STARTED OUT DOING HE SAID HE WORKED AS AN 16 ENGINEER 17 MR LOPEZ LET ME MOVE TO STRIKE BECAUSE 18 BECHTEL CORPORATION DIDN'T EXIST 19 MR TIGERMAN I OBJECT 20 MR LOPEZ IT -- 21 THE COURT DON'T KNOW THAT 22 MR LOPEZ --LACKS FOUNDATION 23 THE COURT IS THAT THE REASON FOR ANY LACK 24 OF FOUNDATION IF THIS IS THE BEST EVIDENCE THAT IS . 25 HIS BEST EVIDENCE ALL RIGHT 26 MR TIGERMAN 27 0 NOW SIR WHEN YOU STARTED AS AN ENGINEER WHAT 28 DEPARTMENT WERE YOU IN YOU REMEMBER 28 A. I DON'T REMEMBER WE WERE HAVING HAVING DEPARTMENTS Q. OKAY NOW BACK THEN WHAT KINDS OF JOBS DID YOU WORK ON IN THE 30'S A. OH VARIOUS THINGS HAVING TO DO WITH PETROLEUM BECAUSE THAT WAS ONE OF MY SPECIALTIES THE COURT WHAT IS THAT SIR I AM SORRY THE WITNESS PETROLEUM THE COURT PETROLEUM 10 THE WITNESS --FACILITIES 11 MR TIGERMAN 12 Q. WHAT KINDS OF THINGS DID YOU DO IN TERMS OF 13 ENGINEERING AT THE PETROLEUM FACILITY DID YOU BUILD NEW 14 UNITS 15 A. I DIDN'T BUILD ANYTHING I DESIGNED 16 Q. OKAY 17 A. ALSO WAS A WATCHING IT ON THE FIELDS PAGE 18 ANYONE THAT WAS UNDER CONSTRUCTION 19 Q. NOW HOW LONG WERE YOU AN ENGINEER BEFORE YOU 20 MOVED UP THIS NEXT -- 21 A. I HAVE NEVER STOPPED BEING AN ENGINEER 22 Q. DID YOU MOVE UPWARD 23 THE COURT WHAT WHAT UPWARD-- 24 MR TIGERMAN 25 IN THE ORGANIZATION 26 27 A. I DID Q. WHAT WAS YOUR NEXT GRADUATION SO TO SPEAK IN 28 OTHER WORDS 29 THE COURT DO YOU UNDERSTAND HIS QUESTION THE WITNESS IT IS A LITTLE VAGUE THE COURT ARE YOU ASKING HIM WHETHER OR NOT HE ASSUMED OTHER RESPONSIBILITIES OTHER THAN AS AN ENGINEER MR TIGERMAN YES THE COURT WELL THEN ASK HIM THAT MR TIGERMAN Q. AFTER BEING A FIELD ENGINEER DID YOU THEN GET 10 APPOINTED TO ANY OTHER POSITION 11 MR LOPEZ LET ME OBJECT THAT 12 MISCHARACTERIZES THE CURRENT PRIOR TESTIMONY 13 MR TIGERMAN I THOUGHT THAT WHAT I HEARD 14 WAS FIELD ENGINEER 15 THE COURT HE DIDN'T SAY FIELD 16 ENGINEER JUST SAID ENGINEER DESIGN 17 MR TIGERMAN OKAY 18 THE COURT SUSTAINED 19 MR TIGERMAN 20 Q. IS THERE SUCH A THING AS FIELD ENGINEER AM I 21 JUST INVENTING A TERM 22 A. I HAVE HEARD OF THE THING BUT NOT AT BECHTEL 23 Q. SO YOU WERE JUST AN ENGINEER 24 A. JUST AN ENGINEER 25 26 27 28 Q. JUST AN ENGINEER OKAY A. I WAS ALSO A MANAGER FROM TIME TO TIME THE COURT WHY DON'T WE GET THIS CLEAR FOR THE JURY ALSO IT IS ALL SORTS OF . ENGINEERS 30 COULD YOU ASK THE QUESTION WAS THAT A CIVIL ENGINEER CHEMICAL ENGINEER BUILDING ENGINEER WHAT MR TIGERMAN THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION THE COURT SANITARY ENGINEER YOU KNOW WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT MR TIGERMAN Q. DID YOU HAVE A CLASSIFICATION AS FAR AS YOUR ROLE AS AN ENGINEER WENT WERE YOU A CHEMICAL OR CIVIL 10 ENGINEER OR SOMETHING OF THAT SORT 11 A. IN THE WHEN I WAS BEGINNING BECOMING AN 12 ENGINEER AT THE COLORADO SCHOOL OF MINES I LEARNED A LOT 13 OF DIFFERENT KINDS OF ENGINEERING 14 I CAN'T TELL YOU WHICH ENGINEERING THING I DID 15 OR DIDN'T DO BECAUSE YOU DID I DID WHAT WAS NEEDED AND 16 THAT'S THAT'S IT 17 Q. ALL RIGHT SO SORT OF A GENERAL PRACTITIONER 18 SO SPEAK 19 20 21 A. WELL -- Q. YOU COVERED A BROAD SPECTRUM OF ENGINEERING PRACTICES IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE TELLING US 22 A. TO A DEGREE 23 Q. OKAY NOW YOU SAID YOU GRADUATED FROM AN 24 ENGINEERING SCHOOL IS THAT WHAT YOU SAID 25 26 27 28 A. YES. Q. WHAT SCHOOL WAS THAT A. COLORADO SCHOOL OF MINES 0 MINDS MI MI MI ? $ A. N Q. ALL RIGHT NOW AFTER YOU WORKED AS AN ENGINEER FROM 1937 DID YOU GET ANY PROMOTIONS OR DID YOU ASSUME ANY NEW DUTIES A. GENERALLY SPEAKING I DID YES I I JUST GREW WITH THE COMPANY AND WHEN THINGS WERE NEEDED THAT I COULD DO WELL I DID THEM Q. WHEN YOU SAY YOU GREW WITH THE COMPANY LET ME ASK YOU A LITTLE BIT ABOUT SOME OF THE POSITIONS THAT YOU 10 HAVE HELD 11 AFTER BEING A CHEMICAL WERE YOU A CHEMICAL AND 12 PETROLEUM ENGINEER 13 A. DO YOU MEAN WAS I REGARDED AS ONE IN THE -- 14 Q. IN THE COMPANY 15 A. I WAS AN ENGINEER THAT WOULD DO ANYTHING THAT I 16 COULD DO AND WAS NEEDED 17 THE COURT WHAT IS SOME OF THE THINGS YOU 18 COULD DO AS AN ENGINEER 19 THE WITNESS WELL YOU MEAN LIKE AN 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 EXAMPLE OF THE JOB THE COURT YOU SAID THAT YOU WERE AN ENGINEER FOR BECHTEL AND YOU WOULD DO THINGS THAT YOU COULD DO TELL US WHAT DID YOU DO FOR BECHTEL THE WITNESS WELL TYPICAL SOME OF THE TYPICAL THINGS WAS AS I DISCUSSED PROJECTS WITH COMPANIES THAT WERE CONSIDERING BUILDING SOMETHING HAVING SOMETHING BUILT BY BECHTEL AND THOSE DISCUSSIONS WERE NOT NECESSARILY THOSE OF AN 32 . ENGINEER IT HAD A BUSINESS ASPECT TO IT THINGS OF THAT KIND THINK THAT'S ONE OF THE BEST I COULD DESCRIBE MR TIGERMAN OKAY Q. NOW AT SOME POINT IN TIME CAN YOU TELL US WHETHER OR NOT YOU STARTED HAVING SOME INVOLVEMENT IN EITHER MARKETING OR SALES A. WOULD YOU REPEAT THAT PLEASE 10 Q. DID YOU EVER GET INVOLVED LATER AFTER 1937 IN 11 THE MARKETING OR THE SALES ASPECT OF THE BECHTEL BUSINESS 12 A. YES I DID A GREAT DEAL OF THAT 13 Q. CAN YOU TELL US FOR EXAMPLE WHAT KINDS OF 14 THINGS YOU DID WITH RESPECT TO MARKETING AND SALES 15 A. WELL LET'S TAKE THE X Y Z COMPANIES KNOWN TO 16 BE READY TO BUILD A CHEMICAL PLANT OR A POWER PLANT OR 17 WHATEVER FREQUENTLY I WOULD CONTACT THEIR PEOPLE AND 18 DISCUSS WITH THEM THE POSSIBILITY OF OUR DOING THE WORK 19 FOR THEM 20 Q. ALL RIGHT 21 A. AND THAT'S -- 22 Q. SO CUSTOMER AND -- 23 A. --TYPICAL 24 Q. -- CUSTOMER CONTACTS 25 26 27 A. CUSTOMER . CONTACTS Q. IN THE BEGINNING WERE YOU DOING THAT OR LIKE IN 1937 BACK WHEN YOU STARTED WERE YOU DOING THE CUSTOMER 28 CONTACTS AND THE MARKETING 33 A. I COULDN'T TELL YOU THIS THAT'S TOO FAR BACK Q. BUT AT LEAST AT SOME POINT YOU GROW INTO DOING SORT OF A SALES AND MARKETING TYPE OF JOB TOO IS THAT TRUE A. I DID WHAT Q. YOU DID SALES AND MARKETING AS WELL AS ENGINEERING A. SALES -- Q. AND MARKETING 10 A. --AND MARKETING 11 Q. IN OTHER WORDS YOU HAD CLIENT CONTACTS WITH 233 CUSTOMERS IS THAT TRUE 13 A. I HAD YES I WOULD SAY BEYOND OVER TWO YEARS 14 I WAS ANY TIME I MIGHT BE IN CONTACT WITH A CUSTOMER 15 Q. NOW YOU MENTIONED THAT YOU GREW WITH THE 16 ORGANIZATION AT SOME POINT WERE YOU PUT IN CHARGE OF 17 REFINERY DEVELOPMENTS ABOUT 1948 18 A. AS A SPECIFIC I DON'T QUITE GET WHAT YOU MEAN 19 Q. WERE YOU EVER GIVEN THE TITLE OR THE DUTIES IN 20 THE MID TO LATE 1940'S OF REFINERY DEVELOPMENTS 21 A. I WAS NOT DIDN'T HAVE ANY SUCH THING LIKE 22 THAT THE COMPANY DOESN'T WORK QUITE THAT WAY 23 Q. OKAY 24 A. DIDN'T THEN AND -- 25 Q. ARE YOU AWARE OF A BOOK CALLED THE BECHTEL 26 STORY 27 A. THE BECHTEL STORY BECHTEL STORY 28 e YES IT IS A BOOK 34 A. I DO RECALL THAT ONE WAS PUBLISHED AND DON'T KNOW WHEN IT WAS BUT I DO REMEMBER SOMETHING LIKE THAT Q. A. DO YOU -GO AHEAD Q. -- DO YOU REMEMBER BOB INGRAM A. BOB INGRAM YES I RECALL HIM Q. WAS HE A PUBLIC RELATIONS TYPE OF FELLOW OVER AT BECHTEL A. AS I RECALL 10 MR LOPEZ OBJECTION LEADING 11 THE COURT OVERRULED TESTING 12 RECOLLECTION MEMORY 13 MR TIGERMAN 14 Q. DO YOU REMEMBER WHETHER BOB INGRAM WROTE THE 15 BOOK THAT YOU REMEMBER COMING OUT ABOUT BECHTEL 16 A. I DON'T KNOW 17 Q. ALL RIGHT I WOULD LIKE TO JUST SHOW YOU WHAT 18 HAVE MARKED AS PLAINTIFF'S 45 AND ASK YOU -- 19 A. 45 20 Q. -- AND ASK YOU IF THIS REFRESHES YOUR 21 RECOLLECTION ABOUT THE NAME OF THE BOOK THAT YOU MIGHT 22 HAVE SEEN ABOUT THE BECHTEL COMPANY 23 A. NO THIS I HAVE NEVER SEEN BEFORE -- 24 Q. OKAY 25 A. -- NO 26 Q. LET ME SHOW YOU THEN A BOOK ENTITLED THE 27 BUILDER AND HIS FAMILY PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 44 AND 28 ASK YOU IF THIS IS THE BOOK YOU REMEMBER BEING PUBLISHED 35 ABOUT THE BUSINESS A. YOU WHEN I DO RECALL I DO RECALL THIS I COULDN'T TELL Q. ALL RIGHT _ A. I DON'T I CAN'T TELL YOU WHETHER I READ IT OR NOT Q. ALL RIGHT WHERE DO YOU THINK YOU HEARD ABOUT THIS BOOK DO YOU REMEMBER WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS ANY TALK IN THE COMPANY ABOUT THIS BOOK WHEN IT CAME OUT 10 MR LOPEZ OBJECTION HEARSAY 11 THE WITNESS I DON'T UNDERSTAND 12 THE COURT HE IS ASKING WHETHER HE HEARD 13 ABOUT IT NOT ASKING CONTENTS 14 THE WITNESS DON'T HAVE ANY WAY OF KNOWING 15 THAT 16 MR TIGERMAN OKAY 17 Q. DO YOU REMEMBER WHETHER WHEN YOU BECAME AWARE 18 OF THIS BOOK WHETHER IT WAS WRITTEN BY ROBERT INGRAM 19 A. I DO NOT KNOW THAT DID NOT KNOW THAT 20 Q. NOW ROBERT INGRAM WAS HE AT THE COMPANY 21 ALMOST AS LONG AS YOU WERE AT THE COMPANY 22 A. I DON'T KNOW HOW LONG HE WAS WITH THE COMPANY 23 24 25 26 27 Q. ALL RIGHT YOU LEFT WHEN A. I LEFT AT THE END OF 1974 Q. SO YOU WERE WITH THEM FROM '37 TO '74 MR LOPEZ OBJECTION VAGUE AS TO THEM THE COURT SUSTAINED 28 MR TIGERMAN 36 Q. ALL RIGHT YOU WORKED FOR THE BECHTEL CORPORATION FROM '37 TO '74 IS THAT CORRECT MR LOPEZ OBJECTION VAGUE THE COURT OVERRULED THE WITNESS YES I WAS WITH IT THROUGH '74 FOR 37 YEARS MR TIGERMAN Q. NOW OVER TIME DID YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES INCREASE 10 A. OVER TIME DID RESPONSIBILITIES INCREASE 11 Q. FOR YOU PERSONALLY 12 A. I DON'T KNOW QUITE WHAT YOU MEAN BY INCREASE 13 Q. WELL WHEN YOU SAY YOU GREW WITH THE 14 ORGANIZATION WHAT DID YOU MEAN 15 A. THAT I DID WHATEVER THEY WANTED ME TO DO 16 Q. ALL RIGHT YOUR POSITIONS BECOME HIGHER AND 17 HIGHER IS THAT CORRECT 18 A. YES THAT'S TRUE 19 Q. AT SOME POINT DID YOU BECOME AN OFFICER OF 20 BECHTEL 21 A. I DID 22 23 24 25 Q. AND WHAT A. I BECAME AN OFFICER YES THAT'S CORRECT Q. WHEN DID YOU BECOME AN OFFICER A. I CAN'T TELL YOU EXACTLY I WOULD GIVE YOU A 26 ROUGH -- 27 28 THE COURT CAN YOU APPROXIMATE THE WITNESS HUH 87 THE COURT CAN YOU APPROXIMATE THE WITNESS ALONG ABOUT THEN APPROXIMATELY 1950 '51 MR TIGERMAN ALL RIGHT Q. OFFICER DO YOU REMEMBER WHAT YOUR FIRST TITLE WAS AS AN WAS IT V P OR PRESIDENT OR YOU RECALL THE TITLE THE FIRST ONE A. VICE PRESIDENT Q. VICE PRESIDENT OF WHAT 10 A. WELL I CAN'T TELL YOU EXACTLY TO BE FRANK 11 WITH YOU I CAN'T TELL YOU WHAT WHAT NAME WAS ON THE 12 COMPANY AT THAT TIME OR WHICH COMPANY 13 Q. ALL RIGHT LET ME JUST ASK THIS YOU -- 14 THE COURT WAIT WAIT I AM GETTING WHY 15 DON'T WE JUST CLEAR THIS UP WHEN YOU ARE ASKING 16 ABOUT BEING AN OFFICER ARE YOU ASKING AS AN OFFICER 17 OF THE CORPORATION OF A PARTICULAR DEPARTMENT IN THE 18 CORPORATION OR OF THE CORPORATION 19 I AM NOT SURE 20 MR TIGERMAN A PARTICULAR DEPARTMENT 21 THE COURT ALL RIGHT 22 MR TIGERMAN 23 Q. YOU WERE AN OFFICER OF THE BECHTEL CORPORATION 24 IS THAT TRUE 25 A. WHETHER IT WAS SPECIFICALLY THAT NAME OF THE 26 COMPANY I CAN'T AT THIS TIME REMEMBER 27 Q. ALL RIGHT THE COMPANY HAS ACTUALLY CHANGED 28 NAMES OVER THE YEARS ISN'T THAT TRUE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 38 MR LOPEZ OBJECTION VAGUE THE WITNESS THAT -- THE COURT OVERRULED THE WITNESS _ WHAT YOU MEAN BY THAT --I DON'T I DON'T SEE HOW MR TIGERMAN ALL RIGHT AT THIS TIME YOUR HONOR I WOULD LIKE TO MARK AS PLAINTIFF'S NEXT IN ORDER DEFENDANT'S INTERROGATORY ANSWERS THE COURT AND QUESTIONS MR TIGERMAN AND QUESTIONS YES THE COURT ALL RIGHT HAVE THEM MARKED WHAT NUMBER IS THAT THE CLERK THAT IS NUMBER 59 YOUR HONOR WHEREUPON DEF'S INTEROGS A WAS MARKED PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT NO 59 FOR IDENTIFICATION ONLY THE COURT NUMBER 59. COUNSEL SHOW THEM - TO COUNSEL JUST TO REFRESH THE JURY'S MEMORY OF MY PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION REMEMBER LADIES AND GENTLEMEN WHEN I TOLD YOU THAT BEFORE TRIAL EACH SIDE HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO DISCOVER FACTS FROM EACH OTHER ONE OF THE WAYS IS BY A DEPOSITION ANOTHER WAY IS BY INTERROGATORIES AN INTERROGATORY IS A WRITTEN QUESTION ASKED BY ONE PARTY OF THE OTHER PARTY AND THAT PARTY WHO RECEIVES THOSE QUESTIONS MUST ANSWER IT UNDER 89 OATH IN WRITING YOU MUST CONSIDER INTERROGATORIES AND THEIR ANSWERS THERETO JUST AS IF THE QUESTIONS HAD BEEN ASKED AND ANSWERED HERE IN COURT TODAY MR TIGERMAN ALL RIGHT ALL RIGHT Q. THE INTERROGATORIES THE INTERROGATORY FIRST OF ALL HAVE MR PLACIER'S NAME ON IT THAT MR PLACIER IS YOUR LAWYER IS HERE TODAY A. YES HE IS HERE 10 Q. IT SAYS ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT SEQUOIA VENTURES 11 INCORPORATED SUED HEREIN AS BECHTEL CORPORATION 12 DEFENDANT RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S STANDARD 13 INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANTS AS FOLLOWS 14 INTERROGATORY NUMBER 3 STATES HAVE YOU EVER 15 BEEN IDENTIFIED KNOWN OR DONE BUSINESS UNDER ANY OTHER 16 NAME IF SO PLEASE STATE SUCH NAMES AND THE TIME PERIOD 17 DURING WHICH THIS DEFENDANT WAS SO KNOWN OR IDENTIFIED 18 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NUMBER 3 YES 19 SEPTEMBER 10 1945 THROUGH JANUARY 2 1947 BECHTEL 20 BROTHERS MCCONE COMPANY JANUARY 2 1947 THROUGH JANUARY 21 2 1980 BECHTEL CORPORATION JANUARY 2 1980 THROUGH 22 PRESENT SEQUOIA VENTURES INCORPORATED 23 NOW WHEN YOU SAY THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE BEEN AN 24 OFFICER A VICE PRESIDENT OF A COMPANY BUT YOU CAN'T 25 REMEMBER THE NAME OF THE COMPANY ARE YOU TELLING US THAT 26 YOU DON'T REMEMBER WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS BECHTEL BROTHERS 27 MCCONE OR WHETHER IT WAS BECHTEL CORPORATION 28 IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE TELLING US 40 A. I WASN'T TRYING TO CHOOSE BETWEEN THE TWO AT THE TIME THAT YOU SEE HERE PUT THIS JANUARY 2 1947 BECHTEL BECHTEL MCCONE COMPANY MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE BEEN THE NAME WHEN I WAS MADE UNLESS I UNLESS THE COMPANY WAS CHANGED PRIOR TO 1950 OR 51 I WAS IN IT I AM NOT SURE WHICH IF IT IS AS YOU SAY HERE JANUARY 2 1937 THAT I WOULD JUST HAVE TO ASSUME THAT THAT'S THE ONE THAT I WAS IN THERE Q. OKAY 10 A. I HAVE NO OTHER BASIS 11 Q. SO IF THE NAME OF THE COMPANY FROM JANUARY 2 12 1937 TO JANUARY 2 1980 WAS BECHTEL CORPORATION AND SINCE 13 YOU HAVE TOLD US THAT YOU WERE AN OFFICER STARTING IN I 14 GUESS WHAT THE 1950'S WOULD THAT REFRESH YOUR 15 RECOLLECTION THAT YOU WERE AN OFFICER OF BECHTEL 16 CORPORATION 17 A. IT DOESN'T HELP ME ANYMORE AS TO WHAT THE NAME 18 OF THE COMPANY WAS AT THE TIME BECAUSE I REALLY DON'T 19 KNOW 20 Q. OKAY BUT YOU WERE A VICE PRESIDENT FOR HOW 21 MANY YEARS BEFORE YOU BECAME A DIRECTOR 22 MR LOPEZ OBJECTION COMPOUND 23 THE WITNESS I -- 24 THE COURT ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE 25 THAT HE EVER BECAME A DIRECTOR WE DON'T KNOW THAT 26 MR TIGERMAN I WILL REPHRASE 27 THE COURT SUSTAINED ON THAT OBJECTION 28 MR TIGERMAN 41 Q. DID YOU BECOME A DIRECTOR A. YES I DID Q. DO YOU RECALL ABOUT WHAT YEAR IT WAS WHEN YOU BECAME A DIRECTOR A. OH I WOULD SAY THE LATTER PART OF THE 1960'S Q. OKAY WERE YOU AN OFFICER FOR ALL THOSE YEARS FROM THE TIME YOU BECAME AN OFFICER TO THE TIME YOU BECAME A DIRECTOR IN OTHER WORDS WAS THERE ANY PERIOD OF TIME 10 AFTER YOU BECAME AN OFFICER THAT YOU WERE NO LONGER AN 11 OFFICER BEFORE YOU RETIRED 12 I WILL REPHRASE IT THAT WAS TWO DIFFERENT 13 QUESTIONS. 14 15 MR LOPEZ YES THE COURT THEY WERE BOTH VERY CONVOLUTED 16 MR TIGERMAN 17 Q. FROM THE TIME YOU BECAME AN OFFICER FROM THE 18 TIME YOU BECOME A DIRECTOR DID YOU REMAIN AN OFFICER 19 A. AS FAR AS I CAN CAN RECALL YES I DID REMAIN 20 AN OFFICER 21 Q. ALL RIGHT NOW AS AN OFFICER OF THE 22 CORPORATION DID YOU CONSIDER THAT YOU HAD A FIDUCIARY 23 OBLIGATION TO THE CORPORATION 24 MR LOPEZ OBJECTION CALLS FOR A LEGAL 25 26 27 28 CONCLUSION MR TIGERMAN GOES TO HIS STATE OF MIND AND THE STATE OF MIND THAT AN OFFICER SHOULD HAVE THE COURT FIDUCIARY YOU KNOW IS A WORD 42 WE DEFINE IN THE DICTIONARY BUT IT HAS LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE YOU WANT TO USE ANOTHER WORD MR TIGERMAN ALL RIGHT _ 0 AS AN OFFICER DID YOU BELIEVE YOU HAD A DUTY TO THE CORPORATION TO KEEP IT ADVISED OF THINGS THAT COULD BE HARMFUL TO THE BUSINESS A. IT IS A VERY DIFFICULT THING FOR ME TO ANSWER BECAUSE I DON'T RECALL HAVING TO CONSIDER THIS THAT SORT 10 OF THING 11 Q. ALL RIGHT DID YOU EVER BACK THEN CONSIDER IT 12 YOUR OBLIGATION TO THE COMPANY THAT IF YOU FOUND SOMETHING 13 OUT THAT WAS BAD FOR THE COMPANY THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO 14 CONVEY IT TO THE COMPANY 15 MR LOPEZ OBJECTION RELEVANCE 16 THE COURT OVERRULED 17 THE WITNESS IF I FOUND SOMETHING THAT WAS 18 BAD FOR THE COMPANY 19 MR TIGERMAN 20 Q. 21 IT DID YOU CONSIDER IT YOUR OBLIGATION TO REPORT | 22 MR LOPEZ OBJECTION VAGUE 23 THE COURT OVERRULED YOU MAY ANSWER 24 THE WITNESS NOT KNOWING THE NATURE OF 25 THE OF THE THINGS THAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT I 26 COULDN'T I COULD NOT ANSWER IT TODAY COULDN'T TELL 27 YOU WHAT I WOULD HAVE DONE THEN 28 I HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING 43 MR TIGERMAN Q. DID THEN WELL JUST ASKING NOW I AM NOT ASKING WHAT YOU I AM ASKING ABOUT WHAT WAS IN YOUR HEAD THEN I AM ASKING ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT YOU EVER THOUGHT ABOUT THE FACT THAT HAD YOU FOUND SOMETHING THAT WAS GOING TO BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE COMPANY THAT AS AN OFFICER YOU HAD AN OBLIGATION TO THE COMPANY TO PRESENT IT DID THAT EVER RUN THROUGH YOUR MIND A. I DO NOT REMEMBER HAVING SUCH A THOUGHT 10 Q. OKAY LET ME ASK YOU THIS WHEN YOU BECAME A 11 OFFICER DID YOU COME TO ANY UNDERSTANDING THAT BEING AN 12 OFFICER OF A CORPORATION CARRIES WITH IT CERTAIN 13 RESPONSIBILITIES TO THE CORPORATION 14 DID YOU EVER GIVE THAT ANY THOUGHT 15 A. I AM SURE I DID BECAUSE I DID HAVE 16 RESPONSIBILITY TO THE COMPANY 17 Q. ALL RIGHT AS AN OFFICER OF THE COMPANY DID 18 YOU CONSIDER THAT YOU ACTUALLY HAD AN EVEN GREATER DUTY TO 19 THE COMPANY TO PROTECT IT THAN YOU DID IF YOU WERE JUST AN 20 EMPLOYEE OF THE COMPANY 21 MR LOPEZ OBJECTION VAGUE 22 THE COURT OVERRULED 23 THE WITNESS I FELT FROM THE BEGINNING 24 25 26 THAT I HAD EVERYTHING THAT I COULD POSSIBLY DO FOR THE COMPANY REGARDLESS OF WHAT WHETHER AS AN OFFICER OR NOT I DID EVERYTHING THAT I COULD DO THOUGHT I 27 SHOULD DO 28 MR TIGERMAN 44 Q. ALL RIGHT BACK WHEN YOU WERE AN OFFICER DID YOU EVER HEAR THE TERM FIDUCIARY OBLIGATION MR LOPEZ OBJECTION THE WITNESS NO LEGAL CON -- THE COURT OVERRULED HE WAS ASKED NOT WHAT IT IS BUT WHETHER HE HAS HEARD IT HE SAID NO MR TIGERMAN Q. SO WHEN YOU WERE AN OFFICER WOULD IT BE FAIR TO SAY THAT YOU NEVER HAD ANY CONVERSATION WITH ANYBODY 10 ABOUT USING THE WORD FIDUCIARY 11 THE COURT WAIT WAIT WAIT THAT HE HAD A 12 CONVERSATION WITH OTHERS ABOUT THE USE OF THE WORD 13 FIDUCIARY OR WHETHER HE HAS HEARD THE WORD 14 FIDUCIARY 15 MR TIGERMAN 16 Q. ANY CONVERSATION WHILE YOU WERE AN OFFICER AT 17 BECHTEL DID YOU EVER HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH ANY OF THE 18 OTHER OFFICERS OR ANY OF THE DIRECTORS THAT CONTAINED THE 19 WORD FIDUCIARY 20 MR LOPEZ OBJECTION -- 21 THE WITNESS I HAVE NO WAY - 22 23 THE COURT OVERRULED THE WITNESS -- TO REMEMBER THINGS LIKE 24 THIS AT THIS STAGE OF MY LIFE 25 MR TIGERMAN ALL RIGHT 26 Q. WHEN YOU WERE AN OFFICER OF THE COMPANY DID 27 YOU CONSIDER IT YOUR OBLIGATION THAT IF YOU LEARNED THE 28 COMPANY WAS DOING SOMETHING THAT WAS HARMING PEOPLE TO BRING IT TO THE COMPANY'S ATTENTION MR LOPEZ OBJECTION ASKED AND ANSWERED MR TIGERMAN IT WAS -- THE COURT OVERRULED I WILL ALLOW IT THE WITNESS WOULD YOU REPEAT IT PLEASE MR TIGERMAN Q. BACK WHEN YOU WERE AN OFFICER DID YOU EVER CONSIDER IT YOUR OBLIGATION THAT IF YOU FOUND OUT THAT THE COMPANY WAS DOING SOMETHING THAT WAS HARMING PEOPLE THAT 10 YOU SHOULD BRING THAT TO THE COMPANY'S ATTENTION 11 A. I HAVE NO WAY OF REMEMBERING THAT IF IT WAS 12 Q. ALL RIGHT I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT WHETHER OR 13 NOT THAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED I AM JUST TALKING ABOUT 14 WHETHER OR NOT YOU CONSIDERED THAT TO BE ONE OF YOUR 15 OBLIGATIONS TO THE COMPANY TO REPORT THINGS THAT YOU FOUND 16 THAT WERE DETRIMENTAL TO OTHER PEOPLE 17 MR LOPEZ LET ME OBJECT HIS QUESTION 18 IS HE ASKING HIM -- 19 THE COURT IT IS GETTING VAGUE AND 20 21 AMBIGUOUS MR TIGERMAN I WILL REPHRASE THAT 22 TERRIBLE QUESTION 23 THE COURT SUSTAINED 24 MR TIGERMAN 25 26 Q. I AM JUST ASKING WHETHER YOU AS AN OFFICER CONSIDERED IT YOUR OBLIGATION TO REPORT TO THE COMPANY ANY 27 INFORMATION YOU HAD ABOUT WHETHER THE COMPANY ACTIVITIES 28 WERE ACTUALLY HARMING PEOPLE OUTSIDE THE COMPANY 446 A. I CAN NOT RECALL MR LOPEZ OBJECTION VAGUE THE WITNESS I -- THE COURT OVERRULED THE WITNESS I I CANNOT RECALL THAT MR TIGERMAN Q. NOW WHEN YOU BECAME A DIRECTOR FIRST OF ALL WHEN YOU WERE AN OFFICER DID YOU OWN STOCK IN THE COMPANY 10 A. I DID 11 Q. ALL RIGHT BECHTEL HAS NEVER BEEN A PUBLICLY 12 TRADED COMPANY HAS IT NOT WHILE YOU WERE THERE 13 A. AS FAR AS I KNEW 14 Q. ALL RIGHT THE STOCK WAS HELD BY ALL THE 15 MANAGEMENT IS THAT ISN'T THAT CORRECT 16 A. THAT'S SORT OF A GENERAL THAT THAT 17 MANAGEMENT IS SOMETHING THAT HAS TO BE DEFINED 18 Q. OKAY OKAY IF YOU DIDN'T WORK FOR BECHTEL 19 YOU COULDN'T HOLD STOCK IS THAT TRUE 20 A. IF YOU COULD REPEAT THAT 21 Q. IF YOU DIDN'T ONLY EMPLOYEES OF BECHTEL COULD 22 HOLD STOCK 23 MR LOPEZ OBJECTION ON THE BASIS OF 24 25 26 27 28 RELEVANCE AND VAGUE THE COURT OVERRULED I WILL TAKE IT FOR A MOTION TO STRIKE IF IT -- MR LOPEZ MOTION TO STRIKE THE COURT NOT AT THIS TIME 447 THE WITNESS I CANNOT RECALL THAT MR TIGERMAN Q. ALL RIGHT DO YOU EVER RECALL BACK IN THE 1940'S OR 1950'S A STATEMENT THAT WAS MADE BY STEVEN BECHTEL TO THE EXTENT THAT NO WIDOWS OR ORPHANS A. I HAVE NOT HEARD ANY SUCH THING Q. DID THE COMPANY HAVE A POLICY THAT ONCE A DIRECTOR OR AN OFFICER DIED OR RETIRED THEY HAD TO SELL THEIR STOCK BACK TO THE COMPANY 10 MR LOPEZ OBJECTION RELEVANCE MOVE TO 11 STRIKE 12 THE COURT I WILL TAKE IT SUBJECT TO AN 13 MOTION TO STRIKE RIGHT NOW THE OBJECTION IS 14 OVERRULED 15 YOU GOT TO TIE THIS IN OTHERWISE I AM 16 GOING TO STRIKE THIS 17 MR TIGERMAN I WILL 18 THE WITNESS I DON'T I CAN'T TELL IF 19 THAT -- 20 MR TIGERMAN 21 Q. WHEN YOU WERE -- 22 A. GO AHEAD 23 Q. WHEN YOU RETIRED DID YOU HAVE TO SELL YOUR 24 STOCK 25 A. 26 Q. 27 28 DID I HAVE TO YES YES WHO DID YOU SELL IT TO 00 A. BACK TO THE COMPANY Q. WHAT WAS THE NAME OF THE COMPANY A. I MUST SAY WE HAVE A NUMBER OF COMPANIES AND I CANNOT AT THIS POINT TELL YOU EXACTLY WHICH ONE IT WAS MR TIGERMAN OKAY THE COURT WHAT ARE THE NAMES OF THE COMPANIES THAT RUN THROUGH YOUR MIND THAT YOU CAN'T TELL THE WITNESS OH WE HAD BECHTEL 10 CORPORATION OF COURSE I AM SORRY MY MEMORY JUST 11 IS DOESN'T I - 12 THE COURT ALL RIGHT 13 THE WITNESS --JUST CAN'T ANSWER THAT 14 MR TIGERMAN ALL RIGHT 15 Q. WHEN OTHER PEOPLE WERE RETIRED FROM BEING AN 16 OFFICER OR DIRECTOR DO YOU KNOW WHETHER IT WAS THE 17 COMPANY POLICY AT ANY TIME THAT THEY TOO HAD TO SELL 18 BACK THEIR STOCK 19 MR LOPEZ SAME OBJECTION MOTION TO 20 21 22 STRIKE THE COURT I UNDERSTAND THAT IT WILL BE A RUNNING OBJECTION OVERRULED AT THIS TIME SUBJECT 23 24 25 26 27 28 TO A MOTION TO STRIKE THE WITNESS AT ONE TIME I UNDERSTOOD THAT THAT WAS WHAT THE COMPANY WAS DOING.. MR TIGERMAN Q. OKAY YOU COULDN'T OWN THE COMPANY AT LEAST FOR SOME PERIOD OF TIME THAT YOU ARE AWARE OF UNLESS YOU 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550 TRUE THE COURT IF YOU ARE GOING TO SELL YOU GOT TO SELL BACK TO THE CORPORATION THE WITNESS YES THE COURT IF YOU ARE GOING TO BUY YOU ARE GOING TO BUY IT FROM THE CORPORATION THE WITNESS AS FAR AS I COULD TELL YES THE COURT DID YOU WAS IT YOUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THAT NOT ONLY APPLIED TO YOU BUT 10 EVERYONE ELSE SIMILARLY SITUATED LIKE YOU 11 THE WITNESS I I THOUGHT THEY WERE ALL ON 12 THE SAME BOAT 13 THE COURT ON THE SAME BOAT ALL RIGHT 14 MR TIGERMAN ALL RIGHT SIR 15 Q. EARLIER I ASKED YOU WHETHER OR NOT ALL THE 16 STOCK WAS HELD BY BECHTEL MANAGEMENT AND YOU WANTED ME TO 17 DEFINE THE WORD -- 18 A. WOULD YOU PLEASE REPEAT WHAT YOU JUST SAID 19 . Q. ALL RIGHT A LITTLE WHILE AGO I ASKED YOU WAS 20 ALL THE STOCK OWNED BY THE MANAGEMENT AND YOU SAID TO ME 21 DEFINE MANAGEMENT" 22 DO YOU RECALL THAT YOU SAID MANAGEMENT IS A TERM 23 THAT NEEDED TO BE DEFINED 24 A. I DON'T REMEMBER THAT 25 Q. OKAY DID THE COMPANY HAVE WHAT IS CALLED 26 MANAGEMENT WHAT YOU CONSIDERED TO BE THE MANAGEMENT OF 27 THE CORPORATION 28 A- THAT'S A VERY DIFFICULT THING TO DEFINE THE 51 MANAGEMENT OF THE CORPORATION IS GENERALLY THE OFFICERS OF THE CORPORATION AND THE WELL -~ THE COURT WHAT WAS THAT LAST QUESTION WHAT MR TIGERMAN Q. DID THE COMPANY HAVE WHAT HE CONSIDERED TO BE A MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE OR MANAGEMENT WE WERE GETTING UP TO THE