215-987-2019

About Chris Placitella

Christopher M. Placitella is a shareholder in the law firm of Cohen, Placitella & Roth PC (C/P/R) and an accomplished trial lawyer with a nationwide reputation as one of the country’s leading legal authorities on mass tort, class actions, and asbestos-related diseases. He represents individuals injured by defective products and drugs, toxic substances, and environmental damage.

    Find more about me on:
  • facebook
  • googleplus
  • linkedin
  • twitter

3 Million Dollar New York Mesothelioma Against Crane Co

 

 

I am delighted to let everyone know that our colleagues at Lipsitz and Ponterio prevailed against the ever recalcitrant Crane today after a hard fought trial for 3,000,000 and a reckless finding. This is great lawyering.

 

Jury rules for cancer victims in landmark NYC asbestos case.

 

Congratulations to my friend and colleague Dan Kraft who tried this case. While the verdict amount is not likely to stand up it sends a powerful message to those defendants who refuse to negotiate cases in good faith.

The New York Post (7/25, Marsh, 498K) reports that five cancer victims “won a whopping $190 million verdict in an asbestos case against two boiler companies,” but “only two of the five plaintiffs lived to see their victory,” as “three other tradesmen died from mesothelioma, an aggressive cancer caused by asbestos exposure.” The Manhattan Supreme Court jury came to a verdict on Tuesday after an 11-week trial, “having found the national companies – Burnham and Cleaver-Brooks – acted with reckless disregard for human life.” The victims were steamfitters, plumbers and construction workers, “but were not warned of the dangers related to the exposure to the deadly material. ‘These tragedies shouldn’t have happened,’ said their attorney, Daniel Kraft Jr. ‘I hope this verdict sends a message that corporations’ recklessness has a very real impact on people’s lives.’”

Maryland’s Highest Court Affirms $ 15,000,000 Dollar Mesothelioma Verdict Against Ford

Congratulations to my friends and Colleagues Jon Ruckdeschel & Christian Hartley in thier great victory today over Ford. The Maryland Court of Appeals (which is the Maryland Supreme Court) handed down a terrific decision in the Dixon case. A full copy appears below.The intermediate court had reversed the trial verdict and announced a standard for causation proof that would have been outside the majority rule .  In reaffirming the Balbos case, the Marland High  Court sent a clear message that the scientific concepts discussed decades ago remain valid today.
Unfortunately the plainitff did not win her constitutional challenge to Maryland’s cap on wrongful death damages (not surprisingly).  As such, the verdict from trial of $15,000,000 will be capped down to just over 6 million with Ford paying the whole verdict and post judgment interest over the past three years. The Court also reversed the trial court’s grant of JNOV relief with respect to Ford’s cross claim against Georgia Pacific, which had cut the judgment in half.  The Court noted that there was nothing remarkable about the jury finding Ford failed to prove the cross claim.

 

HEADNOTE
Dixon v. Ford Motor Company
No. 82, September Term 2012, Opinion by Wilner. J. (Retired, Specially Assigned)
IN WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION WHERE WIFE/MOTHER DIED OF
MESOTHELIOMA ALLEGEDLY CAUSED BY EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS-LADEN
DUST BROUGHT HOME BY HUSBAND FROM WORKING ON FORD BRAKE
PRODUCTS AND/OR BY ASBESTOS-LADEN DUST FROM JOINT COMPOUND
USED BY WIFE AND HUSBAND IN HOME IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS:
(1) TRIAL COURT DID NOT ERR IN ALLOWING EXPERT TESTIMONY,
BASED IN PART ON EVIDENCE OF MULTIPLE AND CUMULATIVE
EXPOSURES BY WIFE, OVER 13-YEAR PERIOD, TO ASBESTOS FIBERS FROM
THE FORD BRAKE PRODUCTS, THAT ANY OF THOSE EXPOSURES
CONSTITUTED A SUBSTANTIAL CONTRIBUTING FACTOR IN CAUSING THE
MESOTHELIOMA;
(2) TRIAL COURT ERRED IN OVERTURNING JURY VERDICT THAT
JOINT COMPOUND USED IN HOME IMPROVEMENT PROJECT WAS NOT A
SUBSTANTIAL CONTRIBUTING FACTOR IN CAUSING THE MESOTHELIOMA;
(3) CAP ON NON-ECONOMIC DAMAGES IN WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION
INVOLVING TWO OR MORE CLAIMANTS OF 150% OF CAP ON INDIVIDUAL
AWARD OF NON-ECONOMIC DAMAGES DOES NOT VIOLATE EQUAL
PROTECTION, DUE PROCESS, RIGHT TO JURY TRIAL, OR ART. 19 OF MD.
DECL. OF RIGHTS;
(4) TRIAL COURT DID NOT ERR IN DENYING MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
OF MARYLAND
No. 82
September Term, 2012
____________________________________________
BERNARD DIXON, etc., et al.
v.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY
____________________________________________
*Bell, C.J.,
Harrell
Battaglia
Greene
Barbera
McDonald
Wilner, Alan M. (Retired, specially assigned)
JJ.
____________________________________________
Opinion by Wilner, J.
Bell, C.J. and Battaglia, J., dissent.
____________________________________________
Filed: July 25, 2013
*Bell, C.J., participated in the hearing of the case, in
the conference in regard to its decision and in the
adoption of the opinion, but he had retired from the
Court prior to the filing of the opinion.
Joan Dixon contracted mesothelioma, from which she eventually died. That the
mesothelioma was caused by her exposure to asbestos is not in dispute. The principal
issue here is, whose asbestos? As germane to what is now before 1 us, there were two
possible culprits – asbestos-laden dust emanating from brakes manufactured by Ford
Motor Company that Ms. Dixon’s husband, Bernard, who handled those products
occupationally, brought home on his clothes, and asbestos possibly contained in a
compound manufactured by Georgia-Pacific Corp. that the Dixons used in building their
home, in some home improvement projects, and in building an adjacent structure.2
The Dixons filed suit against Ford and Georgia-Pacific in the Circuit Court for
Baltimore City, claiming negligence on their part in failing to warn Ms. Dixon of the
danger lurking in their products. Upon his wife’s death in 2009, Mr. Dixon continued the
1 Particularly in light of a case argued the same day as this one, also involving a
product liability claim by a household member who contracted mesothelioma, Georgia-
Pacific v. Farrar, Md. , A.3d (2013) (S.T. 2012, No. 102), it is important
to note that no issue was raised in this appeal as to whether, prior to 1972, Ford was or
should have been aware of the danger to household members from asbestos fibers brought
into the home on the clothes of another household member. The existence of such direct
or imputed knowledge seems to have been assumed which, given that Ms. Dixon’s
exposure to asbestos dust emanating from Ford products extended well beyond 1972, may
have been appropriate. In any event, because that issue was not raised in this appeal, we
have not addressed it.
2 The Dixons sued several other manufacturers of asbestos-laden products as well,
but, except with respect to a claim against Honeywell International, Inc., the claims
against those defendants are not before us in this appeal.
action as personal representative of her Estate and, along with the couple’s four daughters,
pursued a wrongful death action as well.
After a 12-day trial, the jury concluded that the only substantial contributing factor
in causing Ms. Dixon’s mesothelioma was the dust from the Ford brake products. On that
finding, it returned substantial verdicts in favor of Mr. Dixon and his daughters against
Ford and denied a cross-claim by Ford against Georgia-Pacific. The court subsequently
modified those verdicts in two respects. Applying one aspect of the statutory cap on
awards of non-economic damages (Maryland Code, § 11-108(b)(3)(ii) of the Cts. & Jud.
Proc. Article), the court reduced the amount of the verdicts, and, acting 3 under Md. Rule 2-
535, the court expressed its disagreement with the jury’s conclusion that the Georgia-
Pacific compound was not also a substantial contributing factor and entered judgment for
Ford on its cross-claim against Georgia-Pacific. All other post-trial motions, including
Ford’s motion to enter judgment on its cross-claim against Honeywell International, Inc.,
were denied.
Both the plaintiffs and Ford filed appeals to the Court of Special Appeals. Several
issues were raised, but only one was addressed – the opinion evidence by the plaintiffs’
3 All of the jury’s awards were for non-economic damages. They totaled $15
million, as follows: (1) to Mr. Dixon, as personal representative of his wife’s estate, $5
million; (2) to Mr. Dixon on his wrongful death claim, $4 million, and (3) to each of the
four daughters on their wrongful deal claims, $1.5 million. As adjusted, the wrongful
death awards were reduced to $426,000 for Mr. Dixon and $159,750 for each of the
daughters.
- 2 -
principal expert, Dr. Laura Welch, that every exposure to asbestos, including the shortfiber
chrysotile asbestos contained in the Ford brake products, increased the likelihood of
contracting mesothelioma and thus constituted a substantial contributing cause of that
disease. Based on what the intermediate appellate court believed was a “settled scientific
theory of causation” known by “philosophers of science” as “probabilistic causation,” the
court held that Dr. Welch’s opinion was not helpful to the jury and that the trial court
abused its discretion in allowing it into evidence. The court reversed the judgments
entered in favor of the plaintiffs and remanded the case for a new trial and, as a result, did
not consider the cross-claim against Georgia-Pacific or any of the other issues raised by
the parties. We granted the plaintiffs’ petition for certiorari and a conditional crosspetition
by Ford to consider the validity of the Court of Special Appeals decision and the
issues raised in but not decided by that Court.4
There is some overlap in the four questions raised by the plaintiffs 4 and the four
raised by Ford. Eliminating the overlap, the issues, restated by us, are:
(1) Was the Court of Special Appeals correct in concluding that the trial
court erred in admitting Dr. Welch’s opinion testimony, and if so was the trial court’s
error harmless;
(2) If the Court of Special Appeals conclusion was correct, should that court
have directed that a judgment be entered for Ford rather than ordering a new trial;
(3) Did the trial court err (i) in using its revisory power under Rule 2-535 in
entering judgment for Ford against Georgia-Pacific, and (ii) if not, in not using that power
to enter judgment on Ford’s cross-claim against Honeywell – another alleged source of
asbestos exposure;
(4) Does Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. Article, § 11-108(b)(3)(ii), in capping an
award for non-economic damages to multiple claimants in a wrongful death action at
150% of the maximum amount of non-economic damages that may be awarded to an
individual claimant in such an action, violate Federal and State equal protection principles
- 3 -
FACTUAL BACKGROUND – SOURCES OF EXPOSURE
The Dixons were married in 1959 and lived thereafter as a couple in Garrett
County. From 1958 until 1976, Mr. Dixon worked as a poultry inspector for the U. S.
Department of Agriculture, mostly at a plant in Oakland. Upon his retirement from that
position, he purchased and operated an ice cream stand near Deep Creek Lake. Over a 13-
year period, from the early 1960s until 1976, he worked at least two evenings a week, ten
months a year, at a garage owned by a friend, Skip Bernard. In that job, he performed
brake maintenance, repair, and replacement work – on average two brake jobs per week.
About 95% of the brake work Mr. Dixon did involved Ford brakes, which meant that, over
the 13-year period, he performed about 1,000 Ford brake jobs. All Ford brakes and
braking systems during that period contained chrysotile asbestos.
In performing his brake maintenance and repairs, Mr. Dixon used compressed air
and a wire brush to clean the drums and remove debris, and sand paper to remove glaze on
the brake linings. If new brakes were required, he would file the edges of the new brake
shoes before installing them. All of this generated asbestos-laden dust that clung to his
skin, hair, and clothes. When he returned home, in that condition, he threw his clothes in
the basement for his wife to wash. Mr. Dixon testified that she would shake out the
and Articles 5, 19, 23, and 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights; and
(5) Did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying Ford’s motion for new
trial on the grounds that (i) the jury’s verdicts were inconsistent, against the weight of the
evidence, and shocking, and (ii) plaintiffs’ counsel’s closing arguments were improper
and prejudicial.
- 4 -
clothes and launder them. There was other testimony that, as early as 1971, one or more of
the daughters also did or helped with the laundry. Evidence was presented that, for nearly
40 years, Ford warned its dealers and employees of the dangers of working with asbestos
in Ford brakes but issued no warnings to anyone else.
With respect to the construction and home improvement work, Mr. Dixon said that
he used drywall in the building of his house in the early 1960s, but he used a powder
mixed with water to fill in the joints and did not know the brand or manufacturer of the
powder. There was no evidence as to whether it was an asbestos-laden Georgia-Pacific
product. In the 1970s, the Dixons built an addition to the house and a separate building on
their property enclosing four apartments and space for a meat processing business. Mr.
Dixon testified that he recalled using a premixed Georgia-Pacific joint compound for both
the drywall seams and a textured ceiling. His wife did the sanding and the cleanup.
Evidence was presented by Georgia-Pacific that from 1963 to 1974, its Ready-Mix joint
compound contained 3% to 8% asbestos, that it introduced an asbestos-free compound in
1974, but that it continued to sell the asbestos compound until 1977. There was no direct
evidence at trial whether the product used by the Dixons contained asbestos.5
In supplemental answers to interrogatories, the Dixons 5 indicated that the
Georgia-Pacific compound may have contained asbestos, but at trial, Mr. Dixon stated
that he did not know whether the compound he and Ms. Dixon used contained asbestos.
Some of the home improvement work they did was in or after 1974, when the nonasbestos
compound was on the market.
- 5 -
DR. WELCH’S TESTIMONY – RESTATED QUESTIONS (1) AND (2)
Prior to trial, Ford filed a motion in limine to exclude the plaintiffs’ proposed
causation testimony and to conduct a Frye/Reed (Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C.
Cir. 1923); Reed v. State, 283 Md. 374, 391 A.2d 364 (1978)) hearing regarding testimony
expected from the plaintiffs’ experts. The motion was based on the assertion that there
was no reliable epidemiological evidence that exposure to automotive friction products,
such as brakes, causes mesothelioma and that, indeed, the evidence was that such exposure
does not cause mesothelioma. The motion also asserted that brake dust is not asbestos
because the heat generated during the braking process transforms the asbestos in the brake
lining to non-fibrous forsterite.
After the filing of Ford’s motion, Dr. Welch’s deposition was taken, with respect to
both this and other cases in which she was expected to testify. The essence of her
deposition testimony, which presaged her testimony at trial, was her opinion that, if
someone has mesothelioma, it is asbestos-related and that each and every exposure that
makes up the sum total is a substantial contributing factor to the disease. That, plus the
fact that she no longer did clinical work and had not actually examined Ms. Dixon,
produced a supplemental memorandum from Ford claiming that Dr. Welch was not
qualified as an expert to give an opinion regarding causation of mesothelioma in the wives
- 6 -
of brake mechanics. Ultimately, the court, concluding that it was 6 bound by appellate
decisions on the subject (though indicating some disagreement with those decisions),
denied the motion, qualified Dr. Welch as an expert, and permitted her to testify.
The examination of Dr. Welch at trial was more precise than the somewhat
rambling deposition examination. Importantly, for purposes of this appeal, Ford does not
challenge the trial court’s exercise of its discretion to qualify her as an expert. See Ford’s
principal brief at 11, n.6. Given Dr. Welch’s curriculum vitae in the record, that is a
reasonable concession. The present challenge is to the admissibility of her opinion that
each exposure to asbestos, including asbestos-laden dust derived from asbestos contained
in brake linings, may be a contributing cause to mesothelioma, which Ford maintains is not
accepted by the scientific community.
Dr. Welch first addressed the question of whether exposure to asbestos-laden dust
brought into the home constitutes a high or low level of exposure. She stated that studies
looking at household contamination from occupational exposure showed that the
household exposure constituted a high level of exposure. She explained that the asbestos
fibers from a day’s worth of dust on clothes, that gets shaken off, remain on the floor and
in the air for a considerable period of time, so that one day’s worth can produce on-going
exposure for days or even months. The fibers do not dissolve or evaporate. Each day that
6 Although Dr. Welch had not physically examined Ms. Dixon, she said that she
did review Ms. Dixon’s medical records and took the information therein into account in
forming her opinions.
- 7 -
a worker brings home dust-laden clothes adds to that on-going contamination.
She then turned her attention to the subject of dose-response and compared
mesothelioma to asbestosis and lung cancer. Mesothelioma, she said, is a cancer in the
lining of the lung, which has a much smaller mass than the lung itself. Asbestosis is a
scarring of the tissue in the lung. It therefore takes much greater exposure to asbestos to
produce the level of scarring that results in asbestosis than it does to produce
mesothelioma, which is not as dependent on repeated exposure; once a cancer forms, it is
there and does not get worse from further exposure. Lung cancer, she added, has multiple
causes, such as smoking, whereas mesothelioma is caused predominantly by asbestos. Her
conclusion was that even a low exposure to asbestos can cause mesothelioma.
Citing a number of national and international studies, including those from the
World Health Organization, the Environmental Protection Agency, OSHA, and the
National Cancer Institute, Dr. Welch stated that all forms of asbestos, including the
chrysotile in brake linings, can create a risk of getting mesothelioma. In direct contrast to
the view of Ford, she stated, based on those epidemiological studies, that “there is no
question . . . that all forms of asbestos cause lung cancer and mesothelioma.” When
asked more specifically about epidemiological studies limited to persons working on brake
linings getting mesothelioma, she said that, because mesothelioma is such a relatively rare
disease (less than 2,800 cases of mesothelioma in the U.S. each year compared with nearly
200,000 annual cases of lung cancer) and because not all mechanics work on brakes, it