TERM MANAGEMENT THE COURT ALL RIGHT YOUR ANSWER TO 117 THAT 11 THE WITNESS MY PERSONALLY I THINK OF 12 MANAGEMENT AS BEING THE OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS OF THE 13 COMPANY AND I FELT IT WOULD APPLY TO BECHTEL 14 MR TIGERMAN OKAY 15 Q. NOW THE MANAGEMENT OF THE COMPANY DURING THE 16 PERIOD THAT YOU WERE AN OFFICER OR DIRECTOR DID YOU EVER 17 GET TO READ THE ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION OR AND ABOUT 18 BYLAWS AND THINGS LIKE THAT 19 A. I DON'T DO NOT RECALL I JUST DON'T KNOW 20 WHETHER I DID OR NOT I CANNOT RECALL 21 Q. ALL RIGHT WAS THERE ANY UNDERSTANDING ON YOUR 22 PART THAT ALL THE STOCK WAS OWNED BY THE OFFICERS AND THE 23 DIRECTORS 24 A. I DID NOT HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING WHETHER IT IS 25 OR WAS OR WASN'T 26 Q. DO YOU KNOW ANYBODY WHO WASN'T AN OFFICER OR 27 DIRECTOR WHO HELD STOCK 28 A. I DON'T I DON'T REMEMBER ANYONE THAT CAN THAT WAS 52 Q. OKAY I GUESS WHAT I AM GETTING AT SIR IS WHETHER OR NOT THE PEOPLE WHO OWNED THE STOCK OF THE COMPANY WERE THE SAME PEOPLE WHO RAN THE COMPANY ISN'T THAT TRUE A. THAT IS TOO GENERAL TO TRY TO -- Q. ALL RIGHT DID YOU KNOW ANY WIVES WHO OWNED ANY STOCK IN THE COMPANY THE COURT WIVES OF 10 MR TIGERMAN 11 Q. WIVES OF -- 12 MR LOPEZ OBJECTION VAGUE 13 MR TIGERMAN 14 Q. --DIRECTORS OR OFFICERS AFTER THEY LEFT 15 A. I DID NOT KNOW WHETHER THERE WERE OR WERE NOT 16 Q. CAN YOU TELL ME DO YOU KNOW CAN YOU NAME ONE 17 WIFE OR CHILD OF AN OFFICER OR DIRECTOR WHO HELD STOCK IN 18 THE CORPORATION AFTER THAT DIRECTOR OR OFFICER LEFT 19 A. I COULD NOT GIVE YOU ANY INFORMATION OF THAT 20 TYPE 21 THE COURT OKAY YOU WANT TO APPROACH THE 22 SIDEBAR 23 MR TIGERMAN YES 24 SIDEBAR OFF THE RECORD 25 MR TIGERMAN 26 Q. SIR AS AN OFFICER OF THE CORPORATION DID YOU 27 SUPERVISE ANY OTHER EMPLOYEES OR ANY DEPARTMENTS 28 A. YES 53 Q. ALL RIGHT WHAT DEPARTMENTS OR EMPLOYEES DID YOU SUPERVISE AS AN OFFICER OF BECHTEL A. WELL FOR A FEW YEARS I WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MINING AND METALS I THINK THAT WAS THE NAME OF IT DIVISION OF THE COMPANY Q. ALL RIGHT AND THEN A. AND I BELIEVE THAT WAS THE ONLY ONE THAT I WAS ACTUALLY THAT I CAN RECALL NOW THAT WAS THE ONLY ONE Q. ALL RIGHT AS AN OFFICER OF THE CORPORATION 10 WERE THEIR POLICIES THAT WERE CREATED AT THE BOARD OF 11 DIRECTORS LEVEL THAT WERE THEN IMPLEMENTED WITH RESPECT TO 12 THE REST OF THE BUSINESS 13 MR LOPEZ OBJECTION VAGUE AS TO TIME 14 THE WITNESS I AM NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND 15 THE COURT ALL RIGHT RULE 765 16 SIR YOU WERE HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT 17 DEPARTMENT OF MINING IS THAT CORRECT 18 THE WITNESS MINING AND METALS -- 19 20 21 THE COURT MINING AND METALS THE WITNESS --DIVISION IT WAS CALLED THE COURT YOU SUPERVISED PEOPLE IN THAT 22 SIDE THAT DEPARTMENT 23 THE WITNESS YES 24 THE COURT WERE YOU WHAT THE VICE 25 26 27 PRESIDENT OF THAT DEPARTMENT THE WITNESS I WAS VICE PRESIDENT THE COURT DID YOU HAVE THE POWER TO HIRE 28 AND FIRE 54 THE WITNESS YES THE COURT YOU HAD THE POWER TO PROMOTE DEMOTE THE WITNESS YES THE COURT IN REFERENCE TO THAT DEPARTMENT DID YOU AS A VICE PRESIDENT DICTATE THE POLICY THE BUSINESS POLICY THAT YOU WOULD TAKE TO PROMOTE YOUR GOALS IN THAT DEPARTMENT THE WITNESS I WOULD SET THE POLICY 10 THE COURT SURE AS TO WHAT THE WORKING 11 CONDITIONS ARE WHAT YOUR OBJECTIVES ARE SO ON HAVE 12 MEETINGS 13 THE WITNESS I SUPPOSE IF THERE WAS ANY 14 NEED FOR IT I WOULD HAVE HAD THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR 15 IT BUT AS A PRACTICAL MATTER I DIDN'T SEEMS TO ME 16 DIDN'T NEED IT 17 18 19 20 22 THE COURT YOU KNOW THE OLD EXPRESSION .. THAT THE TAIL DOESN'T WAG THE DOG AND THAT POLICY IS - ALWAYS DICTATED FROM THE TOP WHEN YOU WERE ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTOR WITH THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS DID YOU 22 23 24 DISCUSS BUSINESS POLICY THE WITNESS I AM SURE WE DID THE COURT ALL RIGHT LET'S GO ON 25 MR TIGERMAN ALL RIGHT 26 Q. IN YOUR DISCUSSION OF BUSINESS POLICIES SIR 27 WAS THERE EVER ANY DISCUSSION OR KNOWLEDGE THAT YOU 28 ACQUIRED ABOUT THE COMPANY'S POLICY FOR THE STOCK OWNERSHIP OF THE COMPANY 55 A. WOULD YOU KINDLY REPEAT THAT Q. WHEN YOU BECAME WHEN YOU TALKED ABOUT THE COMPANY HAVING AND POLICIES YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO ENFORCE THEM DID YOU BECOME AWARE OF ANY POLICY ABOUT STOCK OWNERSHIP WHO COULD OWN IT AND WHO COULDN'COUT LDN'T A. I DON'T RECALL HAVING DISCUSSED THAT Q. DID YOU HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE OF IT A. KNOWLEDGE 10 Q. YES ABOUT WHO COULD OWN STOCK AND WHO 11 COULDN'T 12 A. NO 13 Q AT ANY TIME AS DIRECTOR DID YOU EVER HAVE ANY 14 KNOWLEDGE ABOUT WHO WAS ALLOWED TO OWN STOCK AND WHO 15 WASN'WAT SN'T 16 A. NONE THAT I CAN RECALL 17 Q. SO DON'T RECALL WHETHER THAT MIGHT BE IN THE 00 ARTICLES OR BYLAWS 19 A. THAT'S CORRECT 20 THE COURT WHEN YOU DID BUY STOCK DID YOU 21 BUY STOCK WHEN YOU WERE A VICE PRESIDENT OR DID YOU 22 BUY IT WHEN YOU WERE ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS 23 THE WITNESS WHEN I WAS A VICE PRESIDENT 24 25 26 27 THE COURT ALL RIGHT YOU DIDN'T BUY STOCK BEFORE YOU WERE AN OFFICER THE WITNESS NO NOT BEFORE I WAS AN OFFICER 28 THE COURT GO ON 56 MR TIGERMAN OKAY Q. NOW SIR LET'S TALK ABOUT SOME -- THE COURT LADIES AND GENTLEMEN WHEN I AM ASKING QUESTIONS I AM NOT TAKING SIDES TO MOVE THIS THING ALL RIGHT JUST TRYING TALKING ABOUT MEMORY THINGS IN THE PAST AND SO ON SO DON'T TAKE ANY EMPHASIS MR TIGERMAN Q. LET'S TALK ABOUT SOME OF THE PEOPLE IN BECHTEL 10 DID YOU KNOW A GENTLEMAN BY THE NAME OF AN G. ORSELLI 11 R L ? 12 A. YES 13 Q. WAS MR ORSELLI THERE WHEN YOU JOINED 14 A. WHEN I JOINED THE COMPANY -- 15 Q. YES 16 A. - IN 1937 17 Q. YES 18 A. I CAN'T BE SURE BECAUSE THAT'S TOO FAR BACK 19 Q. WAS HE THERE IN THE 40'S WAR YEAR ZONE 20 A. BELIEVE HE WAS 21 22 Q. AND WAS MR ORSELLI AN ENGINEER A. I RECALL HIM AS BEING A CONSTRUCTION MANAGER 23 AND WHETHER OR NOT HE WAS AN ENGINEER I CAN'T RECALL 24 Q. ALL RIGHT DID MR ORSELLI GO ON TO HOLD ANY 25 OTHER POSITIONS IN THE COMPANY THAT YOU ARE AWARE OF 26 27 A. NONE THAT I KNOW OF Q. ALL RIGHT HE WAS THERE THE FIRST YOU CAN 28 RECALL DURING THE WAR YEARS 157 A. DURING THE -- Q. DURING THE WAR YEARS WORLD WAR TWO WAS ORSELLI THERE DURING WORLD WAR TWO A. WAS HE WITH THE COMPANY THEN _ Q. YES A. TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION HE WAS Q. ALL RIGHT DO YOU KNOW WHEN IT WAS THAT MR YOU SAID YOU WERE AWARE OF HIM BEING THERE DURING WORLD WAR TWO 10 DO YOU RECALL WHETHER HE WAS THERE AFTER WORLD 11 WAR TWO 12 A. YES HE WAS 13 Q. DID HE EVER BECOME A SUPERVISOR OF ANY SORT OR 14 AN OFFICER 15 A. YES 16 Q. WHAT POSITION 17 A. EXACTLY WHAT IT WAS I CAN'T RECALL NOW 18 PROBABLY HAD A GREAT DEAL OF INFLUENCE ON THE WAY THE 19 CONSTRUCTION MANAGERS WERE OPERATING PROJECTS 20 I CAN'T TELL YOU ANY MORE THAN THAT AND IT IS A 21 MAYBE 22 Q. ALL RIGHT IN THIS TIME THAT YOU KNEW HIM HE 23 GROW WITH THE COMPANY THE WAY YOU DID IN A GENERAL SENSE 24 MR LOPEZ OBJECTION VAGUE 25 MR TIGERMAN 26 Q. DID HE GROW WITH THE COMPANY 27 MR LOPEZ OBJECTION -- 28 THE COURT OVERRULED 758 THE WITNESS HE GREW WITH THE COMPANY MR TIGERMAN Q. ALL RIGHT LET'S TALK ABOUT ANOTHER COMPANY THAT WHAT THERE CLARK RANKIN DO YOU REMEMBER CLARK RANKIN OR WAS IT CLAUDE RANKIN YOU REMEMBER A GUY BY THE NAME OF RANKIN WHO WAS THERE WHEN YOU CAME ON A. I DO VAGUELY REMEMBER I CAN'T TELL YOU HIS FIRST NAME Q. YOU KNOW IF HE GREW WITH THE COMPANY 10 A. I CAN'T REMEMBER THAT EITHER 11 Q. DO YOU REMEMBER GARBERINI PHONETICALLY J. 12 GARBERINI 13 A. YES YES 14 Q. NOW WAS GARBERINI THERE WHEN YOU STARTED 15 A. I STARTED AS OF 1937 -- 16 17 Q. RIGHT A. -- AND TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE HE WAS NOT 18 THERE 19 Q. ALL RIGHT WAS HE WERE YOU AWARE THAT 20 GARBERINI WAS PART OF THE ORGANIZATION DURING WORLD WAR 21 TWO 22 A. THAT I AS I SAID BEFORE YES THINK HE WAS 23 THERE 24 Q. OKAY GARBERINI HE WENT ON TO BECOME AN 25 OFFICER OR A DIRECTOR DIDN'T HE 26 A. I AM NOT I CANNOT ANSWER BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW 27 Q. ALL RIGHT DID HE EVER BECOME GENERAL 28 SUPERINTENDENT FOR ANY PROJECTS THAT WERE DONE BY BECHTEL 59 A. I WOULD IMAGINE THAT WAS HIS I SHOULDN'T SAY THAT BUT MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT HE DID Q. DID GARBERINI DURING THE TIME YOU KNEW HIM GROW WITH THE CORPORATION A. YES Q. THAT WAS FROM THE WAR YEARS FORWARD THAT YOU KNEW HIM A. YES Q. NOW WE ALSO HAVE A PERSON BY THE NAME OF 10 EDWARD DORISTAN PHONETICALLY YOU REMEMBER AN ED 11 DORISTAN 12 A. YES 13 Q. 14 A. 15 STARTED WAS ED DORISTAN THERE WHEN YOU CAME ON WELL PROBABLY WITHIN AT LEAST A YEAR AFTER I 16 Q. OKAY WHEN ED DORISTAN JOINED WHAT WAS HIS 17 POSITION YOU RECALL 18 A. I DON'T RECALL 19 Q. WAS ED DORISTAN AN ENGINEER 20 A. I DON'T KNOW 21 Q. DID HE ULTIMATELY BECOME MANAGER OF 22 ENGINEERING 23 A. 24 Q. 25 BECHTEL NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE IN 1951 DID HE BECOME VICE PRESIDENT OF 26 A. THAT I DON'T RECALL 27 Q. WAS HE A VICE PRESIDENT OR OFFICER WHEN YOU 28 WERE AN OFFICER .60 A. I CAN'T RECALL THAT Q. YOU DON'T HAVE ANY RECOLLECTION OF DORISTAN BEING AN OFFICER OF THE COMPANY AT ANY TIME A. I HAVE NO SUCH RECOLLECTION - Q. ALL RIGHT NOW GENERALLY SPEAKING DID DORISTAN GROW WITH THE COMPANY FROM THE TIME THAT YOU BECOME AWARE HE WAS THERE MR LOPEZ OBJECTION VAGUE THE COURT OVERRULED 10 THE WITNESS TO A DEGREE SO LONG AS YOU 11 WERE WITH THE COMPANY YES I WOULD THINK SO 12 MR TIGERMAN YES OKAY 13 0 NOW SIR ARE YOU AWARE OF A PUBLICATION THAT 14 EVER CAME OUT WITHIN THE COMPANY CALLED THE BECHTEL 15 BRIEFS 16 A. YES I DO 17 Q. WHAT WERE THE BECHTEL BRIEFS 18 A. BECHTEL BRIEFS WERE LITTLE PAMPHLETS THAT WERE 19 ISSUED I WOULD SAY ONCE A MONTH AMONG THE EMPLOYEES 20 SIMPLY TO KEEP THEM ABREAST OF THINGS THE COMPANY WERE 21 INTERESTED IN OR DOING 22 Q. SO IT WAS TO KEEP EMPLOYEES INFORMED ABOUT THE 23 COMPANY 24 A. TO A DEGREE 25 Q. ALL RIGHT AND THIS BRIEF DO YOU RECALL 26 WHETHER OR NOT THIS BECHTEL BRIEF WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS 27 AT ANY TIME BEING PUBLISHED BY THE PUBLIC RELATIONS 28 DEPARTMENT A. I DON'T KNOW 761 MR Q. YOU RECALL WHETHER OR NOT AT ANY TIME INGRAM HAD ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE BECHTEL BRIEFS A. I DON'T KNOW AN ANSWER TO THAT _ Q. DO YOU RECALL HOW YOU WOULD GET THESE BRIEFS WOULD THEY BE LEFT SOMEWHERE FOR THE EMPLOYEES TO PICK UP OR WOULD THEY BE DISTRIBUTED INTO THE MAIL SLOTS A. I WOULD USUALLY FIND MINE ON MY DESK THAT'S ALL I CAN TELL YOU 10 Q. YOUR MAIL WOULD GET DELIVERED TO YOUR OFFICE OR 11 TO YOUR SECRETARY 12 A. YES 13 Q. THEN YOUR SECRETARY WOULD LEAVE YOUR MAIL AND 14 ALL INCOMING ITEMS ON YOUR DESK IS THAT CORRECT 15 A. YES YES 16 Q. DID YOU RECEIVE A COPY OF THIS NEWSLETTER ON A 17 REGULAR BASIS EVERY MONTH MORE OR LESS 18 A. YOU SAY THIS 19 Q. THE BECHTEL BRIEFS 20 A. BECHTEL BRIEFS 21 22 23 24 Q. YES A. I WOULD GET IT IF I WERE IN THE COUNTRY AT THE TIME IF I WAS OUT SOMEWHERE OBVIOUSLY I DIDN'T GET IT THEN 25 Q. IT WOULD BE WAITING FOR YOU WHEN YOU COME BACK 26 A. IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN THAT'S ALL I CAN TELL I 27 DON'T KNOW 28 Q. DID YOU READ IT WHEN IT CAME OUT A. I CAN'T REMEMBER READING IT NOT READING IT -62 I CAN'T REMEMBER Q. ALL RIGHT BUT THE PURPOSE OF THIS DOCUMENT WAS TO KEEP PEOPLE INVOLVED ABOUT WHAT WAS HAPPENING IN THE COMPANY IS THAT CORRECT A. OH ABOUT NOT ALL OF IT NOT ALL THE THINGS THAT HAPPENED IN THE COMPANY NO Q. NOT ALL THE THINGS A. WHAT VERY JUST LITTLE THINGS THAT PEOPLE MIGHT 10 BE INTERESTED IN KNOWING 11 12 13 Q. ALL RIGHT FOR EXAMPLE WHEN A NEW PROJECT WAS STARTED WOULD THAT SOMETIMES BE IN THE BECHTEL BRIEFS A. I DON'T RECALL THAT 14 Q. WHEN AN ANNIVERSARY WAS CELEBRATED WOULD THAT 15 BE IN THE BECHTEL BRIEFS AN ANNIVERSARY OF THE COMPANY 16 A. I DON'T RECALL IT HAVING BEEN IN IT 17 Q. SIR I WOULD LIKE TO SHOW YOU SOMETHING LET 18 ME JUST ASK YOU DURING THE ENTIRE TIME YOU WERE THERE DID 19 THE BECHTEL BRIEFS GET PUBLISHED AND DISTRIBUTED ALL THE 20 YEARS YOU WERE PRESENT 21 A. I HAVE TO TELL YOU THAT I CAN'T ANSWER THAT I 22 JUST DON'T REMEMBER THOSE DETAILS 23 Q. NOW SIR DO YOU RECALL IN 1963 WHETHER OR NOT 24 THE COMPANY CELEBRATED ITS 65TH ANNIVERSARY 25 A. WOULD YOU REPEAT THAT AGAIN PLEASE 26 Q. DO YOU RECALL WHETHER IN 1963 BECHTEL 27 CELEBRATED ITS 65TH ANNIVERSARY 28 A. I DO NOT RECALL 63 Q. 1963 YOU WERE STILL AN OFFICER BUT NOT A DIRECTOR YET IS THAT TRUE A. '73 Q. RIGHT A. I CAN'T BE SURE WHETHER I WAS OR WASN'T BECAUSE AS I SAID BEFORE I BECAME AN DIRECTOR SOMETIME AROUND THE MID POINT OF THE 60'S CAN'T TELL YOU WHAT YEAR IT WAS Q. NOW SIR WHAT I AM GOING TO SHOW YOU IS AN EXCERPT FROM THE BECHTEL BRIEFS WHICH IS WHAT HAS BEEN 10 MARKED AS PLAINTIFF'S 49 11 MR LOPEZ WOULD YOU SHOW COUNSEL FIRST 12 THE COURT YES 13 MR TIGERMAN IT IS BATES STAMPED PAGE 14 NUMBER 1695 SHOWING TO COUNSEL 15 MR TIGERMAN 16 Q. FIRST OF ALL LET ME JUST SHOW YOU THIS PAGE 17 DO YOU SEE WHERE IT SAYS GREETINGS THERE CAN YOU JUST 18 TAKE A LOOK AT THAT 19 A. YES I - 20 Q. NOW DO YOU REMEMBER DO YOU HAVE ANY 21 RECOLLECTION OF SEEING THAT WHEN IT CAME OUT 22 A. NO I DID NOT HAVE ANY RECOLLECTION OF HAVING 23 SEEN THIS 24 25 26 27 Q. ALL RIGHT THE COURT THE QUESTION IS DO YOU HAVE A RECOLLECTION BY READING THAT THAT IN 1963 THERE WAS AN ANNIVERSARY BEING CELEBRATED 28 THE WITNESS THAT I DON'T RECALL 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 THE COURT YOUR MEMORY 164 THAT DOESN'T HELP YOU REFRESH THE WITNESS NO MR TIGERMAN YOUR HONOR I WOULD LIKE TO LET'S LOOK AT THE BOTTOM THE WITNESS IF I MIGHT EXPLAIN HERE MY BRAIN IS GOING DOWN THE DRAIN THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS MY MEMORY FOR THESE THINGS IS VERY NOT WHAT THEY USE TO BE THE COURT YOU MARRIED THE WITNESS HUH THE COURT ARE YOU MARRIED THE WITNESS YES THE COURT ANNIVERSARY YOU REMEMBER YOUR WEDDING THE WITNESS YES I DO THAT THE COURT NOW TO SAY THE BUSINESS ANNIVERSARY YOU REMEMBER THAT WHEN THEY CELEBRATED IT THE WITNESS I DO REMEMBER ONE THERE ABOUT 5 YEARS AGO THAT'S AS FAR BACK AS I CAN REMEMBER THAT THE COURT WHAT YEAR 5 YEARS THE WITNESS ROUGHLY ABOUT 5 YEARS AGO THE COURT WHAT WAS THE WEDDING ANNIVERSARY WAS IT SILVER GOLDEN WHAT THE WITNESS AU IT WAS A RAILROAD CAR THAT WAS GIVEN TO STEVE BECHTEL SENIOR ACTUALLY A FULL WHOLE RAILROAD CAR 65 THE COURT A WHOLE RAILROAD CAR THE WITNESS NO IT WAS REAL TOTAL RAILROAD CAR WAS LOOKING CLEAR BACK TO THE DAYS WHEN THE COMPANY WAS IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF RAILROADS THE COURT HOW FAR BACK DOES THAT GO THE WITNESS TURN OF THE CENTURY ALMOST MR TIGERMAN ALL RIGHT Q. IN FACT BACK AFTER THE TURN OF THE CENTURY 10 WHEN THE COMPANY WAS CONSTRUCTING RAILROADS THEY HAD A 11 MOBILE OFFICE THAT RAN OUT OF AN RAILROAD CAR DIDN'T 12 THEY 13 MR LOPEZ OBJECTION RELEVANCE 14 THE COURT OVERRULED 15 THE WITNESS I RECALL READING SOMETHING OF 16 THAT NATURE 17 MR TIGERMAN 18 Q. SO THIS RAILROAD CAR WAS GIVEN TO STEPHEN 19 BECHTEL NOW STEPHEN BECHTEL ACTUALLY WAS THE PRESIDENT 20 AND THE DIRECTOR AND THE CHAIRMAN OF BOARD OF DIRECTORS 21 FOR A GOOD NUMBER OF YEARS WASN'T HE 22 A. WHAT WHAT NOW 23 Q. STEPHEN BECHTEL -- 24 A. WAS 25 Q. ~~ HE WAS CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD WASN'T HE FOR 26 A GOOD NUMBER OF YEARS 27 A. STEPHEN BECHTEL SENIOR 28 0 YES A. YES HE WAS 766 Q. IN FACT ON THE DOCUMENT THAT'S BEEN SITTING IN FRONT OF YOU THERE IS A SIGNATURE RIGHT HERE THAT PURPORTS TO BE STEPHEN BECHTEL'S DO YOU SEE THAT A. HUH Q. YOU RECOGNIZE IT A. YES Q. IS IT HIS A. SAYS STEPHEN BECHTEL JUNIOR YES 10 Q. THAT'S STEPHEN BECHTEL JUNIOR 11 A. YES 12 Q. STEPHEN BECHTEL JUNIOR WAS ALSO ON THE BOARD OF 13 DIRECTORS FOR SOMETIME WASN'T HE 14 A. YES 15 Q. HE WAS ALSO AN OFFICER OF THE CORPORATION 16 WASN'T HE 17 A. I DON'T RECALL WHETHER HE HAD CAME BECAME AN 18 OFFICER FIRST OR NOT 19 Q. ALL RIGHT BUT HE WAS AN OFFICER AND A DIRECTOR 20 AT THE SAME TIME 21 A. 22 TIME YES HE WAS AN OFFICER AND DIRECTOR AT THE SAME 23 24 25 26 MR TIGERMAN YOUR HONOR I WOULD LIKE MARKED PLAINTIFF'S NEXT IN ORDER SHALL WE CALL THESE A'S TO THAT GROUP BECAUSE THERE IS A LARGE GROUP MARKED ALREADY 27 28 THE COURT IS IT NUMBER 49. LARGE GROUP YOU ARE MARKING TO -- IS THIS THE 67 MR TIGERMAN YES NUMBER HE HAS GOT IT IN FRONT OF HIM I BELIEVE IT IS EXHIBIT NUMBER 49 SHALL WE CALL IT 49 THE COURT WANT TO PUT A POST ON IT _ THEN ALL RIGHT THAT IS 49 AND UNDATED YOU HAVEN'T IDENTIFIED WHAT 49 IS WHAT IS IT MR TIGERMAN 1963 BECHTEL BRIEFS IT IS AN EXCERPT FROM THE 10 THE COURT IS THAT CORRECT ARE YOU 11 STIPULATING THAT YOU RECOGNIZE WHAT THAT IS 12 WHAT IS THAT 13 THE WITNESS YOU MEAN WHAT THIS IS 14 THE COURT YES WHAT YOU JUST ANSWERED 15 THAT YOU READ IT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE ANYTHING -- 16 THE WITNESS I UNDERSTOOD THAT THIS HAD 17 SOMETHING TO DO WITH OUR LITTLE PUBLICATION 18 IS THAT WHAT YOU WERE TELLING ME 19 THE COURT YES DOES THAT LOOK LIKE A 20 COPY OF THE BECHTEL BRIEFS 21 THE WITNESS I COULDN'T TELL FROM THIS 22 MR TIGERMAN LET ME SHOW HIM A BIGGER 23 COPY 24 THE WITNESS THERE IS NO -- 25 THE COURT COULD WE HAVE THE WHOLE RATHER 26 THAN THE PAGE CAN WE HAVE DO YOU HAVE THE BECHTEL 27 BRIEFS 28 MR TIGERMAN I SUBPOENAED IT YOUR 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 HONOR THERE IS A STIPULATION AS TO THE 05 AUTHENTICITY THE COURT OH THERE IT IS MR LOPEZ YES SIR YOUR HONOR THE COURT THAT MEANS LADIES AND GENTLEMEN THAT DEFENSE AND PLAINTIFF HAVE AGREED AS A MATTER OF EXPEDIENCY THAT THE COPIES OF 49 ARE COPIES OF THE BECHTEL BRIEFS MONTHLY NEWSLETTERS AND THAT THEY ARE AUTHENTICATED HERE THERE IS NO NEED TO HAVE THE ORIGINALS SO THESE 49 WILL ACTUAL BE STIPULATED TO MR LOPEZ YES SIR YOUR HONOR MR TIGERMAN YES YOUR HONOR THE COURT STIPULATED MR TIGERMAN YES YOUR HONOR THE COURT THESE ARE COPIES OF THE BECHTEL BRIEFS REFERRED TO ONE THERE THE WITNESS HUH MR TIGERMAN NOVEMBER OF 1963 THE WITNESS THIS ONE RIGHT HERE THE COURT NUMBER A. NOVEMBER OF 1963 THAT WILL BE WHEREUPON DOCUMENT WAS MARKED PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT NO 49 FOR IDENTIFICATION ONLY MR TIGERMAN YOU WILL SEE HERE SIR THAT COVER PAGE DOES THAT LOOK LIKE ONE OF THE BECHTEL BRIEFS A. WELL ALL I CAN SAY IS IT COULD HAVE BEEN I CAN'T SAY THAT IT WAS THE COURT THE ATTORNEYS HAVE AGREED THAT _ IT IS A COPY OF THE BECHTEL BRIEFS SO IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE RIGHT MR TIGERMAN I WILL MOVE ON THE COURT ALL RIGHT MR TIGERMAN 10 Q. SIR FROM THE NOVEMBER 1963 EDITION OF THE 11 BECHTEL BRIEFS YOU RECOGNIZE THAT SIGNATURE THERE AS 12 STEPHEN BECHTEL JUNIOR IS THAT RIGHT 13 A. YES 14 MR TIGERMAN I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE THAT 15 PAGE INTO EVIDENCE 49 16 THE COURT I WILL HAVE TO LOOK AT IT 17 BECAUSE -- 18 MR TIGERMAN IT IS THE ONE I SHOWED YOU 19 IN CHAMBERS 20 THE COURT ONE HALF IT IS ANOTHER HALF 21 OVER THERE I AM NOT SURE 22 MR LOPEZ SAME OBJECTION HEARSAY 23 THE COURT HEARSAY YOU ARE OBJECTING 24 25 26 27 HEARSAY MR LOPEZ YES THE COURT ALL RIGHT MAY I SEE IT MR TIGERMAN I AM ONLY SHOWING HIM THE 28 HAND SIDE 70 THE COURT YOU HAVE A RIGHT SIDE OVER HERE AND THAT RIGHT SIDE DOESN'T MEET AN EXCEPTION TO THAT HEARSAY RULE MR TIGERMAN WELL IT DOES 1221 1222 THE COURT LET ME GET THE GLASSES HERE ALL RIGHT IN EVIDENCE THIS IS AGAIN UNDER 403 OF THE EVIDENCE CODE AS I HAVE DISCUSSED AND SAYING THAT TO DEFENSE COUNSEL SO THAT YOU UNDERSTAND MY RULINGS SO FAR AS 10 SUFFICIENCY ALL RIGHT 11 WHEREUPON PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT NO 12 49 PREVIOUSLY MARKED FOR 13 IDENTIFICATION WAS RECEIVED INTO 14 EVIDENCE 15 MR TIGERMAN 16 Q. 17 SAYS SIR JUST WANT YOU TO TAKE A LOOK AT THIS IT 18 THIS IS OUR 65TH ANNIVERSARY BECHTEL 19 ORGANIZATION STARTED IN BUSINESS MARKING A SPAN 20 SYMBOLIZED ON OUR COVER BY EARLY DAY RAILROAD CONSTRUCTION 21 AND PRESENT ACTIVITY IN RAPID TRANSIT DESIGN AND PROJECTS 22 11 MANAGEMENT 23 DO YOU RECALL WHETHER IN THE COURSE OF THIS 24 COMPANY'S HISTORY THIS 65TH 65TH ANNIVERSARY GREETING 25 WAS ISSUED DO YOU EVER RECALL SEEING THAT 26 A. I DON'T REMEMBER SEEING THAT NO 27 Q. ALL RIGHT BUT IS IT FAIR TO SAY THAT IN THE 28 COURSE OF YOUR JOB AS OFFICER AND DIRECTOR OF THE z 71 CORPORATION YOU BECAME AWARE OF THE FACT THAT THE BECHTEL ORGANIZATION STARTED BACK IN 1898 ISN'T THAT TRUE MR LOPEZ LET ME DOES IS HE ASKING DO YOU HAVE A RECOLLECTION OF THAT KNOW THAT BE HIS -- IS HE ASKING YOU THE COURT HIS BELIEF OVERRULED MR TIGERMAN Q. GO AHEAD A. OH 10 Q. ONLY STARTING WHEN ACCORDING TO YOUR BELIEF 11 A. I WOULD LIKE YOU TO SAY THAT AGAIN I AM NOT 12 SURE WHAT YOU ARE ASKING 13 Q. IN 1963 THE COMPANY IS CELEBRATING IT 65TH 14 ANNIVERSARY 15 A. YES 16 Q. DO YOU HAVE A BELIEF DID YOU HAVE A BELIEF 17 WHEN YOU WERE WORKING FOR THE COMPANY THAT THE 18 ORGANIZATION STARTED IN 1898 SINCE 1963 MINUS 65 WOULD 19 TAKE IT TO 1898 20 A. I WOULD RATHER DESCRIBE THAT AS KNOWING THAT IN 21 '98 1898 THAT W. A. BECHTEL SENIOR HAD A BUSINESS A 22 CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS 23 THAT'S AS FAR AS I CAN GO ON THAT I AM VERY 24 WELL I KNOW ABOUT THAT THAT'S BEEN WELL PUBLICIZED 25 Q. ALL RIGHT IT WAS WELL PUBLICIZED THAT THE 26 BECHTEL ORGANIZATION PRIDED ITSELF ON THE LONGEVITY OF ITS 27 HISTORY ISN'T THAT TRUE 28 MR LOPEZ OBJECTION VAGUE MR LOPEZ SPECULATION LET ME OBJECT CALLS FOR THE COURT SUSTAINED 7 MR TIGERMAN : ALL RIGHT THE WITNESS YOU WANT MY OPINION MR TIGERMAN Q. I WANT TO KNOW WHETHER OR NOT ANY OF THE BECHTELS YOU MET THE BECHTELS BEFORE RIGHT A. YES I DID 10 Q. YOU MEET KENNETH BECHTEL 11 A. YES 12 Q. YOU MEET STEPHEN BECHTEL SENIOR 13 A. NO I DIDN'T KNOW SENIOR 14 Q. YOU NEVER SEEN STEPHEN SENIOR 15 A. YES WELL I SEEN SENIOR 16 Q. YOU KNEW STEPHEN BECHTEL JUNIOR 17 A. YES 18 Q. IN ANY OF YOUR CONVERSATIONS WITH THE BECHTELS 19 DID THEY TELL YOU HOW PROUD THEY WERE THAT THE BECHTEL 20 ORGANIZATION STARTED BUSINESS BACK IN THE 1800'S 21 A. I CANNOT RECALL EVER HAVING DISCUSSED IT 22 Q. YOU DON'T RECALL EVER READING THIS WHEN THIS 23 CAME INTO YOUR OFFICE 24 MR LOPEZ OBJECTION ASKED AND ANSWERED 25 THE COURT ASSUMPTION OF FACTS NOT IN 26 EVIDENCE NOT THAT IT CAME INTO HIS OFFICE THAT HE 27 MAY BE HAD A HABIT BUT -- 28 MR TIGERMAN ALL RIGHT k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DIFFERENT PERSON THE WITNESS THIS SAYS S. W. BECHTEL SENIOR 7 MR TIGERMAN : Q. STEPHEN STEPHEN BECHTEL SENIOR A. GOT JUNIOR ON IT LOOKS LIKE S. B. BECHTEL SENIOR Q. YOU HAD SEEN THINGS SIGNED BY STEPHEN BECHTEL SENIOR BEFORE RIGHT 10 A. YES 11 Q. THAT LOOKS LIKE HIS HANDWRITING DOESN'T IT 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 A. YES THE COURT THIS IS THE SENIOR NOT JUNIOR THE WITNESS THAT'S RIGHT THE COURT FIRST ONE YOU LOOKED AT 49 IS IS JUNIOR'S SIGNATURE THIS 49 THAT WE HAVE MARKED IS SENIOR'S SIGNATURE THE WITNESS YES THE COURT OKAY MR TIGERMAN OKAY I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE IN INTO EVIDENCE YOUR HONOR THE COURT ALL RIGHT IN EVIDENCE OVER 23 24 25 26 27 28 OBJECTION MR LOPEZ OBJECTION OBJECTION ARE YOU JUST MOVING HALF A PAGE -- THE COURT THAT HALF PAGE IS ONLY -- MR TIGERMAN THAT WE ARE SHOWING THE COURT WHAT k 77 MR TIGERMAN ONLY PART WE ARE SHOWING PRESENTLY I SUBMIT WE CAN DEAL WITH THE REST LATER IF ~ WE NEED TO | WHEREUPON PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT NO 49 PREVIOUSLY MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION WAS RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE MR TIGERMAN Q. SIR SHOWING YOU THIS PAGE FROM THE SAME 10 EDITION FIRST OF ALL AT THE VERY BOTTOM THERE IS A 11 SIGNATURE THAT WE TALKED ABOUT THERE STEPHEN BECHTEL 12 A. YES 13 Q. ALL RIGHT THIS DOCUMENTS SAYS AT THE TOP 14 TIME TESTED POLICIES IN REVIEWING OUR BUSINESS HISTORY 15 DO YOU I AM GRATIFIED BY THE ADHERENCE TO 16 IMPORTANT POLICIES THAT ARE TRADITIONS AT BECHTEL 17 CORPORATION FAIR DEALING AND GOOD HOUSEKEEPING BOTH ARE 18 19 20 AS OLD AS THIS 65TH YEAR OLD BUSINESS ITSELF DO YOU RECALL READING THAT BEFORE WHEN IT SAYS BOTH ARE AS OLD AS THIS 65 YEAR OLD BUSINESS ITSELF 21 YOU EVER SEE THAT BEFORE 22 A. I DON'T DO NOT RECALL ANYTHING THAT I HAVE 23 EVER READ IN ONE OF THESE THINGS 24 25 26 Q. OKAY. A. I MUST BE FRANK WITH YOU Q. DOESN'T IT REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION THAT YOU 27 READ IT 28 A. NO Q. DON'T HELP YOU REMEMBER A. THAT I READ THESE THINGS I I HAVE NO RECOLLECTION 0. -SO SHOWING YOU THIS DON'T REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION ABOUT WHETHER YOU SAW THAT -- A. IT DOES NOT THE COURT WAIT A MINUTE MR TIGERMAN Q. -- DOES IT REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION ABOUT 10 WHETHER YOU EVER HEARD ANYONE OF THE BECHTELS SAYING THAT 11 THE BUSINESS WAS AS OLD AS 65 YEARS 12 A. NO I DON'T RECALL THAT 13 MR LOPEZ OBJECTION -- 14 THE COURT OVERRULED 15 THE WITNESS I DON'T RECALL ANYONE SAYING 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 THAT THE COURT LET ME ASK YOU THAT BY READING THIS THIS DOES NOT HELP YOU TO REFRESH YOUR MEMORY AS TO WHETHER OR NOT YOU READ IT RIGHT THE WITNESS WELL IT LET ME SAY THIS I CAN RECOLLECT I KNEW THIS WAS THESE WERE THE POLICIES OF THE COMPANY AND TALKED ABOUT BUT WHEN AND WHERE AND HOW WHERE IT CAME FROM I CAN'T TELL YOU THE COURT ALL RIGHT SO THEN THE QUESTION HE IS ASKING READING THIS IT DOES HELP YOU TO REFRESH YOUR MIND REGARDING POLICIES THE WITNESS IT THAT IS CORRECT THE COURT NOW YOU CAN PROCEED MR TIGERMAN OKAY Q. SIR PLEASE TELL US WHETHER OR NOT AT THE TIME THAT THIS WAS PUBLISHED IN 1963 DO YOU RECALL WHETHER OR NOT YOU WERE YET ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS 1963 NOVEMBER 1963 A. NO I WAS NOT Q. YOU DON'T BELIEVE YOU WERE A. I WAS NOT ON THE BOARD AT THAT TIME Q. LET'S GO TO ANOTHER PAGE IN THIS DOCUMENT 10 LET'S GO TO PAGE 1702 OF THAT DOCUMENT IN THE SAME 11 EDITION BECHTEL BRIEFS 12 A. IS HE ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS 13 Q. BOARD OF DIRECTORS YES 14 THE COURT WHY DON'T WE STOP HERE IS 15 THIS MARKED . 