- 8 -
was difficult to do a specific job-related epidemiological study, and that, in such instances,
it is appropriate to look at case-control studies. Such studies, she said, have shown a
connection between working on brakes and mesothelioma.
The part of Dr. Welch’s opinion most directly challenged by Ford, and found
useless by the Court of Special Appeals, came in response to a hypothetical question. She
was asked to assume that (1) Mr. Dixon performed approximately two brake inspections or
replacements a week, mostly on Ford vehicles, from the early 1960s through 1975, (2)
during that period, Ford brake systems contained asbestos, (3) Mr. Dixon’s work involved
removing brake drums, cleaning the drums and, when needed, replacing the brake shoes,
(4) he used compressed air to clean the brake drums and occasionally sanded or filed new
brake shoes, which created visible dust in the air, (5) dust got on his clothing and body, (6)
he did not shower before going home and wore his clothes home, (7) Ms. Dixon was a
bystander to and occasionally assisted Mr. Dixon when he worked on family cars at home,
(8) Ms. Dixon did the family laundry, which included shaking out Mr. Dixon’s dirty work
clothes, and (9) Ms. Dixon lived in the home the entire period and developed malignant
pleural mesothelioma.
Based on those assumptions, Dr. Welch stated that Ms. Dixon would have been
exposed to asbestos from Mr. Dixon’s work on cars and that such exposure was a cause of
her mesothelioma. She was then asked to assume that Ms. Dixon also worked with or
around drywall joint compound that contained asbestos and that she was also exposed to
- 9 -
asbestos from that compound. On those further assumptions, Dr. Welch still was of the
belief that Mr. Dixon’s work with Ford brake systems was a cause of the mesothelioma
because “every exposure to asbestos is a substantial contributing cause and so brake
exposure would be a substantial cause even if she had other exposures.” She added,
somewhat more particularly, that “take-home exposures that a person has during their
lifetime [are] a substantial contributing factor to the development of an asbestos-related
disease if one occurs.” That was because “[e]very increasing dose increases the likelihood
of getting it [and] that additional doses decrease the time it takes to get the disease as
exposure goes up.”
Focusing on Dr. Welch’s statement that “every exposure to asbestos is a substantial
contributing cause,” Ford insists that the trial court erred in not subjecting her conclusion
to a Frye/Reed examination which, in its view, would have shown non-acceptance of that
conclusion by the relevant scientific community. As a fallback, it urges acceptance of the
Court of Special Appeals view that Dr. Welch’s opinion simply was not helpful to the jury
because it “conflated” scientific causation and legal causation and should have been
excluded for that reason.
The major fallacy in Ford’s contention that a Frye/Reed analysis is required is that
it looks only to the “every exposure to asbestos is a substantial contributing cause”
statement and largely ignores the other parts of her testimony that provide a context to that
one statement. In Montgomery Mutual v. Chesson, 399 Md. 314, 326, 923 A.2d 939,
- 10 -
(2007), we confirmed that the general test for determining whether to allow expert
testimony is set forth in Md. Rule 5-702 – that expert testimony, in the form of an opinion
or otherwise, may be admitted if the court determines that the evidence will assist the trier
of fact to understand the evidence or determine a fact in issue and that, in making that
determination, the court shall determine whether the witness is qualified as an expert, the
appropriateness of the expert testimony on the particular subject, and whether a sufficient
factual basis exists to support the expert testimony.
A Frye/Reed analysis is required, as a prerequisite to the application of Rule 5-702,
only when the proposed expert testimony involves a “novel scientific method,” in which
event there must be some assurance that the novel method has gained general acceptance
within the relevant scientific community and is not just the view of a dissident minority.
We may take judicial notice from our own decisions that the scientific community accepts
the proposition that exposure to asbestos may cause mesothelioma. That is not a novel
scientific principle. More than 20 years ago, in Eagle-Picher v. Balbos, 326 Md. 179, 194,
n.7, 604 A.2d 445, 452, n.7 (1992), based on evidence in the case, we flatly rejected the
assertion that mesothelioma cannot be caused by exposure to chrysotile asbestos.7 Thus,
7 In considering Eagle-Picher’s argument that there was insufficient knowledge
prior to 1944 of the health hazards of exposure to asbestos to require warnings, we
observed in the cited footnote:
“Eagle would have us further limit the analysis to chrysotile asbestos.
Eagle argues that its products contain only chrysotile asbestos and that
mesothelioma cannot be caused by that type of asbestos. This argument
ignores conflicting evidence as to both of its underpinnings. The argument
- 11 -
Dr. Welch’s opinion that exposure to chrysotile asbestos in Ford brakes may cause
mesothelioma also is not a novel scientific principle.
We determined in Balbos that the governing standard for liability in an asbestos
case was that stated in § 431 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts – that an actor’s
negligent conduct is a legal cause of harm if (1) its conduct is a “substantial factor” in
bringing about the harm, and (2) there is no rule of law relieving the actor from liability.
We concluded as well that, in determining whether the conduct qualifies as a substantial
factor, the court must consider, among other things, the nature of the product, the
frequency of its use, the proximity, in distance and time, of a plaintiff to the use of the
product, and the regularity of the exposure of that plaintiff to the use of the product.
Balbos, 326 Md. at 210, 604 A.2d at 460.
In Scapa v. Saville, 418 Md. 496, 503, 16 A.3d 159, 163 (2011) we confirmed that
the Balbos “frequency, regularity, and proximity” test remains “the common law
evidentiary standard used for establishing substantial-factor causation in negligence cases
alleging asbestos exposure.” The question is whether the evidence, viewed at the
appellate level in a light most favorable to the prevailing party at trial, suffices to meet that
test. In Scapa, we held that evidence that the plaintiff, Mr. Saville, regularly handled
Scapa’s asbestos-containing product on a daily basis for at least one year was legally
also ignores that the jury could have found that the expert on whose
testimony the argument rests had been substantially impeached.”
- 12 -
sufficient to create a jury question on proximate cause. Id. at 505, 16 A.3d at 164.
As noted, the evidence in this case was that Mr. Dixon worked on Ford brakes, on
average, twice a week, 10 months a year, for 13 years, and that Ms. Dixon dealt with the
dust-laden clothes and the ubiquitous asbestos fibers on most of those occasions. Even
acknowledging that Mr. Dixon’s work was part-time evening work, that translates into his
bringing home asbestos-laden dust from Ford brakes on more than 1,000 days, which, in
terms of Ms. Dixon’s exposure to that dust, is at least on a par with Mr. Saville’s exposure
in terms of frequency, regularity, and proximity.
Dr. Welch’s ultimate opinion was based on that evidence and more – not just the
raw number of occasions that the dust was brought into the home twice a week over a 13-
year period, but as well on evidence that, because the asbestos fibers brought in on each
occasion remained in the home for a considerable period of time, the exposure was
continuous and cumulative in effect. With that background and context, we are unwilling
to conclude that Dr. Welch’s opinion that each exposure increased the likelihood of
contracting mesothelioma and thus constituted a substantial contributing factor involved a
novel scientific theory not generally accepted in the scientific community. Her opinion
was not in the context of one or two incidental exposures to Ford brakes.
In contending that Dr. Welch’s one statement is not generally accepted in the
scientific community, Ford cites a number of out-of-State cases, some of which, on
examination, are distinguishable in a number of respects. Smith v. Ford Motor Co., 2013
- 13 -
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7861 (D. Utah 2013), for example, is an unreported U. S. District Court
opinion in which the judge concluded that an “every exposure” opinion was inadmissible
under Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S. Ct. 2786, 125
L. Ed.2d 469 (1993) when the evidence showed that the plaintiff was exposed to Ford
brakes only seven times 45 years before the suit was filed. A somewhat similar
circumstance existed in Butler v. Union Carbide Corporation, 712 S.E.2d 537 (Ga. App.
2011), an intermediate appellate court ruling affirming the disallowance, under Daubert,
of an “every exposure” opinion, when the evidence showed that less than one percent of
the product to which the plaintiff may have been exposed was that of the defendant Union
Carbide.
The closest case cited, at least facially, is Betz v. Pneumo Abex LLC, 44 A.3d 27
(Pa. 2012), in which the court sustained the decision of the trial judge (1) to conduct a
Frye examination with respect to an “every exposure” opinion, and (2) to disallow the
opinion as inconsistent with a “substantial factor” analysis. That case, too, though the
court’s opinion is a thorough one, is distinguishable. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court
took the case as a test case, from among others then pending, to examine the “every
exposure” theory in a global context, without regard, it seems, to any particular facts. The
court made that clear in rejecting the plaintiff’s urging that the case was “not a case of de
minimis exposure,” noting that “this case was selected among test cases for the anyexposure
opinion as a means, in and of itself, to establish substantial-factor causation.” Id.
- 14 -
at 55 . That is not the context of this case.
All we know from the court’s opinion regarding the facts of the Betz case is that
the plaintiff worked as an automobile mechanic for 44 years, during which he was exposed
to asbestos-containing friction products, such as brake linings, that he eventually
contracted mesothelioma, from which he died, and that the lawsuit was against several
defendants. There is nothing in the court’s opinion as to how many brake linings he
worked with or whose. What was before the court was the proposed expert’s “broad-scale
opinion on causation applicable to anyone inhaling a single asbestos fiber above
background exposure levels.” Id. at 54 . That kind of opinion, if offered in a case of truly
minimal exposure to the defendant’s product, may well raise concerns that would need to
be tested under Frye/Reed, but, as we have indicated, that is not what is before us here.
Dr. Welch’s opinion was based on evidence of repeated exposures by Ms. Dixon to highlevel
doses of asbestos fibers emanating from Ford brakes and must be viewed in that
light.
Ford fares no better in its reliance on the Court of Special Appeals’ “probabilistic
causation” analysis, from which that court concluded that, in order for a trier of fact to find
that exposure to a particular asbestos product constitutes a substantial contributing factor,
there must not only be evidence of the quantity of the alleged exposure but also
“quantitative epidemiological evidence,” and that, lacking that evidence, Dr. Welch’s
opinion that Ms. Dixon’s exposure to asbestos from Ford brakes constituted a substantial
- 15 -
contributing factor could not have been of any help to the jury and was therefore wrongly
admitted. We note initially that, despite the court’s attempt in footnote 13 of its opinion to
draw a distinction, that view seems directly inconsistent with the court’s pronouncement in
ACandS v. Abate, 121 Md. App. 590, 671, 710 A.2d 944, 984 (1998) rejecting that very
proposition and stating “[w]e shall not hold that a plaintiff in any asbestos case must
present expert testimony as to the amount of respirable asbestos fibers emitted by a
particular product.”
Even to the extent that philosophers of science might find some underlying merit in
the court’s articulation of its “probabilistic causation” analysis, its application of that
analysis in reaching its ultimate conclusion improperly viewed the one statement by Dr.
Welch that each exposure increased the likelihood of Ms. Dixon contracting the disease
and thus was a substantial contributing factor in isolation, detached from the hypotheses
on which it was based. As we have pointed out, those hypotheses, which formed a part of
Dr. Welch’s opinion and were supported by substantial evidence, took account not only of
the frequency of Ms. Dixon’s exposure to asbestos-laden dust from Ford brakes but why
that repeated exposure was of high, not low, intensity.
Viewed properly in context, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing
the testimony. In light of that conclusion, the issues of whether any error by the trial court
was harmless and whether judgment should have been entered in favor of Ford are moot.
- 16 -
CROSS-CLAIMS AGAINST GEORGIA-PACIFIC AND HONEYWELL
RESTATED QUESTION (3)
As noted, the plaintiffs joined Georgia-Pacific and several other manufacturers as
co-defendants and, until shortly before trial, maintained that Ms. Dixon’s exposure to their
asbestos-laden products also was a substantial contributing causes of her mesothelioma.
Prior to the scheduled trial, however, the plaintiffs settled with those co-defendants and
thereafter pursued their case only against Ford. By stipulation, they dismissed all of their
claims against Georgia-Pacific. Because Ford had filed cross-claims against those codefendants,
however, they remained as defendants in the case, and Ford sought to show
that their products were substantial contributing causes of Ms. Dixon’s disease.
At the conclusion of the evidence, Ford did not move for judgment against Georgia-
Pacific or Honeywell on its cross-claims, perhaps on the theory that such a motion was
premature until Ford’s liability to the plaintiffs was established. The issue was submitted
to the jury which, as noted, answered “No” to whether Ms. Dixon’s exposure to Georgia-
Pacific’s or Honeywell’s product was a substantial contributing factor in causing her
mesothelioma. Following rendition of the verdicts, Ford moved for judgment NOV under
Rule 2-532 on its cross-claims against those two co-defendants, arguing that the jury’s
verdict with respect to them was inconsistent with its finding of liability on the part of
Ford and therefore was against the weight of the evidence. Rule 2-532(a) expressly states,
however, that “[i]n a jury trial, a party may move for judgment notwithstanding the verdict
only if that party made a motion for judgment at the close of all the evidence and only on
- 17 -
the grounds advanced in support of the earlier motion.”
Though recognizing some merit in Ford’s contention that, until Ford’s liability was
established, a motion for judgment on those cross-claims would have been premature, the
trial court, relying largely on Scapa v. Saville, 190 Md. App. 331, 348-51, 988 A.2d 1059,
1068-70 (2010) concluded that a motion for judgment was indeed a prerequisite to a
motion for judgment NOV and denied the JNOV motion for that reason. Nonetheless,
exercising its broad discretion under Rule 2-535 to revise an unenrolled judgment, the
court struck the judgment in favor of Georgia-Pacific and entered judgment for Ford. It
did so for two reasons – because of “the comments during closing arguments,” upon which
the court did not elaborate, and because “there was so much evidence, dramatic evidence
against Georgia-Pacific.” The court expressed disbelief that a reasonable jury could have
found that there was no liability on the part of Georgia-Pacific. It did not have the same
view with respect to Honeywell and declined to provide relief with respect to that