16 MR TIGERMAN JUST REFRESHING HIS 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RECOLLECTION THE COURT " BEFORE YOU CAN DO THAT GOT TO ' BE MARKED GOT TO BE DIRECTED TO WHERE IT IS I HAVE TO KNOW WHAT IT IS IN THE MEANTIME WHILE YOU ARE DOING THAT WE WILL TAKE A FIVE MINUTE RECESS FOR THE COURT REPORTER WE WILL TAKE A 15 MINUTE RECESS REMEMBER THE ADMONITION DON'T TALK ABOUT THE CASE SEE YOU BACK HERE IN 15 MINUTES RECESS THE COURT LET THE RECORD REFLECT THE ATTORNEYS BEING PRESENT SO IS THE WITNESS WHO HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY SWORN MR TIGERMAN Q. SIR AT THE BREAK DID YOU TALK WITH MR LOPEZ DID YOU TALK WITH HIM AT THE BREAK A. DID I TALK WITH HIM Q. YES A. YES Q. DID YOU TALK ABOUT YOUR TESTIMONY WITH MR LOPEZ 10 11 12 13 14 A. WELL I VERY LITTLE Q. WHAT ABOUT YOUR TESTIMONY WAS DISCUSSED A. WHAT DID WE DISCUSS Q. YES ABOUT THE TESTIMONY A. I SIMPLY ASKED HIM IF I WAS DOING ALL RIGHT 15 THAT WAS TO SOME -- 16 Q. ALL RIGHT YOU ARE CONCERNED THAT YOU DO OKAY 17 BY BECHTEL 18 A. DO I WHAT 22 Q. ARE YOU CONCERNED THAT YOU DO OKAY BY BECHTEL 20 AS FAR AS YOUR TESTIMONY GOES 21 A. DO OKAY BY BECHTEL 22 MR LOPEZ OBJECTION VAGUE 23 24 25 THE COURT OVERRULED THE WITNESS DON'T UNDERSTAND DO A WHAT BY BECHTEL I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU MEAN 26 27 28 MR TIGERMAN Q. DO YOU HAVE ANY FEELINGS THAT YOU WOULD PREFER NOT TO HURT BECHTEL WITH YOUR TESTIMONY A. I AM HERE NOT TO DO THAT I AM HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS Q. SO YOU DON'T CARE -- A. WHETHER IT IS GOOD OR BAD I WILL ANSWER THE QUESTIONS THAT IS WHY I AM HERE Q. -- YOU DON'T CARE ONE WAY OR ANOTHER WHETHER OR NOT YOUR TESTIMONY HURTS BECHTEL IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING A. WHEN I AM HERE THAT IS THE WAY I HAVE TO BE 10 Q. NOW DO YOU FEEL ANY LOYALTY TOWARD THE BECHTEL 11 ORGANIZATION 12 A. DO I FEEL LOYALTY 13 Q. YES 14 A. I NEVER FELT OTHERWISE 15 Q. OKAY THEY HAVE BEEN GOOD TO YOU OVER THE 16 YEARS 17 A. I WOULD SAY VERY GOOD YES 18 Q. WOULD YOU LIKE TO BE GOOD BY THEM 19 aA I WOULD WOULD LIKE TO DO GOOD BY THEM 20 Q. OKAY 21 A. AND I ALWAYS HAVE 22 Q. OKAY NOW WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE AGE OF 23 THE COMPANY SIR 24 AT THIS TIME YOUR HONOR I WOULD LIKE TO 25 PUBLISH A PAGE FROM THE BECHTEL STORY HAVE WE 26 RECEIVED A RULING ON THAT -- 27 THE COURT RULING 28 MR LOPEZ OBJECTION HEARSAY 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MR TIGERMAN --BOOK ON WHICH THE CUSTODIAN CAME IN THE COURT GIVE ME WHAT YOU HAVE I DON'T MAKE ANY RULINGS UNLESS I KNOW WHAT IT IS I HAVE NOT MADE A RULING ON -- MR TIGERMAN ALL RIGHT THIS IS THE BOOK BROUGHT IN BY THE CUSTODIAN PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 45 MR LOPEZ SOME REASON WE WERE HAVING A SIDEBAR THE COURT YOU GAVE ME A BOOK YOU WANT ME TO READ THE WHOLE BOOK MR TIGERMAN NO YOUR HONOR THE COURT ALL RIGHT MR TIGERMAN I WANT HOW FAST CAN YOU READ IT SIDEBAR CONFERENCE THE COURT ALL RIGHT OBJECTION SUSTAINED WE WILL PUT THAT ON RECORD WHEN WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY THE DISCUSSION AT SIDEBAR MR TIGERMAN ALL RIGHT WITHOUT PREJUDICE YOUR HONOR THE COURT YES IN REFERENCE TO THE ADMISSION OF THE BOOK OBJECTION SUSTAINED HEARSAY MR TIGERMAN OKAY THE COURT THIS TIME 1200 OF THE EVIDENCE CODE AT MR TIGERMAN SIR YOUR HONOR YOU HAVE THE EXHIBIT COPY OF THE BOOK UP THERE THE COURT YES THIS IS NUMBER 45. AT THIS TIME OBJECTION HEARSAY 1200 OF THE EVIDENCE CODE , SUSTAINED WITHOUT PREJUDICE OR FURTHER FOUNDATION OUT OF THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY MR TIGERMAN Q. SIR IN 1968 WAS STEPHEN BECHTEL ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS SENIOR A. IN 1968 YES 10 Q. ALL RIGHT IN 1968 DID BOB INGRAM STILL WORK 11 FOR THE COMPANY IN PUBLIC RELATIONS 12 A. HONESTLY I CAN'T TELL YOU DON'T KNOW WHEN HE 13 LEFT 14 THE COURT COULD I JUST ASK YOU SOMETHING 15 THERE IS A PAGE HERE WITH SOME PICTURES 16 17 WAS THAT MARKED MR TIGERMAN NO WE ARE GOING TO GET TO 18 THAT IN A MOMENT 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE WITNESS THIS THE COURT BECAUSE I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THAT MARKED BECAUSE IF HE REFERS TO IT I THINK THAT HAPPENED BEFORE THE RECESS IT SHOULD BE MARKED MR TIGERMAN LET'S DO IT RIGHT NOW THE COURT ALL RIGHT MR TIGERMAN IT IS THE PAGE WITH 26 PICTURES 27 THE COURT ALL RIGHT THAT WILL BE 50 28 SAID k 84 MR TIGERMAN YES FROM THE NOVEMBER 1963 BECHTEL GROUP ALL RIGHT MR LOPEZ WHAT NUMBER IS THAT BEING MARKED THE COURT MR LOPEZ I HAVE IT AS 50 ARE THESE EXCERPTS FROM 49 THE COURT THIS IS THE -- MR LOPEZ so IT SHOULD BE 49 OR C. THE COURT NOT 50 IT SHOULD BE 49 WHEREUPON DOCUMENT WAS MARKED 10 PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT NO 49 FOR 11 12 IDENTIFICATION ONLY 13 MR TIGERMAN 14 Q. SIR IN FRONT OF YOU IS AN EXCERPT FROM THE 15 1963 BECHTEL BRIEFS AND UNDER THE HEADING FIRST OF ALL 16 LOOK AT THIS 17 CAN YOU TELL ME WHETHER OR NOT IT REFRESHES YOUR 18 RECOLLECTION THAT YOU WERE MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF 19 DIRECTOR IN 19687 20 A. IN '63 21 22 '63 '63 ON THE BOARD IN '63 '63 23 YES 24 TO BE HONEST WITH YOU I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT I 25 WAS ON THE BOARD THAT SOON 26 BUT THAT IS YOUR PICTURE THERE ISN'T IT 27 THAT'S MY PICTURE 28 THIS PIECE OF PAPER IT DOESN'T PROVE ANYTHING TO ME ACCEPT THAT I YOU YOU CAN TELL I CAN'T THE COURT DOES IT HAVE A TITLE OR WHERE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 22 22 22 YOU GO COULD I SEE THIS ~ MR TIGERMAN : YES SURE THIS IS FROM '63 SAME EDITION MR LOPEZ HE HAVE THE WHOLE BRIEF THE COURT THIS IS FROM BECHTEL 49 SAYS BECHTEL CORPORATION AND IT HAS HAS UNDER PHOTOGRAPH UNDER TITLE IT SAYS BOARD OF DIRECTORS THAT IS THE LEFT HALF SIDE IT IS YOUR PICTURE THERE THE WITNESS YES THE COURT WHERE THE WITNESS YES THE COURT WHERE YOU SEE YOUR PICTURE THE WITNESS MY PICTURE THE COURT YES THE WITNESS YES THE COURT CAN YOU CIRCLE WOULD YOU ' CIRCLE WHY DON'T YOU HAVE HIM CIRCLE THE PHOTOGRAPH YOU HAVE CIRCLED IT YOUR PHOTOGRAPH UNDER THE HEADING BOARD OF DIRECTORS IS THAT RIGHT THE WITNESS THAT'S IT WHAT IT SAYS 23 24 25 26 27 28 THERE YES THE COURT DO YOU HAVE ANY DISPUTE THAT YOUR PICTURE IS IN THE NEWSPAPER WE WILL CALL IT RIGHT BY BECHTEL BRIEFS WITH YOUR PICTURE UNDER THE TITLE OF BOARD OF DIRECTORS THE WITNESS WAIT A MINUTE SOMETHING JUST CAME TO MY MIND THE COURT YES THE WITNESS I DO RECALL THAT WHEN WHEN I RETIRED I NOW RECALL THAT I HAD BEEN ON THE BOARD FOR 14 YEARS THAT COMES TO MY MIND THAT PUTS ME THERE ABOUT '60 DOESN'T IT THE COURT YES SO -- THE WITNESS THERE WE ARE THE COURT AS YOU LOOK AT THE PHOTOGRAPH 10 IT SAYS THERE MR DRANIY VICE PRESIDENT AND 11 DIRECTOR 12 SO YOU WERE A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF 13 DIRECTORS 14 THE WITNESS YES YES 15 MR TIGERMAN 16 Q. IN 1963 WAS STEPHEN BECHTEL SENIOR THE 17 18 19 CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD THE COURT - YOU CAN LOOK AT THE PICTURE IT MIGHT HELP REFRESH YOUR MEMORY 20 THE WITNESS HUH 21 THE COURT DOES THAT HELP 22 THE WITNESS YES YES STEPHEN BECHTEL 23 CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD YES 24 MR TIGERMAN 25 Q. STEPHEN BECHTEL YOUR PRESIDENT AND DIRECTOR 26 A. PRESIDENT DIRECTOR 27 Q. LET'S TALK ABOUT JOHN KIELY HE GOES WAY BACK 28 IN THE BECHTEL ORGANIZATION DOESN'TDOESN'T HE A. YES Q. HE GOES BACK ALMOST AS FAR AS YOU DO DOESN'T HE A. - MY FIRST MY FIRST WHEN I FIRST BECAME ACQUAINTED WITH HIM IN THE COMPANY WAS THE END OF THE WAR Q. ALL RIGHT AT THE END OF THE WAR A. WHEN SHIP BUILDING WAS WAS WOUND UP AND -- Q. HE WAS INVOLVED IN THE SHIP BUILDING BEFORE THAT 10 A. YES 11 Q. SO DID HE WORK FOR THE COMPANY WHILE HE WAS 12 INVOLVED IN THE SHIP BUILDING 13 14 15 A. NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE Q. ALL RIGHT NOW WHO DID YOU UNDERSTAND THAT KIELY WORKED FOR BEFORE THE WAR OR DURING THE WAR 16 A. DURING THE WAR 17 Q. YES 18 A. HE WORKED FOR THE THE COMPANY THE SHIP 19 BUILDING COMPANY THAT'S ALL I CAN TELL YOU 20 Q. ALL RIGHT BACK DURING THE WAR DID YOU HAVE AN 21 UNDERSTANDING WHERE WHETHER THAT SHIP BUILDING COMPANY 22 23 24 25 WAS CONTROLLED BY THE BECHTELS A. I HAVE NO INFORMATION ON THAT AT ALL THE COURT I MEAN YOU MAY ASK LEADING QUESTIONS IN REFERENCE TO MOVING THE CASE ALONG AND 26 REFRESHING MEMORY 27 MR TIGERMAN ALL RIGHT THANKS 28 THE COURT FINE MR TIGERMAN Q. SIR ISN'T IT TRUE THAT IN THE 1940'S THERE WERE TWO SHIP BUILDING COMPANIES CALSHIP AND MARINESHIP YOU WERE AWARE OF BOTH OF THOSE A. YES I AM Q. HOW WERE YOU AWARE OF BOTH OF THOSE COMPANIES A. WELL WHEN THE COMPANIES WERE WHEN SHIP BUILDING CAME ON CAME TO US TO DISCUSS THEY WANTED A PIECE OF GROUND FOR IT 10 AND DOWN IN WHAT DO YOU CALL THAT 11 Q. WHEN YOU SAY THEY CAME TO US YOU MEAN THEY 12 13 14 15 16 CAME TO YOUR COMPANY A. NO NO WHEN THE SHIP BUILDING COMPANY WAS FORMED OR PREPARING TO FORM I GUESS THAT WAS IT THEY HAD TO FIND A PLACE TO BUILD SHIPS AND I WAS SENT DOWN TO THE IN THE NAME OF THIS LOCATION NOW THAT I CAN'T -- 17 18 Q. SAUSALITO A. NO NO IT WAS DOWN IN -- 19 Q. LONG BEACH 20 A. -THE LONG BEACH AREA 21 Q. YES 22 A. ALONG WITH ANOTHER GENTLEMAN ALSO AN ENGINEER 23 AND HE THE TWO OF US WENT DOWN THERE AND CHOSE THE SITE 24 25 26 27 Q. ENGINEERS FROM YOUR COMPANY -- A. FROM THERE ON I HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT Q. -- ENGINEERS FROM YOUR COMPANY LAID OUT THE SITE FOR THE SHIPYARD IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA YOU SAY 28 THEY LAID OUT THE SITE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MR LOPEZ OBJECTION MISCHARACTERIZES THE TESTIMONY THE COURT SUSTAINED ~ THE WITNESS : I AM TALKING ONLY ABOUT THE SHIPYARD I MEAN WHERE WE REAL ESTATE THAT WE HAD TO ACQUIRE THE COURT SIR ISN'T IT TRUE -- MR LOPEZ NOT A QUESTION PENDING THE COURT HE IS EXPLAINING HIS ANSWER SO WE UNDERSTAND YOU WERE SENT DOWN TO CHECKOUT A PIECE OF REAL ESTATE TO SEE WHETHER IT WAS PROPER -- THE WITNESS THAT'S RIGHT THE COURT --REAL ESTATE FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUILDING A SHIPYARD THE WITNESS THAT'S CORRECT THE COURT ALL RIGHT DID YOU MAKE A DECISION ON THAT THE WITNESS I DID THE COURT WHAT WAS THAT DECISION THE WITNESS WELL WE CHOOSE WE LOOKED OVER SEVERAL SITES WE CHOOSE ONE AND CAME BACK TO THE OFFICE AND TOLD HIM WHAT WE FOUND THAT WAS IT THE COURT THEN WAS THE SHIPYARD BUILT THE WITNESS YES THE COURT WHAT WAS THE NAME OF THE SHIPYARD THE COURT CALSHIP BUILDING IS WHAT I 10 11 2 3 = 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RECALL THE COURT FINE YOUR COMPANY WAS THE ONE THAT AS FAR AS REPRESENTING YOUR COMPANY WERE YOU THE THERE TO PICK THE SITE THE PROPER SITE THE WITNESS THAT'S RIGHT THE COURT WERE YOU INVOLVED IN THE DESIGN OF THE SHIPYARD WAS YOUR COMPANY INVOLVED IN THE DESIGN OF THE SHIPYARD THE WITNESS MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT IT WAS TO SOME DEGREE BUT I ALSO WOULD EXPECT THAT A LOT OF THAT WELL PRACTICALLY ALL OF THE ENGINEERING MUST HAVE BEEN DONE PRIOR TO THAT BECAUSE THEY WERE DOING THIS ALL OVER THE COUNTRY THE COURT WHO WAS DOING THE ENGINEERING THE WITNESS I DON'T KNOW WHO THE ENGINEER WAS THE COURT WHEN YOU WENT DOWN AND PICKED THE REAL ESTATE -- THE WITNESS YES THE COURT -CHOSE ONE SITE OVER ANOTHER -- THE WITNESS YES THEN -- THE COURT --WERE YOU VICE PRESIDENT OF MINING AT THAT TIME WERE YOU THE PRESIDENT OF ANOTHER DEPARTMENT THE WITNESS NO NO NO I WAS AN ENGINEER AND HADN'T BEEN IN THE COMPANY FOR BUT A FOR A FEW YEARS THE COURT ALL RIGHT THE WITNESS AND I DID ALSO WHEN WE THE NEXT DAY AFTER WE FOUND THE SITE I RECALL THAT RALPH PARSONS WHO WAS ONE OF THE TOP PEOPLE IN THE BECHTEL CORPORATION WE WENT BACK DOWN TO THE THERE TO WHOEVER RUNS THE WHOLE PORT I FORGOT THE NAME OF IT BUT ANYWAY WE WORKED OUT THE AGREEMENT FOR TAKING THAT SITE MR TIGERMAN OKAY. 10 Q. NOW SIR AT THAT TIME THAT WAS ABOUT 1941 11 WASN'T IT 12 THE COURT YOU WANT TO USE SOME HISTORICAL 13 BENCHMARKS TO MAYBE REFRESH HIS MEMORY 14 THE WITNESS I HAVE -- 15 THE COURT WAS IT BEFORE PEARL HARBOR OR 16 AFTER PEARL HARBOR DECEMBER 7 1941. I WILL TAKE 17 JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THAT UNCONTROVERTED -- 18 THE WITNESS I AM ONLY GUESSING BUT I 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 WOULD -- THE COURT DON'T WANT YOU TO GUESS THE WITNESS CAN'T I CAN'T -- THE COURT WAS IT IN '41 THE WITNESS I DON'T KNOW THE COURT BEGINNING OF WORLD WAR TWO THE WITNESS I DON'T KNOW THE DATES CAN'T REMEMBER NOW THE COURT ALL RIGHT MR TIGERMAN k 92 Q. WAS IT THE BEGINNING OF THE WAR AGAINST THE JAPANESE A. I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THAT HAS HAD STARTED OR ~ NOT Q. ALL RIGHT THEN SUBSEQUENT TO THAT THERE WAS ANOTHER SHIPYARD CALLED MARINESHIP IS THAT TRUE A. YES YES Q. MARINESHIP DID YOU HAVE ANY INVOLVEMENT WITH THAT 10 A. OH A VERY VERY LITTLE BIT AS I WAS ASKED TO 11 GO UP THERE AND CHECK THE CHECK IT OUT AND SEE WHAT WAS 12 THE KIND OF SITES WE NEEDED AND SO ON SAME THING I DID 13 WITH THE OTHERS THAT WAS IT I WAS OUT OF IT 14 Q. THAT'S IN SAUSALITO 15 A. YES 16 Q. YOU WERE SENT OVER THERE BY YOUR COMPANY 17 CORRECT 18 19 20 21 22 A. YES Q. AND INDEED ISN'T IT TRUE THAT MARINESHIP AND CALSHIP WERE BOTH SHIPYARDS THAT WERE AMONG THE WAR RESPONSIBILITY THAT THE BECHTEL ORGANIZATION UNDERTOOK MR LOPEZ OBJECTION VAGUE LACKS 23 24 25 26 27 28 FOUNDATION THE COURT OVERRULED OVERRULED THE WITNESS WOULD YOU EXPLAIN THAT MR TIGERMAN Q. THOSE TWO SHIPYARDS WERE AMONG THE WAR EFFORTS THAT BECHTEL CORPORATION WAS INVOLVED IN IS THAT TRUE MR LOPEZ OBJECTION -- THE COURT OVERRULED THE WITNESS THAT IS TRUE YES 7 MR TIGERMAN : ALL RIGHT Q. IN FACT ISN'T IT TRUE THAT A GOOD NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO ROSE THROUGH THE RANKS OF THE BECHTEL ORGANIZATION WORKED AT CALSHIP AT ONE TIME A. YES THERE WERE SOME THAT THAT STARTED IN SHIP BUILDING WHEN THAT WAS OVER A FEW OF THEM CAME INTO 10 BECHTEL 11 Q. ALL RIGHT GIVE US AN IDEA OF THE ONES THAT 12 YOU CAN THINK OF IS KIELY ONE OF THEM 13 A. KIELY KOMES 14 Q. ANY OTHERS 15 A. THAT'S ALL I CAN REMEMBER 16 Q. KIELY ACTUALLY WENT ON TO BECOME A DIRECTOR 17 DIDN'T HE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 A. YES Q. AND AN OFFICER DIDN'T HE A. YES Q. HE AND -- THE COURT DENTED HE MR TIGERMAN I THOUGHT I SAID -- THE COURT DENTED HE MR TIGERMAN WELL WELL YES DIDN'T ALL RIGHT MAYBE MY PRONUNCIATION IS GETTING A LITTLE SLOPPY 0 AND THE OTHER ONE YOU MENTIONED WAS KOMES A. WHO Q. WHO WAS THE OTHERS A. KOMES M - Q. KOMES A. YES Q. WHO KOMES WAS AT CALSHIP WASN'T HE A. THAT IS WHAT I SAID HE ROSE THROUGH THE ORGANIZATION TO BECOME A Q. DIRECTOR AND OFFICER OF BECHTEL DIDN'T HE 10 A. YES AND ISN'T IT TRUE SIR DID YOU EVER GO TO THE 11 Q. 12 CALSHIP ORGANIZATION ONCE IT STARTED 13 A. I WAS INVOLVED INVITED TO GO DOWN THERE TO THE 14 CELEBRATION OF THE FIRST WHAT THEY CALL IT THEN SHOVE IT 15 IN THE FIRST SHIP IS THERE IS A WORD FOR IT BUT YOU 16 KNOW IT WAS ESSENTIALLY FINISHED 17 Q. LAUNCH OF THE FIRST SHIP 18 A. THE LAUNCH THE LAUNCHING Q. WHERE YOU DO THE CHAMPAGNE BOTTLE ON THE -- 19 20 A. THAT'S THE SORT OF THING I WAS THERE THAT'S 21 A CHRISTENING THAT'S THE WORD 22 23 24 25 26 27 A. YES Q. OKAY ISN'T IT TRUE SIR THAT AS FAR AS MARINESHIP WEREN'T THERE IT ALSO HAD PEOPLEPEOPLE IN IT THAT WORKED THERE AND WHEN THE WAR WAS OVER THEY ROSE THROUGH THE RANKS OF THE BECHTEL ORGANIZATION TOO ISN'T THAT 28 TRUE 5 MR LOPEZ OBJECTION VAGUE AS TO WHO WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE COURT OVERRULED _ THE WITNESS THE OTHER SHIPYARDS MR TIGERMAN YES Q. MARINESHIP MARINESHIP A. I DON'T REMEMBER Q. O'CONNELL WORKED THAT SHIPYARD DIDN'T HE A. I DON'T REMEMBER 10 Q. WHAT ABOUT WASTE WASTE WAS WITH THE SHIPYARD 11 A. WASTE WAS WITH BECHTEL BECHTEL COMPANY LONG 12 BEFORE I BECAME AN EMPLOYEE OF BECHTEL MCCONE PARSONS 13 CORPORATION 14 Q. SO WASTE WAS THERE FIRST CORRECT BEFORE YOU 15 A. BEFORE ME YES 16 Q. THEN WASTE WENT ON TO BECOME A SUPERINTENDENT 17 MARINESHIP DIDN'T HE 18 A. I DO NOT RECALL HIS BEING A SUPERINTENDENT 19 20 21 22 .Q BUT HE WAS AT MARINESHIP A. HE WAS AT PART TIME AT LEAST Q. THEN WHEN THE WAR WAS OVER HE CONTINUED TO RISE THROUGH THE RANKS DIDN'T HE 23 A. YES 24 Q. HE BECAME AN OFFICER AT ONE POINT ISN'T THAT 25 TRUE 26 A. WELL HE WAS PRACTICALLY ONE FROM THE BEGINNING 27 AS FAR AS I WAS CONCERNED 28 Q. HE WAS PRESIDENT AT ONE POINT WASN'T HE A. DON'T RECALL THAT MR LOPEZ OBJECTION VAGUE AS TO TIME THE COURT SUSTAINED WHAT COMPANY AT WHAT TIME THIS IS SUSTAINED WHAT COMPANY MR TIGERMAN Q. OKAY WAS HE EVER THE PRESIDENT OF -- LET'S FIND THAT INTERROGATORY ANSWER MR LOPEZ OVER WHAT COMPANY AT WHAT TIME THE COURT OVERRULED OVER WHAT COMPANY 10 11 MR TIGERMAN 12 Q. WAS HE OVER BECHTEL BROTHERS MCCONE 13 A. NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE 14 Q. RIGHT AFTER THE WAR WASN'T HE VICE PRESIDENT 15 W. A. BECHTEL PRIOR TO THE WAR 16 A. I DON'T KNOW THAT HE WAS THE VICE PRESIDENT 17 DOESN'T SEEN TO ME HE WAS 18 Q. SO YOU DON'T RECALL READING ANY WHERE THAT HE 19 WAS VICE PRESIDENT OF W. A. BECHTEL IS THAT CORRECT 20 A. THAT IS CORRECT 21 Q. YOU DON'T RECALL READING ANYWHERE THAT HE 22 BECAME GENERAL SUPERINTENDENT OF MARINESHIP ISN'T THAT 23 CORRECT 24 25 26 A. I NEVER HEARD THAT Q. BUT YOU DO KNOW THAT AFTER THE WAR ENDED AND AFTER MARINESHIP HE ROSE THROUGH THE RANKS OF THE BECHTEL 27 ORGANIZATION CORRECT MR LOPEZ VAGUE AS TO WHAT HE MEANS BY 28 ORGANIZATION THE COURT OVERRULED THE WITNESS HE DID I SUPPOSE HE SAYS UP THE RANKS HE WAS ALREADY UP THE RANKS PRETTY WELL I DON'T RECALL ANY PARTICULAR CHANGES MR TIGERMAN Q. NOW DO YOU RECALL AT ALL WHAT MR WASTE'S POSITION WAS AT W. A. BECHTEL BEFORE THE WAR A. HAVING TO DO WITH MY MIND SLIPS UP AS SOON AS 10 YOU HAVE IN THE CORPORATION BUT HE WAS NOT INVOLVED PUT 11 IT THAT WAY 12 HE WAS NOT INVOLVED IN DIRECT ENGINEERING AND 13 PRODUCTION CONSTRUCTION BUT RATHER THE I AM A LITTLE 14 EMBARRASSED BECAUSE I CAN'T SAY THE WORDS BUT THE 15 PAPERWORK OF THE COMPANY IF YOU WILL WAS PROBABLY 16 WHAT -- 17 Q. ALL RIGHT 18 A. BEST WAY TO DESCRIBE IT 19 ~ Q. LET'S PUT IT THIS WAY MANAGEMENT POSITION AT 20 W. A. BECHTEL BEFORE THE WAR ISN'T THAT TRUE 21 22 23 24 25 A. WELL MANAGEMENT OF PAPER Q. OKAY A. BEST I CAN DO Q. ALL RIGHT BUT HE WAS PRETTY HIGH UP IN W. A. BECHTEL BEFORE THE WAR WASN'T HE 26 A. THAT'S -- 27 Q. HE WAS CONSIDERED YOUR SUPERIOR RIGHT 28 A. W. A. BECHTEL DIDN'T WORK THERE SO I DIDN'T KNOW Q. SO ARE YOU WHEN YOU SAY A MANAGEMENT OF PAPERWORK CAN YOU GIVE US ANY IDEA OF WHAT ANY ADDITIONAL OBLIGATIONS DUTIES HE HAD WERE BEFORE THE WAR A. WELL I AM SHAME TOO SAY CAN'T BRING THE WORDS TO MY MIND TO EXPLAIN THAT TO YOU BUT IT FINANCE IS PROBABLY ONE OF THE THINGS AND -- Q. OKAY BILL WASTE WAS NOT JUST SOME LOW LEVEL EMPLOYEE OF W. A. BECHTEL BEFORE THE WAR ISN'T THAT TRUE 10 MR LOPEZ LET ME OBJECT RELEVANCE I AM 11 NOT SURE HE ALREADY TESTIFIED AS TO WHAT MR WASTE 12 WAS 13 THE COURT OVERRULED 14 THE WITNESS DON'T KNOW HOW TO TELL YOU 15 ANY MORE THAN I DID 16 MR TIGERMAN 17 18 19 20 Q. ALL RIGHT A. BUT HE WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF W. A. BECHTEL ~ Q. RIGHT YOU SAID HE MANAGED PAPERWORK AND WHAT I AM WONDERING IS IS HE A LOW LEVEL EMPLOYEE OR IS HE A 21 HIGH LEVEL EMPLOYEE AT THAT TIME 22 A. WELL HISTORY WOULD SHOW SINCE THE TIME THAT I 23 KNEW HIM IN BECHTEL IN THE BECHTEL MCCONE PARSONS 24 CORPORATION AND ON UP THAT HE WAS A VERY HIGH GRADE MAN 25 Q. AT THE SHIPYARD ISN'T IT TRUE THAT HE WAS IN 26 CHARGE OF MARINESHIP 27 A. OF MARINESHIP IN CHARGE OF IT 28 Q. WASN'T HE A SUPERINTENDENT A. I DON'T KNOW WHO WAS IN CHARGE OF IT NOT RECALL THAT 99 I CAN Q. AFTER THE WAR YOU HE WENT ONTO BECOME AN OFFICER AND DIRECTOR YOU NEVER LEARNED WHAT HE HAD DONE DURING THE WAR A. I PROBABLY DID KNOW AT THAT TIME BUT I MUST TELL YOU THAT I CANNOT RECALL AT THIS TIME Q. YOU WENT BACK OVER TO MARINESHIP AFTER YOU WENT THERE THE FIRST TIME DIDN'T YOU 10 A. NO 11 Q. YOU JUST WENT THERE ONCE 12 A. ONLY ONCE THAT I KNOW OF 13 Q. YOU WENT THERE ONCE AT THE REQUEST OF WHOM 14 A. I DON'T KNOW 15 Q. YOU IT WAS AT THE REQUEST -- 16 A. I DON'T REMEMBER THAT 17 18 Q. -~- AT THE REQUEST OF YOUR COMPANY WASN'T IT A. HUH 19 Q. 20 IT IT WAS AT THE REQUEST OF THE COMPANY WASN'T 21 A. YES 22 Q. YOUR COMPANY WAS GOING TO BUILD A SHIPYARD OUT 23 THERE WASN'T IT 24 A. YES THEY SENT ME OUT THERE TO LOOK IT OVER 25 AND SEE HOW IT COULD BE WHAT WE NEEDED FOR A SHIPYARD 26 Q. ALL RIGHT YOUR COMPANY BUILT A SHIPYARD OUT 27 THERE 28 A. THEY HAD TO DO A LOT WITH IT YES 1 00 Q. IN FACT ISN'T IT TRUE THAT THE SHIP YARD WAS RUN BY THE BECHTEL ORGANIZATION MR LOPEZ OBJECTION VAGUE _ THE COURT OVERRULED THE WITNESS I CAN'T I CAN'T I I AM NOT IN THE POSITION TO SAY WHETHER THEY WERE BECHTEL PEOPLE OR WHO THEY WERE BECAUSE THERE AGAIN I HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT MR TIGERMAN 10 11 Q. ALL RIGHT A. I WAS BUSY WITH SO MANY OTHER THINGS AROUND THE 12 WORLD THAT I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT WAS GOING ON 13 Q. YOU KNOW BILL WASTE WAS WITH THE BECHTEL 14 ORGANIZATION BEFORE THE WAR WASN'T HE 15 MR LOPEZ WELL LET ME OBJECT HE 16 ALREADY MISCHARACTERIZED THE TESTIMONY 17 THE COURT OVERRULED HE IS ASKING HIM 18 NOW 19 THE WITNESS SAY THAT AGAIN 20 21 MR TIGERMAN Q. BILL WASTE WAS WITH THE BECHTEL ORGANIZATION 22 BEFORE THE WAR WASN'T HE 23 A. I AM TOLD HE WAS 24 Q. BILL WASTE WAS WITH THE BECHTEL ORGANIZATION 25 AFTER THE WAR WASN'T HE 26 A. YES 27 Q. YOU SAID EARLIER THAT THE SHIP YARD INCLUDING 28 MARINESHIP CALSHIP WAS AMONG THE WAR RESPONSIBILITIES THAT BECHTEL UNDERTOOK YOU RECALL THAT A. I WE HAVE HEARD THIS -- Q. WELL THAT'S THAT'S A. _ --USED AS -- Q. IS THAT WHAT YOU JUST SAID A. I AM SAYING ONLY WHAT I'VE SEEN HERE Q. ALL RIGHT SIR IF MR WASTE WAS WITH THE BECHTEL ORGANIZATION BEFORE THE WAR IF HE WERE WITH THE BECHTEL ORGANIZATION AFTER THE WAR IF THE SHIPYARD WAS AN 10 ENDEAVOR THAT THE BECHTEL ORGANIZATION UNDERTOOK ISN'T IT 11 TRUE THAT MR WASTE CONTINUED TO WORK FOR THE BECHTEL 12 ORGANIZATION FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE WAR THROUGH THE END 13 OF THE WAR 14 15 MR LOPEZ OBJECTION FOUNDA -- THE WITNESS I CAN NOT SAY SO -- 16 THE COURT OVERRULED 17 THE WITNESS -I CAN NOT SAY THAT BECAUSE 18 I WAS NOT GIVEN THAT KIND OF INFORMATION WHEN HE WAS 19 WORKED WITH BECHTEL AT THAT TIME 20 21 22 23 24 MR TIGERMAN Q. SIR YOU DIDN'T KNOW WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE A. I DIDN'T KNOW WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE Q. DID YOU KNOW BEFORE DURING THE WAR IT HAD A DIVISION THAT HAD A DIVISION CALLED THE MARINESHIP 25 BUILDING DIVISION 26 MR LOPEZ OBJECTION VAGUE 27 THE COURT OVERRULED 28 THE WITNESS I DO 182 MR TIGERMAN Q. OKAY ISN'T IT TRUE THAT THE PEOPLE THAT WERE IN THAT DIVISION INCLUDED MR WASTE A. AS I SAID PREVIOUSLY I HAVE I KNOW THAT HE SPENT SOMETIME I THINK DON'T KNOW WHAT HE DID I DON'T KNOW HOW LONG HE WAS THERE Q. ALL RIGHT DURING THE WAR MR O'CONNELL WAS THERE JOHN O'CONNELL O'CONNELL A. YES 10 Q. ALL RIGHT JOHN O'CONNELL DO YOU KNOW THAT HE 11 WAS THE LABOR COORDINATOR FROM MARINESHIP 12 A. I DID NOT KNOW WHETHER OR NOT I DIDN'T KNOW 13 THAT HE WORKED FOR MARINESHIP 14 Q. ALL RIGHT WASN'T HE THE LABOR COORDINATOR OR 15 LABOR SPECIALIST FOR THE BECHTEL ORGANIZATION IN THE LATER 16 YEARS 17 A. IN THE LATER YEARS 18 Q. ISN'T IT TRUE THAT HE WENT ON ONTO BECOME AN 19 QFFICER AND DIRECTOR OF THE BECHTEL CORPORATION 20 A. THAT IS CORRECT 21 Q. HE WAS AN OFFICER AND A DIRECTOR AT THE SAME 22 TIME THAT YOU WERE IS THAT CORRECT 23 A. MAY BE NOT ALL THE TIME BUT WE WERE THERE WAS 24 TIMES WHEN WE WERE BOTH TOGETHER ON THE BOARD MOST OF THE 25 26 27 TIME Q. NOW WITH RESPECT TO MR O'CONNELL DID YOU EVER LEARN THAT MR O'CONNELL WAS INVOLVED IN LABOR ISSUES 28 OVER AT MARINESHIP A. I DID NOT HEAR THAT Q. ALL RIGHT WHEN YOU SAY MR O'CONNELL WAS LABOR SPECIALIST FOR THE BECHTEL CORPORATION -- A. I DIDN'T SAY THAT YOU SAID THAT Q. WELL YOU AGREED SIR ISN'T IT TRUE THAT MR O'CONNELL DID HE WAS IN THE ROLE OF THE LABOR COORDINATOR LABOR SPECIALIST FOR THE BECHTEL ORGANIZATION DURING SOME POINTS IN TIME AFTER THE WAR A. YES 10 Q. IN THAT ROLE ISN'T IT TRUE THAT HE WAS ONE OF 11 THE PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY PUBLISHED THE BECHTEL BRIEFS 12 A. I HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE ABOUT HIS BEING INVOLVED 13 WITH THAT ORGANIZATION THAT PUBLICATION 14 Q. SIR I WOULD LIKE TO SHOW YOU -- 15 MR LOPEZ WHAT IS THE POINT YOUR HONOR 16 WHAT IS THE RELEVANCE 17 THE COURT SUBJECT TO MOTION OR A MOTION 18 TO STRIKE 19 MR LOPEZ WHAT IS THE ISSUE RELEVANT TO 20 MR TIGERMAN MR O'CONNELL'S ROLE YOUR 21 HONOR AS YOU WELL KNOW IS AN ISSUE 22 THE COURT I DON'T WANT YOU TO MAKE ANY 23 FURTHER COMMENTS IN FRONT OF THE JURY IT IS 24 FOUNDATIONAL ISSUE APPARENTLY 25 MR TIGERMAN SIR I WOULD LIKE TO MARK 26 AS PLAINTIFF'S NEXT IN ORDER A PAGE FROM THE JUNE 27 1958 BECHTEL BRIEFS 28 THE COURT THAT IS 49 OR IS THERE ANOTHER 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NUMBER MR TIGERMAN NEXT IN ORDER WELL WE WILL MAKE IT 49 THE COURT 49 WHAT THE CLERK 49 YOUR HONOR THE COURT ALL RIGHT THANK YOU WHEREUPON DOCUMENT WAS MARKED PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT NO 49 FOR IDENTIFICATION ONLY THE COURT IS THERE A YEAR TO THIS 1958 MR TIGERMAN YES YOUR HONOR JUNE THE COURT JUNE 1958. BECHTEL BRIEFS NEWSPAPER THIS IS AGAIN MR TIGERMAN YES YOUR HONOR MR LOPEZ WELL YOUR HONOR WE WOULD OBJECT BASED ON OUR DISCUSSIONS IN CHAMBERS YET MR TIGERMAN IT HAS NOT BEEN PUBLISHED I AM JUST SHOWING IT TO THE WITNESS THE COURT FINE MR LOPEZ IS THERE A BATES STAMP NUMBER ON THERE SO THAT WE CAN REFER TO THE DOCUMENT AS EXHIBIT 49 THE COURT IT IS MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION YOU OUGHT TO GIVE HIM A COPY OF IT MR TIGERMAN Q. SIR I WOULD LIKE TO SHOW YOU EXHIBIT 49 A. OKAY 105 Q. SHOWING IN THE LITTLE RIGHT CORNER DOWN HERE AND YOU CAN SEE IF THAT REFRESHES YOUR RECOLLECTION THAT JOHN O'CONNELL WAS VICE PRESIDENT OF INDUSTRIAL DEPARTMENT IN 1958 A. PUBLICATION UNDER THE DIRECTION OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONSHIP DEPARTMENT YOU ARE ASKING ME IF THIS RINGS A BELL THAT HE WAS -- Q. VICE PRESIDENT OF THAT DEPARTMENT A. THAT I KNEW -- 10 Q. ALL RIGHT OKAY 11 A. --YES 12 Q. DID YOU ALSO KNOW THAT ROBERT INGRAM WAS PUBLIC 13 RELATIONS MANAGER FOR THE COMPANY IN 1958 14 A. I DID NOT I DO NOT RECALL THAT 15 Q. AND THIS DOESN'T REFRESH --- 16 A. I THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT WASN'T BUT I DON'T 17 RECALL IT 18 Q. -- THIS DOESN'T HELP YOU REMEMBER THAT 19 A. NO 20 Q. OKAY NOW SIR WITH RESPECT TO MR O'CONNELL O'CONNELL 21 YOU KNEW MR O'CONNELL DIDN'T YOU 22 A. I DID 23 Q. YOU SPOKE TO HIM ON MANY OCCASIONS DIDN'T YOU 24 A. VERY WELL 25 Q. AND IN ANY OF YOUR DISCUSSIONS WITH 26 MR O'CONNELL DID HE EVER TELL YOU THAT HE WENT TO ANY 27 MEETING IN 1942 AT WHICH THE HAZARDS OF ABESTOS WAS 28 DISCUSSED A. NEVER I HAVE NEVER HEARD OF IT Q. IN THE ENTIRE TIME YOU KNEW MR O'CONNELL DID HE EVER TELL YOU HE WENT TO A MEETING IN 1942 REGARDING THE HAZARDS OF INSULATION MATERIALS AT WHICH THAT WAS DISCUSSED A. NOT A'TAL I NEVER HEARD ANY DISCUSSIONS Q. NOW SINCE HE WAS AN OFFICER AND DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY AT VARIOUS TIMES DO YOU CONSIDER THAT YOU IT WOULD HAVE BEEN HIS OBLIGATION TO THE COMPANY TO REVEAL 10 INFORMATION ABOUT THE HAZARDS THAT THE COMPANY WAS 11 CREATING BY THE USE OF DANGEROUS MATERIALS 12 MR GILBERT OBJECTION CALLS FOR 13 SPECULATION 14 THE WITNESS MAY I -- 15 THE COURT OVERRULED 16 THE WITNESS --TO CLARIFY THIS MAY I ASK 17 YOU A QUESTION 18 MR TIGERMAN 19 20 Q. SURE A. AT WHAT POINT IN -- 21 MR LOPEZ VAGUE AS TO TIME 22 THE WITNESS --TIME DO YOU MEAN THAT 23 24 25 THESE WERE DISCUSSED YOU TALKING ABOUT -- THE COURT SUSTAIN THE OBJECTION THE WITNESS --WAR TIME OR LATER ON JUST 26 WHERE 27 28 MR TIGERMAN . SURE IF MR O'CONNELL WENT TO A MEETING IN 1942 DURING THE WAR -- A. YES Q. -- AT WHICH THE HAZARDS OF ABESTOS WAS DISCUSSED -- MR GILBERT COULD I OBJECT TO THE LAST QUESTION OBJECTION HE HASN'T ESTABLISHED ANY FOUNDATION THAT THE WITNESS HAS ANY KNOWLEDGE ABOUT WHAT MR O'CONNELL DID THE COURT THAT IS WHY HE USED THE 10 HYPOTHETICAL 11 MR LOPEZ ISN'T HE A PERCIPIENT WITNESS 12 THE COURT YES SO YOU SEE CANNOT ASK 13 HYPOTHETICALS 14 MR LOPEZ THAT'S RIGHT 15 THE COURT SUSTAINED 16 MR TIGERMAN 17 Q. SIR YOU KNEW HIM AS A FELLOW OFFICER AT ONE 18 POINT CORRECT 19 A. AN OFFICER OF WHAT 20 Q. YOU WERE BOTH OFFICERS 21 THE COURT YOU ALREADY ESTABLISHED THAT HE 22 KNOW THAT HE ALREADY SAID THAT | 23 MR TIGERMAN 24 Q. DURING THE TIME YOU WERE BOTH OFFICERS WOULD 25 YOU HAVE EXPECTED MR O'CONNELL TO TELL YOU IF HE KNEW 26 27 THAT BECHTEL WAS USING MATERIALS THAT WAS CAUSING HAZARDS TO OTHER PEOPLE'S HEALTH WOULD YOU HAVE EXPECTED HIM TO 28 TELL YOU THAT MR LOPEZ SPECULATION OBJECTION CALL FOR THE COURT OVERRULED ~ THE WITNESS I WOULD NOT HAVE EXPECTED HIM TO SAY SUCH A THING AND I CANNOT RECALL ANY SUCH DISCUSSION WITH HIM MR TIGERMAN Q. IF MR O'CONNELL HAD KNOWN ABOUT HAZARDOUS MATERIAL THAT WAS BEING PLACED OUT TO REFINERIES WOULD 10 YOU HAVE AS A FELLOW DIRECTOR HAVE CONSIDERED THAT HIS 11 DUTY TO DISCLOSE THAT TO THE CORPORATION 12 MR LOPEZ CALLS FOR SPECULATION 13 HYPOTHETICAL NOT PERCIPIENT KNOWLEDGE TO THIS 14 WITNESS 15 THE COURT OVERRULED 16 THE WITNESS MY ANSWER IS NOT NECESSARILY 17 IN THE BOARD MEETINGS WOULD THIS COME OUT 18 19 ~ Q. MR TIGERMAN DID YOU -- 20 A. IT MAY OR MAY NOT BUT I DO NOT RECALL ANY SUCH 21 THING 22 I AM NOT ASKING WHETHER IT WAS ACTUALLY 23 DISCUSSED YET 24 A. YES 25 Q. I AM ASKING WHETHER IT WAS EVER YOUR 26 EXPECTATION THAT IF YOUR FELLOW DIRECTOR FOUND OUT THAT 27 BECHTEL WAS DOING SOMETHING THAT WAS DANGEROUS TO OTHER 28 PEOPLE THAT THE DIRECTOR WOULD BRING IT TO THE COMPANY'S ATTENTION 19 A. IT NEVER OCCURRED TO ME TO THINK ABOUT WHAT SHOULD BE DISCUSSED AT THE BOARD MEETINGS Q. SO YOU DIDN'T HAVE ANY EXPECTATION AS TO THE DUTIES THAT YOUR FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS HAD TO THE CORPORATION IS THAT WHAT YOU WERE SAYING MR LOPEZ OBJECTION YOUR HONOR -- THE COURT SUSTAINED MR TIGERMAN 10 Q. YOU DIDN'T CONSIDER FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS TO 11 HAVE A DUTY TO THE COMPANY TO KEEP IT FROM ENGAGING IN 12 DANGEROUS ACTIVITIES 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MR LOPEZ YOUR HONOR OBJECTION THE COURT SUSTAINED LET ME ASK YOU THIS SO WE CAN MOVE THIS THING ALONG WHEN YOU WERE ATTENDING THE BROAD OF DIRECTORS MEETINGS YOU ALREADY ESTABLISHED YOU TALKED ABOUT BUSINESS POLICY POLICY WE ALREADY ' DISCUSSED THAT YOU USE EVEN BEFORE YOU WERE ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS IS IT OF SHIP YARDS RIGHT THE WITNESS BEFORE THE SHIPYARD THE COURT YES BEFORE YOU WERE ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS EVEN AS AN OFFICER THEY USED YOU FOR YOUR OPINIONS IN REFERENCE TO WHAT SITES TO GET FOR THE SHIPYARD IS THAT RIGHT THE WITNESS YES HUH THE COURT IS THAT RIGHT THE WITNESS HUH 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 110 THE COURT BUT THE IDEA OF WHETHER OR NOT TO BUY OR TO CONSTRUCT A SHIPYARD COMES FROM THE TOP RIGHT _ THE WITNESS DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THAT THAT'S RIGHT THE COURT ONLY THING YOU HAD TO SAY WAS THIS IS A GOOD PIECE OF PROPERTY FOR IT OR NOT THE WITNESS THAT IS ALL THE COURT THAT IS WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT POLICY DECISIONS COME FROM THE TOP THE WITNESS THAT'S RIGHT THE COURT AT SOME POINT YOU BECAME A POLICY MAKER BECAUSE YOU WERE ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS THE WITNESS THAT'S CORRECT THE COURT YOU WOULD TALK TO THE OTHER PEOPLE ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS THE WITNESS INDEED THE COURT TALKED EXPANSION REDUCTION I IMAGINE IS THAT CORRECT JUST GENERAL AREAS THE WITNESS IN DEED IN DEED THE COURT YOU ALSO TALKED ABOUT SAFETY THE WITNESS YES WE THE COMPANY IF IT WAS NECESSARY AND I AM NOT I AM SAYING THAT IT IS LOGICAL THAT WE WERE DOING THAT THAT I CANNOT SAY THAT I REMEMBER IT THE COURT I UNDERSTAND THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT GENERAL TOPICS IN REFERENCE TO SAFETY 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 THE GENERAL WELFARE OF YOUR EMPLOYEES 11 THE WITNESS YES THOSE THINGS THE COURT ALL THOSE THINGS NOW YOU ARE REFERRING TO DUTY ARE YOU GETTING INTO AN AREA HE IS GETTING INTO AN AREA I AM JUST ONLY ASKING THESE QUESTIONS SO WE CAN GET MOVING HERE DID YOU EVER GET INTO THE AREA OF A DISCUSSION OF THE MATERIALS THAT MAY BE USED BY BECHTEL IN ITS CONSTRUCTION THAT MAY BE HAZARDOUS TO IT WORKERS OR OTHERS THE WITNESS PERSONALLY I DO NOT RECALL EVER HAVING THAT SORT OF A DISCUSSION THE COURT AND MR O'CONNELL -- THE WITNESS AND MOST OF THE DISCUSSION WAS IN BUSINESS LINES DOING THINGS LIKE THAT THE COURT MR O'CONNELL WAS REFRESH MEMORY THERE HE WAS HEAD OF WHAT THERE IT SAYS ON THE BECHTEL BRIEFS THE WITNESS THERE THE ADDRESS ON THERE I CAN'T FIND IT THE COURT WANT TO HELP -- THE WITNESS SAYS 1958 THE COURT YES MR TIGERMAN RIGHT THE WITNESS THERE HE WAS JOHN O'CONNELL O'CONNELL WAS VICE PRESIDENT OF LET'S SEE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS DEPARTMENT THE COURT OF -- 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 12 THE WITNESS GUESS THAT THIS LITTLE -- THE COURT --OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS YOU KNOW WHAT THAT DEPARTMENT DID _ THE WITNESS LOOKS LIKE VICE PRESIDENT FOR BECHTEL BRIEFS R. M. DORFMAN WAS MANAGER OF IT I MEAN THESE ARE MERELY THE TWO PEOPLE THAT WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE BECHTEL BRIEFS THE COURT AND THE BECHTEL BRIEFS WAS PUBLISHED BY THE COMPANY THE WITNESS YES THE COURT ALL RIGHT THE WITNESS YES THE COURT AND MR INGRAM WAS PUBLIC RELATIONS DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY AND MAKES GOOD PUBLIC RELATIONS FOR THE COMPANY TO -- THE WITNESS YES THE COURT -PUBLISH -- THE WITNESS YES THE COURT -THIS BECHTEL BRIEF FOR ITS EMPLOYEES THE WITNESS I DON'T KNOW WELL HE HAD SOMETHING TO DO WITH IT BUT WHAT IT WAS I DON'T KNOW THE COURT LET ME ASK YOU YOU WERE A FORMER BOARD OF DIRECTOR YOU THINK IT WAS GOOD PUBLIC RELATIONS -- THE WITNESS YES YES THE COURT FOR THE COMPANY TO PUBLISH A NEWSPAPER -- 113 THE WITNESS YES YES THE COURT --FOR THE EMPLOYEES -- _ THE WITNESS YES THE COURT --MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES RELATIONS THE WITNESS YES THAT IS RIGHT MR TIGERMAN Q. AS AN OFFICER AND DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY WOULD 10 YOU HAVE EXPECTED THAT IF SOMETHING INACCURATE HAD BEEN 11 PUBLISHED IN ONE OF THOSE MAGAZINES OR IN ONE OF THOSE 12 JOURNALS WOULD THAT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT TO SOMEBODY'S 13 ATTENTION AND CORRECTED 14 MR LOPEZ CALLS FOR SPECULATION 15 THE COURT SUSTAINED 16 THE WITNESS WELL -- 17 MR TIGERMAN 18 Q. DID YOU EVER SEE ANYTHING IN ONE OF THOSE 19 BRIEFS THAT YOU CONSIDERED TO BE FALSE OR UNTRUE 20 A. I CAN NOT REMEMBER ANY SUCH THING 21 Q. DID YOU -- 22 MR LOPEZ WHAT IS THE RELEVANCE YOUR 23 HONOR 24 MR TIGERMAN 25 Q. -- THINK WHEN THE COMPANY WAS MAKING STATEMENTS 26 IN THE BECHTEL BRIEFS FOR THE EMPLOYEES THAT IT WAS 27 DISSEMINATING TRUTHFUL INFORMATION TO THE EMPLOYEES 28 MR LOPEZ OBJECTION CALLS FOR SPECULATION THE COURT I WILL ALLOW THAT THE WITNESS I CAN ONLY EXPECT IT TO BE ACCEPTED IT WE ACCEPTED IT AS TRUE MR TIGERMAN Q. IT WAS ACCEPTED AS TRUE A. ANYTHING THAT I KNOW OF Q. ALL RIGHT A. THAT ISN'T EVERYTHING THAT WAS DISCUSSED 10 Q. BUT WHEN YOU READ THIS NEWSPAPER YOU ACCEPTED 11 WHAT WAS IT IN AS TRUE BECAUSE IT WAS GIVEN BY THE COMPANY 12 TO YOU CORRECT 13 A. I DIDN'T LOOK AT IT FROM THAT POINT OF VIEW 14 TO ME THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT I COULD PICK UP AND SCAN 15 AND SEE THERE TAKE A LOOK AT THE HEADLINES VERY 16 SELDOM WENT DOWN THROUGH THE WHOLE THING 17 Q. DID YOU EXPECT IT TO BE FICTION DID YOU 18 EXPECT IT NOT TO BE TRUE 19 THE COURT EXPECT WHAT 20 MR LOPEZ OBJECTION VAGUE 21 MR TIGERMAN 22 Q. ANY OF THE MATERIAL IN THE BECHTEL BRIEFS DID 23 YOU EXPECT IT ANY OF IT TO BE FICTION 24 THE COURT YOU KNOW SOMETHING MIGHT BE AN 25 ARTICLE DEALING WITH AN OPINION BY SOMEONE 26 MR LOPEZ ESTABLISH -- 27 THE COURT I WILL SUSTAIN THAT OBJECTION 28 MR TIGERMAN 15 Q. DID YOU WHEN YOU READ THE BECHTEL BRIEFS HAVE AN EXPECTATION THAT THE COMPANY WAS IMPARTING TO YOU TRUTHFUL INFORMATION _ MR LOPEZ OBJECTION ASKED AND ANSWERED THE COURT OVERRULED I WILL ALLOW THAT THE WITNESS I HAVE NO WAY OF EVALUATING THAT AT ALL MR TIGERMAN Q. SO YOU DIDN'T EXPECT THAT WHAT WAS IN HERE WAS 10 TO BE ACCEPTED AS TRUE IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING 11 MR LOPEZ OBJECTION VAGUE 12 THE COURT ARGUMENTATIVE HE DIDN'T QUITE 13 SAY THAT 14 THE WITNESS I DID NOT BECAUSE I HAD NO 15 16 17 18 19 20 REASON THE COURT DO YOU BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU READ IN A NEWSPAPER THE WITNESS NO THE COURT ALL RIGHT IN REFERENCE TO THIS BECHTEL NEWSPAPER DID YOU BELIEVE EVERYTHING 2 YOU READ IN THAT 2 THE WITNESS IT WOULD BE THE SAME AS THE 23 NEWSPAPER 24 THE COURT ALL RIGHT LET'S GO ON 25 26 27 28 MR TIGERMAN Q. SIR LET'S TALK ABOUT STEPHEN BECHTEL STEPHEN BECHTEL HE HAS BEEN INVOLVED IN THE HE WAS INVOLVED IN THE BECHTEL ORGANIZATION FOR A LONG TIME WASN'T HE A. YOU TALKING ABOUT -- MR LOPEZ OBJECTION VAGUE THE COURT OVERRULED ~ THE WITNESS --STEPHEN BECHTEL SENIOR MR TIGERMAN Q. YES A. HE WAS INVOLVED FOR A LONG TIME Q. YES A. YES 10 Q. ALL RIGHT ISN'T IT TRUE THAT WHEN YOU CAME ON 11 STEPHEN BECHTEL SENIOR AND WE ARE TALKING ABOUT STEPHEN 12 BECHTEL SENIOR NOW JUST SO THAT WE ARE STRAIGHT THAT 13 STEPHEN BECHTEL SENIOR WAS ALREADY AN OFFICER OR A 14 DIRECTOR IN ONE OF THE BECHTEL ENTITIES 15 A. WHEN I JOINED 16 Q. YES 17 A. YES HE WAS 18 Q. ALL RIGHT ISN'T IT TRUE THAT WHEN THE WAR 19 BROKE OUT HE BECAME THE PRESIDENT OF CALSHIP 20 A. I CANNOT RECALL WHO THE PRESIDENT OF CALSHIP 21 WAS I DON'T KNOW 22 Q. OH ALL RIGHT SIR DO YOU RECALL THAT STEPHEN 23 BECHTEL WAS INVOLVED IN CALSHIP 24 A. WAS INVOLVED 25 Q YES 26 A. WELL I YES HE HAD TO BE INVOLVED IN IT IN 27 SOME WAY 28 Q. WHY DO YOU SAY THAT MCCONE 118 WOULD IT REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION IF I TOLD YOU THAT A. I DO KNOW DO NOT RECALL THAT HE WAS A DIRECTOR AT THAT TIME Q. HE LATER BECAME DIRECTOR THOUGH YOU KNOW THAT A. I DO NOT KNOW THAT Q. YOU DON'T KNOW THAT HE WAS EVER A DIRECTOR 10 A. LET ME EXPLAIN THAT KENNETH BECHTEL HAD HIS OWN 11 BUSINESS IT WAS ANOTHER AN INSURANCE BUSINESS MOST OF 12 HIS TIME WAS THERE AND WHETHER HE BECAME DIRECTOR OF A 13 BECHTEL COMPANY TO SPEAK OF I DO NOT REMEMBER 14 Q. WASN'T HE A DIRECTOR OF BECHTEL CORPORATION AT 15 THE SAME TIME YOU WERE A DIRECTOR OF BECHTEL CORPORATION 16 A. I AM JUST TELLING YOU I DO NOT RECALL HIS 17 BEING THERE 18 Q. LET ME HAVE YOU -- 19 A. COULD BE I DON'T KNOW 20 Q. -- LET ME HAVE YOU LOOK AT PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 21 49 I WILL ASK WHETHER OR NOT DOWN IN THE HAND 22 CORNER THAT CORNER KENNETH BECHTEL 23 A. ALL RIGHT YOU HAVE PROVED THAT HE WAS 24 Q. SO HE WAS A DIRECTOR AT THE SAME TIME YOU 25 WERE RIGHT 26 A. WITHOUT YES APPARENTLY HE WAS BECAUSE WE ARE 27 ON THE SAME PAGE 28 2 AS FAR AS KENNETH BECHTEL GOES SIR ISN'T IT 1f9 TRUE THAT KENNETH BECHTEL WAS IT WAS GENERALLY KNOWN AMONG PEOPLE IN THE CORPORATION THAT KENNETH BECHTEL WAS INVOLVED IN SOME HIGH OFFICIAL CAPACITY OVER AT MARINESHIP DURING THE WAR YEARS MR LOPEZ OBJECTION CALL FOR SPECULATION GENERALLY KNOWN THE COURT SUSTAINED THE WITNESS I HAVE NO INFORMATION ABOUT THAT 10 MR TIGERMAN 11 Q. YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO RECOLLECTION WHETHER OR 12 NOT KENNETH BECHTEL WAS INVOLVED WITH MARINESHIP 13 CORPORATION IS THAT CORRECT 14 A. THAT IS CORRECT 15 Q. DO YOU HAVE ANY INFORMATION SIR ABOUT WHETHER 16 OR NOT MR WASTE WAS INVOLVED IN A WELL DO YOU HAVE ANY 17 KNOWLEDGE ABOUT WHETHER MR WASTE WAS INVOLVED IN SOME 18 MANAGERIAL CAPACITY OVER AT MARINESHIP 19 A. THAT I DON'T KNOW 20 MR LOPEZ OBJECTION ALREADY GONE OVER 21 22 THIS OVER AND OVER THE COURT OVERRULED I WANT TO HEAR THE 23 ANSWER 24 THE WITNESS NO 25 THE COURT ANSWER IS NO 26 MR TIGERMAN 27 Q. MR O'CONNELL ALSO DON'T KNOW WHETHER 28 MR O'CONNELL WAS INVOLVED OVER AT MARINESHIP IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING A. I HAVE SAID THAT AND I WILL SAY AGAIN Q. NOW SIR WHEN THE MARINESHIP CORPORATION WAS FORMED IT HAD THE EXACT SAME OWNERSHIP EXACTLY SAME MANAGERS AS W. A. BECHTEL AND THE MARINESHIP BUILDING DIVISION HAD THE SAME OWNERSHIP A. I DID NOT HAVE ACCESS TO ANY INFORMATION ABOUT THOSE COMPANIES I WAS NOT AT THAT LEVEL IN THE COMPANY AND I KNEW NOTHING ABOUT IT 10 Q. ALL RIGHT AS DIRECTOR AND OFFICER OF THE 11 CORPORATION DID YOU EVER HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO GO BACK TO 12 HISTORICAL DATA FROM THE CORPORATION AND REVIEW SOME OF 13 THAT HISTORICAL DATA AS A PART OF YOUR JOB 14 A. NO I HAVE NEVER DONE THAT 15 Q. YOU NEVER HAD OCCASIONS IN THE COURSE OF YOUR 16 JOB TO FIND OUT WHAT PEOPLE HAD DONE BEFORE YOU SO YOU 17 COULD HAVE SOME CONCEPT 18 A. I DID NOT REMEMBER ANY SUCH THING 19 Q. YOU DIDN'T CONSIDER IT PART OF YOUR JOB TO KNOW 20 THE HISTORY OF THE CORPORATION 21 A. TO A DEGREE BUT NOT TO A GREAT DEGREE WAS MORE 22 CONCERNED WITH WHAT WAS AHEAD 23 Q. ALL RIGHT YOU ALREADY TOLD US FOR EXAMPLE A 24 RAILCAR WAS DONATED TO STEPHEN BECHTEL AT ONE POINT IN 25 TIME BECAUSE THE COMPANY HAD BEEN INVOLVED IN THE RAILROAD . 26 BUSINESS 27 HOW DID YOU COME ABOUT THAT INFORMATION 28 A. I DON'T KNOW THAT THE COMPANY WAS INVOLVED IN 121 THAT AT ALL Q. YOU -- A. LISTEN YOU TALKED ABOUT A COMPANY THIS WAS A TIME WHEN THE BECHTELS WERE W. A. BECHTEL COMPANY AND EVEN BEFORE THAT I DON'T KNOW WHEN W. A. BECHTEL COMPANY STARTED SO SOMETIMES THE FAMILY WAS ALTOGETHER IN DOING THIS BUT IT GOES CLEAR BACK TO THE TURN OF THE CENTURY AND THERE I COULDN'T TELL YOU WHETHER HE WAS AN OFFICER OF 10 ANY COMPANY OR NOT AT THAT TIME 11 Q. ALL RIGHT WERE ALL OF THESE DIFFERENT BECHTEL 12 COMPANIES KNOWN AT VARIOUS TIMES AS PART OF THE BECHTEL 13 ORGANIZATION 14 A. MEANING THEY ARE KNOWN AS THAT 15 Q. YES 16 A. QUITE POSSIBLY KNOWN FOR SUCH THINGS 17 Q. DIDN'T THE OVERHEADS THAT WE SHOWED TO THE 18 JURY IN THAT OVERHEAD IT STATES -- 19 THE COURT TWO MORE MINUTES WE WILL BREAK 20 FOR LUNCH MR TIGERMAN 21 22 23 24 25 MR TIGERMAN Q. --IT SAYS 65TH ANNIVERSARY OF THIS 65TH YEAR OF BECHTEL ORGANIZATION STARTING IN BUSINESS DOES THIS REFRESH YOU THAT PEOPLE USE TO CALL ALL THESE DIFFERENT COMPANIES PART OF THE BECHTEL 26 27 28 ORGANIZATION ORGANIZATION A. IT STARTED IN 1898 AND FROM THERE ON 0 ALL RIGHT IN FACT IN THIS STATEMENT ABOUT THE 122 ANNIVERSARY AT THE BOTTOM IT SAY LITTLE LOGO THAT SAYS WABCO IS THAT THE LOGO THAT WAS USED FOR THE W. A. BECHTEL CORPORATION A. APPARENTLY IT WAS I NEVER SEEN IT BEFORE BUT I WOULD JUDGE THAT THAT'S WHAT IT MEANS Q. YOU NEVER SEEN THAT BEFORE YOURSELF A. NOT THAT I RECALL Q. ALL RIGHT IN THE STATEMENT THAT IT IS THE 65TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE BECHTEL ORGANIZATION STARTING IN 10 BUYS DO YOU HAVE ANY REASON TO DISPUTE THAT STATEMENT AS 11 BEING TRUE 12 A. THE STATEMENT THAT YOU MEAN THIS STATEMENT 13 Q. YES 14 A. I HAVE NO BASIS FOR DISPUTING IT REALLY I 15 DIDN'T KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT IT 16 Q. NOW AS YOU SIT HERE RIGHT NOW DO YOU HAVE ANY 17 REASON TO DISPUTE THE TRUTH OF THAT STATEMENT 18 MR LOPEZ . OBJECTION RELEVANCE YOUR 19 HONOR 20 THE COURT I WILL ALLOW IT 21 THE WITNESS WELL I WOULDN'T HAVE ANY 22 REASON FOR DISPUTING IT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER 23 MR TIGERMAN ALL RIGHT 24 Q. ISN'T IT TRUE SIR THAT WHEN PEOPLE TALK ABOUT 25 ALL THE VARIOUS BECHTEL COMPANIES THEY FREQUENTLY REFER TO 26 IT AS THE BECHTEL ORGANIZATION 27 MR LOPEZ OBJECTION CALLS FOR 28 SPECULATION MR. TIGERMAN WITHIN THE COMPANY, DIDN'T YOU PEOPLE Q. DIDN'T COMPANY THE, MANAGEMENT MAKE COMPANY 3 OFFICERS OFFICERS DIRECTORS 4 REFER REFER TO BECHTEL ORGANIZATION A. SURE 5 TO DIDN'T DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THOSE REFERENCES 6 Q. INCLUDE INCLUDE THE W. BECHTEL COMPANY OF THIS? THAT WOULD OR WOULDN'T BE PART A. THAT 8 THE BECHTEL ORGANIZATION? THAT THAT WAS PART OF 9 Q. THE ONE OF THE BECHTEL IT WAS PART OF A. 10 11 ORGANIZATIONS ORGANIZATIONS -~ BECHTEL SO YOU NEVER 12 Q. SAYS DID THERE WERE SEVERAL A. THEY 13 14 16 17 18 19 ORGANIZATIONS . pO YOU KNOW WHAT Q. 17 BECHTEL WHEN HE SAID THIS IS 18 WAS JUNIOR, WHAT HE WAS |WAS THE 65TH ANNIVERSARY OF WAS TALKING STEPHEN BECHTEL THE 65TH ANNIVERSARY STEPHEN STEPHEN TALKING ABOUT WHEN SAID IT IT THE BECHTEL ORGANIZATION . 20 po YOU KNOW WHICH ORGANIZATION | -- MR. LOPEZ: OBJECTION 21 SUSTAINED THE COURT: OBJECTION 22 OTHER WORDS WORDS WHAT LOPEZ: --SPECULATION 23 I DON'T THE THE QUESTION QUESTION WHAT HE IS SAYING. 