defendant.
Neither side is entirely happy with that result. The plaintiffs complain that the trial
court erred in using Rule 2-535 as an “end run” around the clear requirement of Rule 2-
532(a), and Ford complains that the court erred in not providing the same relief with
respect to Honeywell. As noted, the Court of Special Appeals did not address those
arguments.
Although the cross-claim issue became moot under the Court of Special Appeals
- 18 -
ruling that there was no liability on Ford’s part, in light of our conclusion that the
intermediate appellate court was wrong in that respect, it is moot no longer, and, indeed,
raises the questions whether (1) a motion for judgment on a cross-claim that is contingent
on a finding of liability on the part of the movant is permissible in advance of a finding
that the movant is liable, (2) if not, there is an implied exception to the requirement in Rule
2-532(a) that such a motion be filed, and (3) if there is no such implied exception and Rule
2-532(a) would require denial of a motion for JNOV, it is permissible or appropriate for a
court to invoke Rule 2-535(a) to circumvent that requirement. Fortunately, in this case, it
is not necessary to address those issues, for there is another reason, apparent in the record,
to conclude that the trial court erred in effectively reversing the jury’s verdict.
As we have observed, notwithstanding the plaintiffs’ dismissal of their claims
against Georgia-Pacific, that company remained a defendant with respect to Ford’s crossclaim,
and every effort was made by Ford to establish that the Georgia-Pacific product was
at least a, if not the, substantial contributing cause of Ms. Dixon’s mesothelioma. The
critical evidence, however, which focused on (1) the Dixons’ installation of drywall during
the construction of their house in 1963-64, (2) construction of an addition to the house in
1971-73, (3) the installation of drywall and textured ceilings during the construction of the
apartment building later in 1976-78, and (4) drywall work that Mr. Dixon did for some
friends, was not altogether clear. In the three projects on their property, Ms. Dixon did
much of the sanding and was exposed to the dust emanating therefrom.
- 19 -
The Dixons said that, when building the house in the early 1960s, they did not use
a pliable compound, such as Ready-Mix, but instead used a powder that they mixed with
water. There was no evidence that the powder was manufactured or marketed by Georgia-
Pacific or that it contained asbestos; Mr. and Ms. Dixon both testified that they did not
know who manufactured the product. They acknowledged using a Georgia-Pacific
compound when constructing the addition to the home in the early 1970s, but did not
specifically identify the compound as Ready-Mix. They said only that it came in buckets
that had the Georgia-Pacific name or the letters GP on them. That was the case as well
when building the apartments later in 1976-78.
Until 1977, Georgia-Pacific marketed a Ready-Mix compound that contained
asbestos, and it is possible that the Dixons used that product when they constructed the
addition to their home and when they built the apartment building. Mr. and Ms. Dixon
both acknowledged that they used a Georgia-Pacific product, although neither identified it
as Ready-Mix. Beginning in 1974, however, Georgia-Pacific marketed a Ready-Mix
compound that did not contain asbestos, and it is also possible that the Dixons used that
product instead, at least when constructing the apartments. In short, there was no direct
evidence that the compound they used in any of the projects was asbestos-laden Ready-
Mix, although an inference to that effect was certainly permissible.
During closing argument to the jury, the plaintiffs’ attorney spoke briefly about the
culpability of Georgia-Pacific. He said that, until about a month before trial, he thought he
- 20 -
could prove Ms. Dixon’s exposure to Georgia-Pacific’s joint compound, but that, after
taking the deposition of a Georgia-Pacific witness, he concluded that he would be unable
to establish that exposure. Ford objected to those statements and moved for a mistrial.
The court denied the motion and instead gave a curative instruction that the attorney’s
statements were improper and should be disregarded. Clearly, at that point, the court was
convinced that a mistrial was not called for and that the curative instruction sufficed.
In his closing argument, Ford’s attorney mentioned Georgia-Pacific only in passing,
noting that there was evidence that the drywall compound used by the Dixons was made
by Georgia-Pacific and that asbestos was in the compound “during certain years.”
A trial circuit court’s discretion under Rule 2-535(a) to revise an unenrolled
judgment is broad. Although in several cases, our predecessors have referred to it as
“unrestricted,” in Southern Management v. Taha, 378 Md. 461, 495, 836 A.2d 627, 646
(2003), we observed that, because the exercise of the trial court’s discretion is subject to
appellate review, it is not truly unrestricted but simply broad. That is a more accurate
description. The purpose of allowing that discretion, which informs any limits to it, is “to
ensure that technicality does not triumph over justice.” Id. 378 Md. 494, 836 A.2d 646.
The purpose is not to allow the trial judge to upset jury verdicts that he or she simply does
not agree with, for, if that were the standard, there would be little left to the right of jury
trial in civil cases guaranteed under Articles 5 and 23 of the Maryland Declaration of
Rights.
- 21 -
On this record, we believe that the trial court abused its discretion in setting aside
the jury’s verdict on the cross-claim against Georgia-Pacific. There was no direct
evidence that Ms. Dixon was ever exposed to asbestos emanating from a Georgia-Pacific
product. At best, an inference could fairly have been drawn that she was, which made the
issue one for the jury to resolve. The court carefully and properly instructed the jury on
the standards it was to apply in weighing the evidence, explaining that the jury was the
sole judge of whether testimony should be believed and of the weight of the evidence and
that the party asserting a cross-claim had the burden of proving it. The court told the jury
that, in determining whether the party with the burden of proof met that burden, it should
consider the quality of all of the evidence and that, if the evidence was evenly divided on
an issue, the finding should be against the party having the burden of proof.
There is no indication that, with respect to Ford’s cross-claim, the jury did anything
other than what it was instructed to do and what was properly within its province to do.
There was no triumph of technicality over justice. The verdict was not against the weight
of the evidence but simply reflected the jury’s belief that evidence of Ms. Dixon’s
exposure to asbestos from a Georgia-Pacific product was insufficient to show by a
preponderance that such exposure was a substantial contributing factor in causing her
mesothelioma. That conclusion renders the question of whether the court should have
stricken the judgment for Honeywell moot.
- 22 -
CAP ON AWARD OF NON-ECONOMIC DAMAGES – RESTATED QUESTION (4)
Maryland Code, § 11-108(b)(2) of the Cts. & Jud. Proc. Article limits the damages
for non-economic loss in a personal injury or wrongful death action to a fixed upset
amount – $500,000 for causes of action arising on or after October 1, 1994, that amount to
increase by $15,000 on October 1 of each year after 1994. Section 11-108(b)(3)(ii)
provides that, in a wrongful death action in which there are two or more claimants, an
award for non-economic damages may not exceed 150% of the limitation established
under § 11-108(b)(2), regardless of the number of claimants or beneficiaries who share in
the award. As noted, applying that statute, the court reduced the wrongful death award to
Mr. Dixon from $5,000,000 to $426,000 and the awards to each of the four daughters from
$1,500,000 to $159,750.
There is no dispute that, under the statute in effect when this cause of action arose,
the reductions are numerically correct. The plaintiffs’ claim is that § 11-108(b)(3)(ii)
violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14 Amendment and Articles th 5, 19, 23, and 24
of the Maryland Declaration of Rights and that there should have been no reductions in the
jury’s verdicts.
To provide some context to the plaintiffs’ argument, it is helpful to review the
evolution of § 11-108. It was first enacted in 1986 (1986 Md. Laws, ch. 639). As
introduced, the bill was limited to personal injury claims arising from medical malpractice
but, during the session, it was amended to apply to all personal injury actions. In Murphy
- 23 -
v. Edmonds, 325 Md. 342, 368, 601 A.2d 102, 114 (1992), we observed that the bill was
the product of a legislatively perceived crisis concerning the availability and cost of
liability insurance, especially for persons engaged in hazardous activities or who were
health care providers. The legislative perception was derived from the reports of two
gubernatorial task forces — one concerned with liability insurance generally and the other
with medical malpractice insurance in particular. Both reports recommended a cap on
non-economic damages of $250,000. The General Assembly opted for a cap of $350,000.
The 1986 law was a simple one. It defined “non-economic damages,” it provided
that, in any action for personal injury arising on or after July 1, 1986, an award for noneconomic
damages may not exceed $350,000, and it required the trier of fact to itemize an
award for personal injury to reflect the amounts intended for past medical expenses, future
medical expenses, past loss of earnings, future loss of earnings, non-economic damages,
and other damages. It said nothing about the procedure for applying the cap on noneconomic
damages – whether the jury was to incorporate the cap into its verdict as part of
its itemization or the court was to apply the cap post-verdict, and it said nothing regarding
whether the cap applied to wrongful death actions.
The first reported challenge to the cap came in what began as a product liability
personal injury action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. It was not a
death case. When, prior to trial, the statutory cap on non-economic damages was raised,
the plaintiffs added a count for declaratory judgment seeking a determination that the cap
- 24 -
violated the right of jury trial guaranteed by the 7 Amendment to the th U.S. Constitution
and Article 23 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights.
In an opinion by Judge Niemeyer, the court concluded that the statute did not
infringe on the right of jury trial. He reasoned that (1) “a legislature adopting a
prospective rule of law that limits all claims for pain and suffering in all cases is not acting
as a fact finder in a legal controversy,” and (2) the power of the legislature to define or
even abolish complete causes of action necessarily included the power to define what
damages may be recovered by a litigant, especially with respect to non-economic damages,
which are often speculative and are not guided by any economic standard of measurement.
Franklin v. Mazda Motor Corporation, 704 F. Supp. 1325, 1331-32 (D. Md. 1989).
In considering some of the wording of the statute, Judge Niemeyer noted the
requirement that the trier of fact itemize its award, so that non-economic damages can be
identified for purposes of the cap, and concluded that the jury could not properly discharge
that function without being instructed in advance about the limitation and that there was
“no logical reason to keep the jury in ignorance of the cap.” Id at 1329.
Shortly on the heels of Franklin, the Court of Special Appeals decided Potomac
Electric v. Smith, 79 Md. App. 591, 558 A.2d 768 (1989), a survivor’s and wrongful death
action arising from the death of a child who came into contact with a downed power line.
A substantial jury award of non-economic damages was reduced in accordance with the
1986 version of the statute. On appeal, the plaintiffs claimed that (1) the cap did not apply
- 25 -
to wrongful death actions because such an action was not one for personal injury, and (2)
if it did apply, it violated the right of jury trial, Article 19 of the Declaration of Rights, due
process, and equal protection.
The intermediate appellate court concluded that the legislative intent was for the
cap to apply to wrongful death actions but, because the plaintiffs had agreed to a lump sum
award, it was not necessary to decide whether the cap applied to the amount allocated to
each claimant individually. Citing Judge Niemeyer’s opinion in Franklin, the court held
that the cap did not infringe on the right of jury trial and did not violate Art. 19, due
process, or, applying the rational basis test, equal protection.
The Franklin decision was filed in February 1989, during the pendency of the 1989
session of the General Assembly. Obviously concerned about the court’s requirement that
the jury be informed of the cap, the Legislature amended § 11-108 to provide that the jury
not be informed of the limitation and that, if the jury awards an amount for non-economic
damages that exceeds the limitation, the court shall reduce the amount to conform with the
limitation. That amendment took effect July 1, 1989 and was made applicable to jury trials
commenced after that date. See 1989 Md. Laws, ch. 629.
The next significant event in this historical chain was Bartucco v. Wright, 746 F.
Supp. 604 (D.Md. 1990), a wrongful death action filed by the parents of a child killed in
an automobile accident. The jury awarded damages of $300,000 to each parent, and the
defendants moved to reduce the awards, arguing that the cap was on the aggregate award,
- 26 -
not on the award to each parent. Synchronizing § 11-108 with the wrongful death statute,
the District Court, in an opinion by Judge Garbis, rejected that approach. Relying on the
Court of Special Appeals decision in Potomac Electric, the court concluded that the cap
applied to wrongful death actions but that, in such actions, it applied to each claimant
individually and not the aggregate award. Aware of the recent legislative direction that the
jury not be told of the limitation, the court held that “[a]bsent a separate damage cap for
each plaintiff, it would be difficult to square the need for the jury to consider each plaintiff
separately in determining his or her appropriate recovery with the prohibition against
informing the jury of the cap.” Id. at 608.
This Court’s first pronouncements regarding the cap came two years later in
Murphy v. Edmonds, supra, 325 Md. 342, 601 A.2d 102, which was an ordinary personal
injury action not involving death. Applying a heightened scrutiny test, the trial judge
found that the cap violated equal protection and declined to reduce a $510,000 award for
non-economic damages. The Court of Special Appeals disagreed with the trial court’s
reasoning, held that the cap was Constitutional, and directed that the award for noneconomic
damages be reduced to $350,000. This Court affirmed the judgment of the
intermediate appellate court.
We agreed with the Court of Special Appeals that the rational basis test was the
appropriate one to apply and that § 11-108 satisfied that test. We next concluded that §
11-108 “fully preserves the right of having a jury resolve the factual issues with regard to
- 27 -
the amount of noneconomic damages,” noting that “[n]either the $350,000 limit on
recovery nor the provision that the jury not be informed of the limit, interferes with the
jury’s proper role and its ability to resolve the factual issues which are pertinent to the
cause of action.” Id. at 373, 601 A.2d at 117. Finally, although not raised in the briefs,
the Court also concluded that the cap did not amount to a restriction on access to the courts
and therefore did not contravene Article 19 of the Declaration of Rights. See also Oaks v.
Connors, 339 Md. 24, 660 A.2d 423 (1995), confirming Murphy and holding that the
individual cap applicable in a non-death personal injury action included damages awarded