24 25 26 27 MR TAKE BREAK wHY DON TAKE A BREAK BREAK T WHY THE THE COURT A DON'T WHY DON'T WE TAKE LUNCH LUNCH 12:15 12:15 BREAK. IT TS 12:15, SEE_YOU BACK AT 01:15 REMEMBER 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 124 MY ADMONITION DON'T TALK ABOUT THIS CASE EXPRESS ANY OPINIONS I UNDERSTAND THAT ONE OF THE JURORS HAVE TO GO WHAT TIME 03:30 HAVE TO GO AT 03:00 ALL RIGHT REMEMBER MY ADMONITION RECESS MR TIGERMAN COULD THE JURORS CAME BACK FIFTEEN MINUTES LATER THE COURT ALL RIGHT SEE YOU BACK AT 01:30 SEE YOU GUYS AT 01:15 OUTSIDE JURORS PRESENCE THE COURT LET THE RECORD REFLECT THE COURT IS IN SESSION THE ATTORNEYS ARE PRESENT AND THE JURY IS NOT PRESENT I AM GOING TO LISTEN TO THIS TESTIMONY UNDER 765. I HAVE ASKED SOME QUESTIONS HOPEFULLY NEUTRAL QUESTIONS JUST TO MOVE THIS THING A LONG THERE APPEARS TO BE SOME RECOLLECTION PROBLEMS ON THE PART OF THE WITNESS CONSIDERING HIS AGE I DON'T EVEN KNOW HIS AGE MR GILBERT 86 MR LOPEZ 86 THE COURT I DON'T KNOW BUT HE APPEARS TO BE AGED A SENIOR CITIZEN IN ANY EVENT CERTAIN EVIDENCE IS BEING ALLOWED HERE AND THIS IS PENDING A MOTION TO STRIKE AS TO ITS RELEVANCE . ALL I WANT TO KNOW IS THIS IN THIS 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 125 NUMBER EXHIBIT 49 THIS WAS ALLOWED ONLY ON THE BASIS OF AN IMPLIED ADMISSION THAT THE BECHTEL ORGANIZATION INCLUDED W. A. BECHTEL COMPANY AND W. H. BECHTEL COMPANY OR WHATEVER RIGHT THAT WILL BE A 403 OF THE EVIDENCE CODE ISSUE RIGHT MR TIGERMAN RIGHT THE COURT NOW BUT IN HEARING YOUR QUESTIONS LET ME ASK YOU THIS THROUGH THIS WITNESS OR ANY OTHER WITNESS ARE YOU GOING TO PROVE A STATUTORY MERGER BETWEEN THESE CORPORATIONS COMPANIES I HAVE THE SHEET OF PAPER HERE THAT INDICATES ALL THE NAMES OF THE CORPORATIONS FROM THE 40'S AND 50'S MR TIGERMAN FROM '45 ON IT IS ADMITTED TO BE THE SAME BY THE DEFENDANTS MR LOPEZ THAT IS THE ONLY REFERENCE TO BECHTEL CORPORATION WHICH CAME INTO EXISTENCE IN 1945 WHICH IS CURRENTLY KNOWN AS SEQUOIA VENTURES ORIGINALLY IT IS BECHTEL BROTHERS MCCONE THE COURT INTERROGATORY NUMBER 3 HAVE YOU EVER BEEN HAVE YOU EVER BEEN IDENTIFIED KNOWN THIS IS THE INTERROGATORIES OF SEQUOIA VENTURES HAVE YOU EVER BEEN KNOWN OR DONE BUSINESS UNDER ANY OTHER NAMES THEY SAID BECHTEL BROTHERS MCCONE BECHTEL CORPORATION AND THEN SEQUOIA . VENTURES 10 11 27 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MR TIGERMAN RIGHT 116 THE COURT THIS STEMS ALL THE WAY TO 1945 MR TIGERMAN RIGHT SO THE ISSUE -- ~ THE COURT ARE YOU TRYING TO SHOW THAT THIS SEQUOIA VENTURES HAD BEEN KNOWN BY BECHTEL CORP OR BECHTEL BROTHERS MCCONE COMPANY THAT THEY WERE ONE AND THE SAME CORPORATION MR TIGERMAN ADMITTED NO THAT IS ALREADY THE COURT ARE YOU SAYING THERE IS AN ADMISSION OF A STATUTORY MERGER MR TIGERMAN NO IT IS AN ADMISSION CONTINUATION MR LOPEZ THAT IS THE SAME COMPANY ALL THOSE COMPANIES ARE THE SAME COMPANY RIGHT THERE THE COURT THESE ARE THE SAME MR LOPEZ THAT'S THE SAME COMPANY 1945 WHAT IS THE DATE ON IT MR TIGERMAN RIGHT '45 THE COURT SEPTEMBER 10 1945 MR LOPEZ THAT IS ONE COMPANY THERE THAT IS NOT -- THE COURT THAT IS NOT CONTESTED DOESN'DTOESN'T HAVE TO PROVE STATUTORY MERGER DEFACTO MERGER ASSET SALE OF ONE COMPANY -- MR LOPEZ IT COME IN EXISTENCE IN 1945 MR TIGERMAN OUR ARGUMENT IS -- MR LOPEZ ANOTHER COMPANY WE HAVE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 127 BEEN - THE COURT WHICH COMPANY ARE THESE MR LOPEZ --WITH A BECHTEL CORP BECHTEL MCCONE PARSONS IS A DIFFERENT COMPANY NOT PART OF SEQUOIA VENTURES ALSO KNOWN AS BECHTEL CORPORATION THE COURT THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE SAYING YOU ARE TRYING TO PROVE THAT THOSE COMPANIES THAT YOU JUST REFERRED TO PRIOR TO 1945 ARE PART AND PARCEL OF THIS COMPANY MR TIGERMAN THAT'S RIGHT YOUR HONOR THE COURT ALL RIGHT NOW ARE YOU DOING IT BY WAY OF STATUTORY MERGER YOU HAVE TO PROVE STATUTORY MERGER OF THOSE PREDECESSOR COMPANIES IN 1945 MR TIGERMAN WHAT I HAVE EVIDENCE OF YOUR HONOR -- THE COURT JUST ANSWER MY QUESTION THOSE --~ MR TIGERMAN NO THE COURT NO STATUTORY MERGER NOW ARE YOU GOING TO SHOW A DEFACTO MERGER MR TIGERMAN I THINK SO THAT IS ONE OF THE ISSUES THE COURT BY DEFACTO MERGER ARE YOU GOING TO W. A -- MR LOPEZ THE COURT W. A. BECHTEL CORP LET ME WRITE THIS DOWN GET IT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 158 TOGETHER THE RECORD WILL SHOW THAT THIS REALLY HASN'T BEEN OUTLINED TO ME W. H -- MR GILBERT W. A. _ MR TIGERMAN A -- THE COURT --A MR TIGERMAN --BECHTEL COMPANY COMPANY THE COURT -BECHTEL COMPANY WHAT OTHER MR TIGERMAN BECHTEL PARSONS MCCONE THE COURT PARSONS MCCONE THESE ARE EXISTED PRIOR TO 1945 ARE YOU GOING TO SHOW THAT W. A. BECHTEL AND BECHTEL PARSONS MCCONE TRANSFERRED THESE ASSETS TO BECHTEL BROTHERS MCCONE COMPANY IN A TRANSACTION RESEMBLING A MERGER ABOUT WHICH WAS CHARACTERIZED AS THE SELLS OF ASSETS FOR PROCEDURAL PURPOSES MR TIGERMAN YES YES THE COURT SO WHICH WITNESS THIS WITNESS MR TIGERMAN THROUGH DOCUMENTS AND THROUGH MR BRIDGES I HOPE THROUGH DOCUMENTS BECAUSE THE DOCUMENTS THE BECHTEL BRIEFS REPEATEDLY REFER TO IT AS A CONSOLIDATION OF THE ORGANIZATION THAT IS WHAT THEY CALLED IT THAT IS WHAT THEY CALLED A CONSOLIDATION THE COURT YES BUT IF A NEWSPAPER USES LANGUAGE DOES THAT INDICATE THAT THAT LITERARY- LANGUAGE HAS LEGAL SIGNIFICANT TO THE POINT THAT IT IS ADMISSION OF A DEFACTO OR STATUTORY MERGER 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 129 MR TIGERMAN THE PERSON WHO WROTE THAT PART OF THE NEWSPAPER IS THE PUBLIC RELATIONS DIRECTOR AND THAT NEWSPAPER IS PUBLISHED BY THE COMPANY FOR THE COMPANY AND THESE ARE STATEMENTS ABOUT THE COMPANY THE COURT YES BUT HE IS TALKING ABOUT 3 GENERATIONS OF BECHTELS SO WE ARE TALKING ABOUT 3 FAMILIES IT APPEARS TO ME WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO DO YOU KNOW YOU HAVE GENERATIONS OF FORDS BUT IT WAS ALL ONE FORD CORPORATION HERE YOU CAN HAVE BECHTELS INVOLVED SPANNING A WHOLE BUNCH OF YEARS BUT DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEANS THAT THE PARTICIPATION OF DIFFERENT GENERATIONS OF BECHTELS IS ONE CORPORATION MR TIGERMAN OF COURSE IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEANS THAT THE QUESTION IS IS THERE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO GO TO THE JURY MR LOPEZ THAT IS ALL HE HAS MR TIGERMAN HOLD ON HOLD ON WHEN HE IS SAYING WE ARE CELEBRATING OUR 65TH ANNIVERSARY - THE COURT ARE THESE THE BECHTELS WHO ARE CELEBRATING THIS OR IS IT HOW ARE THEY CELEBRATING IT ARE THEY CELEBRATING IT AS 3 GENERATIONS OF BECHTELS INVOLVED IN DIFFERENT CORPORATIONS MR TIGERMAN WHAT YOU HAVE SEEN YOUR HONOR SAYS -- 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 130 MR LOPEZ 3 GENERATIONS OVER A THIRD OF A CENTURY MR TIGERMAN WHAT IT SAYS IN REVIEWING OUR BUSINESS HISTORY I AM GRATIFIED BY ADHERENCE TO TWO POLICIES THAT IS TRADITION AT BECHTEL FAIR DEALING GOOD HOUSEKEEPING THE COURT ARE YOU GOING TO HAVE THE EVIDENCE MR TIGERMAN BOTH ARE AS OLD AS THE 65 YEAR BUSINESS THEY ARE TREATING IT AS A SINGLE BUSINESS YOUR HONOR THE ONLY POINT OF IT IS THIS AS FAR AS THE QUESTION OF FACT WHEN THEY PEOPLE WANT TO BRAG THE BUSINESS IS 65 YEARS OLD WHEN THEY ARE SUBJECT TO LIABILITY ALL OF A SUDDEN IT IS THE OTHER -- THE COURT WHAT IS MORE IMPORTANT IS IT IS JUST A NEWSPAPER ARTICLE MR TIGERMAN IT IS NOT IT IS WRITTEN BY THE PRESIDENT THE COURT THAT'S RIGHT AND IS THE PRESIDENT USING THE TERMS THAT WE HAVE BEEN DOING BUSINESS FOR 65 YEARS WITH LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE THAT INDICATES THAT IT IS ONE CORPORATION I MEAN FOR YOU TO PROVE THAT THERE WAS DEFACTO MERGER YOU'VE GOT TO PROVE THAT BY OTHER THAN AN STATEMENT MADE BY AN OFFICER OF SEQUOIA OR BECHTEL CORPORATION 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1331 YOU'VE GOT TO PROVE THAT THERE WAS AN ACQUIRING OF THE CORPORATION USED IT OWN STOCK AS CONSIDERATION RATHER THAN CASH OR PROMISSORY NOTES _ THE FACT THAT HE ACQUIRED THE CORPORATION OF W. A. BECHTEL CORPORATION AND BECHTEL PARSONS MCCONE WAS REQUIRED TO DISSOLVE ON ITS ACQUISITION THE FACT THAT THESE ACQUIRING CORPORATION W. A. BECHTEL COMPANY AND BECHTEL PARSONS MCCONE WAS MERGED INTO ACQUIRING CORPORATIONS AFTER ITS STOCK HAD BEEN ACQUIRED AND IN FACT THAT THE ASSETS OF THE LARGER CORPORATION WAS BEING PURCHASED BY THE SMALLER CORPORATION I MEAN THERE IS A LOT OF THINGS TO COVER SO WHAT I AM SAYING IS THIS EVIDENCE THAT I AM HEARING IS FOR THE PURPOSES OF SHOWING AN ALTERED EGO MR TIGERMAN YES THE COURT I HAVE NOT READ ANYTHING THAT - ALTERED EGO THE MERE FACT THAT SOME OF THIS ALL THE OFFICER ARE THE ONLY ONES WHO OWN THE CORPORATION DOESN'T APPEAR TO BE THAT TYPE OF ALTERED EGO MR TIGERMAN THAT'S ONLY A FACTOR THE ISSUE OF OWNERSHIP IS BECAUSE UNDER ALTER EGO YOU NEED BOTH OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL SO THAT GOES TO OWNERSHIP WHO OWNS IT SO THAT THAT'S ISSUE THE COURT YOU NEED MORE THAN THAT YOU HAVE OWNERSHIP CONTROL AND YOU HAVE TO SHOW SOME 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 132 INEQUITIES MR TIGERMAN YES INEQUITIES THE COURT THIS IS USUALLY USED TO PIERCE THE CORPORATE VEIL FOR THE BASIS OF LIABILITIES MR TIGERMAN RIGHT MR LOPEZ NOT KNOWLEDGE MR TIGERMAN INEQUITY HERE IS TO ALLOW THIS ORGANIZATION TO HAVE THE PEOPLE ON ITS PAYROLL THAT ACQUIRED KNOWLEDGE ABOUT HAZARDS AND THEN TO DISAVOW THAT THAT IS THE KNOWLEDGE OF THIS CORPORATION WOULD BE INEQUITABLE IN THE WORDS HARRY WARTNICK FOUND OUT ABOUT IT WHILE WE WERE CARTWRIGHT AS MEMBERS OF THE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE THAT THAT PARTICULAR EMPLOYEE WAS SEXUALLY HARASSED AT OUR OTHER COMPANY AS AN EMPLOYEE AND THEY THEN STARTED OUR WARTNICK CHABER FIRM WE REHIRED THAT EMPLOYEE IT WOULD NOT BEHOVE HARRY WARTNICK TO SAYS WELL GEE THE KNOWLEDGE WE HAD ABOUT -- MR LOPEZ DIFFERENT THEORY THE COURT DIFFERENT THEORY CAN'T DO IT ON ULTRA EGO DON'T YOU TELL ME THAT YOU AS A SENIOR PARTNER IN YOUR PRESENT FIRM WAS THE ULTRA EGO OF CARTWRIGHT MR TIGERMAN IMPUTED KNOWLEDGE I HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE CORPORATION I HAVE KNOWLEDGE of WARTNICK 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 133 THE COURT I AM ONLY ADDRESSING THE ISSUE OF ALTER EGO MR TIGERMAN I UNDERSTAND WHAT EVIDENCE WILL HAVE ALTER EGO OTHER THAN WHAT YOU HAVE ADMITTED HERE MR TIGERMAN OTHER THAN ADMISSION SAME ORGANIZATION SAME BUSINESS IT SAYS WE ARE THE SOME BUSINESS OUR BUSINESS IS 65 YEARS OLD IT IS AN ADMISSION THE COURT I AM READY TO RULE AT THIS TIME UNLESS YOU HAVE OTHER EVIDENCE THE ALTER EGO THEORY CANNOT BE USED FOR THE PURPOSES OF INDICATING AFTER ACQUIRED KNOWLEDGE ON THE PART OF BECHTEL CORPORATION MR TIGERMAN I INTEND TO TRY TO DRAW THAT OUT OF MR BRIDGES THE COURT ON ALTER EGO MR TIGERMAN MR BRIDGES WAS THE LAWYER FOR ALL THE ORGANIZATION HE WAS ALSO A DIRECTOR THE COURT NUMBER TWO SINGLE ENTERPRISE THEORY NOW PROCEEDING ON THE SINGLE ENTERPRISE THEORY WHAT ELEMENTS MUST BE SHOWN MR TIGERMAN THE ELEMENTS OF SINGLE ENTERPRISE THEORY ARE YOUR HONOR THAT THERE ARE MORE THAN ONE ENTITY THAT HAS AN UNITY OF INTERESTS A UNITY OF OWNERSHIP SUCH THAT SEPARATENESS OF THE CORPORATION HAS IN EFFECT CEASED TO EXIST UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES IT WOULD BE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 2 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 134 INEQUITABLE TO A UNIT IN INTEREST AND OWNERSHIP SUCH THAT SEPARATENESS HAS CEASED TO EXIST THAT'S ALSO WHAT THIS 65 YEAR OLD BUSINESS STATEMENT GOES TO IT SHOWS THAT THERE IS A UNIT OF INTEREST IN TERMS OF THEIR VIEW POINT THEY VIEW THESE ALL AS BEING A SINGLE ENTITY MR LOPEZ YOU KNOW HE HASN'T EVEN COME CLOSE TO TELLING USE WHO OWN THE HE SAYS BECHTEL HAS SOME INTERESTS IN IT OR SOME BECHTEL COMPANY HAS SOME INTEREST HE HASN'T EVEN GOT TO WHO MARINESHIP IS HOW CAN WE EVEN BEGIN TO BELIEF THAT IF BECHTEL ONE BECHTEL ENTITY HAD SOME INTEREST THAT A LATER BECHTEL CORPORATION AT A POINT OF INTEREST WOULD BE LIABLE UNDER SOME ENTERPRISE THEORY I HAVE THE SAME PROBLEM MR TIGERMAN THEY HAD IDENTITY THE COURT ARE YOU GOING TO BE ASKING HIM QUESTIONS MR LOPEZ NOT ON THAT I AM GOING TO ASK HIM ABOUT HIS AGE MR TIGERMAN THIS HISTORY OF W. A. BECHTEL STARTED -- THE COURT ARE YOU GOING TO BE ABLE TO PROVE THIS MR TIGERMAN I AM GOING TO TRY YOUR HONOR THAT IS WHY I AM BRINGING IN BRIDGES THAT IS 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 WHY I AM OFFERING THESE DOCUMENTS MR LOPEZ THESE DOCUMENTS DON'T PROVE THE HISTORY - MR TIGERMAN BY THE WAY YOUR HONOR THE COURT I CAN'T I DON'T KNOW THAT BUT I THINK I NEED AN OFFER OF PROOF FOR BRINGING THE . DOCUMENTS MR LOPEZ WE HAVE GIVEN YOU IN OUR JUNE 26 1995 DECLARATION OF JAMES J. OCCUTATE PHONETICALLY THE CORPORATE DOCUMENTS RELATED TO MARINESHIP AND BECHTEL CORPORATION SO WE HAVE GIVEN THE COURT THE LEGAL DOCUMENTS FROM THE SECRETARY OF STATE AND WHAT HE HAS IS SIMPLY SOME REFERENCE TO BECHTEL ORGANIZATION THE BECHTEL BRIEFS AND THAT'S IT MR TIGERMAN I HAVE REFERENCES TO THE FACT THAT W. A. BECHTEL BUILT THE SHIPYARD AT MARINESHIP THEY SET UP A MARINESHIP DIVISION RIGHT BEFORE THE MEETING OCCURRED THEY FORMED AN MARINESHIP CORPORATION THE MARINESHIP CORPORATION HAD THE SAME OWNERS AND SAME MANAGERS AND SAME DIRECTORS AS THOSE PEOPLE WHO WERE RUNNING THE W. A. BECHTEL MARINESHIP DIVISION SO THE FACT THAT THE NEW CORPORATION WAS SET UP IS IRRELEVANT BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE SAME OWNERS THEY HAVE THE SAME MANAGERS MR LOPEZ TELL US WHO THAT IS 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MR TIGERMAN WELL I AM GOING TO GET THAT OUT OF BRIDGES BUT IT IS IN -- . MR LOPEZ DO YOU KNOW _ MR TIGERMAN YOUR HONOR IT IS IN THE DOCUMENTS OKAY IF THE DOCUMENTS DON'T COME IN THAT'S FINE THEN I HAVEN'T PROVEN MY CASE IF I CAN'T GET IT OUT OF BRIDGES THAT IS FINE THE COURT MR BRIDGES GOING TO BE HERE TOMORROW MR TIGERMAN IF WE HAD ACCORDING TO MR PLACIER MR LOPEZ WE STILL HAVE THE ISSUE TO ADDRESS WITH THE COURT OF THE MEDICAL CONDITION OF WHETHER HE CAN EVEN TESTIFY BUT WEDNESDAY WOULD BE THE DATE MR TIGERMAN NOW MR BRIDGES WAS LEGAL ADVISOR FOR ALL THOSE YEARS AND I HAVE A GOOD FAITH BASIS FOR ASKING THIS BECAUSE I HAVE DOCUMENTS THAT SAYS -- MR LOPEZ HE HAS -- MR TIGERMAN OWNERS AND MANAGERS MR LOPEZ HE WOULDN'T EVEN GO LOOK AT THE CORPORATION DOCUMENTS FIGURE OUT MAKE AN OFFER OF PROOF TO THE COURT I THINK YOU HAVE TO GET UP HERE AND MAKE AN OFFER OF PROOF THE COURT HERE IS WHAT I AM GOING TO SAY 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 137 IT DOESN'T APPEAR THROUGH THIS WITNESS THAT WE HAVE HERE THAT YOU ARE SHOWING A SINGLE ENTERPRISE THEORY OR YOU ARE SHOWING AN ALTER EGO _ MR TIGERMAN WELL THIS WITNESS ISN'T GOING TO MAKE IT THAT'S FOR SURE THE COURT MOST OF YOUR QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN IN REFERENCE TO ALL THE OFFICERS HAD STOCK ALL THE OFFICERS HAD STOCK TO ME IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU ARE GETTING INTO ALTER EGO MR TIGERMAN RIGHT I AM TRYING TO PROVE OWNERSHIP BUT CAN WE GET ONTO THE DOCUMENTS I INTEND TO USE WITH THE WITNESS SO WE CAN SHORTCUT -- MR LOPEZ I MEAN THIS IS IMPORTANT WE OUGHT TO KNOW WHERE THIS IS GOING WHICH IS CONSUMING AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF TIME FOR THE COURT AND THE JURY THE COURT FOR ME SO FAR IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS GOING TO IMPLIED ADMISSION MR LOPEZ WHY CAN'T WE MAKE HIM MAKE AN OFFER OF PROOF RIGHT NOW GET -- THE COURT HE IS DOING IT THROUGH THE RECORDS LET'S SEE MR TIGERMAN ALL RIGHT FIRST OF ALL YOUR HONOR I INTEND TO USE PAGE 1402 OF THE BECHTEL BRIEFS IT IS THE OBITUARY I WILL HAND YOU THE DOCUMENTS MR LOPEZ WHAT IS THE BATES STAMP 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 158 MR TIGERMAN 1402 MR LOPEZ 1402 MR TIGERMAN THEY ARE IN ORDER YOUR HONOR YOUR HONOR SEE THE BATES STAMP NUMBERS I WILL GIVE A HARD COPY THE COURT WHY DON'T YOU DO IT BEFORE WE PICK GET THE JURY 1402. I HAVE 1402 MR TIGERMAN 7 PARAGRAPHS DOWN IN GEORGE EDWARD WALLING OBITUARY WHICH YOU SEE DURING THE WAR YEARS DURING THE WAR YEARS HE SERVED IN A DIRECTOR OR AN ADVISORY CAPACITY ON THE ORGANIZATIONS PRIME WAR TIME PROJECT INCLUDING CALSHIP MARINESHIP AND SO ON IT READS ON NOW THIS IS AN OBITUARY PUBLISHED THIS IS A COMPANY AUTHORIZED NEWSLETTER BY THEIR PUBLIC RELATIONS DEPARTMENT BY THOSE AUTHORIZED TO SPEAK ON THE PART OF THE CORPORATION AND IT SAYS RIGHT IN IT THAT THE ORGANIZATION'S PRIME WAR TIME PARTNERS -- THE COURT WHO WROTE THIS ARTICLE MR TIGERMAN ONE OF THE PEOPLE THE QUESTION IS -- THE COURT HOW DO YOU KNOW IT WASN'T A FAMILY MEMBER THAT CONTRIBUTED THIS OBITUARY HOW DO WE KNOW IT WASN'T THE MORTICIAN MR TIGERMAN DOESN'T MATTER WHO CONTRIBUTED WHAT MATTERS IS THAT IT WAS PUBLISHED BY BECHTEL UNDER THE AUSPICES OF THE PUBLIC RELATIONS 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 140 THE COURT HE REQUEST WHETHER OR NOT YOUR CLIENT COULD ADOPTED THIS MR LOPEZ WELL -- _ MR TIGERMAN THIS WAS 1961 THE COURT ALL RIGHT THIS GOES TO 403 AS FAR AS SUFFICIENCY NOT ON THE BASIS OF ALTER EGO NOT ON THE BASIS OF -- MR LOPEZ ENTERPRISE THE COURT --A SINGLE ENTERPRISE STATUTORY DEFACTO MERGER ONLY ON THE BASIS OF WHETHER IT IS AN AUTHORIZED ADMISSION RIGHT MR TIGERMAN RIGHT THE COURT WHAT IS THE NEXT ONE MR TIGERMAN NEXT ONE IS INSTALLMENT MR LOPEZ IS HE GOING TO SITE THIS SHOW THAT TO THE WITNESS THE WITNESS ISN'T GOING TO HAVE ANY RECOLLECTION OF THAT WHY HE CAN ASK HIM THE QUESTION DOES HE RECALL SHOW IT TO HIM BUT THEN JUST WANT TO GET UP PUBLISH IT DOESN'T HE CAN DO THAT LATER DON'T HAVE TO DO IT WITH THIS WITNESS THIS WITNESS DOESN'T HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE THE COURT DON'T HAVE TO DO IT WITH THIS WITNESS MR LOPEZ HE ALREADY ESTABLISHED - MR TIGERMAN CAN I DO IT AT ANY TIME PLEASE YOUR HONOR MR LOPEZ IT IS UNDUE CONSUMPTION OF 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TIME MR TIGERMAN GOING TO CONSUME TIME LATER IF IT DOESN'T CONSUME IT NOW - THE COURT PUT IT OFF I WILL LET HIM PUT IT ON NEXT MR TIGERMAN NEXT ONE YOUR HONOR IS FROM PAGE 1293 OF THE BECHTEL BRIEFS THE COURT YOU HAVE ANYMORE OF THESE MR TIGERMAN FOUR OF THEM OR FIVE THE COURT WHAT IS LEAD MR TIGERMAN IT IS TOWARD THE FRONT THEY ARE IN ORDER MR LOPEZ WHAT NUMBER YOUR HONOR MR GILBERT 293 THE COURT YOU OWE ME TIGERMAN MR TIGERMAN SORRY THE COURT . I SUPPOSE TO MAKE GOOD DECISIONS ON THIS TIME STUFF RIGHT NOW 29 -- MR TIGERMAN WHAT 293 MR LOPEZ ON THIS BY THE WAY THIS IS A REPRINT OF BOOKS I TAKE IT IN THE BECHTEL BRIEFS SO NOW -- MR TIGERMAN THAT'S CORRECT THEY TOOK BOOKS AND THEY PUBLISHED IT IN THEIR NEWSLETTERS MR LOPEZ NOW WE HAVE HEARSAY ON HEARSAY YOUR HONOR MR TIGERMAN NO ON - 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MR LOPEZ SURE WE DO MR TIGERMAN BOOK WAS PUBLISHED IN THE NEWSLETTER IT SAYS BECHTEL BRIEFS IS PRIVILEGED TO PRESENT IN A SERIES OF INSTALLMENTS A BOOK PUBLISHED BY HIS FAMILY WRITTEN AND COPYRIGHTED BY ROBERT L. INGRAM SAYS THAT RIGHT ON THE RIGHT BOTTOM HE FACT HE TOOK THE BOOK PUBLISHED IT IN HIS OWN INTERNAL NEWSLETTER THIS MAKE IT AN ADOPTED ADMISSION EXPRESSED ADMISSION THE COURT WHAT DO YOU WANT -- MR TIGERMAN BOTTOM OF THE FIRST COLUMN THE LAST SENTENCE OF THAT COLUMN BECHTEL SPONSORED YARDS DELIVERED 570 SHIPS MR LOPEZ WHAT IS THAT MR TIGERMAN THEN LET'S GO TO THE NEXT PARAGRAPH A GROUP OF TWO BIG PACIFIC COMPANY YARDS DESIGNED BUILT AND OPERATED BY BECHTEL INTEREST INVITES SPECIAL ATTENTION MR GILBERT SO WHAT BECHTEL INTEREST WHAT DOES THAT PROVE IN TERMS OF WHAT ENTITIES WERE --DOESN'T GO TO ANY OF THAT HE CAN PUBLISH THIS LATER ON WE ARE JUST GOING TO BE USING A WITNESS WHO DOESN'TDOESN'T HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE OF THIS TO SITE THIS AND LIKE LET HIM READ THIS ASK THE WITNESS DO YOU KNOW AND HE WILL SAYS I DON'T KNOW THE COURT DOESN'T SHOW INTEREST MR TIGERMAN IT SAID THERE WERE SPECS 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 2 2 2 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 143 BECHTEL SPONSORED YARDS MR GILBERT WHAT DOES SPONSORED MEAN MR TIGERMAN TWO SPECS DELIVERED 570 SHIP THEY SAID THEY HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS YOUR HONOR MR GILBERT WE HAVE SAID ANYTHING MR GILBERT IT IS A WAR SPONSORED LITTLE LEAGUE TEAM THE COURT WHAT IS THE NEXT ONE MR TIGERMAN 3 AND 4 NEXT CHAPTER MR O'CONNELL AND PROVES WHO HE WAS MR GILBERT WHAT NUMBER MR TIGERMAN PAGE 3 AND 4 THE COURT ALL RIGHT MR TIGERMAN FIRST COLUMN TEN STARTING TEN LINES FROM THE BOTTOM OF THE FIRST COLUMN WITH THE WORD " CERTAINLY CERTAINLY JOHN O'CONNELL WHO WAS THERE AND - TO LOOKED AT LABOR RELATIONS UNDER HEINY HEINMARK GOT OFF TO A GOOD START MARINESHIP'S HEALTHY LABOR CLIMATE so IT GOES TO SHOW THAT JOHN O'CONNELL WAS AT MARINESHIP AND HE WAS INVOLVED WITH THE LABOR . DEPARTMENT MR GILBERT LET ME SEE HOW THIS WORKS WE GOT A BOOK WHERE THE AUTHOR HAS PROBABLE GONE OUT TAKEN OUT OF COURT STATEMENTS FROM A THIRD PARTY TO WRITE A BOOK AND PUBLISH A BOOK THEN COMES OUT OF 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 22 22 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 144 COURT STATEMENT BY AN AUTHOR IN A BOOK IS THEN REPUBLISHED IN A NEWSPAPER OF GENERAL INTEREST FOR THE EMPLOYEES AND ALL OF A SUDDEN THAT HAS MET THE TEST OF DOUBLE HEARSAY AND OUGHT TO COME IN THE COURT NO THAT PREVIOUS ARTICLE PREVIOUS PAGE BEFORE THIS ONE MR TIGERMAN YES THE COURT THAT'S OUT THIS ONE ANYTHING ELSE MR TIGERMAN YES YOUR HONOR IN FACT JUST BY WAY OF BACKGROUND NOW WHERE DID THE INFORMATION FOR THIS ARTICLE COME FROM CAME FROM THE INTERVIEW WITH BOB BRIDGES THAT IS WHAT THE ARTICLE SAYS AT THE VERY BEGINNING VERY FIRST INSTALLMENT SAID I GOT ALL THIS INFORMATION FROM BOB BRIDGES WHO IS DIRECTOR HE WAS THERE THE COURT GOT THAT I HAVE BOB BRIDGES MR TIGERMAN HE IS COMING UP -- THE COURT THAT IS OUT TO MR TIGERMAN HE COMES IN -- THE COURT THIS IS OUT THROUGH THIS WITNESS OUT MR TIGERMAN THROUGH THIS WITNESS OKAY THE NEXT ONE YOUR HONOR IS ON PAGE 2227. IT IS WAY BACK TOWARD THE BACK THE COURT IN THE BACK MR TIGERMAN YES 2227 THE COURT IN FRONT OR BACK 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 15 MR TIGERMAN THEY ARE IN ORDER 2227 IS TWO THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED TWENTY THE COURT OH OH OH SHOW MY STATE OF CONFUSION I AM TRYING TO FIND A PAGE THAT'S 2000 ALL RIGHT 2227 MR TIGERMAN GREAT MOMENTS FROM HISTORY THE COURT YES MR TIGERMAN UNDER THE CUTTING PRODUCTS PRODUCTION MANAGER EXCELS IN THE SECOND COLUMN YOU SEE THAT HEADING THE COURT HUH MR TIGERMAN SECOND PARAGRAPH BELOW THAT HUNDREDS OF OTHERS IN BECHTEL CORPORATION ALUMNAE OF GREAT SHIPYARDS ACCORDING TO ESTIMATE BY WASTE SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT JOHN O'CONNELL FOR ONE WAS LABOR RELATIONS EXPERT AT MARINESHIP IT IS TO PROVE WHO MR O'CONNELL WAS AND WHAT HE DID AT MARINESHIP ON THE IN THE IN THE - ISSUE OF WHETHER OR NOT THE IMPUTED KNOWLEDGE THAT O'CONNELL O'CONNELL ACQUIRED AS LABOR RELATIONS EXPERT AT ONE PLACE GOES TO THE NEXT PLACE AT WHICH HE IS A LABOR RELATIONS EXPERT MR GILBERT HOLD IT AN IT IS CLEARLY HEARSAY AGAIN THE COURT IT IS AN ADMISSION AGAIN MR GILBERT HEARSAY AND HE CAN ASK THIS WITNESS IN HE FACT HE ALREADY ASKED THIS WITNESS TO USE THIS DOCUMENT THIS WITNESS HAS ALREADY SAID - 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 146 THE COURT THIS WILL BE ADMITTED ALL RIGHT THIS ON 403 ON SUFFICIENCY THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE TO DECIDE THIS WHETHER THERE IS AN AUTHORIZED ADMISSION BY WASTE MR GILBERT BUT YOUR HONOR THIS WITNESS HAS ALREADY TESTIFIED TO WHAT HE KNOWS ABOUT THAT ALL HE CAN USE THIS FOR IS TO REFRESH HIS RECOLLECTION THIS WITNESS IS NOT GOING TO HAVE ANY RECOLLECTION OF THIS THE COURT I DON'T KNOW THAT UNTIL THE WITNESS TAKES THE STAND MR GILBERT YOUR HONOR HE TESTIFIED THE WHOLE MORNING HE HAD A BAD MEMORY HE DIDN'T HAVE REMEMBER THE BECHTEL BRIEFS HE ALREADY ASKED ABOUT JOHN O'CONNELL O'CONNELL THE COURT HIS MEMORY WAS JOGGED WITH PICTURES MR GILBERT I WOULD SUGGEST THEN ALL HE - BE ALLOWED TO DO IS SHOW HIM THIS THE COURT WE LET'S START THAT WAY THEN WE WILL SEE WHERE WE GO MR GILBERT NO REASON TO BE PUBLISHING THIS THROUGH THE WITNESS DO IT LATER GET IT IN ANOTHER WAY MR TIGERMAN I SHOULD GET TO PUBLISH IT THE COURT I WILL RULE FROM THE BENCH ON THIS GET THE JURY IN THAT IT IS WHAT YOU HAVE WITH THESE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 147 MR TIGERMAN LAST LITTLE THING YOUR HONOR I CAN JUST SEE IF THESE REFRESH HIS RECOLLECTION BUT WHAT YOU I HAVE HERE YOU HAVE I THE EXCERPTS WHERE THEY ANNOUNCED EVERY ONE HAVE OF THOSE JOBS AT AVON ASSOCIATED CREW UNITS GOES ON STREAM AS REFORMER ONE OF THEM ANOTHER ONE CATALYTIC EXPANDED READY BY SECOND PHASE TIDEWATER THE COURT BRING IN THE JURY MR LOPEZ WE HAVE GOT ANOTHER ISSUE MR GILBERT WE HAVE ONE FELL THROUGH ONE JUROR -- MR TIGERMAN ONE JUROR WAS WALKING WELL HOW HOW IS A MEMBER OF THE FAMILY SOMETHING LIKE THAT MR GILBERT LET ME CLEAR THIS DAVID MULFER DAVID CORPORATION MULFER IS INHOUSE LAWYER AT BECHTEL AS I UNDERSTAND WHAT HAPPENED DAVID CAN EXPLAIN IT FOR THE COURT JUROR ALTERNATE NUMBER TWO I BELIEVE MRS HANLIN ELDERLY LADY WALKED UP TO DAVID AND SAID ARE YOU -MR MULFER AT THE LUNCH RECESS YOUR HONOR I WAS SEATED HERE MS ARE YOU DAVID MULFER I SAID HANLIN CAME UP SAID YES I AM SHE SAID I AM SARAH HANLIN'S MOTHER SARAH HANLIN WAS A SCHOOL MATE 20 30 YEARS AGO OF ONE OF MY SISTERS I SAID IT IS NICE O SEE YOU I CAN'T TALK TO YOU PLEASE SAYS HI TO SARAH AND THAT WAS THE END 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 148 OF THE CONVERSATION MR TIGERMAN RIGHT PLEASE SAYS HI TO SARAH WAS A PROBLEM ~ THE COURT WHAT YOU WANT ME TO DO NOW MR GILBERT THINK WE OUGHT TO SHOOT HIM RIGHT NOW MR TIGERMAN THIS IS THE SAME JUROR WHO KNEW THE THELEN FAMILY MR GILBERT WELL NO NO SHE GOT KICKED OFF MR TIGERMAN THEN I AM CONFUSED THE MR COURT WANT TO TIGERMAN NO BRING THE JURY YOUR HONOR I IN THINK THAT -- THE COURT I WILL IF YOU WANT ME TO YOU THINK THAT MAYBE THIS IS A PROBLEM MR TIGERMAN IT MAKES ME WONDER WHETHER OR NOT ONCE SHE KNOWHSE IS ASSOCIATED WITH BECHTEL THERE MIGHT BE SOME BIAS CREATED WE CAN DO THAT AT THE END OF THE DAY THE COURT NOT NOW I DON'T WANT ANY STALLING NO WAY NO WAY I AM NOT SUGGESTING YOU WANT TO STALL MR TIGERMAN I AM STALLING IS WHAT WE ARE SAYING THE COURT THAT IS THE WAY I AM PUTTING IT ON THE RECORD I AM NOT SUGGESTING YOU WANT TO STALL I AM JUST SAYING I DON'T WANT TO STALL OKAY MR TIGERMAN OKAY THE COURT LET'S BRING THE JURY IN - MR GILBERT I HAVE TO RUN TO THE RESTROOM BACK IN A SECOND THE COURT LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT THE WITNESS IS BACK ON THE STAND REMEMBER YOU HAVE BEEN SWORN JURY IS PRESENT MR TIGERMAN 10 Q. ALL RIGHT SIR I WOULD JUST LIKE TO ASK YOU 11 ABOUT A COUPLE OF NAMES SEE IF YOU RECOGNIZE THEM DO 12 YOU RECOGNIZE THE NAME OF EDGAR GOLDSTEIN 13 A. EDGAR GOLDSTEIN 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Q. A. Q. Q. Q. Q. GOLDSTEIN I DO NOT RECALL IT DO YOU RECOGNIZE THE NAME CLARENCE MAYHEW NO WHAT ABOUT LAWRENCE MILLER NO JOHN F. O'CONNELL YOU RECOGNIZE CORRECT YES BARON SCHNEIDER 23 24 25 26 27 28 NO A. AND MR VANDORAN W S VANDORAN NO Q. DO YOU RECOGNIZE THE NAME OF MR R L HAMILTON A. RO RO Q. RL HAMILTON 150 A. HAMILTON NO Q. WHAT ABOUT GRAMOBOW RF RF GRAMOBOW A OW A. ~ YES Q. WHAT DO YOU KNOW HIM FROM A. WELL HE WORKED IN THE SAME COMPANY THAT I DID AND UNDER ME AT ONE POINT I DON'T REMEMBER WHEN IT WAS BUT BUT ONE -THE COURT WHAT WAS THE NAME OF THAT 10 COMPANY. 11 THE WITNESS WELL IT SEEMS TO ME 12 BECHTEL BECHTEL ONLY THERE WERE 3 NAMES I SAID IT 13 5 TIMES TODAY OR MORE I CAN'T SAY IT AGAIN THE 14 ONE THE ONE WHEN HE WENT TO WORK THERE THE NAME IN 15 1937 16 THE COURT WHAT WAS THAT 17 THE WITNESS BECHTEL MCCONE BECHTEL 18 MCCONE PARSONS 19 THE COURT BECHTEL PARSONS MCCONE 20 THE WITNESS BECHTEL MCCONE PARSONS 21 22 23 24 CORPORATION. MR TIGERMAN RIGHT Q. HE WORKED THERE WHEN YOU WERE THERE A. I BELIEVE HE DID I AM NOT SURE I AM NOT 25 POSITIVE BUT I BELIEVE HE WAS 26 Q. DID HE CONTINUE TO WORK FOR THE BECHTEL 27 ORGANIZATION AFTER THAT 28 A. YES FOR QUITE AWHILE ra 151 Q. DID HE CONTINUE TO WORK INTO THE LATE AFTER THE WAR YEARS A. HUH Q. - YES YOU HAVE TO SAY YES FOR THE REPORTER A. YES Q. DO YOU KNOW WHAT JOB HE DID AFTER THE WAR YEARS A. NO Q. OKAY DID YOU EVER COME TO FIND OUT 10 MR GRAMOBOW WAS ON THE OPERATING COMMITTEE AT MARINESHIP 11 A. AU WHAT ABOUT IT 12 Q. DID YOU EVER COME TO KNOW THAT HE WAS WORKING 13 AT MARINESHIP 14 15 16 17 A. NO I DID NOT KNOW THAT Q. ALL RIGHT SO YOU KNEW YOU KNEW HIM OR YOU KNEW ABOUT HIM BEFORE THE WAR AND YOU KNOW WHAT HE DID AFTER THE WAR BUT YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT HE DID DURING THE 18 19 20 21 22 WAR A. I CAN'T RECALL NOW WHAT HE DID DURING THE WAR HE DID OPERATE SOMETIME WITH ME BETWEEN THE WAR TIME AND THE TIME I LEFT BUT I DON'T REMEMBER NOW WHAT HE DID Q. OKAY DID HE WORK UNDER YOU IN ANY OF YOUR 23 ENDEAVORS AT THE BECHTEL ORGANIZATION 24 A. NOT DIRECTLY TO ME 25 Q. INDIRECTLY 26 A. INDIRECTLY 27 Q. WHAT WAS WHAT DID HE DO UNDER YOU AT THE 28 BECHTEL ORGANIZATION 152 A. THAT IS WHAT I JUST SAID I DO NOT RECALL Q. YOU DON'T RECALL A. NOT RECALL NOT Q. - OKAY STRIKE THAT KENNETH BECHTEL DO YOU KNOW WHETHER OR DO YOU KNOW ABOUT WHAT DECADE KENNETH BECHTEL BECAME AN OFFICER OR DIRECTOR OF ANY OF THE BECHTEL ENTITIES A. I DO NOT KNOW WHEN AND I JUST DON'T RECALL Q. OH ALL RIGHT YOU THINK IT GOES BACK AS FAR 10 BACK AS THE 40'S THAT KENNETH BECHTEL WAS DIRECTOR OF THE 11 BECHTEL ORGANIZATION A DIRECTOR OF PART OF THE BECHTEL 12 ORGANIZATION 13 MR LOPEZ OBJECTION VAGUE 14 THE COURT SUSTAINED 15 THE WITNESS I DON'T KNOW 16 THE COURT LET'S GET THIS STRAIGHT I 17 WHEN YOU FIRST WENT TO WORK YOU WENT TO WORK FOR 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 BECHTEL PARSONS MCCONE THE WITNESS BECHTEL MCCONE PARSONS IS MY RECOLLECTION OF THE NAME OF THE COMPANY THE COURT WHAT YEAR WAS THAT THE WITNESS 1937 THE COURT ALL RIGHT DID YOU REMAIN EMPLOYED BY BECHTEL MCCONE PARSONS UNTIL YOU 25 26 27 28 RETIRED THE WITNESS NO THE COURT WHAT HAPPENED THE WITNESS I WAS THERE ALL THROUGH THE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 153 WAR YEARS AND THEN AFTER THE WAR YEARS BECHTEL MCCONE PARSONS CORPORATION WAS IT STOPPED IT BECAME A NEW COMPANY IT AS I RECALL IT WAS BECHTEL MCCONE BECHTEL CORPORATION BECHTEL MCCONE PARSONS THE COURT BECHTEL MCCONE PARSONS YOU STARTED WITH IN 1937 THE WITNESS BECHTEL MCCONE PARSONS I STARTED IN 1937 THE COURT YES THE WITNESS AND STAYED THROUGHOUT THE WAR UNTIL THE TIME THAT THAT COMPANY WAS -THE COURT WERE YOU AN OFFICER AT THAT TIME THE WITNESS NO INDEED I WAS AN ENGINEER PRIMARILY THE COURT SO YOU ARE NOT AN OFFICER OF BECHTEL MCCONE PARSONS THE WITNESS NO THE COURT BUT LATER ON YOU BECAME ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF WHAT CORPORATION THE WITNESS BECHTEL CORPORATION I BELIEVE I AM CORRECT IN THAT I CAN'T SAY POSITIVE BUT I BELIEVE IT WAS BECHTEL THE COURT IN YOUR WORK FROM 1937 HOW MUCH WERE THERE ANY NAME CHANGES OR WHAT WAS THE NAME OF THE DIFFERENT COMPANIES YOU WORKED FOR THE WITNESS I KNOW OTHER THAN THE ONE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 THAT I WAS -THE COURT THAT WAS BECHTEL MCCONE PARSONS _ THE WITNESS YES THE COURT AND THEN WHAT WAS THE OTHER NAME THE WITNESS I DIDN'T WORK FOR ANY OTHER CORPORATION THAT I KNOW OF I CAN'T RECALL IT THE COURT YOU KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT BECHTEL MCCONE PARSONS UNDERWENT A MERGER WITH ANOTHER CORPORATION TO BECOME A NEW CORPORATION YOU KNOW ANY OF ITS HISTORY THE WITNESS I DO NOT RECALL THAT ANYTHING LIKE THAT THE COURT YOU KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT STATUTORY MERGERS OR DEFACTO MERGERS OR ASSET SALES OF ONE CORPORATION TO ANOTHER THE WITNESS THAT PART OF THE BUSINESS WAS - NOT IN MY FIELD I JUST DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IT THE COURT WHEN YOU WERE ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS DID YOU DISCUSS THE LEGAL RAMIFICATIONS OF THE CORPORATIONS THAT WERE ACQUIRED OR SOLD BY THE BECHTEL COMPANY THE WITNESS IF THEY WERE DISCUSSED DISCUSSED IN MEETINGS I WOULD HAVE BEEN INVOLVED I DO NOT RECALL THAT IT WAS THAT THAT SUCH THINGS WERE DISCUSSED 155 THE COURT LET ME ASK YOU ANOTHER QUESTION THE WITNESS YES THE COURT IT MAY SOUND PERSONAL BUT IT IS _ RELEVANT HOW OLD ARE YOU THE WITNESS 86 7 THE COURT YOU ARE 867 8 THE WITNESS YES THE COURT ALL RIGHT GO ON 10 MR TIGERMAN 11 Q. SIR LET ME JUST ASK YOU ABOUT BECHTEL MCCONE 12 PARSONS NOW AT THAT SAME TIME THERE WAS A TIME THERE 13 WAS A COMPANY CALLED BECHTEL MCCONE PARSONS AND ANOTHER 14 COMPANY CALLED W. A. BECHTEL COMPANY ISN'T THAT TRUE 15 A. YES 16 Q. THEY BOTH RAN AT THE SAME TIME 17 A. THEY I CAN'T SAY THAT THEY DID AT THE SAME 18 TIME DO KNOW THAT MOST OF THE WORK ALL THE CONSTRUCTION 19 WORK SEEMED TO BE WITH AS FAR AS I KNEW WAS WITH 20 BECHTEL ONE JUST W. A. BECHTEL -- 21 22 Q. RIGHT A. --UNTIL 1937 AND THEN THAT'S ALL I KNOW ABOUT 23 IT 24 25 26 27 0 ALL RIGHT A. WHETHER THEY STOPPED W. A. BECHTEL I MEAN YES W. A. BECHTEL AT THAT TIME OR NOT I DON'T KNOW IT MAY HAVE GONE ON BUT I WOULD NOT HAVE KNOWN I HAVE NO 28 WAY OF KNOWING 156 Q. YOU DIDN'T KNOW YOU DIDN'T KNOW I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT IDENTICAL TIME PERIODS I AM JUST ASKING WHETHER FOR ANY PERIOD OF TIME THERE WERE TWO COMPANIES THAT WERE RUNNING AT ONE TIME A. ONE COMPANY WAS W. A. BECHTEL COMPANY AND THE OTHER COMPANY IS BECHTEL MCCONE PARSONS Q. WAS THERE A TIME BEFORE THE WAR WHEN ONE COMPANY WAS FOR EXAMPLE THE MAIN OFFICE OF W. A. BECHTEL AND THE OTHER COMPANY HAD A MAIN OFFICE IN SAN FRANCISCO 10 AND THEY WERE RUNNING AT THE SAME TIME 11 A. THAT'S QUITE LIKELY 12 Q. ALL RIGHT 13 A. THAT IS ALL I CAN SAY 14 Q. NOW AFTER THE WAR W. A. BECHTEL COMPANY WAS 15 NO MORE ISN'T THAT TRUE 16 A. AFTER THE WAR 17 Q. YES 18 A. I DON'T KNOW WHEN IT TERMINATED I NEVER DID 19 KNOW 20 THE COURT LET ME ASK YOU THIS DID IT 21 TERMINATE 22 THE WITNESS I DO NOT KNOW I NEVER DID 23 KNOW 24 MR TIGERMAN 25 Q. ALL RIGHT AFTER THE WAR DID BECHTEL MCCONE 26 PARSONS DID THEY STOP RUNNING AFTER THE WAR 27 A. YES YES 28 Q. DID THE MANAGERS FROM THAT COMPANY GO TO THE NEW BECHTEL COMPANY A. SOME OF THEM DID Q. DID THE DIRECTORS FROM THAT COMPANY OTHER THAN JOHN MCCONE LET'S LEAVE JOHN MCCONE OUT OF THIS DID THE REST OF THE DIRECTORS GO OVER TO THE NEW BECHTEL COMPANY A. I CAN'T ANSWER THAT BECAUSE I HAD NO REASON TO KNOW WHO THE DIRECTORS WERE REMEMBER I WAS A VERY YOUNG GUY THEN Q. YOU ARE SUPERVISOR WHO WAS YOUR SUPERVISOR 10 WHEN YOU WERE AT BECHTEL MCCONE PARSONS WHO DID YOU 11 REPORT TO 12 A. OH WHEN FIRST TIME I STARTED THERE IN 1937 I 13 REPORTED TO ANOTHER ENGINEER WHO WAS JUST A STEP UP ABOVE 14 THE LADDER AND I REPORTED TO HIM 15 Q. WHAT WAS HIS NAME AND HIS TITLE 16 A. I WOULD LIKE TO TELL YOU BUT I CAN'T 17 Q. DID HE CONTINUE TO WORK FOR THE BECHTEL 18 ORGANIZATION 19 A. NOT VERY LONG 20 Q. WHO DID YOU REPORT TO AFTER YOU REPORTED TO 21 THEM OVER AT BECHTEL MCCONE PARSONS 22 A. I REALLY CAN'T TELL YOU I DON'T REMEMBER 23 Q. WHO WAS THE HEAD OF YOUR DEPARTMENT AT BECHTEL 24 MCCONE PARSONS 25 A. WELL AGAIN I HAVE TO SAY WE WEREN'T ORGANIZED 26 WITH DEPARTMENTS WASN'T THAT KIND OF THING 27 Q. ALL RIGHT THE GUY WHO YOU REPORTED TO WHO 28 DID HE REPORT TO 158 A. HE MAY HAVE I DON'T KNOW TELL YOU THAT I DON'T KNOW I JUST I CAN'T Q. OKAY NOW SIR YOU REMEMBER A GENTLEMAN BY THE NAME OF HEINY HEINMARK A. YES I DO 0 WHO WAS HEINY HEINMARK A. HE WAS THE TOP MAN IN THE COMPANY IN CONSTRUCTION ALL CONSTRUCTION WAS UNDER HIM Q. ALL RIGHT AND HE WAS THERE BEFORE YOU JOINED 10 THE BECHTEL ORGANIZATION 11 A. OH YES 12 Q. AND HE WAS THERE AFTER THE WAR WASN'T HE 13 A. YES YES 14 Q. AND AFTER ACTUALLY HE WAS THERE EVEN INTO THE 15 50'S WASN'T HE 16 A. YES 17 Q. WAS HE IN CHARGED OF REFINERY AND CHEMICAL 18 ACTIVITIES FOR ANY PERIOD OF TIME 19 A. NOT NO NOT AS ONLY THE CONSTRUCTION PARTS 20 OF IT 21 Q. OKAY 22 23 24 A. THE REST OF IT NO Q. ISN'T IT TRUE THAT HEINY HEINMARK CONTINUED TO WORK FOR THE BECHTEL ORGANIZATION FROM THE TIME YOU GOT 25 26 THERE TO THE TIME THAT HE RETIRED A. NO HE DID NOT HE RETIRED MUCH BEFORE I DID 27 Q. BUT WHEN DID HE RETIRE 28 A. I CAN'T TELL YOU 159 Q. BUT WHEN HE RETIRED HE RETIRED FROM BECHTEL CORPORATION CORRECT A. I BELIEVE THAT'S CORRECT Q. - AND GEORGE KOOLY JUNIOR DO YOU REMEMBER GEORGE KOOLY JUNIOR A. YES Q. YOU REMEMBER GEORGE KOOLY JUNIOR WAS A VICE PRESIDENT WITH W. A. BECHTEL WHEN YOU CAME ON WITH BECHTEL PARSONS MCCONE YOU KNOW THAT 10 A. I DIDN'T KNOW IT FOR SURE 11 Q. YOU KNOW IT NOW 12 A. I KNOW IT NOW 13 Q. OKAY ISN'T IT TRUE GEORGE KOOLY JUNIOR 14 CONTINUED TO WORK FOR BECHTEL CORPORATION THROUGHOUT THE 15 WAR AND INTO THE 50'S 16 A. YES THAT'S CORRECT IN FACT HE DIED I THINK 17 IN BAGDAD WHEN HE WAS ATTACKED -- 18 19 20 21 22 23 Q. BY A GROUP OF PEOPLE A. --YES SOMEWHERE IN THE MIDDLE EAST Q. THAT WAS LATE 50'S THAT THAT HAPPENED A. BELIEVE IT WAS IN THE 50'S Q. AND BOTH KOOLY JUNIOR AND HEINMARK WERE PRETTY IMPORTANT GUYS IN THE BECHTEL CORPORATION ISN'T THAT 24 TRUE 25 26 27 28 A. YES THEY WERE Q. NOW I WOULD LIKE TO JUST GO BACK TO THE ISSUE OF MR JOHN O'CONNELL YOU INDICATED EARLIER THAT YOU COULDN'T RECALL PRECISELY WHAT IT WAS THAT O'CONNELL O'CONNELL DID DURING THE WAR YEARS SIR I WOULD LIKE TO SHOW YOU PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT NUMBER 49 _ THE COURT 49 WHAT MR TIGERMAN E. THE COURT B MR TIGERMAN E AS IN ELEPHANT THE WITNESS HUH MR LOPEZ WHICH WOULD HAVE A BATES STAMP 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 NUMBER ON IT MR TIGERMAN YES ONE 1402 THE COURT LADIES AND GENTLEMEN WHEN THE ATTORNEYS REFER TO BATES STAMP IT IS JUST A WAY OF THE ATTORNEYS MARKING THE PAGES SO THAT EACH SIDE GET | ON THE SAME PAGE MR TIGERMAN ACTUALLY I AM ON THE WRONG 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 . ONE THE COURT NOT THE SAME PAGE MR TIGERMAN 49 MR GILBERT WHAT IS THE NUMBER OF THE BATES STAMP NUMBER ON 49 MR TIGERMAN 2227 TWO THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED TWENTY THIS PARAGRAPH HERE I WOULD LIKE TO START WITH MR GILBERT MAYBE YOU CAN SHOW ME THE . DOCUMENT THE WITNESS HUNDREDS OF OTHERS IN THE BECHTEL CORPORATION ~~ MR TIGERMAN Q. YOU DON'T HAVE YOU TO READ IT A. LOUD RIGHT NOW JUST READ IT TO YOURSELF' A. - ALL RIGHT Q. READ THAT PARAGRAPH THE COURT YOU ARE SHOWING HIM 49 WHICH IS A PAGE FROM THE BECHTEL BRIEFS NEWSPAPER IS THAT RIGHT MR TIGERMAN RIGHT 10 THE COURT OKAY 11 MR TIGERMAN ALL RIGHT 12 Q. HAVE YOU READ THAT 13 A. I DON'T QUITE UNDERSTAND IT OKAY 14 THE COURT READ IT 15 16 17 18 MR TIGERMAN Q. DOES THAT REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION THAT JOHN O'CONNELL WAS A LABOR RELATIONS EXPERT AT MARINESHIP - A. THIS TELLS ME THAT IT WAS BEFORE THAT I 19 DIDN'T KNOW 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. OKAY A. AT LEAST I CAN'T REMEMBER IT IF I DID KNOW MR GILBERT WITH THE COURT'S PERMISSION THE COURT ALREADY MADE A RULING ON THIS YOUR HONOR THE COURT YES I HAVE THIS HAS NOT REFRESHED HIS MEMORY BUT APPLY TO 403 1221 22 OF 26 THE EVIDENCE CODE 27 MR GILBERT I AGREE YOUR HONOR BUT IT 28 IS NOT RELEVANT TO THE EXAMINATION OF THIS WITNESS 162 HE DOESN'T RECALL IT AND THERE IS NO QUESTION PENDING TO THE WITNESS THE COURT FINE MR GILBERT THIS WILL BE AN UNDUE CONSUMPTION OF TIME AS WELL THE COURT OVERRULED 352 DOES NOT GO INTO THE COLLATERAL ISSUES MR TIGERMAN ALL RIGHT Q. SIR IT SAYS HERE HUNDREDS OF OTHERS IN 10 BECHTEL CORPORATION TODAY ARE ALUMNAE OF THE GREAT 11 SHIPYARDS ACCORDING TO ESTIMATE BY WASTE SENIOR VICE 12 PRESIDENT JOHN O'CONNELL FOR ONE WAS A LABOR RELATIONS 13 EXPERT AT MARINESHIP 14 NOW LET ME ASK YOU ABOUT THIS WHEN IT REFERS 15 TO WASTE YOU KNEW A MR WASTE DIDN'T YOU 16 A- YES 17 Q. MR WASTE WAS ACTUALLY AN OFFICER OF THE 18 BECHTEL CORPORATION ISN'T THAT TRUE 19 20 21 A. YES Q. OKAY NOW I WOULD LIKE TO TALK WITH YOU JUST VERY QUICKLY ABOUT THE ISSUE OF THE OWNERSHIP OR THE 22 CONTROL OF MARINESHIP 23 NOW YOU USE TO GET THE BECHTEL BRIEFS ON YOUR 24 DESK IS THAT TRUE 25 A. THAT IS TRUE 26 THE COURT THAT IS ASKED AND ANSWERED HE 27 SAID SO 28 MR TIGERMAN ALL RIGHT I WOULD LIKE TO 163 SHOW AN OBITUARY IN THE BECHTEL BRIEFS MR GILBERT MR TIGERMAN WHAT NUMBER WE ARE ON NUMBER 49 AS IN ELEPHANT BATES STAMP NUMBER 1402 THE COURT EXHIBIT NUMBER MR TIGERMAN Q. JUST READ THAT A. THIS IS ABOUT GEORGE WALLING Q. GENTLEMAN WHO WAS GEORGE WALLING 10 A. GEORGE WALLING WAS A LAWYER IF I AM CORRECT 11 Q. ALL RIGHT DO YOU REMEMBER MR WALLING WORKING 12 FOR THE BECHTEL COMPANY 13 A. YES I DO I DO DURING THE WAR YEARS IN 14 WASHINGTON I HAD MEETINGS WITH HIM SO ON BUT THAT'S I 15 DON'T REMEMBER WHAT BECAME OF HIM 16 Q. OH ALL RIGHT GO AHEAD TAKE A LOOK AT THE 17 PARAGRAPH STARTS WITH THE WORD DURING 18 THE COURT WHAT EXHIBIT NUMBER IS THIS 19 MR TIGERMAN THIS IS 49 AS IN 20 ELEPHANT 21 THE WITNESS YES HE IS NOW 22 MR TIGERMAN 23 Q. ALL RIGHT DOES THIS REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION 24 THAT DURING THE WAR YEARS HE SERVED IN A DIRECTOR ADVISORY 25 CAPACITY IN THE ORGANIZATION'S PRIME WAR TIME PROJECTS 26 INCLUDING CALSHIP AND MARINESHIP 27 A. YES I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT AND -- 28 THE COURT DOES THAT REFRESH YOUR MEMORY THE WITNESS YES YES MR TIGERMAN ALL RIGHT WITH THE _ COURT'S PERMISSION I WOULD LIKE TO SHOW THIS _ THE COURT SURE MR TIGERMAN ALL RIGHT Q. THAT GENTLEMAN THERE WITH THE BOW TIE DO YOU REMEMBER THAT IS WHAT MR WALLING LOOK LIKE A. NOT A VERY GOOD PICTURE GIVES ME AN IDEA I REMEMBER HIM NOW 10 Q. AND RIGHT HERE IS THE LANGUAGE I REFER TO YOU 11 THAT SAYS DURING WAR YEARS HE SERVED IN A DIRECTOR 12 ADVISORY CAPACITY ON BECHTEL ORGANIZATION'S PRINCIPAL WAR 13 TIME PROJECTS INCLUDING CALSHIP AND MARINESHIP THE 14 BURMINGHAM MILITARY AIRCRAFT CENTER THE CANOL PIPELINE 15 AND JOSHUA HENDY SHIP YARD 16 DID YOU WORK ON ANY OF THOSE 17 A. I THINK THOSE CLOSELY THROUGH I WILL TELL YOU 18 oi CALSHIP WE'VE BEEN THROUGH RIGHT 19 A. WE'VE BEEN THROUGH 20 21 22 Q. MARINESHIP A. WE'VE BEEN THERE TO Q. WHAT ABOUT THE BURMINGHAM MILITARY AIRCRAFT 23 CENTER 24 A. I WAS THERE FOR SOMETIME 25 Q. WHAT DID YOU DO FOR THE ORGANIZATION THERE 26 A. I WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR KEEPING TRACK OF ALL THE 27 MAJOR THE HEAVY BOOMER THAT CAME IN FROM OUT OF VOCATION 28 AND WERE RELEASED THERE WERE HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF THEM I HAD TO KEEP TRACT OF THEM Q. YOU ACTUALLY DID AIRCRAFT ENGINEERING A. WELL I DIDN'T WHEN I SAY KEEPING TRACT OF THEM ISN'T EXACTLY DESIGNING AIRPLANES Q. ALL RIGHT HOW LONG DID YOU DO THAT FOR THE ORGANIZATION A. ABOUT A YEAR ROUGHLY Q. WHAT ABOUT THE CANOL PIPELINE DID YOU HAVE ANY INVOLVEMENT WITH THAT 10 A. CANOL PIPELINE TRYING TO RECALL 11 BELIEVE I HAD ANY INVOLVEMENT IN THAT I DON'T 12 Q. WHAT ABOUT JOSHUA HENDY SHIPYARD DID YOU HAVE 13 ANY INVOLVEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE ORGANIZATION IN THAT 14 A. I HEARD THE NAME DON'T KNOW WHAT IT WAS AT 15 THIS TIME POINT NOW 16 Q. BEST YOU RECALL YOU WEREN'T INVOLVED IN ANY 17 ASPECT OF THE IT WOULD BE FAIR TO SAY YOU WOULD PROBABLY 18 REMEMBER BEING THERE 19 A. THAT IS RIGHT 20 Q. NOW SIR YOU HAVE ALREADY DISCUSSED THE FACT 21 THAT OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY YOU WERE IN 22 CHARGE OF SETTING POLICY OR YOU WERE ONE OF THE PEOPLE WHO 23 SET POLICY IS THAT TRUE 24 A. TO THE EXTENT THAT ANY BOARD MEMBER IS INVOLVED 25 IN THESE BUT NOT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT BASIC THINGS WERE 26 STARTED THERE THEY WERE JUST REVIEWED BY THE BY -- 27 THE COURT JUST SAVE TIME AS A MEMBER OF 28 THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS YOU WOULD VOTE THE WITNESS YOU WOULD VOTE 66 MATTERS THE COURT WOULD YOU VOTE ON DIFFERENT _ THE WITNESS OCCASIONALLY NOT OFTEN BUT ON OCCASIONS THE COURT SOME OF THE THINGS THAT YOU | VOTED ON WAS POLICY MAKING MATTERS THE WITNESS COULD HAVE BEEN THE COURT YOU COULD HAVE BEEN WITH THE 10 MAJORITY WITH THE DISSENTS BUT YOU VOTED 11 THE WITNESS THAT'S TRUE 12 THE COURT LET'S GO 13 MR TIGERMAN 14 Q. SIR ISN'T IT TRUE THERE WERE POLICY WITHIN 15 THIS COMPANY REGARDING EMPLOYEE SAFETY 16 A. WOULD YOU REPEAT THAT 17 Q. THE COMPANY HAD POLICY ONE OF ITS POLICIES WAS 18 TO PROMOTE EMPLOYEE SAFETY WASN'T IT 19 A. I THINK IT IS IN THE MIND OF ALL OF THE PEOPLE 20 AND I DON'T RECALL IT BEING SOMETHING THAT WAS DISCUSSED 21 PARTICULARLY IT MAY HAVE BEEN BUT I DON'T RECALL IT 22 Q. 23 MANAGER THERE WAS A SAFETY DEPARTMENT OR SAFETY 24 A. I DON'T KNOW OF A SAFETY MANAGER IT COULD 25 HAVE BEEN 26 Q. YOU DON'T KNOW WHETHER OR NOT BECHTEL HAD A 27 SAFETY DEPARTMENT OR SAFETY MANAGER 28 A. WELL TELL YOU THEY HAD A LOT OF HIGH GRADE 167 CONSTRUCTION PEOPLE WHO WERE WHO WERE IN THAT CAPACITY NOW I DO NOT RECALL IF THERE WAS ANY PARTICULAR PERSONS THAT TOOK VIEW OF THE WHOLE THING OF THE COMPANY THEY COULD HAVE BEEN BUT I DON'T RECALL THAT Q. OKAY SIR I HAVE ALREADY ASKED YOU ABOUT WHAT YOU WOULD HAVE EXPECTED MR O'CONNELL TO DO NOW I WANT TO ASK YOU ABOUT YOURSELF IF YOU HAD KNOWN BECHTEL WAS USING DANGEROUS PRODUCTS AND EXPOSING ITS EMPLOYEES WITH THE PRODUCT WOULD YOU HAVE 10 BROUGHT THAT UP WITH THE ORGANIZATION 11 MR LOPEZ OBJECTION CALLS FOR 12 SPECULATION 13 THE COURT OVERRULED 14 THE WITNESS SAY THAT AGAIN 15 MR TIGERMAN 16 Q. IF YOU HAD KNOWN BECHTEL WAS USING HAZARDOUS 17 PRODUCTS AND WAS EXPOSING ITS WORKERS TO THAT PRODUCT 18 WOULD YOU HAVE BROUGHT THAT UP WITH THE ORGANIZATION 19 A. I MAY OR MAY NOT 20 21 22 Q. AND WHY NOT A. A REASON BECAUSE THERE WERE LOTS OF OTHER PEOPLE THAT WERE CONCERN WITH THESE THINGS IF THEY 23 EXISTED AND IT WASN'T MY PARTICULAR JOB TO DO THAT 24 YOU SEE WHAT I MEAN 25 Q. SO WASN'T YOUR JOB TO BRING TO THE COMPANY'S 26 ATTENTION THINGS THAT YOU FOUND OUT WERE DANGEROUS 27 MR LOPEZ LET ME OBJECT NO FOUNDATION 28 THE COURT SUSTAINED ARGUMENTATIVE MR LOPEZ AND ARGUMENTATIVE THE COURT SUSTAINED ON THAT MR TIGERMAN ALL RIGHT Q. WHEN YOU SAY IT WASN'T YOUR JOB TO DO TELL ME WHAT YOU MEAN MR LOPEZ WELL SAME OBJECTION ON -- THE COURT I WILL ALLOW THAT OVERRULED MR TIGERMAN Q. WHAT DO YOU MEAN 10 A. WAS NEVER APPOINTED TO BE THE PERSON WHO WAS 11 RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT AND HAD TO TELL EVERYBODY WHAT WAS 12 GOING ON 13 THE COURT WHAT HE IS ASKING YOU IS AS A 14 MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS -- 15 THE WITNESS YES 16 THE COURT --NOW YOU ARE NOT 17 COMPARTMENTALICOMPZARTMEENTALDIZED 18 THE WITNESS NO NOT A BIT 19 THE COURT SO YOUR PREVIOUS ANSWER IN 20 REFERENCE TO YOUR DEPARTMENT YOU DID YOUR DEPARTMENT 21 WORK THAT'S IT 22 RIGHT NOW HE IS ASKING YOU A QUESTION AS 23 ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS WHERE IT IS THE WHOLE 24 25 26 27 28 DEPARTMENT. THE WITNESS THAT'S RIGHT THE COURT NOW ASK THE QUESTION THE WITNESS YES MR TIGERMAN 69 Q. GIVEN THE FACT YOU WERE ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AT SOME POINT ARE OVERSEEING THE ENTIRE CORPORATION IF YOU HAD LEARNED THAT SOMETHING WAS DANGEROUS IT WAS ENDANGERING EMPLOYEES WOULD YOU AT LEAST HAVE INVESTIGATED OR BROUGHT THAT TO SOMEBODY'S ATTENTION TO MAKE SURE THAT IT WAS BEING ADDRESSED THE COURT OR ORDERED AN INVESTIGATION THE WITNESS I CERTAINLY WOULD UNLESS I KNEW THAT SOMEBODY ELSE WAS DOING IT 10 MR TIGERMAN ALL RIGHT 11 Q. AND THAT'S BECAUSE AS A DIRECTOR OF THE 12 CORPORATION YOU HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE SAFETY OF 13 THE WORKERS ISN'T THAT TRUE 14 15 16 17 18 A. AS A SAY THAT AGAIN Q. AS A DIRECTOR OF THE CORPORATION YOU HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE WHOLE CORPORATION INCLUDING THE SAFETY OF THE WORKERS ISN'T THAT TRUE A. WELL TO THE EXTENT THAT ANY BOARD MEMBER IS 19 RESPONSIBILITY FOR IT 20 Q. THE BUCK STOPS THE BUCK STOPS THERE RIGHT 21 STOPS AT THE TOP DOESN'T IT 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 A. IT COULD Q. OKAY ISN'T IT TRUE SIR THAT IN ADDITION TO WHAT WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT IF YOU WERE THE WHEN YOU WERE THE DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY AND IF YOU HAD IF YOU ACQUIRED KNOWLEDGE THAT A PARTICULAR SUBSTANCE THAT BECHTEL WAS USING ON A REGULAR BASIS WAS DANGEROUS TO PEOPLE WHO WERE BEING EXPOSED TO IT WOULD YOU HAVE AT  LEAST INSTITUTED AN INVESTIGATION INTO THAT MR LOPEZ OBJECTION ARGUMENTATIVE CALLS FOR SPECULATION AND ASKED AND ANSWERED THE COURT IT IS MR GILBERT HE HAS ALREADY GIVEN HIS ANSWER MR TIGERMAN FIRST WAS EMPLOYEES THIS IS A THIRD PARTY THE COURT THIS GOES TO THE WHOLE 10 MR LOPEZ HE HAS ALREADY GIVEN HIS 11 12 13 14 15 16 ANSWER THE COURT SUSTAINED MR TIGERMAN ALL RIGHT Q. DID YOU CONSIDER IT YOUR RESPONSIBILITY AS BEING ONE OF THE TOP LEVEL AT BECHTEL TO MAKE SURE THAT THE COMPANY WASN'T INJURING PEOPLE BY THE PROJECTS IT WAS 17 PERFORMING 18 THE COURT ARE YOU SUGGESTION IT WAS HIS 19 JOB AS A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS TO DO AN 20 INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION MR TIGERMAN NO AT LEAST GET AN 21 22 INVESTIGATION GOING 23 THE COURT WHY DON'T WE ASK IT 24 25 26 27 28 DIFFERENTLY. MR TIGERMAN ALL RIGHT THE COURT IF INFORMATION CAME TO YOU THAT YOU CONSIDERED COULD POSSIBLY BE A DANGER TO EMPLOYEES WORKING FOR THE CORPORATION AND YOU 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 171 DISCUSSED IT WITH WHETHER YOU FOUND OUT ABOUT IT YOURSELF OR SOMEONE BROUGHT IT TO YOUR ATTENTION EITHER AT A CONFERENCE TABLE OR WHATEVER WOULD YOU ORDEARN INVESTIGATION ON THAT TO FIND OUT WHAT THE FACTS ARE THE WITNESS I WOULD IF I HAD NOT IF I HAD IF I HAD NOT KNOWN THERE WAS SOMEONE ELSE THERE BEING RESPONSIBLE THE COURT IF THERE WAS SOMEONE ELSE THERE RESPONSIBILITY WHO WAS INVESTIGATING THAT WOULD YOU AS A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS WANT TO FIND OUT WHAT THE CONCLUSIONS ARE ASK FOR A REPORT OF WHAT WAS DISCOVERED THE WITNESS DEPENDS ON THE MAGNITUDE THE COURT THE MAGNITUDE THE WITNESS THE MAGNITUDE OF THIS THING IS THERE IS SO MANY THINGS WHEN I STOPPED TO THINK THERE WERE HUNDREDS OF BIG PROJECTS GOING ON THERE IS NO ONE MAN THERE THAT KNOW ALL WHAT ALL THE THINGS WERE LIKE THAT SORT OF THING THE COURT IF IT WASN'T DEALING WITH SAY SLIPPERY LINOLEUM IN THE HALLWAY OF ANY PARTICULAR BECHTEL BUILDING BUT SAY IT IS MAYBE IT IS A PRODUCT THAT IT IS USING ALL OVER THERE IS A BIG DIFFERENCE YOU HAVE INDICATED SOMETHING TRIVIAL AND SOMETHING MORE IMPORTANT THE WITNESS WELL LET ME SAY THIS THAT YOU CAN'T DO THE THINGS THAT WE WERE DOING IN THOSE 172 YEARS WITHOUT THERE BEING MANY SUCH THINGS THAT ARE DANGEROUS AND I DON'T THINK THAT ANY COMPANY THAT'S