on a loss of consortium claim; there was not a separate cap for that claim.
A year later, in United States v. Streidel, 329 Md. 533, 620 A.2d 905 (1993), we
rejected the views of the U.S. District Court in Franklin and the Court of Special Appeals
in Potomac Electric and held that the General Assembly did not intend for the cap to apply
to awards in wrongful death actions. That ruling had a very short shelf life. In its next
session, the General Assembly amended § 11-108 to make clear that, from and after
October 1, 1994, the cap applied to non-economic damages awarded in wrongful death
actions. See 1994 Md. Laws, ch. 477.
It was in that 1994 law that the Legislature generated the issue now before us, by
drawing a distinction between wrongful death actions and other personal injury cases with
respect to the application of the cap. It mandated that, in personal injury actions generally,
the cap on non-economic damages applied to “each direct victim of tortious conduct and
- 28 -
all persons who claim injury through that victim,” but “in a wrongful death action in which
there are two or more claimants or beneficiaries, an award for noneconomic damages may
not exceed 150% of the limitation . . . regardless of the number of claimants or
beneficiaries who share in the award.”
The last relevant event came three years later, when the Legislature defined and
drew a distinction between primary and secondary claimants in wrongful death actions for
purposes of the cap and established a clear preference for primary claimants.8 If the
amount of non-economic damages for primary claimants equals or exceeds the applicable
cap, the court must (1) reduce each individual award of a primary claimant proportionately
to the total award of all primary claimants so that the total award to all claimants or
beneficiaries conforms to the 150% limitation, and (2) reduce each award to a secondary
claimant to zero. If the award to primary claimants does not exceed the 150% limitation,
the court must enter an award to them as determined by the jury and reduce each
individual award of a secondary claimant proportionately to the total of all secondary
claimants so that the total award to all claimants or beneficiaries conforms to the
limitation. We are not concerned with that statute in this appeal.
Although citing some Federal and State court rulings in other States striking down a
8 A primary claimant is one who is suing because of the death of a spouse, minor
child, parent of a minor child, or certain unmarried adult children. A secondary claimant
is one suing for the death of a child or parent not within the definition of primary
claimant. See § 11-108(a)(3) and (4) and Cts. & Jud. Proc. Art. §§ 3-904(d) and (e).
- 29 -
cap on non-economic damages as being in violation of those States’ Constitutions, the
plaintiffs, presumably with some reluctance, accept this Court’s determination in Murphy
and Oaks that the cap on individual non-economic damage awards provided for in § 11-
108(b)(2) does not infringe on the right to jury trial or, using the rational basis test, on the
right to equal protection of the law. That kind of cap, they note, was based on studies
showing that $250,000 would cover most claims for non-economic damages, and still
allows the jury to focus on the loss suffered by each individual claimant.
What they complain about, and observe that this Court has never addressed, is the
effect of creating a lump sum cap without regard to how many claimants there are and not
informing the jury of that cap. They note that there were no studies attesting to the
reasonableness of that kind of cap, which effectively requires the court to redistribute the
jury’s awards and thus ignores the jury’s perception of the actual degree of loss suffered
by each of the individual claimants, which may differ from one to another. They aver that
the legal impact of that is to improperly invade the jury’s fact-finding province and to
constitute an arbitrary and discriminatory classification. Each individual with identical
damages, they urge, must receive an identical recovery.9
As we indicated, there is no dispute between the parties 9 with respect to the
numerical calculations used in applying the cap. The jury awarded non-economic
damages to the wrongful death claimants in the total amount of $10 million – $4 million
(40%) for Mr. Dixon and $1.5 million (15%) for each of the four daughters. The
applicable cap under § 11-108(b)(2) to an individual claimant was $710,000. Applying
the 150% enhancement under § 11-108(b)(3)(ii) brought to aggregate cap to $1,065,000.
The court divided that cap proportionately to the jury awards – 40% (426,000) to Mr.
- 30 -
Three years ago, in DRD v. Freed, 416 Md. 46, 5 A.3d 45 (2010), we had a similar
case, though not a similar argument, before us. DRD involved both a survivor’s action
and a wrongful death claim by the parents of a child who drowned in a pool managed by
DRD. The trial court granted summary judgment to DRD in the survivor’s action on the
ground that there was no direct evidence that the child suffered any pain or suffering in the
drowning process but allowed the wrongful death claim to go to the jury. The jury
awarded aggregate non-economic damages of $4,006,412 ($2,000,706 to each parent)
Applying § 11-108(b)(3)(ii), the trial court reduced the aggregate award to $1,002,500.
The Court of Special Appeals reversed the summary judgment entered in the survivor’s
action and affirmed the reduction of the wrongful death award. Freed v. D.R.D., 186 Md.
App. 477, 974 A.2d 978 (2009).
We granted certiorari on both issues and affirmed the judgment of the Court of
Special Appeals. In their brief in this Court, the Freeds acknowledged the precedential
effect of Murphy and Oaks and did not try to distinguish them. Their argument was that
those cases were wrongly decided and should be overturned. There was no discussion in
their brief of the issue presented here – the particular impact of the 150% cap when there
are multiple wrongful death claimants – and, because that issue was not argued, it was not
discussed in our Opinion. See Brief of Respondents/Cross-Petitioners in No. 104, Sept.
Term, 2009 (2009 WL 5196414).
Dixon and 15% ($159,750) to each daughter.
- 31 -
We agreed that Murphy and Oaks controlled, and, despite contrary rulings in other
States, we saw no reason to overturn them. That sufficed to sustain the application of the
150% cap in that case, and, indeed, was the sole basis for sustaining that cap. What we are
asked to do here, in effect, is to reconsider that ultimate ruling on a ground not raised or
considered in that case – a new and different basis for examining the Constitutionality of
the 1994 amendments to § 11-108. We shall address the argument made by the plaintiffs
and not regard it as foreclosed by Freed, but our belief that 10 the 150% cap is not
unconstitutional will not change.
In deciding to apply a cap in wrongful death actions, the 1994 Legislature was
necessarily required to determine how the cap would be applied. In a normal personal
injury action based on injuries to more than one person, each plaintiff, whether suing
separately or joining with other plaintiffs, represents a separate case. Any judgments are
awarded separately, on an individual basis. The plaintiffs do not share in one gross award.
That is not the case with a wrongful death action. Only one wrongful death action
is permissible with respect to the death of a person. All beneficiaries seeking a recovery
are required to join in that action, and one award is made, which is divided among the
plaintiffs as directed by the verdict. See Cts. & Jud. Proc. Art. § 3-904 (1989 Repl. Vol.
10 In Crane v. Scribner, 369 Md. 369, 800 A.2d 727 (2002), we also had before us
a wrongful death action by multiple claimants in which the 150% cap was applied to
reduce the jury’s verdict. The issue there was whether the cap was applicable, not
whether it was valid, and we therefore did not consider the Constitutional validity of the
reduction. Id. at 375, n. 2, 800 A.2d at 730, n.2.
- 32 -
and 2006 Repl. Vol.). Unless that approach was to be changed, which the Legislature
declined to do, any cap had to take account of it.
Three bills were introduced into the 1994 session dealing with the cap on noneconomic
damages – SB 283, HB 661, and HB 511. All three provided both for an
increase in the cap and its extension to wrongful death actions. Although we are
principally concerned with SB 283, which was the one that was enacted, the proceedings
on the two House Bills influenced the ultimate text of SB 283. The Department of
Legislative Services bill files on all three bills are voluminous. There were many letters
and many formal reports on all sides of the issues – whether to impose any cap on
wrongful death awards and, if so, what the amount of the cap should be and whether it
should be retroactive.
As introduced, SB 283 increased the cap from $350,000 to $450,000, subject to the
annual increase of $15,000, and provided that, in a wrongful death action, that cap would
apply regardless of the number of claimants or beneficiaries who would share in the
award. House Bill 661 increased the cap over a three-year period, in increments of
$50,000, to $500,000. That aspect was prospective. It also provided, retroactively to
causes of action arising on or after June 1,1986 that were not yet adjudicated, that the
applicable cap applied as well in wrongful death actions, regardless of the number of
claimants. House Bill 511 took a different approach. As introduced, it would have
increased the cap incrementally to $750,000 and applied the cap on a per claimant basis in
- 33 -
both ordinary personal injury actions and wrongful death actions.
Following the hearing on the House Bills, in February 1994, several members of the
House Judiciary Committee requested the Medical Mutual Liability Insurance Society,
which provided medical malpractice insurance to most of the physicians in the State, to
provide estimates of the impact of individual caps on insurance premiums. The company
responded that, if there was a single cap (as provided for in HB 661), there would be a
need for an immediate overall rate increase of 15%. If there were to be two caps, there
would be an immediate need for a 30% increase in premiums, and, if there were to be three
caps, the immediate increase would need to be 40%. In a separate letter, the company
provided statistical support for those predictions. See letters from David Murray,
President and Chief Operating Officer of Medical Mutual, to the Chair of the House
Judiciary Committee on February 22 and February 28, 1994 in the Department of
Legislative Services Bill File for HB 511 (1994). Presumably as a result of that response,
HB 511 was amended in Committee to provide a single cap of 200% in multi-claimant
wrongful death actions, but neither of the House Bills was enacted.
Senate Bill 283 had its hearing in the Judicial Proceedings Committee several
weeks after the hearing on the House bills. The Committee was well aware of the two
House bills and the correspondence from Medical Mutual regarding the impact of separate
caps in wrongful death actions. Not only did some of the same people who testified on the
House Bills testify on the Senate Bill, but the letters from Medical Mutual to the Judiciary
- 34 -
Committee were provided to the Senate Committee as well. See Department of Legislative
Services Bill File for SB 283. The Judicial Proceedings Committee kept the individual cap
at $450,000 but added amendments (1) to increase the cap in wrongful death actions where
there was more than one claimant to 150% of the individual cap, and (2) if the jury verdict
exceeded that cap, to require the court to reduce the award proportionately. See Senate
Journal (1994) at 1910-11.
The bill passed the Senate in that form. The House of Delegates amended the bill
to conform with the amended version of HB 511 – to increase the individual cap to
$500,000 and the wrongful death cap where there was more than one claimant to 200% of
the individual cap. See House Journal (1994) at 2603-05. The Senate refused to concur in
the House amendments (Senate Journal at 3015-20), and the House refused to recede from
them (House Journal at 3015), so the bill was referred to a Conference Committee, which
agreed to an individual cap of $500,000 but otherwise rejected the House amendments and
thus kept the wrongful death cap at 150% of the individual cap. House Journal at 3354-
59. Both Houses concurred in the Conference Committee recommendations, and the bill
was enacted in that form.
This history dispels the plaintiffs’ contention that there was nothing before the
Legislature dealing with the effect of a cap on a lump sum wrongful death award, when
coupled with the jury’s not being advised of the cap. It is evident that the Legislature was
well aware of the various options that had been presented and the pros and cons of each,
- 35 -
and it reached a compromise. The legislative approach is a rational one that is entirely
consistent with the long-standing statutory requirement that all individuals seeking
damages for the death of a person must join in one action against the defendant and that
the amount recovered is divided among the beneficiaries in shares directed by the verdict.
The 150% cap does not intrude on the jury’s right to determine the relative degree
of harm suffered by the individual claimants; nor does it create irrational classifications
among the claimants. Section 11-108(b)(3)(ii) merely sets a limit on the gross amount of
non-economic damages that may be awarded by reason of one’s death which, under the
wrongful death law, is then divided proportionately as determined by the jury. That is
precisely what was done here. Each daughter, who was awarded 15% of the gross award
by the jury, received 15% of the net amount under the cap; the surviving husband received
40% – the percentage the jury determined he should receive. The fashioning of such a
cap in wrongful death actions is no more odious or unlawful than the imposition of caps in
non-death personal injury actions. We find no violation of equal protection, due process,
the right to jury trial, or Art. 19, and thus sustain the reductions made by the trial court.
DENIAL OF FORD’S MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL – RESTATED QUESTION (5)
Ford complains that the trial court abused its discretion in denying Ford’s motion
for new trial because (1) the jury’s verdict holding Ford liable to the plaintiffs was against
the weight of the evidence, and (2) that verdict was influenced by improper comments by
- 36 -
plaintiffs’ attorney during closing argument. This argument need not detain us long. We
have discussed in some detail the evidence presented at trial, and we have considered the
comments in question and the court’s conclusion that a curative instruction was sufficient.
We find no abuse of discretion in the court’s ruling.
JUDGMENT OF COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS
REVERSED; CASE REMANDED TO THAT COURT WITH
INSTRUCTIONS TO AFFIRM THE JUDGMENTS
ENTERED IN FAVOR OF PETITIONERS DIXON, ET AL.
AGAINST RESPONDENT FORD MOTOR COMPANY
AND REVERSE THE JUDGMENT ENTERED IN FAVOR
OF RESPONDENT FORD MOTOR COMPANY ON ITS
CROSS-CLAIM AGAINST GEORGIA-PACIFIC; COSTS IN
THIS COURT AND COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS TO
BE PAID BY RESPONDENT FORD MOTOR COMPANY.
- 37 -
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF
MARYLAND
No. 82
September Term, 2012
BERNARD DIXON, etc. et al.
v.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY
*Bell, C.J.
Harrell
Battaglia
Greene
Barbera
McDonald
Wilner, Alan M. (Retired,
specially assigned),
JJ.
Dissenting Opinion by Battaglia, J.,
which Bell, C.J., joins.
Filed: July 25, 2013
*Bell, C.J., participated in the hearing of
the case, in the conference in regard to its
decision and in the adoption of the
opinion, but he had retired from the
Court prior to the filing of the opinion.
I respectfully dissent and would affirm the excellent analysis and decision of the Court
of Special Appeals, Dixon v. Ford Motor Company, 206 Md. App. 180, 47 A.3d 1038
(2012).