IN THIS KIND OF BUSINESS COULD AVOID IT ~ THE COURT BY WHAT DANGEROUS THINGS ARE YOU REFERRING TO THE WITNESS I MEAN ANYTHING THAT WAS CLAIMED TO BE DANGEROUS OR WAS HURTING EMPLOYEES THE COURT COULD YOU GIVE US AN EXAMPLE THE WITNESS WELL TRUCK DRIVERS FOR 10 EXAMPLE ARE CARTING STUFF AROUND THEY ARE IN A 11 DANGEROUS POSITION AT TIMES 12 MR TIGERMAN ALL RIGHT 13 Q. SIR DID YOU ACTUALLY PARTICIPATE IN AT TIMES 14 IN WORKING WITH REFINERY OWNERS ON BUILDING REFINERY 15 PROJECTS IS THAT TRUE 16 A. YOU SAY -- 17 Q. YOU PARTICIPATED -- 18 19 A. Q. -- IN -- -- IN GETTING REFINERY PROJECTS OFF THE GROUND 20 A. NOT ONLY THOSE -- 21 22 Q. A. OKAY -- BUT I DID SOME -- 23 Q. ALL RIGHT 24 A. BUT LOTS OF OTHER THINGS TOO 25 26 Q. AND IT IS WAS TYPICAL IN THAT KIND OF WORK LOTS OF PIPE INSULATION WOULD HAVE TO BE USED TO INSULATE 27 ALL THE PIPES ISN'T THAT TRUE 28 A. IT IS DEPENDING UPON WHAT THE WHETHER OR NOT THE PIPE THE PIPE REQUIRED THAT SORT OF THING Q. ALL RIGHT A. DON'T VERY FEW OF THEM REQUIRED IT Q. IF IT WAS LOTS OF PIPE AND IT WAS AT AN OIL REFINERY IT WOULD REQUIRE SOME SORT OF INSULATION WOULDN'T IT A. NOT NECESSARILY Q. ALL RIGHT BUT BECHTEL USED LOTS OF INSULATION ON IT PROJECTS DIDN'T IT 10 THE COURT ON ITS PIPING PROJECTS 11 MR TIGERMAN 12 Q. PIPING PROJECTS 13 A. BECHTEL BECHTEL ENGINEERS PUT INTO IT WHAT 14 THEY BELIEVED WAS PROPER THINGS WHETHER IT NEEDED TO BE 15 COVERED OR NOT - 16 Q. IF A SUBSTANCE WAS BEING USED OVER AND OVER 17 AGAIN PROJECT AFTER PROJECT AND IT CAME TO YOUR ATTENTION 18 THAT THE SUBSTANCE THAT WAS REPEATEDLY BEING USED PROJECT 19 AFTER PROJECT POSED A HAZARD TO HUMAN HEALTH THAT CAME TO 20 YOUR ATTENTION AND YOU DIDN'T KNOW WHETHER OR NOT ANYBODY 21 ELSE WAS INVESTIGATING IT WOULD YOU ORDER AN 22 INVESTIGATION 23 MR LOPEZ OBJECTION CALLS FOR 24 25 26 SPECULATION THE COURT SUSTAINED MR TIGERMAN 27 28 0 SIR -- A. I MUST TELL YOU I WAS NOT LOOKING AROUND FOR 174 TROUBLE I WAS SO BUSY WAS LOOKING FOR OTHER THINGS WAS NOT LIKELY THAT I WAS GOING TO TRY TO PICK UP THINGS LIKE THAT AND REPORT THEM IT JUST I COULDN'T DO ALL OF THOSE THINGS - - Q. I UNDERSTAND SIR MY QUESTION THOUGH I WILL REPHRASE SO THAT HOPEFULLY IT IS A BETTER QUESTION MR LOPEZ WHAT -- MR TIGERMAN Q. IF IT CAME TO YOUR ATTENTION THAT A SUBSTANCE 10 BECHTEL WAS USING JOB AFTER JOB WAS A DANGEROUS 11 SUBSTANCE -- 12 A. IF 13 Q. -- IF IT CAME TO YOUR ATTENTION -- 14 A. YES 15 Q. ~- AND YOU DIDN'T KNOW THAT ANYBODY ELSE WAS 16 LOOKING INTO IT WOULD YOU HAVE DONE SOMETHING ABOUT IT 17 MR LOPEZ OBJECTION ARGUMENTATIVE ASKED 18 AND ANSWERED 19 THE COURT SUSTAINED LET ME ASK YOU 20 THIS WHILE YOU WERE WORKING THERE DID YOU 21 PERSONALLY EVER COME ACROSS ANY INFORMATION YOU -- 22 THE WITNESS YES 23 THE COURT NO MATTER WHAT THE SOURCE COME 24 ACROSS ANY INFORMATION THAT MADE YOU SUSPECT THAT ANY 25 26 27 MATERIALS USED BY YOUR COMPANY IN INSULATING PIPES WAS DANGEROUS TO THE EMPLOYEES THE WITNESS I HAVE NEVER HAD THAT 28 EXPERIENCE 145 MR TIGERMAN OKAY Q. LET ME JUST ASK IT THIS WAY LET'S ASSUME WHEN YOU WERE ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND YOU WERE AN OFFICER YOU HAD LOTS OF PEOPLE REPORTING TO YOU ISN'T THAT TRUE A. NOT BECAUSE I WAS ON THE BOARD THEY HAD TO REPORT TO ME NOT BECAUSE I WAS ON THE BOARD BUT BECAUSE I WAS AN OFFICER AND RESPONSIBLE FOR CERTAIN PROJECTS Q. AS AN OFFICER OF THE CORPORATION IF ONE OF THE PEOPLE BELOW YOU IF IT HAD COME TO THEIR ATTENTION THAT A 10 SUBSTANCE THAT BECHTEL WAS USING WAS DANGEROUS WOULD YOU 11 HAVE EXPECTED ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE BELOW YOU TO DO 12 SOMETHING ABOUT IT OR REPORT IT TO SOMEBODY WHO WOULD DO 13 SOMETHING ABOUT IT 14 MR GILBERT OBJECTION ASKED AND 15 ANSWERED 16 THE COURT ASKED AND ANSWERED 17 SPECULATION ARGUMENTATIVE HYPOTHETICAL NOT HERE AS 18 AN EXPERT 19 MR TIGERMAN ALL RIGHT 20 Q. SIR DID YOU AT ANY TIME EXPECT THE PEOPLE 21 BELOW YOU TO REPORT DANGERS TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THAT 22 TO MAKE SURE THEY WERE TAKEN CARE OF 23 MR LOPEZ SAME OBJECTION 24 25 26 27 THE COURT SUSTAINED THE WITNESS YOU SAY -- THE COURT DON'T HAVE TO ANSWER THE WITNESS ALL RIGHT 28 MR TIGERMAN 176 Q. SIR WAS THERE A COMPANY POLICY THAT THE COMPANY ENGAGE IN FAIR DEALINGS A. SORRY Q. WAS THERE A CORPORATE POLICY THAT THE COMPANY ENGAGE IN FAIR DEALING A. IN WHAT DEALING THE COURT WERE YOU FAIR IN YOUR NEGOTIATIONS AND YOUR DEALINGS IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE GETTING INTO I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE GETTING 10 INTO 11 SUSTAINED 12 MR LOPEZ I DO THANKS 13 THE COURT FAIR DEALING VAGUE 14 AMBIGUOUS YOU TALKING ABOUT CONTRACTS BIDS WAGE 15 ASSIGNMENTS 16 MR TIGERMAN 17 Q. SIR THIS EXHIBIT THERE WAS A LETTER THAT IS 18 SIGNED BY STEPHEN D BECHTEL AND IN THIS LETTER IT IS UP 19 SIDE DOWN RIGHT NOW IS IT POSSIBLE IN THIS LETTER IT 20 SAYS 21 IN REVIEWING OUR BUSINESS HISTORY I AM 22 GRATIFIED BY ADHERENCE TO TWO IMPORTANT POLICIES THAT ARE 23 TRADITIONAL WITH THE BECHTEL COMPANY FAIR DEALING AND 24 GOOD HOUSEKEEPING 25 DID YOU UNDERSTAND AT ANY TIME THAT THESE WERE 26 IMPORTANT POLICIES THAT ARE TRADITIONAL WITH THE BECHTEL 27 COMPANY 28 A. SAID DID I BELIEVE THAT IT WAS 177 Q. TRADITIONAL POLICIES OF THE ORGANIZATION TO ENGAGE IN FAIR DEALING A. YES I BELIEVED IN THAT BECAUSE I HAD TO DO A LOT OF IT_ Q. AND DID FAIR DEALING MEAN TELLING YOUR CUSTOMERS ABOUT THE THINGS THAT YOU WERE DOING FOR THEM MR LOPEZ OBJECTION RELEVANCE YOUR HONOR THE COURT OVERRULED I WILL ALLOW THAT 10 I WILL ALLOW THAT IS A LITTLE LOOSE TELLING 11 CUSTOMERS" 12 MR LOPEZ VAGUE AMBIGUOUS 13 MR TIGERMAN 14 Q. THIS INVOLVED PROPERLY ADVISING YOUR CUSTOMERS 15 AS TO WHAT IT WAS YOU WERE PLACING AT THEIR BUSINESSES 16 MR LOPEZ OBJECTION 17 THE COURT YOU UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION 18 THE WITNESS DON'T UNDERSTAND THE 19 QUESTION 20 MR TIGERMAN 21 22 Q. DID YOU EVER CONSIDER IT TO BE A CONCEPT OF FAIR DEALING TO LET THE REFINERY KNOW IF YOU WERE PUTTING 23 SOMETHING DANGEROUS ON THEIR PROPERTY 24 25 26 27 A. WELL THAT'S AN IF MR LOPEZ OBJECTION VAGUE THE COURT OVERRULED I WILL ALLOW IT THE WITNESS I STILL THINK IT DIDN'T 28 EFFECT THAT STATEMENT BACK MR TIGERMAN ALL RIGHT CAN YOU READ THAT BACK 178 CAN I HEAR THAT THE WITNESS DON'T QUITE I GUESS I DON'T QUITE UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION YET MR TIGERMAN Q. WELL ALL SORTS OF THINGS THAT YOU PUT AT A CUSTOMER'S PLACE OF BUSINESS CAN BE DANGEROUS IF THEY ARE NOT OPERATED CORRECTLY ISN'T THAT TRUE A. NOT NECESSARILY 10 Q. ALL RIGHT YOU DON'T THINK THAT SOMETIMES IN 11 THE JOBS THAT YOU WORKED ON THAT SOME OF THE EQUIPMENT YOU 12 PUT ON PEOPLE'S PROPERTIES COULD BE DANGEROUS IF THEY 13 DIDN'T KNOW HOW TO WORK WITH IT CORRECTLY 14 A. THINK YOU GOT TO DETERMINE HOW SERIOUS A 15 PROBLEM POTENTIAL PROBLEM IS BECAUSE EVERY TIME YOU TAKE 16 A STEP IT IS A PROBLEM 17 Q. ALL RIGHT 18 A. BUT I THINK WE'VE GOT TO BE MORE SPECIFIC 19 Q. SO THE FIRST STEP IS TO DETERMINE HOW SERIOUS 20 A PROBLEM IS BEFORE YOU DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT YOU SHOULD 21 BE TELLING SOMEBODY ABOUT SOMETHING THAT IS POTENTIALLY 22 DANGEROUS THAT YOU ARE PUTTING ON THEIR PROPERTY 23 MR GILBERT OBJECTION HYPOTHETICAL 24 SPECULATION 25 THE WITNESS IS THIS GOING -- 26 MR TIGERMAN THESE ARE HIS WORDS 27 THE COURT HIS WORDS IN LIGHT OF YOUR 28 QUESTION MR TIGERMAN 149 Q. YOU SAID YOU HAVE TO DETERMINE HOW SERIOUS THE PROBLEM IS FIRST WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THAT ~ MR LOPEZ REALLY HAVE -- OBJECTION YOUR HONOR WE DON'T THE COURT OVERRULED LET ME ASK YOU IF YOU WERE SELLING A STEP LADDER RIGHT SELLING A STEP LADDER RIGHT A STEP LADDER CAN BE DANGER IF IT IS NOT USED CORRECTLY 10 THE WITNESS YOU DAMN RIGHT 11 THE COURT STEEL STEP LADDER ARE YOU 12 GOING TO TELL THE CUSTOMER LISTEN WHEN YOU CLIMB 13 USE THE LEFT FOOT FIRST OR YOUR RIGHT FOOT DEPENDS 14 WHETHER YOU ARE LEFT FOOT RIGHT FOOT IT IS PATENT 15 OBVIOUS PERILS 16 ARE YOU GOING TO ADVISE PEOPLE OF THE 17 OBVIOUS PERILS 18 THE WITNESS I DON'T THINK I EVER HAD THE 19 - TIME TO DO THAT 20 21 THE COURT ALL RIGHT BUT IF YOU DISCOVERED THAT THERE MIGHT BE SOME HIDDEN LATEN 22 DEFECTS OR HIDDEN DEFECTS YOU KNOW WHAT I AM 23 REFERRING TO IF YOU TAKE A PILL A PILL MIGHT BE 24 GOOD FOR YOU BUT YOU MIGHT HAVE SIDE EFFECTS MIGHT 25 LOSE SOME HAIR WHATEVER YOU KNOW WHAT I AM TALKING 26 ABOUT 27 28 So YOU WANT TO BE ADVISED BEFORE YOU TAKE THE PILL OF THE SIDE EFFECTS 180 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 IF YOU SALE A PRODUCT THERE MAY BE I AM USING THE WORDS LOOSELY SIDE EFFECTS IF YOU KNEW WOULD YOU AS A MEMBER OF THE IT HAD SIDE EFFECTS OF BOARD DIRECTORS AT LEAST GET SOMEONE TO ADVISE THE PURCHASER OF THE POSSIBILITY OF THE DANGEROUS EFFECTS ONE WAY OR ANOTHER THE WITNESS I WOULD BE DOING THAT NOT AS BUT AS A TOP EXECUTIVE OF THAT A MEMBER OF THE BOARD PROJECT OR WHATEVER IT IS THE COURT IF YOUR TOP EXECUTIVE OF A DEPARTMENT WAS NOT DOING IT YOU FOUND OUT ABOUT IT -- YOU ARE ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS THE WITNESS RIGHT THE COURT --WOULD YOU WANT TO TELL THEM THE WITNESS THEN OF COURSE I WOULD THE COURT OKAY SEE THE THING PROBLEM WHEN YOU ARE THINKING FROM THE WITH THE QUESTION ARE SAYING TALKING HE BOARD OF DIRECTORS YOU DOESN'T TALK TO CUSTOMERS HE TALKS AT CONFERENCE 20 21 22 23 24 TABLES MR TIGERMAN ALL RIGHT YOU WERE ON THE BOARD OF Q. NOW OH WHILE DIRECTORS YOU WERE ALSO AN OFFICER ACTUALLY HAD IN TERMS OF ACTUALLY BUSINESS DAY OBLIGATIONS 25 26 27 28 ISN'T THAT TRUE MR LOPEZ LET ME JUST OBJECT THIS IS CUMULATIVE WE HAVE THE COURT GONE OVER THIS HE ALREADY INDICATED WHEN 181 WAS ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS HE WAS AN OFFICER YOU HAVE ESTABLISHED THAT SUSTAINED _ MR TIGERMAN Q. SIR WITH RESPECT TO THE ANSWER YOU GAVE IF YOU FOUND OUT SOMEONE WASN'T FOLLOWING UP ON WHAT WAS A HIDDEN DANGER IN SOMETHING THAT WAS BEING DONE BY BECHTEL WOULD YOU CONSIDER IT A MATTER OF FAIR DEALING THAT THAT BE FOLLOWED UP ON | 10 A. FAIR DEALING 11 Q. YES 12 13 : 14 15 MR LOPEZ OBJECTION THE WITNESS DON'T REGARD IT AS DEALING I DON'T QUITE UNDERSTAND YOU WHAT WOULD I DO ABOUT IT YOU MEAN 16 MR TIGERMAN 17 | Q. WELL WE TALKED ABOUT MAKING SURE A CUSTOMER IS 18 ADVISED OF HIDDEN DANGERS IS THAT PART OF FAIR DEALING 19 A. IF WE -- | 20 21 | MR LOPEZ THE COURT OBJECTION YOUR HONOR OVERRULED 22 THE WITNESS IF SOMETHING HAPPENED THE 23 CUSTOMER DIDN'T KNOW 24 MR TIGERMAN 25 Q. AND IT WAS A HIDDEN DANGEROUS IT WOULD BE 26 27 THE COURT IT IS A HIDDEN DANGER THAT THE 28 CUSTOMER WOULD NOT KNOW ABOUT BUT YOU WOULD KNOW ABOUT 182 THE WITNESS OKAY IF THAT'S -- THE COURT YES THAT'S THE QUESTION - MR TIGERMAN RIGHT THE COURT THEN WOULD YOU HAVE SOMEONE INFORM THE CUSTOMER HEY LOOK OUT THERE IS A HIDDEN TRAP HERE SOMEWHERE THE WITNESS THIS CAME UP I WOULD INSTRUCT MY PEOPLE TO DO SOMETHING 10 THE COURT IS THAT FAIR 11 THE WITNESS THAT IS FAIR 12 THE COURT IS THAT HOW YOU WANT TO DEAL 13 WITH THE CUSTOMER 14 THE WITNESS YOU'VE GOT TO 15 THE COURT SO PUT THEM IT IS FAIR 16 DEALINGS 17 THE WITNESS OH ALL RIGHT YES 18 THE COURT THAT IS WHAT HE IS GETTING 19 INTO 20 MR TIGERMAN 21 Q. SIR JUST THE LAST AREA ONE LAST AREA WHILE 22 YOU WERE WITH THE COMPANY ISN'T IT TRUE THAT THE COMPANY 23 DID DID A GOOD DEAL OF WORK OUT AT THE AVON REFINERY IN 24 MARTINEZ 25 A. AVON REFINERY 26 Q. YES TIDEWATER AT ONE TIME IT WAS CALLED LYON 27 A. YES I AM AWARE WE DID SOME THINGS THERE 28 Q. ARE YOU AWARE FOR EXAMPLE THAT YOUR COMPANY 183 WAS INVOLVED IN BUILDING A COOKER OUT THERE A. I DID NOT RECALL NOW WHAT IT WAS BUT IT COULD WELL HAVE BEEN Q. _ ARE YOU AWARE THAT IN 1957 YOUR COMPANY WAS INVOLVED IN A LARGE GIGANTIC FLUID COOKING UNIT A. YES Q. ALL RIGHT A. I AM NOT SAYING I REMEMBER IT BUT IT IS THE KIND OF THING THAT WE MIGHT WELL HAVE DONE 10 Q. ARE YOU AWARE THAT IN 1957 YOUR COMPANY 11 PARTICIPATED IN A CATALYTIC REFORMER CONSTRUCTION OUT AT 12 TIDEWATER AT AVON 13 A. COULD VERY WELL HAVE BEEN 14 Q. OKAY YOU DON'T RECALL ONE WAY OR THE OTHER 15 A. NO DO NOT 16 Q. OKAY 17 A. THAT IS TOO FAR BACK 18 Q. DID YOU GET INVOLVED IN ANY PROJECT INVOLVING 19 THE AVON REFINERY 20 A. BELIEVE I DID DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY Q. YOU KNOW HOW MANY SUCH PROJECTS YOU WERE INVOLVED IN DIRECTING IN A. NO I DON'T Q. YOU KNOW WHETHER EITHER ANY PROJECT THAT WE TALKED ABOUT INVOLVED THE COOKER AND CATALYTIC REFORMER A. SOME OF THEM MANY OF THE PLANTS DID INCLUDE THOSE THINGS NOTHING NEW ABOUT IT DO YOU KNOW WHETHER IN 1958 YOUR COMPANY 14 PARTICIPATE IN A LARGE EXPANSION OF THE REFINERY OUT AT AVON A. I DO NOT RECALL WHAT THE DATE WAS OR JUST EXACTLY WHAT IT WAS BUT KNEW THEY WERE GOOD CUSTOMERS OF DURS WE WORKED OUT THERE IT IS ABOUT ALL I CAN TELL YOU Q. YOU MEAN A. WHEN YOU SAY GOOD CUSTOMER OF OURS WHAT DO A GOOD CUSTOMER ONE -- 10 Q. ONE WITH REPEAT BUSINESS 11 A. YES THAT'S RIGHT REPEAT BUSINESS IS PROBABLY 12 | THE BEST INDICATION 13 Q. THOSE WHO GIVE REPEAT BUSINESS ARE BETTER 14 CUSTOMERS 15 A. SOMETIMES NOT ALWAYS 16 0 BUT THEY WERE GOOD CUSTOMERS BECAUSE THEY YOU 17 : GOT MULTIPLE JOBS THAT YOU DID OUT THERE IS THAT CORRECT 18 A. WELL THAT WOULD BE ONE OF THE REASONS 19 Q. WAS IT ONE OF THE REASONS 20 A. DON'T KNOW YOU HAVE TO ASK THE CUSTOMER 21 Q. DO YOU RECALL WHETHER YOUR COMPANY WAS INVOLVED 22 IN THE ISOCRACKER COMPLEX 23 24 | 25 26 27 28 A. Q. Q. A. THE WHAT ISOCRACKER COMPLEX ISOCRACKER YOU REMEMBER THAT ISOCRACKER I NEVER HEARD OF ONE OF SUCH A THING SIR YOU ARE AN ENGINEER AND YOU ACTUALLY DID 185 AT TIMES FAMILIARIZE YOURSELF WITH SOME PROJECTS THAT WERE BEING DONE AT THE REFINERIES ISN'T THAT TRUE A. THAT IS CORRECT Q. AND ISN'T IT TRUE THAT ON CERTAIN PROJECTS _ THERE WOULD BE UP TO 20 MILES OF PIPE INSULATION A. YES WHY NOT Q. AND ISN'T IT TRUE THAT THE BECHTEL ENGINEERS BACK IN THE 40'S AND THE 50'S AND THE 60'S FOR PIPE INSULATION ON HOT PIPE WOULD SPECIFY EITHER CALCIUM SILICATE OR 85 PERCENT MAGNESIUM PIPE FITTING THAT 11 CONTAINED ABESTOS 12 A. THE COMPANY YOU REPEAT THAT AND I WILL -- Q. ALL RIGHT DO YOU KNOW WHETHER OR NOT YOU HAVE 14 EVER HEARD OF 85 PERCENT MAGNESIUM 15 17 A. HAVE HEARD TO -- Q. HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF IT A. PROBABLY DID WHEN I WAS A DESIGNER WAY BACK 18 19 THAT I DON'T REMEMBER Q. DO YOU KNOW WHETHER OR NOT ANY OF THE PRODUCTS 20 21 22 23 24 25 THAT BECHTEL USED CONTAINED ABESTOS PIPE COVERING A. TODAY I COULDN'T TELL YOU I HAVE NO IDEA Q. MIGHT HAVE KNOWN BACK THEN BUT DON'T REMEMBER NOW A. THAT'S RIGHT REMEMBER THAT WAS 60 YEARS AGO THAT I WAS GETTING INTO THAT SORT OF THING NEAR '55 ANY WAY 27 Q. WHEN A JOB WAS BEING DONE AT A MAJOR REFINERY 28 SUCH AS AVON DID YOU SEE THE PLANS OR ESTIMATES OR THE 186 BIDS FOR ANY OF THOSE PROJECTS A. PROBABLY NOT Q. THOSE WOULD BE -- A. BECAUSE I HAD THE ENGINEERS WORKING FOR ME WHO _ 5 DID THAT Q. A. I DIDN'T NEED TO DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY FEET THERE ARE IN A MILE HOW MANY FEET Q. FEET IN A MILE 10 11 12 13 14 A. FEET IN A MILE 5280 WOULD IT BE ALL RIGHT WOULD IT BE DO YOU Q. ISN'T IT TRUE THAT ON CERTAIN BECHTEL JOBS OUT AT THE REFINERIES AS MUCH AS AN 150 THOUSAND LINEAR FEET OF ABESTOS CONTAINING OF STRIKE THAT MR LOPEZ YOUR HONOR -- MR TIGERMAN 15 16 Q. ISN'T IT TRUE THAT AT REFINERY JOBS UP TO 17 150,000 FEET OF PIPING INSULATION COULD BE USED MR LOPEZ YOUR HONOR LET ME JUST OBJECT 18 TO RELEVANCE WE WILL STIPULATE REFINERIES HAVE A LOT OF PIPE AND A LOT OF INSULATION THE COURT I DON'T KNOW WHETHER HE WANTS TO ACCEPT A LOT MR TIGERMAN NO I'D RATHER HAVE 150,000 THAN A LOT MR GILBERT I DON'T KNOW DOES HE HAVE DOCUMENTS MR TIGERMAN OF COURSE I DO THEY 27 27 STIPULATED TO THEIR ADMISSIBILITY 23 23 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 187 THE COURT DON'T ARGUMENT IN FRONT OF THE JURY STIPULATION OFFERED TO SAVE TIME LET'S ACCEPT IT AND MOVE ON _ MR TIGERMAN THEY DID STIPULATE MR LOPEZ HE WAS GOING TO ENTER THESE DOCUMENTS IN I AM NOT SURE WHAT THE PURPOSE OF THIS -- MR TIGERMAN ALL RIGHT I WILL ENTER THEM IN NOW I WILL MARK PLAINTIFF'S NEXT IN ORDER EXHIBIT FROM THE CUSTODIAN'S DEPOSITION THE COURT ALL RIGHT WHAT NUMBER IS IT MR LOPEZ HE IS GOING TO ASK THIS WITNESS IF HE HAS SEEN THESE DOCUMENTS YOUR HONOR THE COURT DON'T KNOW WHAT ARE YOU MARKING MR TIGERMAN THESE ARE DOCUMENTS PRODUCED AT THE CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS DEPOSITION THE COURT ALL RIGHT MEAN ANYTHING TO THE JURY FINE THAT DOESN'T MR TIGERMAN THAT IS WHY I DON'T WANT TO PUBLISH IT TO THE JURY I AM SAYING THIS BECAUSE IT IS GENERIC THIS DOCUMENT IS FROM DEPOSES IT REGARDS REGARDING OUT AT AVON THE COURT YOU STIPULATE THESE ARE THE RECORDS MR LOPEZ STIPULATE TO AUTHENTICITY I DON'T THINK THIS WITNESS HE CAN SHOW THEM TO HIM MR TIGERMAN THIS IS WHAT WE DISCUSSED 188 YESTERDAY THAT THEY STIPULATED THE COURT ALL RIGHT SO THERE IS A STIPULATION THAT THESE RECORDS CAN BE MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION AND THERE IS NO NEED TO HAVE A CUSTODIAN TO COME IN AND AUTHENTICATE THEM THESE ARE AUTHENTIC RECORDS IS THAT RIGHT MR LOPEZ THAT'S RIGHT YOUR HONOR THE COURT ALL RIGHT THE CLERK PLAINTIFF'S 60 YOUR HONOR 10 WHEREUPON DOCUMENTS WAS MARKED 11 PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT NO 60 FOR 12 IDENTIFICATION ONLY 13 MR TIGERMAN 14 Q. NOW SIR LET ME JUST GIVE YOU SOME DATES ASK 15 WHETHER OR NOT THESE REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION 16 IN 1953 WERE YOU INVOLVED IN THE NUMBER FOUR GAS 17 PLANT ADDITION AT THE AVON REFINERY 18 19 20 21 22 A. - Q. I DO NOT RECALL HAVING BEEN THERE NOW IN A SITUATION WHERE A PROJECT WAS BEING DONE BY BECHTEL AT A REFINERY AND INSULATION WORK HAD TO BE DONE WAS IT UNUSUAL FOR BECHTEL TO SUBCONTRACT OUT THE WORK TO DO THE INSULATION WAS THAT UNUSUAL 23 A. TO SUBCONTRACT IT 24 25 26 27 Q. YES A. TO CONTRACT ON A REFINERY JOB FOR EXAMPLE . Q. TO SUBCONTRACT THE INSULATION WORK ON A REFINERY JOB IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WAS UNUSUAL FOR 28 BECHTEL 19 A. NO WELL YES I THINK PROBABLY UNUSUAL BUT THEY CAN DO IT EITHER WAY PROBABLY DID IT BOTH WAYS I DON'T KNOW Q. WELL ON THE REFINERY PROJECT YOU WERE INVOLVED IN ISN'T IT TRUE THAT THAT BECHTEL WOULD HIRE INSULATION CONTRACTORS TO COME OUT AND DO THE WORK A. WELL YOU ARE ASKING ME ABOUT SOMETHING THAT I DID IN 1850 AND BEFORE THAT AND I CAN'T CAN'T SAY THAT I REMEMBER ANY OF THAT 10 Q. ALL RIGHT SIR WERE YOU INVOLVED IN ANY WAY 11 OR WELL LET ME BACK UP EVEN THOUGH YOU WEREN'T 12 INVOLVED DON'T RECALL BEING INVOLVED AT THE NUMBER FOUR 13 GAS PLANT EDITION IN 1953 DO YOU KNOW THAT BECHTEL WAS 14 INVOLVED IN THE NUMBER FOUR GAS PLANT EDITION IN 1953 AT 15 AVON 16 A. SPECIFICALLY THAT ONE THAT IS ONE OF THOUSANDS 17 OF JOBS THAT WE DID I CAN'T TELL YOU THAT ONE PICK OUT 18 ANY ONE AND TELL YOU THAT WE DID THEM AND WHEN 19 Q. ALL RIGHT WITH RESPECT TO FOR EXAMPLE WORK 20 THAT WAS DONE OUT AT AVON REFINERY HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF 21 A COMPANY CALLED BY THE NAME OF PLANT ABESTOS 22 23 24 A. NO Q. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH ANY WORK THAT WAS DONE BY BECHTEL IN 1954 AND 1955 AND 1956 REGARDING AN EXPANSION 25 AT AVON 26 A. NO I CAN'T RECALL IT 27 Q. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH ANY JOBS AT AVON THAT 28 LASTED 83 WEEKS OR MORE THAN 80 WEEKS 150 A. I REPEAT I DON'T REMEMBER WHEN ANY OF THOSE PLANTS THOSE PROJECTS WERE DONE AT THAT TIME Q. ALL RIGHT MY QUESTION IS ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH ANY JOBS THAT BECHTEL DID AT AVON THAT LASTED MORE THAN 80 WEEKS MR LOPEZ YOUR HONOR -- THE WITNESS I HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING THAT MR LOPEZ I AM ASKED AND ANSWERED HE 10 SAID HE DOESN'T - 11 THE COURT OVERRULED 22 MR TIGERMAN 13 Q. SIR -- 14 THE COURT OVERRULED 15 MR TIGERMAN 16 Q. -- ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH ANY JOBS THAT WERE 17 DONE BY BECHTEL OUT AT AVON 18 THE COURT ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH ANY JOB 19 20 21 22 DONE AT AVON THE WITNESS ONLY HEARD ABOUT THEM VERY LITTLE OF IT I KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE COURT WHAT'S THE USE OF GOING THROUGH 23 ALL OF THESE IF HE SAYS I DON'T KNOW 24 MR TIGERMAN BECAUSE HE SAYS HE KNOWS 25 ABOUT SOME INDIRECTLY 26 THE WITNESS KNOW IT IS GOING ON SOMETIME 27 WAY BACK THERE 28 THE COURT YOU KNOW WHICH PROJECT WAS DONE 191 THE WITNESS NO THE COURT YOU KNOW WHAT WAS --- - THE WITNESS NOT AT THIS POINT MR TIGERMAN ALL RIGHT Q. ALL RIGHT JUST ONE LAST QUESTION DO YOU BELIEVE THAT A CORPORATION HAS A MORALE RESPONSIBILITY TO THE PEOPLE WHO ARE EFFECTED BY ITS CONDUCT MR LOPEZ OBJECTION YOUR HONOR CALLS 10 FOR SPECULATION IMPROPER -- 11 THE COURT SPECULATIVE 12 MR GILBERT ARGUMENTATIVE YOUR HONOR 13 THE COURT IT IS ARGUMENTATIVE AS TO 14 WHETHER OR NOT THE CORPORATION OWES A MORALE 15 RESPONSIBILITY TO WHO 16 MR TIGERMAN TO THOSE WHO ARE EFFECTED 17 BY THE CONDUCT 18 THE COURT HOW EFFECTED BY ITS CONDUCT I 19 ' MEAN THAT IS PRETTY VAGUE MIGHT HAVE A GOOD EFFECT 20 AS OPPOSED TO A BAD EFFECT 21 MR TIGERMAN ' 22 Q. IF A CORPORATION HAS A MORALE RESPONSIBILITY TO 23 THOSE WHO ARE HARMED BY IT CONDUCTS BECAUSE OF SOME LATEN 24 PROBLEM THAT IS CREATED BY THAT CORPORATION 25 MR LOPEZ OBJECTION -- 26 THE COURT TOO LOOSE TOO LOOSE OF A 27 QUESTION SUSTAINED 28 MR TIGERMAN 192 Q. IF THE COMPANY CREATES LATEN HAZARDS THAT'S KNOWN TO THE COMPANY BUT NOT KNOWN TO THE CUSTOMER DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THE CORPORATION HAS A MORAL RESPONSIBILITY TO REVEAL THAT MR LOPEZ OBJECTION YOUR HONOR -- THE COURT ARE YOU USING THE WORDS MORAL RESPONSIBILITY AS OPPOSED TO LEGAL " RESPONSIBILITY MR TIGERMAN Q. WELL DO THEY HAVE RESPONSIBILITY -- 10 THE WITNESS I THINK I CAN ANSWER 11 THE COURT CAN YOU ANSWER THAT 12 THE WITNESS I THINK I CAN ANSWER 13 THEY -- 14 THE COURT GOOD ANSWER IT 15 THE WITNESS I HAVE TO ANSWER IT BECAUSE 16 THE FACTS ARE THAT A GOOD DEAL OF WHAT IS DONE BY 17 BECHTEL OR ANY OTHER CONTRACTOR IN BUILDING A 18 19 20 21 22 23 REFINERY THE CONTRACTOR EVEN THOUGH HE DESIGNS MUCH OF IT DOES NOT NECESSARILY PUT THE SPECIFICATIONS IN IN THE HANDS OF THE DESIGNER IT COMES FROM THE CUSTOMER VERY OFTEN so YOU CAN'T SAY THAT IT WAS JUST A CONTRACTOR THAT HAS THE RESPONSIBILITY THE OWNER HIMSELF IS SPECIFYING 24 OFTEN WHAT HE WANTS TO DO 25 MR TIGERMAN 26 Q. AS TO THE AVON PROJECT DON'T KNOW WHETHER THE 27 SPECIFICATIONS CAME FROM THE OWNER OR FROM BECHTEL DO 28 YOU 193 A. I DON'T I HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING Q. AND THE SPECIFICATIONS COME FROM BECHTEL AND THOSE SPECIFICATIONS CALL FOR A MATERIAL WHICH IS A HAZARD KNOWN TO BECHTEL BUT NOT KNOWN TO THE CUSTOMER DO YOU THINK THE COMPANY HAS A RESPONSIBILITY TO REVEAL THAT MR LOPEZ OBJECTION YOUR HONOR ARGUMENTATIVE THE COURT ASSUMES A FACT -- MR LOPEZ ARGUMENTATIVE 10 THE COURT ASSUMES A FACT NOT IN EVIDENCE 11 SUSTAINED 12 MR TIGERMAN THAT'S ALL I HAVE 13 THANK YOU SIR 14 THE COURT ANY QUESTIONS 15 MR LOPEZ JUST A COUPLE YOUR HONOR 16 17 EXAM - I EXNAA MIT NAITO ION N 18 MR LOPEZ 19 Q. GOOD AFTERNOON MR DRANIY WHAT YEAR WERE YOU 20 BORN 21 A. WHAT YEAR 1909 APRIL 22 Q. SO YOU RECENTLY HAD A BIRTHDAY YOU TURNED 23 867 24 25 26 27 28 A. RIGHT Q. AND YOU FIRST TOOK A JOB IN WHAT YEAR A. FIRST JOB YOU MEAN IN MY LIFE Q. YES OUT OF ENGINEERING SCHOOL A. OUT OF ENGINEERING SCHOOL THERE WEREN'T ANY 194 JOBS IN 1932 I GOT A JOB IN TEXAS WITH A SMALL REFINERY AS A TECHNICIAN TECHNOLOGIST OR WHATEVER AND MY MAIN JOB WAS DOING THE TESTING THE PRODUCTS EVERY DAY AND SEEING THAT THEY ARE UP TO SPECIFICATIONS AND THAT SORT OF THING Q. AND WHAT YEAR WAS THAT A. THAT WAS THAT WAS LATE '32 '33 AND '33 Q. HOW OLD WERE YOU AT THAT TIME A. I WAS LET'S SEE I MUST HAVE BEEN '39 23 9 23 IS THAT'S '31 1931 HUH 10 Q. SO YOU WERE 23 YEARS OLD 11 A. ABOUT THAT YES 12 Q. AND THEN YOU WORKED FOR BECHTEL MCCONE 13 PARSONS IN 1937 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 A. YES MR TIGERMAN OBJECTION LEADING THE WITNESS YES IN THE MEAN TIME I WAS WORKING WITH ANOTHER REFINERY THE COURT HE SAID THAT MR LOPEZ Q. A. HOW OLD WERE YOU THEN WHEN I WENT TO WORK FOR -- BECHTEL MCCONE PARSONS A. A. 28. I THINK THAT FIGURES OUT YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH YOUR MEMORY I DO NOW I NEVER USE TO WHEN DID THAT