Thousands in Russia Sentenced to Death for Not Learning US History Lessons

For the past 30 years I have witnessed the taking of some of finest citizens and the ripping apart of many families because of the deadly affects of asbestos exposure. The story below published in the NYT is very sad and upsetting. Those of us who have dedicated the better part of their professional lives representing asbestos victims and thier families know what is coming for these poor Russian families. I urge the leaders in Russia to put a stop to the creation of a legacy of death before tens of thousands of innocent people suffer the same fate of those exposed here in the US.

 

From today’s NY Times 
July 13, 2013
City in Russia Unable to Kick Asbestos Habit
By ANDREW E. KRAMER
ASBEST, Russia — This city of about 70,000 people on the eastern slopes of the Ural Mountains is a pleasant enough place to live except for one big drawback: when the wind picks up, clouds of carcinogenic dust blow through.

Asbest means asbestos in Russian, and it is everywhere here. Residents describe layers of it collecting on living room floors. Before they take in the laundry from backyard lines, they first shake out the asbestos. “When I work in the garden, I notice asbestos dust on my raspberries,” said Tamara A. Biserova, a retiree. So much dust blows against her windows, she said, that “before I leave in the morning, I have to sweep it out.”

The town is one center of Russia’s asbestos industry, which is stubbornly resistant to shutting asbestos companies and phasing in substitutes for the cancer-causing fireproofing product.

In the United States and most developed economies, asbestos is handled with extraordinary care. Until the 1970s, the fibrous, silicate mineral was used extensively in fireproofing and insulating buildings in America, among other uses, but growing evidence of respiratory ailments due to asbestos exposure led to limits. Laws proscribe its use and its disposal and workers who get near it wear ventilators and protective clothes. The European Union and Japan have also banned asbestos. (A town called Asbestos in Quebec, Canada, has stopped mining asbestos, though it hasn’t changed its name.)

But not here, where every weekday afternoon miners set explosions in a strip mine owned by the Russian mining company Uralasbest. The blasts send huge plumes of asbestos fiber and dust into the air. Asbest is one of the more extreme examples of the environmental costs of modern Russia’s deep reliance on mining.

“Every normal person is trying to get out of here,” Boris Balobanov, a former factory employee, now a taxi driver, explained. “People who value their lives leave. But I was born here and have no place else to go.”

Of the half-dozen people interviewed who worked at the factory or mine, all had a persistent cough, a symptom of exposure to what residents call “the white needles.” Residents also describe strange skin ailments. Doctors interviewed at a dermatology ward say the welts arise from inflammation caused by asbestos.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer, which is a branch of the World Health Organization, is in the midst of a multiyear study of asbestos workers in Asbest. Because of the large number of people exposed in the city, the researchers are using the location to determine whether the asbestos causes ailments other than lung cancer, including ovarian cancer. “All forms of asbestos are carcinogenic to humans,” the group said.

Standing on the rim of the world’s largest open pit asbestos mine provides a panoramic scene. Opened in the late 1800s, it is about half the size of the island of Manhattan and the source of untold tons of asbestos. The pit descends about 1,000 feet down slopes created by terraced access roads. Big mining trucks haul out fibrous, gray, raw asbestos.

The Uralasbest mine is so close by that a few years ago the mayor’s office and the company relocated residents from one outlying area to expand its gaping pit.

So entwined is the life of the town with this pit that many newlyweds pose on a viewing platform on the rim to have their pictures taken. The city has a municipal anthem called “Asbestos, my city and my fate.” In 2002, the City Council adopted a new flag: white lines, symbolizing asbestos fibers, passing through a ring of flame. A billboard put up by Uralasbest in Asbest proclaims “Asbestos is our Future.”

The class-action lawsuits that demolished asbestos companies in the United States are not possible in Russia’s weak judicial system, which favors powerful producers. Russia, which has the world’s largest geological reserves of asbestos, mines about 850,000 tonsof asbestos a year and exports about 60 percent of it. Demand is still strong for asbestos in China and India, where it is used in insulation and building materials. The Russian Chrysotile Association, an asbestos industry trade group, reports that annual sales total about 18 billion rubles, or $540 million. And the business is growing, mostly because other countries are getting out of the business. Russian output rose from 875,000 tons in 2005 to a million last year.

The mine and the factory Uralasbest owns are the principal employers. The town depends on the jobs that mining asbestos and making asbestos products bring. Nationwide, the industry employs 38,500 Russians directly while about 400,000 people depend on the factories and mines for their livelihood, if supporting businesses in the mining towns are counted. About 17 percent of Asbest residents work in the industry.

Asbest is a legacy of the philosophy known as gigantism in Soviet industrial planning. Many cities wound up with only one, huge factory like this town’s sprawling asbestos plant. The cities, known as monotowns, were an important engine of the economy. A Russian government study counted 467 cities and 332 smaller towns that depend on a single factory or mine. A total of 25 million people out of Russia’s population of 142 million people live in towns with only one main industry that cannot close, even if it is polluting.

In a sign of just how scarce other employment options are in Asbest, a guard requires cars leaving the factory to open their trunks, lest anyone try to steal scrap metal for resale. That is about the only other way to make a meager living in Russia’s old industrial towns.

The trade association says that the type of asbestos mined in Russia, called chrysotile, is less harmful than other types. The United States, though, has tightly restricted its use. The country imports about 1,000 tons of asbestos, mainly from Brazil, for use in aerospace and automotive industries for items like clutch pads. “They consider it dangerous but we consider it safe,” said the association’s spokesman, Vladimir A. Galitsyn. Russia has three research institutes dedicated to studying uses for asbestos.

“As a representative of the industry, I don’t see any problem,” he said. Properly handled, asbestos is safe, he said, and it saves lives in fires. “We are not the enemy of our workers. If they died, then people would be afraid to work for us.”

Valentin K. Zemskov, 82, worked at the mine for 40 years and developed asbestosis, a respiratory illness caused by breathing in asbestos fibers, which scar lung tissue. “There was so much dust you couldn’t see a man standing next to you,” he said of his working years. For the disability, the factory adds 4,500 rubles, or about $135, to his monthly retirement check, which would be enough to cover only a few restaurant meals.

Still, he said the city had no other choice. “If we didn’t have the factory, how would we live?” he said, gasping for air as he talked in the yard of a retirement home. “We need to keep it open so we have jobs.”

A monument to residents who died was made, grimly, of a block of asbestos ore, with the inscription “Live and Remember.”

“Of course asbestos dust covers our city,” said Nina A. Zubkova, another resident of the retirement home. “Why do you think the city is named Asbest?”

Pfizer forced to defend against asbestos lawsuits.

The Philadelphia Inquirer (6/28, Sell, 306K) reported, “Pfizer has spent the nine years…arguing that bankruptcy law protects it from” asbestos lawsuits stemming from Quigley Company Inc., which made insulation containing asbestos and was bought by Pfizer’s former minerals, pigments, and metals division. Quigley filed for bankruptcy in 2004. Meanwhile, the US Supreme Court has “declined to hear Pfizer’s appeal of a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which said the lawsuits could go forward.” 

Ford recalls 13,000 vehicles over faulty child safety locks.

The Detroit News (6/28, Henkel, Shepardson, 119K) reports, “The Ford Motor Co. said Thursday it will recall about 13,100 vehicles for door latches that may fail and cause child safety locks to deactivate.” The News notes that “The Dearborn automaker will recall three 2013 model-year vehicles — the Explorer SUV, Taurus sedan and Lincoln MKS sedan — built at Ford’s Chicago Assembly Plant.” According to Ford, “upon opening or closing a door, the child safety lock may change from ‘activated’ to ‘deactivated.’”

        The Torque News (6/28, Faccenda) also reports. 

Record Mesothelioma Verdict In California Against Owen Illinois

Congratulations to my friends Joe Satterly , Andrea Houston and the rest of the trial team  for an amazing result in this take-home exposure case.

 The plaintiff offered to prove that the defendant was fully knowledgeable about the dangers of asbestos, conducted animal studies demonstrating same  and failed to provide any warning whatsoever.  A product that issue was an asbestos insulation product used extensively throughout the United States called “Kaylo.”

The jury returned a verdict of $16,342,500 in compensatory damages ($12,000,000 to Mrs. Grigg, $4,000,000 in loss of consortium and $342,500 in economic damages).  Today the jury returned an $11,000,000 punitive award.  There was an intentional tort finding and the setoffs will be about $3,000,000 for settlements.  

 An appeal is likely. The defendant will no doubt argue that the verdict was excessive. This case demonstrates how some juries become very unhappy when they believe information about a product’s dangers was known but intentionally withheld.

 

Asbestos Litigation Update

Jury Awards $3 Million to Mechanic in Case Against John Crane

A jury has awarded $3 million to a former mechanic at the conclusion of an asbestos trial during which… Click Here

3rd Circuit Agrees that Plaintiffs Had to Submit Exposure History

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit has upheld a decision dismissing the asbestos claims of 12 plaintiffs… Click Here

New York City Court Consolidates 4 More Cases for Trial

A New York trial court has consolidated four more asbestos cases for trial, concluding that the concerns raised by the… Click Here

Court Allows Crane Co. to Amend Answer to Asbestos Complaint

A Rhode Island court has granted Crane Co.’s motion to amend its answer in an asbestos proceeding, ruling that the plaintiffs… Click Here

Court Affirms Dismissal of Insurance Case, Applies Pro Rata Allocation

A Massachusetts appellate court has affirmed the dismissal of a coverage action involving asbestos claims, finding the… Click Here

N.J. Court Remands Action, Finds Raytheon’s Removal Untimely

A New Jersey federal court has remanded an asbestos action, after finding that Raytheon was put on… Click Here

Court: Determine Connection between Ford Motor and Foreign Departments

A New York court has ordered parties to undergo jurisdictional discovery in an asbestos case in order to determine the… Click Here

Court Affirms Summary Judgment Awards in Take-Home Case

A Louisiana appellate court has affirmed summary judgment awards to several asbestos defendants, after finding… Click Here

Bankruptcy Trust Legislation Exits Committee, Heads to House

 

The Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law has approved H.R. 982, which would require… Click Here

Lorillard Executive Admits Asbestos Once Included in Kent Filters

Most people have no idea that during the early to mid 1950s Kent Micronite filters contained asbestos. This is the basis for many current mesothelioma cases. My friend and colleague Chris Panatier recently took a deposition laying out the story. The deposition in its entirety is set forth below.

 

     STATE OF MINNESOTA                     DISTRICT COURT

 

     COUNTY OF RAMSEY             SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT

 

                     PERSONAL INJURY/ASBESTOS/VAN DE NORTH

 

     Curtis Geatz and           Court File No.: 62CV124946

    Judith Geatz,

 

 

              Plaintiffs,

 

 

    V.

 

 

    Benjamin Moore & Co.,

 

     et al.,

 

               Defendants.

 

 

          SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

 

                 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

 

 

    Coordinated Proceeding       )  J.C.C.P. No. 4674

 

     Special Title (Rule 3.550)   )

                                 )  Los Angeles

 

     LAOSD ASBESTOS CASES         )  Superior Court

                                 )  No. BC495326

 

                                  )

    TONI LAURENDEAU,             )  Assigned for All

 

                                  )  Purposes to:

              Plaintiff,         )  Honorable Emilie H.

 

                                  )  Elias

         vs.                     )  Dept. 324

 

                                  )

    CALAVERAS ASBESTOS, LTD;     )

 

     et al.,                      )

                                 )

 

               Defendants.        )

                                 )

 

 

 

                    TELEPHONIC AND VIDEOTAPE

                    30(B)(6) DEPOSITION OF

 

                   LORILLARD TOBACCO COMPANY

 

             THROUGH ITS CORPORATE REPRESENTATIVE,

 

                    KEVIN H. REINERT, PH.D.

 

 

                                                                     2

 1         SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

 

 2   

 

 3   Coordinated Proceeding       )  J.C.C.P. No. 4674

    Special Title (Rule 3.550)   )

 

 4                                )  Los Angeles

    LAOSD ASBESTOS CASES         )  Superior Court

 

 5                                )  No. BC494461

                                 )

 

 6   HELEN CARON,                 )  Assigned for All

                                 )  Purposes to:

 

 7             Plaintiff,         )  Honorable Emilie H.

                                 )  Elias

 

 8        vs.                     )  Dept. 324

                                 )

 

 9   AUTOZONE, INC.; et al.,      )

                                 )

 

10             Defendants.        )

                                 )

 

11   

 

12         SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                  FOR THE COUNTY OF VENTURA

 

13   

 

14   GERALD BUCK and JOYCE BUCK,  )  Case No. 56-2012-

                                 )  00427135-CU-AS-VTA

 

15             Plaintiff,         )

                                 )  Assigned for all

 

16        vs.                     )  purposes to

                                 )  The Honorable

 

17   AUTOZONE, INC.; et al.,      )  Harry Walsh

                                 )  Department 42

 

18             Defendants.        )

                                 )

 

19   

 

20   

 

21   

 

22   

 

23   

 

24   

 

25   

 

 

                                                                     3

 1         SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

 

 2   

 

 3   Coordinated Proceeding       )  J.C.C.P. No. 4674

    Special Title (Rule 3.550)   )

 

 4                                )  Los Angeles

    LAOSD ASBESTOS CASES         )  Superior Court

 

 5                                )  No. BC496185

                                 )

 

 6   WILLIAM LEWINSTEIN,          )  Hon. Emilie H. Elias

                                 )  Dept. 324

 

 7             Plaintiff,         )

                                 )

 

 8        vs.                     )

                                 )

 

 9   AMCORD, INC. (sued           )

    individually and as          )

 

10   successor-in-interest to     )

    RIVERSIDE CEMENT COMPANY);   )

 

11   et al.,                      )

                                 )

 

12             Defendants.        )

                                 )

 

13   

 

14                            Greensboro, North Carolina

 

15                           Wednesday, April 17, 2013

 

16             Videotaped and Telephonic 30(b)(6)

 

17   Deposition of LORILLARD TOBACCO COMPANY through its

 

18   corporate representative, KEVIN H. REINERT, PH.D., a

 

19   witness herein, called for examination by counsel

 

20   for the Plaintiffs in the above-entitled matter,

 

21   pursuant to notice, the witness being duly sworn by

 

22   K. DENISE NEAL, Registered Professional Reporter and

 

23   Notary Public in and for the State of North

 

24   Carolina, taken at the law offices of Brooks Pierce

 

25   McLendon Humphrey & Leonard, LLP, 230 North Elm

 

 

                                                                     4

 1   Street, 1900 Renaissance Plaza, Greensboro, North

 

 2   Carolina, at 9:09 a.m., on Wednesday, April 17,

 

 3   2013, and the proceedings being taken down by

 

 4   Stenotype by K. DENISE NEAL and transcribed under

 

 5   her direction.

 

 6   

 

 7   APPEARANCES:

 

 8   

 

 9        On behalf of the Plaintiffs (Geatz case):

 

10             CHRIS PANATIER, ESQ.

 

11             Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett

 

12             3232 McKinney Avenue, Suite 610

 

13             Dallas, Texas  75204

 

14             (214) 276-7680

 

15   

 

16        On behalf of the Defendant Lorillard

 

17        Tobacco Company (Geatz case):

 

18             JAMES E. BERGER, ESQ.

 

19             Hughes Hubbard & Reed, LLP

 

20             2345 Grand Boulevard

 

21             Kansas City, Missouri  64108-2663

 

22             (816) 709-4125

 

23   

 

24   

 

25   

 

 

                                                                     5

 1   APPEARANCES (Continued):

 

 2        On behalf of the Defendant Lorillard

 

 3        Tobacco Company (Laurendeau, Buck, Caron

 

 4        and Lewinstein cases):

 

 5             RICK L. SHACKELFORD, ESQ.

 

 6             Greenberg Traurig, LLP

 

 7             1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900

 

 8             Los Angeles, California  90067

 

 9             (310) 586-3878

 

10   

 

11        On behalf of the Defendant Cyprus Amax

 

12        Minerals Company:

 

13             MICHAEL H. BAILEY, ESQ. (By Telephone)

 

14             Baker, Keener & Nahra

 

15             633 West 5th Street, Suite 5400

 

16             Los Angeles, California  90071

 

17             (213) 241-0900

 

18   

 

19        On behalf of the Defendant Ford Motor

 

20        Company (Lewinstein and Buck cases):

 

21             PATRICIA E. BALL, ESQ. (By Telephone)

 

22             Yukevich Cavanaugh

 

23             355 South Grand Avenue, 15th Floor

 

24             Los Angeles, California  90071

 

25             (213) 362-7777

 

 

                                                                     6

 1   APPEARANCES (Continued):

 

 2        On behalf of the Defendant BNSF

 

 3        (Geatz case):

 

 4             RALPH G. GODSY, ESQ. (By Telephone)

 

 5             Boyle Brasher, LLC

 

 6             One Metropolitan Square

 

 7             211 North Broadway, Suite 2300

 

 8             St. Louis, Missouri  63102

 

 9             (314) 621-7700

 

10   

 

11        On behalf of the Defendants Genuine Parts

 

12        Company (Caron case) and Familian

 

13        Corporation (Laurendeau case):

 

14             ANN I. PARK, ESQ. (By Telephone)

 

15             Pond North, LLP

 

16             350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3300

 

17             Los Angeles, California  90071

 

18             (213) 617-6170

 

19   

 

20   

 

21   

 

22   

 

23   

 

24   

 

25   

 

 

                                                                     7

 1   APPEARANCES (Continued):

 

 2        On behalf of the Defendants Pneumo Abex,

 

 3        LLC (Caron case), Kaiser Gypsum Co., Inc.

 

 4        (Caron and Lewinstein cases) and Vanderbilt

 

 5        Minerals LLC (Caron, Laurendeau and

 

 6        Lewinstein cases):

 

 7             SALIN EBRAHAMIAN, ESQ. (By Telephone)

 

 8             DeHay & Elliston, L.L.P.

 

 9             707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 4300

 

10             Los Angeles, California  90017

 

11             (213) 271-2722

 

12   

 

13        On behalf of the Defendants Calaveras

 

14        Asbestos, Ltd. (Buck and Laurendeau cases)

 

15        and The Henry Co. (Lewinstein case):

 

16             MORGAN McCALL, ESQ. (By Telephone)

 

17             Foley & Mansfield

 

18             300 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2800

 

19             Los Angeles, California  90071

 

20             (213) 283-2124

 

21   

 

22   

 

23   

 

24   

 

25   

 

 

                                                                     8

 1   APPEARANCES (Continued):

 

 2        On behalf of the Defendant Union Carbide

 

 3        Corporation (Caron, Buck, Laurendeau and

 

 4        Lewinstein cases):

 

 5             JOSEPH GREENSLADE, ESQ. (By Telephone)

 

 6             McKenna Long & Aldridge, LLP

 

 7             300 South Grand Avenue, 14th Floor

 

 8             Los Angeles, California  90071

 

 9             (213) 243-6120

 

10   

 

11        On behalf of the Defendant Parex USA,

 

12        Inc. (Lewinstein case):

 

13             VANTHARA MEAK, ESQ. (By Telephone)

 

14             Howard Rome Martin & Ridley, LLP

 

15             1775 Woodside Road, Suite 200

 

16             Redwood City, California  94061-3436

 

17             (650) 365-7715

 

18   

 

19        On behalf of the Defendant Westburne

 

20        Supply, Inc. (Buck case):

 

21             V. PHILLIP HILL, IV, ESQ. (By Telephone)

 

22             Walsworth Franklin Bevins & McCall, LLP

 

23             707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 3280

 

24             Los Angeles, California  90017-3538

 

25             (213) 489-4820

 

 

                                                                     9

 1   APPEARANCES (Continued):

 

 2        On behalf of the Defendants L&B Pipe &

 

 3        Supply Company and MS2G, Inc. (Laurendeau

 

 4        case):

 

 5             TONY HSU, ESQ. (By Telephone)

 

 6             Prindle, Amaro, Goetz, Hillyard, Barnes

 

 7             & Reinholtz, LLP

 

 8             310 Golden Shore Parkway, 4th Floor

 

 9             Long Beach, California  90802

 

10             (562) 436-3946

 

11   

 

12        On behalf of the Defendant BorgWarner Morse

 

13        TEC, Inc. as successor-by-merger to

 

14        Borg-Warner Corporation (Caron case):

 

15             BARTEK R. REJCH, ESQ. (By Telephone)

 

16             Booth, Mitchel & Strange, LLP

 

17             707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 4450

 

18             Los Angeles, California  90017

 

19             (415) 205-0952

 

20   

 

21   

 

22   

 

23   

 

24   

 

25   

 

 

                                                                    10

 1   APPEARANCES (Continued):

 

 2        On behalf of the Defendants Lincoln

 

 3        Electric Company and Hobart Brothers

 

 4        Company (Buck case):

 

 5             MENGSU LIU, ESQ. (By Telephone)

 

 6             The Rasmussen Law Firm, LLP

 

 7             6033 West Century Boulevard, Suite 444

 

 8             Los Angeles, California  90045

 

 9             (310) 641-1400

 

10   

 

11        On behalf of the Defendant Hill Brothers

 

12        Chemical Company (Lewinstein case):

 

13             DAVID J. MANN, ESQ. (By Telephone)

 

14             Vasquez Estrada & Conway, LLP

 

15             1000 Fourth Street, Suite 700

 

16             San Rafael, California  94901

 

17             (415) 453-0555

 

18   

 

19        On behalf of the Defendant Maremont

 

20        Corporation (Lewinstein case):

 

21             LAUREN E. WOOD, ESQ. (By Telephone)

 

22             Hawkins Parnell Thackston & Young, LLP

 

23             4514 Cole Avenue, Suite 500

 

24             Dallas, Texas  75205-5412

 

25             (214) 780-5214

 

 

                                                                    11

 1   APPEARANCES (Continued):

 

 2        On behalf of the Defendant Jones Lumber

 

 3        (Laurendeau case):