HAPPEN JUST WITHIN THE PAST COUPLE OF WE YEARS j^/ WHAT HAPPENED 195 A. WELL JUST FORGET CAN'T BRING THINGS TO MIND Q. SO SOMETIMES YOU HAVE A DIFFICULTY RECALLING THE WORDS YOU WANT TO USE A. THAT'S RIGHT YOU PROBABLY NOTED THAT HERE I DON'T KNOW WHAT WORD TO USE Q. I TAKE IT YOU ARE NOT TRYING TO BE EVASIVE IN YOUR ANSWERS A. I AM NOT TRYING TO BE EVASIVE A BIT MR TIGERMAN TOO LEADING 10 THE COURT I JUST OH NO LEADING NO 11 LEADING 12 MR LOPEZ 13 Q. DID YOU GET SUBPOENAED TO COME HERE 14 A. YES 15 Q. YOU HAVE A COPY OF THAT SUBPOENA 16 A. YES 17 Q. WHAT DOES THAT SUBPOENA SAY 18 A. WHAT IT SAYS IT SAYS --WELL IT INSTRUCTS ME 19 TO APPEAR HERE AT A DESIGNATED TIME AND I WAS TO BE A 20 WITNESS IN CONNECTION WITH A LET'S SEE WELL PLAINTIFF'S 21 PETITION OF ANGELO AND ANNA VIALE AND DEFENDANTS 22 CORPORATION RAYBESTOS MANHATTAN ET AL THAT IS WHAT I 23 CAME OUT HERE TO TALK ABOUT 24 Q. OKAY THEN DID YOU GET A CALL FROM 25 MR TIGERMAN'S OFFICE 26 A. ABOUT THIS 27 Q. YES 28 A. YES 196 Q. Q. A. YES YES MORE THAN ONE WHAT WERE YOU TOLD WELL HE WANTED WANTED TO GET SOME INFORMATION _ ABOUT UNDER THIS THINGS THEY LIKE TO GET SOME INFORMATION ABOUT SOME THINGS THAT WENT ON AT BECHTEL IN PARTICULAR THIS SHIP BUILDING Q. DID HE TELL YOU BECHTEL WAS A DEFENDANT IN THE CASE 10 A. NO I WAS VERY SURPRISED 11 Q. YOU WERE SURPRISED WHEN 12 A. WHEN I GOT HERE 13 Q. NOW OVER THE COURSE OF YOUR CAREER DID YOU 14 EVER BELIEVE ABESTOS WAS HAZARDOUS 15 A. I HAVE KNOWN WAY BACK THAT IT IS SOMETHING YOU 16 HAVE TO BE A LITTLE CAREFUL ABOUT THAT IT WAS NOT VIEWED 17 IN THOSE DAYS AS SOMETHING THAT YOU HAD TO GO TO SPECIAL 18 ARRANGEMENTS IN ORDER TO DO IT 19 AND MY BEST OF MY RECOMMENDATION THIS REALLY 20 GOT HOT ABOUT 20 YEARS AGO AND THE REASON I SAY THAT I 21 SEEN IT USED SO MUCH IN BUILDING HOUSES EVERYTHING ELSE 22 UP TO THAT TIME AND I DON'T RECALL VERY MUCH SAID ABOUT IT 23 BEING DANGEROUS 24 Q. SO YOUR RECOLLECTION IS ABOUT TWENTY YEARS AGO 25 A. THAT IS ALL I CAN RECALL ON IT YES 26 Q. PRIOR TO THAT TIME DIDN'T HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE 27 THAT IT WAS A HAZARDOUS MATERIAL 28 A. WELL I THINK THAT LIKE MANY THINGS CERTAIN 197 PAINTS AND SO ON YOU ALWAYS KNOW YOU CAN'T DRINK IT YOU'VE GOT TO BE CAREFUL THAT SORT OF THING BUT IT WASN'T SO SERIOUS THAT IF IT HAD BEEN WE CERTAINLY WOULD HAVE DONE SOMETHING ABOUT IT MR LOPEZ THANK YOU REDIRECT EXAMINATION MR TIGERMAN SIR GOT JUST A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS 10 Q. FIRST OF ALL WHEN I SPOKE WITH YOU ON THE 11 TELEPHONE DIDN'T I TELL YOU I WAS INTERESTED IN 12 MR O'CONNELL AND WHAT YOU KNEW ABOUT MR O'CONNELL O'CONNELL 13 A. HUH 14 Q. YES 15 16 17 18 19 20 A. DID YOU WHAT Q. DIDN'T I TELL YOU I WAS INTERESTED IN MR O'CONNELL I WANTED TO KNOW ABOUT MR O'CONNELL O'CONNELL A. YOU DID AND WE SPOKE ABOUT IT Q. AND DIDN'T I TELL YOU THAT PART OF THIS CASE WAS ABOUT WHAT MR O'CONNELL LEARNED AND DIDN'T TELL THE 21 COMPANY DIDN'T I TELL YOU THAT 22 23 24 25 A. I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU SPEAK OF Q. DIDN'T I TELL YOU MR O'CONNELL WENT TO A MEETING IN 1942. AT THE MEETING HE LEARNED ABOUT THE HAZARDS OF ABESTOS DIDN'T I TELL YOU THE BECHTEL 26 CORPORATION THAT WAS WHAT THIS WAS ABOUT 27 A. WHEN WAS THIS 28 2 IN 1942 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199 A. NO I DON'T RECALL THAT I DON'T I RECALL ONLY SOME DISCUSSION OF WHAT WENT ON IN THE BETWEEN BECHTEL AND SHIP BUILDING Q. DIDN'T I TELL YOU THAT ONE OF THE ISSUES IN THE -- CASE WAS WHETHER OR NOT THE FORMATION OF THE BECHTEL COMPANY IN 1945 AND HOW THAT WAS ACHIEVED YOU REMEMBER THAT YOU SAID YOU KNEW SOMETHING ABOUT THAT A. YES I TOLD YOU THE COURT ALL RIGHT 10 MR TIGERMAN 11 Q. NOW SIR A SECOND AGO YOU SAID THAT YOUR 12 MEMORY GOT BAD YOU SAID IN THE LAST COUPLE OF WEEKS THEN 13 WENT TO MONTHS 14 MR LOPEZ OBJECTION YOUR HONOR 15 MR TIGERMAN 16 Q. DIDN'T YOU ALMOST SAY IN THE LAST COUPLE OF 17 WEEKS 18 19 A. , . Q. DID I SAY WHAT DIDN'T YOU ALMOST SAY YOUR MEMORY GOT BAD IN 20 21 22 THE LAST COUPLE OF WEEKS THE COURT OVERRULED THE WITNESS I DID NOT SAY THAT I SAID 23 IN THE LAST TWO YEARS 24 MR TIGERMAN 25 Q. BUT YOU ALMOST SAID LAST COUPLE OF WEEKS 26 DIDN'T YOU 27 28 A. Q. I -- YOU SAID WEEKS 200 THE COURT HE SAID WA WA MR TIGERMAN HE SAID WE THEN CHANGED THE ANSWER Q. SIR ALL I AM ASKING IS WHETHER OR NOT YOU ALMOST SAID WHETHER YOUR MEMBER GOT BAD IN THE LAST COUPLE OF WEEKS A. I DID NOT SAY THAT Q. SIR ISN'T IT TRUE A SUBPOENA WAS SERVED ON YOU IN THE LAST COUPLE OF WEEKS 10 MR GILBERT OBJECTION YOUR HONOR 11 THE COURT OVERRULED GOES TO ITS WEIGHT 12 THE WITNESS YES IT WAS 13 MR TIGERMAN 14 15 16 17 Q. WAS IT A. YES OF COURSE IT WAS Q. YOU SAID SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT THAT YOU KNEW WAY BACK THAT ABESTOS WAS SOMETHING THAT PEOPLE HAD TO BE 18 A LITTLE CAREFUL ABOUT 19 A. YOU WERE ASKING ME ABOUT IT AND I TOLD YOU JUST 20 A WHILE AGO THAT IT HAS BEEN KNOWN WAY BACK THAT THAT IS 21 SOMETHING YOU HAVE TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT BUT NOT THE ONLY 22 ONE JUST AS MUCH SO AS PAINTS AND OTHER THINGS 23 MR TIGERMAN THANK YOU 24 THE COURT BEFORE I ASK YOU HAVE ANY 25 QUESTION THERE IS A NOTE FROM THE JURY MIGHT WANT 26 TO LOOK AT IT HAVING LOOKED AT THE NOTE YOU HAVE ANY 27 28 FURTHER QUESTIONS YOU WANT TO ASK ANY FURTHER 201 QUESTIONS MR TIGERMAN I AM NO I AM SATISFIED WITH THE ANSWER THE COURT COUNSEL YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS YOU WANT TO ASK MR LOPEZ NO YOUR HONOR MR TIGERMAN WELL ACTUALLY LET ME EXPAND A LITTLE BIT ALLOW ME TO REOPEN IN LIGHT OF THE FACT 10 THAT A QUESTION WAS ASKED 11 Q. WHEN YOU SAY YOU KNEW WAY BACK THAT ABESTOS WAS 12 ONE OF THE THINGS THAT YOU HAD TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT HOW 13 FAR BACK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT WHEN YOU SAY WAY BACK 14 A. CAN'T PUT A NUMBER ON THAT DON'T REMEMBER 15 WHEN THESE THINGS CREEP UP ON YOU BUT I COULD ONLY 16 GUESS THAT IT IS SOMETIME WITHIN THE MID POINT OF MY 17 CAREER NO WAY I CAN TELL YOU WHEN THAT WAS 18 19 20 21 Q. ALL RIGHT SO THE MID POINT OF YOUR CAREER YOU WENT FROM '37 TO '74 THAT IS 37 YEARS AND THE MID POINT OF YOUR CAREER THEN WAS 1955 IS THAT CORRECT A. YES I AM NOT TELLING YOU WITH THAT DEGREE OF 22 23 24 25 MEASUREMENT Q. ALL RIGHT AND SIR WHEN YOU SAID IT WAS JUST ONE OF THE THINGS THAT PEOPLE HAD TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT THERE WERE OTHER THINGS LIKE WELDING FUMES AND OTHER 26 THINGS RIGHT 27 A. OF COURSE 28 Q. AND WASN'T DIDN'T YOU FEEL IT WAS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY AS THE PERSON WHO WAS OPERATING A 202 DEPARTMENT TO MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE WERE NOT BEING INJURED BY ALL OF THESE DANGEROUS ITEMS THAT YOU JUST REFERENCED A. MY RESPONSIBILITY _ Q. TO MAKE SURE SOMETHING WAS BEING DONE ABOUT IT A. ABOUT WHAT Q. ABOUT ALL THE THINGS DANGEROUS THINGS YOU SAID YOU WERE AWARE OF A. I THINK YOU LEARN THAT FROM THE DAY YOU START 10 TO LEARN HOW TO CONSTRUCT SOMETHING THAT'S NOT THAT'S 11 BEING GOING ON FOR DECADES 12 Q. WHAT HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR DECADES 13 A. THAT SAME PROBLEM THAT YOU JUST DEFINED 14 Q. SO -- 15 A. I MEAN YOU CAN GO BACK THE OTHER PREVIOUS 16 CENTURY ALWAYS HAD PROBLEMS LIKE THAT 17 Q. ALL RIGHT BUT MY QUESTION IS YOU SAID YOU 18 KNEW IT WAS ONE OF SEVERAOLR MANY PROBLEMS YOU KNEW IT 19 WAY BACK 20 MY QUESTION IS DID YOU DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT 21 WHEN YOU FOUND OUT ABOUT IT 22 A. NOT ANYMORE THAN I DID IN THE CASE THAT 23 ELECTRICITY GOT OUT OF HAND AND EXECUTED SOMEBODY THIS 24 COULD HAPPEN IT WAS AN ACCIDENT ELECTRICITY IS ONE OF 25 THOSE THINGS YOU GOT TO BE CAREFUL OF AND THERE ARE 26 JILLIONS OF THEM 27 Q. EVERYBODY KNOWS ABOUT THE HAZARDS OF 28 ELECTRICITY ISN'T THAT TRUE 203 A. I DON'T KNOW I'VE KNOWN LOTS OF PEOPLE THAT DON'T DON'T Q. YOU THINK EVERYBODY KNEW ABOUT THE HAZARDS OF ABESTOS WHEN YOU FOUND OUT ABOUT IT A. DEFENDS UPON HOW WIDESPREAD IT WAS BEING USED Q. YOU SAID YOU KNEW MANY YEARS AGO YOU SAID PROBABLY AROUND THE MID POINT OF YOUR CAREER AT THE MID POINT OF YOUR CAREER DO YOU THINK IT WAS WIDESPREAD KNOWLEDGE THAT EVERYBODY KNEW THAT ABESTOS 10 WAS DANGEROUS THE SAME WAY THAT EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT 11 ELECTRICITY IS DANGEROUS 12 A. I DON'T KNOW IT COULD BE MR TIGERMAN OKAY THANK YOU 13 14 15 RECROSS EXAMINATION 16 MR LOPEZ 17 Q. YOU CAN'T PINPOINT FOR US WHEN YOU GAINED ANY 18 KNOWLEDGE 19 A. PINPOINT WHAT 20 Q. YOU CAN'T PINPOINT FOR US WHEN YOU GAINED ANY 21 KNOWLEDGE THAT ABESTOS WAS HAZARDOUS 22 MR TIGERMAN LEADING 23 MR LOPEZ 24 25 26 27 28 Q. CAN YOU YOU CAN'T PINPOINT-- MR TIGERMAN OBJECTION LEADING THE COURT LEADING THE WITNESS WELL -- THE COURT NO NO IT WAS A LEADING 204 QUESTION YOU CAN'T THE FORM JUST THE FORM OF THE QUESTION IS LEADING MR LOPEZ Q. AS YOU SIT HERE TODAY YOU INDICATED THAT YOUR MEMORY IS BAD IS THAT CORRECT A. YES Q. IT IS NOT AS GOOD AS IT USE TO BE A. THAT IS RIGHT MR TIGERMAN LEADING 10 THE WITNESS APOLOGIZE FOR IT I AM SORRY 11 I HAD TO ANSWER THE WAY I DID I DID MY VERY BEST 12 MR LOPEZ 13 Q. OKAY AS YOU SIT HERE TODAY YOU CAN'T 14 PINPOINT- 15 MR TIGERMAN OBJECTION LEADING 16 THE COURT YOU CAN'T PINPOINT IS 17 LEADING IT IS TESTIFYING IT IS SUGGESTING AN 18 ANSWER THERE IS ANOTHER WAY TO DO IT 19 OPEN ENDED QUESTION 20 MR LOPEZ YES YOUR HONOR 21 THE COURT YOU WANT TO APPROACH THE SIDE 22 BAR BEFORE YOU START ASKING QUESTIONS THE RECORD 23 SHOULD INDICATE I HAVE BEEN RECEIVING A SERIES OF 24 NOTES FROM THE JURY OR A JUROR 25 SIDEBAR 26 THE COURT ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS 27 MR LOPEZ 28 Q. YOU TOLD US YOUR MEMORY IS BAD IS THAT 205 CORRECT MR TIGERMAN OBJECTION LEADING THE COURT NO ASKED AND ANSWERED HE ALREADY SAID - THAT MR LOPEZ Q. IT GOT BAD ABOUT TWO YEARS AGO -- MR TIGERMAN OBJECTION LEADING AND 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SUGGESTIVE THE COURT SUSTAINED MR LOPEZ Q. -- IS THAT CORRECT MR TIGERMAN SAME OBJECTION YOU CAN'T MAKE IT BETTER BY SAYING IS THAT CORRECT THE COURT I WILL ALLOW IT HIS ANSWER WHAT IS YOUR ANSWER THE WITNESS THAT'S WHEN I BECAME AWARE OF IT MR LOPEZ OKAY NO FURTHER QUESTIONS MR TIGERMAN ALL RIGHT THAT'S ALL I WOULD HAVE ANOTHER WITNESS I WOULD LIKE TO TRY TO GET ON THE COURT OKAY THANKS YOU ARE EXCUSED NO FURTHER QUESTIONS JUST LEAVE THE EXHIBITS HERE ALL RIGHT SO -- MR TIGERMAN CAN WE START THE COURT ALL RIGHT GO 7 MINUTES COME ON 206 ANNIE VIALE CALLED AS A WITNESS BY THE PLAINTIFF AFTER FIRST BEING DULY SWORN TESTIFIES AS FOLLOWS THE CLERK PLEASE BE SEATED STATE YOUR NAME AND SPELL IT FOR THE REPORTER THE WITNESS MRS ANNIE VIALE A THE COURT MS VIALE PLEASE SPEAK INTO THE MICROPHONE LET'S GO FINE DIRECT EXAMINATION 10 MR TIGERMAN 11 Q. HI MRS VIALE HOW ARE YOU 12 A. FINE 13 Q. ARE YOU A LITTLE BIT NERVOUS BEING HERE ON THE 14 STAND 15 A. 16 Q. 17 A. YES MRS VIALE DO YOU KNOW ANGELO VIALE YES 18 Q. WHO IS HE 19 A. MY HUSBAND 20 Q. HOW LONG HAS HE BEEN YOUR HUSBAND FOR 21 22 23 24 25 A. NEARLY 50 YEARS Q. WHEN DID YOU AND ANGELO MEET A. 19 LET'S SEE 40 Q. WHEN IS IT THAT YOU FIRST MET DID YOU GROW UP IN THE SAME NEIGHBORHOOD DID YOU MET SOMEWHERE ALONG THE 26 WAY 27 A. NO WE KNEW EACH OTHER THROUGH HIGH SCHOOL 28 WE MET PRACTICALLY THE DATE AT MY GRADUATION 207 Q. Q. YOUR GRADUATION HAPPENED WHAT YEAR IN JUNE OF 1940 YOU DATED AFTER YOUR GRADUATION A. Q. JUST FOR A COUPLE OF MONTHS _ THEN WHAT HAPPENED HE WENT INTO THE SERVICE IN AUGUST OF 1940 Q. WHEN ANGELO WENT TO THE SERVICE DID YOU CONTINUE TO HEAR FROM HIM A. VERY RARELY BECAUSE HIS LETTERS WERE ALL 10 SHOPPED IT WAS THE MAIL AT THE TIME THEY WERE 11 WRITTEN ON BOTH SIDES THEY OF COURSE THEY WERE CUT 12 OPEN I DON'T KNOW IF YOU KNOW WHAT MAIL IS 13 Q. NO WHAT WAS IT 14 A. PHOTOSTATIC LETTERS THAT WERE SENT CUT OUT 15 PART OF IT SO YOU COULDN'T MAKE IT OUT 16 THE COURT THAT WAS MILITARY SECURITY SO 17 ON 18 LET'S GO ON 19 MR TIGERMAN 20 Q. AFTER ANGELO CAME BACK DID YOU GUYS CONTINUE 21 DATING 22 A. HE FOUR YEARS LATER HE CAME BACK AND WE DATED 23 FROM JUNE UNTIL JANUARY AND WE WERE MARRIED 24 Q. NOW WHERE DO YOU AND ANGELO LIVE NOW 25 26 A. ON MERLE AVENUE IN MARTINEZ WHEN DID YOU START LIVING THERE 27 A. 1952 28 Q. DID YOU GUYS JUST MOVE INTO THAT HOUSE 208 A. NO HE BUILT IT Q. HE BUILT IT HIMSELF A. YES Q. WITH HIS OWN HANDS JUST MAKE PLANS FOR _ SOMEBODY ELSE A. NO HE BUILT IT HIMSELF Q. AND ARE YOU GUYS ARE YOU STILL LIVING IN THAT SAME HOUSE THAT ANGELO BUILT A. YES 10 Q. NOW WHEN ANGELO CAME BACK FROM THE WAR IT WAS 11 ABOUT WHAT YEAR 12 A. 45 13 Q. DID YOU CONTINUE TO DATE DID YOU GET MARRIED 14 RIGHT AWAY 15 A. 6 MONTHS LATER WE GOT MARRIED IN '46 16 Q. AT THAT TIME WHAT WHERE WAS ANGELO WORKING 17 A. OUT AT IT WAS TIDEWATER THEN -- 18 19 20 Q. THERE -- A. --NEAR AVON Q. AT THAT TIME DID YOU EVER WASH ANGELO'S 21 CLOTHES 22 23 24 A. YES Q. CAN YOU TELL ME WHETHER OR NOT WHEN HE CAME BACK FROM WORK WHETHER HIS CLOTHES WOULD BE COVERED WITH 25 DUST 26 A. YES I WOULD TAKE THEM OUT SHACK THEM OUT AND 27 JUST THROW THEM IN WITH THE FAMILY WASH 28 0 NOW HOW LONG AFTER YOU AND ANGELO GOT MARRIED 209 DID YOU HAVE YOUR FIRST CHILD A. WE HAD OUR FIRST ONE IN 1949 WAS THAT A BOY OR GIRL GIRL A. WHAT WAS HER NAME MARGARET A. WHERE DOES MARGARET LIVE NOW SHE LIVES INARIZONA A. DOES SHE LIVE THERE WITH ANYBODY 10 A. YES 11 THE COURT WHAT IS THE RELEVANCY OF THIS 12 MR TIGERMAN 13 WELL DOES ANGELO HAVE ANY GRANDCHILDREN 14 A. YES HE HAS 6. WE HAVE 6 15 Q. HOW MANY GRANDCHILDREN DO YOU HAVE BY YOUR 16 DAUGHTER 17 A. TWO 18 Q. NOW IN 19 WELL STRIKE THAT 19 ANY OTHER CHILDREN DID YOU HAVE 20 A. NO WE HAVE TWO CHILDREN 21 0 so YOU HAVE TWO TOTAL 22 A. YES 23 Q. DISCUSSED YOUR DAUGHTER WHO IS YOUR OTHER 24 CHILD 25 OUR SON 26 Q. IS THAT ROBERT 27 A. YES 28 Q. HOW MANY CHILDREN DOES ROBERT HAVE 210 A. FOUR Q. SO TWO FROM YOUR DAUGHTER FOUR FROM YOUR SON THAT'S ? A. RIGHT _ Q. NO I BEFORE ANGELO GOT SICK DID YOU EVER USE TO DO ANYTHING WITH THESE GRANDCHILDREN A. WE USE TO TAKE THEM CAMPING EVERY YEAR ALL 6 OF THEM Q. ALL 6 AT ONCE 10 A. YES 11 Q. WHAT ARE THE AGES OF THESE GRAND CHILDREN 12 A. WELL QUITE A BIT SMALLER THEN BUT NOW THEY 13 HAVE GROWN 14 Q. IS THIS SOMETHING ANGELO WOULD DO BY HIMSELF 15 A. HE AND I BOTH GIVE THE PARENTS A VACATION 16 Q. OKAY NOW MRS VIALE AFTER ANGELO BUILT YOUR 17 HOUSE IN 1952 DID HE CONTINUE WORKING AT THE AVON 18 REFINERY 19 A. YES 20 Q. WHEN DID HE RETIRE FROM THE AVON REFINERY 21 A. 1975 22 Q. WHY IS IT THAT ANGELO RETIRED IF YOU KNOW 23 A. HE TOOK EARLY RETIREMENT BECAUSE WE COULD SEE 24 OUR WAY YOU KNOW WE HAD OUR HOME SO HE JUST DID SOME 25 ODD JOBS BUT JUST FOR FRIENDS 26 Q. NOW AFTER WELL BEFORE RETIREMENT DID ANGELO 27 DO ANY HOBBIES 28 A. YES HE HAD LOTS OF HOBBIES 211 Q. GIVE ME SOME EXAMPLE A. WE LIKE TO HIKE AND HUNT AND FISH OUT OF STATE HIGH ALTITUDE Q. DID HE EVER DIVE A. YES SKIN DIVE Q. WHAT ABOUT YOU WHEN HE DID THESE THINGS DID HE LEAVE YOU ALONE A. NO WENT WITH HIM WE DID A LOT OF TRAVELING Q. DID YOU GO WITH HIM WHEN HE WENT FISHING 10 A. YES 11 Q. WHAT DID YOU DO WHILE HE WAS OUT ON THE RIVER 12 BANK 13 A. WOULD OUT GO WITH HIM I FISHED TO I LOVED 14 IT 15 Q. DID YOU GO WITH HIM WHEN HE WENT HUNTING 16 A. YES 17 Q. WHAT DID YOU DO WHEN HE WAS RUNNING AROUND IN 18 THE WOODS 19 A. WAS WITH HIM 20 Q. YOU WERE HUNTING TOO 21 A. YES 22 Q. WHEN ANGELO WAS OUT DIVING DID YOU DRIVE WITH 23 HIM TO THE PLACE WHERE HE DID THE DIVING 24 A. WOULD GO TO THE BEACH I WOULD NOT GO IN THE 25 WATER BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE WATER 26 Q. NOW DID YOU AND ANGELO TRAVEL AT ALL 27 A. YES HE DID A LOT OF TRAVELING 28 Q. GIVE ME AN IDEA OF THE TRAVELING THE KIND YOU 212 DID A. WE WENT TO NEW ZEALAND AUSTRIA EUROPE HAWAII SEVERAL TIMES WHEN TO ALL THE LEGION OF VALOR CONVENTIONS AROUND THE UNITED STATES Q. LEGION OF VALOR WHAT ARE THOSE A. WELL IT IS A GROUP JUST FOR HIGHLY DECORATED SOLDIERS THEY MEET EVERY YEAR SO WE DID THAT Q. NOW SINCE ANGELO HAS BEEN SICK WELL FIRST OF ALL LET ME JUST TALK ABOUT THE LEGION OF VALOR FOR A 10 SECOND 11 WHAT IS YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE LEGION OF 12 VALOR WHAT IT IS FOR 13 MR GILBERT OBJECTION RELEVANCY 14 THE COURT RELEVANCY SUSTAINED WE 15 ALREADY HEARD THAT WE KNOW THAT ALREADY THE JURY 16 KNOWS. 17 MR TIGERMAN 18 Q. WHEN HE WENT TO THE LEGION OF VALOR CONVENTION 19 DID YOU ALWAYS GO TOGETHER 20 A. YES 21 Q. SINCE ANGELO HAS BEEN RETIRED -- 22 A. HUH 23 Q. ~~ CAN YOU GIVE US AN IDEA HOW MUCH TIME THE 24 TWO OF HAVE ACTUALLY SPENT TOGETHER AS OPPOSED TO HIM OFF 25 26 DOING HIS OWN THING A. WE HAVE ALWAYS GONE TOGETHER WE WENT 27 EVERYWHERES TOGETHER 28 Q. BEFORE ANGELO GOT SICK DID YOU FIND HIM TO BE A SOURCE OF MORAL SUPPORT 213 A. YES Q. IN WHAT WAY A. WELL HE IS THE ONLY ONE I HAD I HAVE NO OTHER I HAVE A BROTHER BUT WE ARE NOT THAT CLOSE SO HE WAS THE ONLY ONE I HAVE REALLY Q. DID YOU CONFIDE IN HIM AND SEEK ADVISE A. YES MR GILBERT OBJECTION LEADING 10 THE COURT I WILL ALLOW IT OVERRULED BUT 11 DON'T LEAD 12 MR TIGERMAN 13 Q. NOW SINCE ANGELO HAS BEEN SICK HAVE YOU BEEN 14 ABLE TO GET THE SAME KIND OF MORAL SUPPORT THAT YOU GOT IN 15 THE PAST 16 A. WELL HE DOESN'T SAY MUCH SO JUST DOESN'T 17 TALK 18 Q. HAVE YOU FOUND THERE IS A DIFFERENCE IN YOUR 19 ABILITY TO CONFIDE IN HIM ABOUT THINGS THAT TROUBLE YOU 20 A. VERY MUCH 21 Q. WHY DON'T YOU DO THAT ANY MORE 22 A. WELL DON'T WANT HIM TO FEEL BAD SO JUST 23 DON'T TALK ABOUT IT 24 Q. HAVE YOU TRIED 25 A. YES 26 WOULD YOU HAVE YOU EVER TALKED WITH ANGELO 27 ABOUT HOW HE FEELS ABOUT PASSING AWAY 28 A. TRIED NOT TO Q. A. NOT -- 214 HAS HE SAID ANYTHING TO YOU ABOUT PASSING AWAY NOT VERY MUCH JUST MADE A FEW COMMENTS BUT | Q. GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE OF THE COMMENTS THAT COMES A. WELL THE OTHER DAY HE WAS IN TERRIBLE PAIN I SAID WHAT'S THE MATTER HE SAID -- STATE MR GILBERT OBJECT YOUR HONOR HEARSAY MR TIGERMAN STATE OF MIND PHYSICAL 10 MR GILBERT PHYSICAL STATE IS ONE THING 11 GOES INTO SOME SOMETHING ELSE -- 12 THE COURT SUSTAINED 352. ALSO 352 13 MR TIGERMAN MAY WE HAVE A SIDEBAR 14 THE COURT I HAVE ALREADY RULED I AM 15 SORRY NEXT QUESTION 16 MR TIGERMAN ALL RIGHT 17 Q. DO YOU KNOW HAS ANGELO MADE ANY REMARKS TO YOU 18 THAT REVEAL HOW HE FEELS ABOUT WHAT IS HAPPENING WITH HIM 19 A. DOESN'T SAY VERY MUCH HE JUST SAID THE OTHER 20 DAY THAT THE LIGHTS ARE GETTING DIMMER SO 21 Q. ARE YOU ABLE TO GET THE SAME KIND OF EMOTIONAL 22 SUPPORT FROM ANGELO THAT YOU GOT BEFORE HE WAS SICK 23 MR GILBERT ASKED AND ANSWERED YOUR 24 HONOR 25 MR TIGERMAN THAT WAS MORAL 26 THE COURT SUSTAINED YOU WILL LOSE IF 27 YOU WANT QUARREL WITH ME 28 MR TIGERMAN OCCASIONALLY HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFUL 215 THE COURT SOMETIMES BUT NOT THIS ONE MR TIGERMAN MRS VIALE THAT IS ALL I HAVE NOW I DO WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE PROGRESSION OF ANGELO'S CONDITION WE WILL SAVE THAT THE COURT HOW MUCH MORE THEN WOULD YOU HAVE MUCH MORE MR TIGERMAN ANOTHER FIFTEEN MINUTES BUT 10 IF WE HAVE A JUROR WHO NEEDS TO GO YOUR HONOR 11 THE COURT ANOTHER 5 OR 10 MINUTES 12 MR TIGERMAN MAXIMUM 13 A JUROR GO AHEAD I WILL TAKE A TAXI 14 THE COURT YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE 15 QUESTIONS 16 MR GILBERT I DOUBT IT 17 THE COURT COME ON 18 MR TIGERMAN 19 Q. MRS VIALE WHEN YOU FIRST FOUND OUT THAT 20 ANGELO WAS SICK WHERE WERE THE TWO OF YOU 21 A. I GUESS WE WERE AT THE DOCTOR'S OFFICE 22 Q. NOW WAS THERE SOMETHING THAT LEAD UP TO THAT 23 A. YES WE WERE UP IN TENNESSEE I GUESS AND WE 24 WERE WALKING AND USUALLY HE IS WAY AHEAD OF ME HE 25 COULDN'T KEEP UP WITH ME AND SO I KNEW SOMETHING WAS 26 WRONG 27 WHEN WE GOT HOME HE STARTED FOR A WALK HE 28 COULDN'T MAKE IT AND SAID WELL SOMETHING IS WRONG So 216 HE WENT TO THE DOCTOR THAT'S WHEN THEY FOUND THE FLUID Q. SINCE THAT TIME SINCE THAT FIRST TIME DID ANGELO TRY TO DO ANYMORE HIKING OR CAMPING OR ANY OF THE OTHER ACTIVITIES A. HE WENT ON A FEW MORE PHEASANT HUNTS WHERE IT IS ALL LEVEL BUT THAT'S ABOUT IT Q. SINCE THAT TIME THAT ANGELO FIRST GOT SICK HAVE THE TWO YOU TRAVELED MUCH A. NO NOT AT ALL 10 Q. WHY NOT 11 A. JUST CAN'T 12 Q. SINCE THAT TIME WHEN YOU FIRST FOUND OUT THAT 13 ANGELO WAS SICK HAVE THE TWO OF YOU TRIED TO GO DIVING 14 A. OH NO 15 Q. HAVE THE TWO OF YOU TAKEN THE GRAND CHILDREN 16 OUT CAMPING 17 A. NO WE STOPPED 18 Q. NOW BEFORE ANGELO GOT SICK DID HE BUILD DECKS 19 ON THE HOUSE 20 A. JUST BEFORE THAT JUST BEFORE 21 Q. SINCE HE GOT SICK HAS HE DONE MUCH AROUND THE 22 HOUSE 23 A. NO HE HAVEN'T 24 25 Q. WAS ANGELO A VERY HANDY GUY BEFORE HE GOT SICK A. VERY HANDY HE BUILT THE HOUSE HE BUILT 26 DECKS HE TOOK CARE OF THE HOUSE FIXED EVERYTHING THAT 27 NEEDED FIXING 28 Q. WAS HE ABLE TO DO ANYTHING OF THOSE THINGS 217 A. NO NO Q. I TAKE IT YOU LEFT HIM TODAY IS THAT RIGHT . A. LEFT MY GRANDSON WITH HIM Q. HOW WAS HE WHEN YOU LEFT _ A. HE WAS IN HIS RECLINING CHAIR SLEEPING IN IT ALL NIGHT CAN'T EVEN MAKE IT ONTO THE BED JUST STAYS IN THE RECLINING CHAIR Q. HAS ANGELO LOST WEIGHT A. VERY MUCH 10 Q. HOW MUCH 11 A. 40 POUNDS 12 Q. WHAT ABOUT HIS BREATHING DO YOU OBSERVE HIM 13 BREATHING 14 A. VERY VERY DEEP VERY HEAVY 15 Q. DOES ANGELO EVER TELL YOU WHEN HE IS IN PAIN 16 A. NO HE TRIES NOT TO COMPLAINT BUT I CAN TELL 17 WHEN HE IS IN PAIN 18 Q. HOW CAN YOU TELL WHEN ANGELO IS IN PAIN 19 A. I CAN TELL FROM HIS EXPRESSION YOU KNOW HE 20 MIGHT MOAN LIGHTLY I SAY WHAT IS THE MATTER HE SAY OH 21 NOTHING AND I SAY HOW YOU FEEL HE SAYS OH I AM ALL 22 RIGHT AND I KNOW HE IS NOT 23 Q. SINCE ANGELO HAS BEEN DIAGNOSED WITH CANCER 24 HOW HAS HIS MOOD BEEN 25 A. HIS MOOD 26 27 28 YES j^/ WELL KIND OF GETS A LITTLE DEPRESSED 2 DO YOU EVER HAVE ANY SUCCESS IN TRYING TO MAKE 217 A. NO NO Q. I TAKE IT YOU LEFT HIM TODAY IS THAT RIGHT A. LEFT MY GRANDSON WITH HIM Q. HOW WAS HE WHEN YOU LEFT A. HE WAS IN HIS RECLINING CHAIR SLEEPING IN IT ALL NIGHT CAN'T EVEN MAKE IT ONTO THE BED JUST STAYS IN THE RECLINING CHAIR Q. HAS ANGELO LOST WEIGHT A. VERY MUCH 10 Q. HOW MUCH 11 A. 40 POUNDS 12 Q. WHAT ABOUT HIS BREATHING DO YOU OBSERVE HIM 13 BREATHING 14 A. VERY VERY DEEP VERY HEAVY 15 Q. DOES ANGELO EVER TELL YOU WHEN HE IS IN PAIN 16 A. NO HE TRIES NOT TO COMPLAINT BUT I CAN TELL 17 WHEN HE IS IN PAIN 18 Q. HOW CAN YOU TELL WHEN ANGELO IS IN PAIN 19 A. I CAN TELL FROM HIS EXPRESSION YOU KNOW HE 20 MIGHT MOAN LIGHTLY I SAY WHAT IS THE MATTER HE SAY OH 21 NOTHING AND I SAY HOW YOU FEEL HE SAYS OH I AM ALL 22 RIGHT AND I KNOW HE IS NOT 23 Q. SINCE ANGELO HAS BEEN DIAGNOSED WITH CANCER 24 HOW HAS HIS MOOD BEEN 25 A. HIS MOOD 26 Q. YES 27 A. WELL KIND OF GETS A LITTLE DEPRESSED 28 Q. DO YOU EVER HAVE ANY SUCCESS IN TRYING TO MAKE 218 HIM FEEL BETTER A. NOT MUCH I CAN DO FRIENDS COME BY TO SEE HIM TALK TO HIM CHEERS HIM UP THAT WAY THAT'S ABOUT IT MR TIGERMAN ALL RIGHT THANK YOU _ THAT'S I HAVE THE COURT ANY QUESTIONS MR GILBERT NO QUESTION HERE YOUR HONOR MR LOPEZ NO THE COURT THANK YOU YOU ARE EXCUSED 10 LADIES AND GENTLEMEN REMEMBER THE 11 ADMONITION OVER THE LONG 4TH OF JULY VACATION PERIOD 12 DON'T TALK ABOUT THIS CASE EXCHANGE NUMBERS DON'T 13 CALL EACH OTHER TALK ABOUT THE CASE REMEMBER MY 14 15 16 17 18 ADMONITION YOU HAVEN'T HEARD ALL THE CASE YET KEEP AN OPEN MIND WE WILL SEE YOU WEDNESDAY AT 9:00 O'CLOCK COURT IS IN RECESS FOR 15 MINUTES THEN COUNSEL AND I WILL SPEND THE REST OF THE AFTERNOON 19 _ WITH A WHOLE BUNCH OF STUFF 20 OUT OF JURY PRESENCE 21 THE COURT THE ATTORNEYS ARE PRESENT THE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 JURY IS NOT PRESENT IN REFERENCE TO 48 EXHIBIT 48 WHICH WAS A PLAINTIFF PREPARED PHOTOCOPY OF THE DUPLICATE ORIGINAL COPY WHICH HAS THE SEAL ON IT YESTERDAY WE SPENT SOMETIME SHOWING THAT SOME OF THE PAGES DOES NOT FOLLOW IN ORDER WASN'T THAT 48 WAS NOT A GOOD CORRECT COPY SOME STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ) I MILDRED BAKER A CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER DO | HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING IS A FULL TRUE AND CORRECT TRANSCRIPT OF THE PROCEEDINGS HAD IN THE ENTITLED AND NUMBERED 10 CAUSE ON THE DATE HEREINBEFORE SET FORTH AND I DO FURTHER 11 CERTIFY THAT SAID TRANSCRIPT HAS BEEN PREPARED BY ME 12 13 14 15 DATED JULY 24 1995 16 17 18 19 -_ , oe ee ta 20 MILDRED BAKER CSR 3505 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28