 

 4             TREDWAY, LUMSDAINE & DOYLE, LLP

 

 5             (By Telephone)

 

 6             One World Trade Center, Suite 2550

 

 7             Long Beach, California  90831

 

 8             (562) 901-3050

 

 9   

 

10        On behalf of the Defendant NMBFIL, Inc.

 

11        (Buck, Caron and Lewinstein cases):

 

12             KNIGHT S. ANDERSON, ESQ. (By Telephone)

 

13             Tucker Ellis, LLP

 

14             925 Euclid Avenue, Suite 1150

 

15             Cleveland, Ohio  44115

 

16             (216) 592-5000

 

17   

 

18        On behalf of the Defendant DAP, Inc.

 

19        (Caron, Buck, Laurendeau and Lewinstein

 

20        cases):

 

21             ALLAN D. GUTSCHE, ESQ. (By Telephone)

 

22             Jackson Jenkins Renstrom, LLP

 

23             55 Francisco Street, 6th Floor

 

24             San Francisco, California  94133

 

25             (415) 982-3600

 

 

                                                                    12

 1   APPEARANCES (Continued):

 

 2        On behalf of Intervenors for Rich-Tex, Inc.

 

 3        (Laurendeau case):

 

 4             KIMBERLY M. PILE, ESQ. (By Telephone)

 

 5             Imai, Tadlock, Keeney & Cordery, LLP

 

 6             100 Bush Street, 13th Floor

 

 7             San Francisco, California  94104

 

 8             (415) 675-7000

 

 9   

 

10        On behalf of the Defendants The Pep Boys

 

11        Manny Moe & Jack of California (Caron and

 

12        Lewinstein cases) and Keenan Properties,

 

13        Inc. (Laurendeau case):

 

14             CHRISTINE D. CALARESO, ESQ. (By Telephone)

 

15             Selman Breitman, LLP

 

16             6 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 1100

 

17             Santa Ana, California  92707-5755

 

18             (714) 647-2506

 

19   

 

20   

 

21   

 

22   

 

23   

 

24   

 

25   

 

 

                                                                    13

 1   APPEARANCES (Continued):

 

 2        On behalf of the Defendant Hajoca

 

 3        Corporation (Laurendeau case):

 

 4             DAVID A. WARREN, ESQ. (By Telephone)

 

 5             Cooley Manion Jones, LLP

 

 6             201 Spear Street, 18th Floor

 

 7             San Francisco, California  94105

 

 8             (415) 512-4381

 

 9   

 

10        On behalf of the Defendant Crenshaw

 

11        Lumber Co. (Laurendeau case):

 

12             SAMANTHA E. KOHLER, ESQ. (By Telephone)

 

13             Wood, Smith, Henning & Berman, LLP

 

14             5000 Birch Street, Suite 8500

 

15             Newport Beach, California  92660

 

16             (949) 757-4507

 

17   

 

18        On behalf of the Defendant Honeywell

 

19        (Lewinstein case):

 

20             DAVID Q. McCLURE, ESQ. (By Telephone)

 

21             Perkins Cole, LLP

 

22             1888 Century Park East, Suite 1700

 

23             Los Angeles, California  90067-1721

 

24             (310) 788-9900

 

25   

 

 

                                                                    14

 1   APPEARANCES (Continued):

 

 2        On behalf of the Defendant Graves

 

 3        Automotive Supply (Caron case):

 

 4             SHARI I. WEINTRAUB, ESQ. (By Telephone)

 

 5             Gordon & Rees, LLP

 

 6             101 West Broadway, Suite 2000

 

 7             San Diego, California  92101

 

 8             (619) 230-7766

 

 9   

 

10        On behalf of the Defendant Mortex

 

11        Manufacturing Co., Inc. (Lewinstein case):

 

12             JEREMY D. HUIE, ESQ. (By Telephone)

 

13             Bassi Edlin Huie & Blum, LLP

 

14             500 Washington Street, Suite 700

 

15             San Francisco, California  94111

 

16             (415) 403-4429

 

17   

 

18                           -oOo-

 

19   

 

20                      C O N T E N T S

 

21   THE WITNESS               EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOR

 

22   KEVIN H. REINERT, PH.D.   PLAINTIFFS      DEFENDANTS

 

23     By Mr. Panatier             21

 

24     By Mr. Berger                              308

 

25     By Mr. Panatier            332

 

 

                                                                    15

 1                      E X H I B I T S

 

 2   PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION EXHIBIT              MARKED

 

 3     1 – Plaintiff’s notices of deposition       20

 

 4     2 – Reinert curriculum vitae                39

 

 5     3 – 1952 agreement between Lorillard

 

 6         and Hollingsworth & Vose                40

 

 7     4 – United States Tobacco Journal

 

 8         article – 3-24-52                       43

 

 9     5 – Tenth AEC air cleaning conference

 

10         proceedings – 8-28-68                   54

 

11     6 – JAMA editorial                          59

 

12     7 – Newsweek article – 5-15-50              65

 

13     8 – Letter dated 6-2-50                     67

 

14     9 – Letter dated 2-16-51                    70

 

15    10 – Letter dated 2-19-51                    74

 

16    11 – Letter dated 8-7-52                     84

 

17    12 – Kent advertisement                      90

 

18    13 – Letter dated 3-12-52                    96

 

19    14 – JAMA Kent advertisement – 7-11-53      104

 

20    15 – JAMA Kent advertisement – 8-1-53       110

 

21    16 – JAMA Kent advertisement – 10-3-53      114

 

22    17 – Letter dated 5-7-53                    117

 

23    18 – Letter dated 8-20-54                   118

 

24    19 – A Frank Statement to Cigarette

 

25         Smokers                                122

 

 

                                                                    16

 1                E X H I B I T S (Continued)

 

 2   PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION EXHIBIT              MARKED

 

 3    20 – Letter dated 7-29-46                   129

 

 4    21 – JAMA article – 4-3-54                  129

 

 5    22 – Letter dated 3-3-55                    135

 

 6    23 – Letter dated 10-13-55                  139

 

 7    24 – Letter dated 2-2-54                    146

 

 8    25 – Letter dated 2-12-54                   155

 

 9    26 – Progress report number 11              157

 

10    27 – Letter dated 1-28-54                   164

 

11    28 – Letter dated 4-26-54                   167

 

12    29 – Letter dated 6-4-54                    173

 

13    30 – Handwritten journal entry              174

 

14    31 – Letter dated 7-20-54                   190

 

15    32 – Letter dated 10-11-54                  193

 

16    33 – Letter dated 10-11-54                  195

 

17    34 – Letter dated 10-27-54                  198

 

18    35 – Letter dated 12-1-54                   201

 

19    36 – Letter dated 9-3-52                    209

 

20    37 – Letter dated 6-7-54                    214

 

21    38 – Summary of meeting – 10-5-54           219

 

22    39 – Letter dated 10-25-54                  222

 

23    40 – Letter dated 10-25-54                  226

 

24    41 – Handwritten journal entry              231

 

25    42 – Letter dated 11-5-54                   239

 

 

                                                                    17

 1                E X H I B I T S (Continued)

 

 2   PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION EXHIBIT              MARKED

 

 3    43 – Letter dated 11-16-54                  244

 

 4    44 – Summary of meeting – 11-18-54          245

 

 5    45 – Report of phone conversation -

 

 6         11-22-54                               248

 

 7    46 – Letter dated 12-1-54                   252

 

 8    47 – Letter dated 10-26-56                  254

 

 9    48 – Longo article                          264

 

10    49 – Longo expert report – 8-31-12          268

 

11    50 – Longo expert report – 7-17-12          269

 

12    51 – Millette report                        280

 

13   

 

14   DEFENDANT’S DEPOSITION EXHIBIT             MARKED

 

15    52 – Cross-notices of deposition            308

 

16    53 – Kendall second monthly report

 

17         1978                                   317

 

18    54 – Letter dated 5-3-54                    317

 

19    55 – Photographs of Kent packs              327

 

20   (Exhibits attached.)

 

21                           -oOo-

 

22   

 

23                   INFORMATION REQUESTED

 

24                          (None.)

 

25                           -oOo-

 

 

                                                                    18

 1                 INSTRUCTIONS NOT TO ANSWER

 

 2                      Page 109, Line 4

 

 3                      Page 123, Line 9

 

 4                     Page 126, Line 24

 

 5                     Page 129, Line 12

 

 6                     Page 129, Line 16

 

 7                     Page 141, Line 24

 

 8                     Page 298, Line 10

 

 9                           -oOo-

 

10   

 

11   

 

12   

 

13   

 

14   

 

15   

 

16   

 

17   

 

18   

 

19   

 

20   

 

21   

 

22   

 

23   

 

24   

 

25   

 

 

                                                                    19

 1             THE VIDEOGRAPHER:  Starting of number one,

 

 2   on the record at 9:09 a.m.  This is the videotaped

 

 3   deposition of Dr. Kevin Reinert, Ph.D.  Today’s date

 

 4   is April 17th, 2013.  The time is located on the

 

 5   video screen.  We are located today at 230 North Elm

 

 6   Street, Greensboro, North Carolina 27401.  The court

 

 7   reporter today is Denise Neal.  My name is Scott

 

 8   Swing.  I am the videographer.

 

 9             We are both here on behalf of Henjum

 

10   Goucher Reporting Services located in Dallas, Texas.

 

11   At this time our court reporter will swear the

 

12   witness for the record, please.

 

13             (The witness was duly sworn by the court

 

14   reporter.)

 

15             THE VIDEOGRAPHER:  We may proceed,

 

16   counselors.

 

17             MR. PANATIER:  So let’s just for the

 

18   record, we’ll just make it clear this case — this

 

19   deposition is going forth in five cases.  And I’ve

 

20   attached — I’m attaching as Exhibit 1 all of the

 

21   notices from our office as well as whatever

 

22   objections were filed.  It’s going forward in the

 

23   Laurendeau case, the Caron case, the Buck case, the

 

24   Lewinstein case and the Geatz case.  Is that five?

 

25   I think that’s five.

 

 

                                                                    20

 1             MR. BERGER:  Yes.

 

 2             MR. PANATIER:  So that’s Exhibit 1 for us.

 

 3             (Exhibit Number 1 was marked for

 

 4   identification.)

 

 5             MR. BERGER:  And those are the Plaintiff’s

 

 6   notices?

 

 7             MR. PANATIER:  Yeah.  That’s all

 

 8   Plaintiff’s notices and objections.

 

 9             MR. BERGER:  Okay.

 

10             MR. PANATIER:  And then I’ll stipulate one

 

11   objection is good for all.  Anything else?

 

12             MR. BERGER:  Motions to strike reserved

 

13   until — can be made, but reserved until the time of

 

14   trial.

 

15             MR. PANATIER:  Right.

 

16             MR. BERGER:  Rick, anything else?

 

17             MR. SHACKELFORD:  No.  I don’t think so.

 

18   I think it’s objection from one is objection for all

 

19   in all cases so there won’t be a lot of chiming in.

 

20             MR. BERGER:  And at the end of the

 

21   deposition since these are noticed in four

 

22   California cases, we’ll read in a stipulation about

 

23   under the code of the court reporter, et cetera, et

 

24   cetera.

 

25             MR. PANATIER:  Yep.  Thanks.

 

 

                                                                    21

 1                  KEVIN H. REINERT, PH.D.,

 

 2   having been first duly sworn, was examined and

 

 3   testified as follows:

 

 4                        EXAMINATION

 

 5   BY MR. PANATIER:

 

 6         Q.  All right.  Sir, can you please introduce

 

 7   yourself?

 

 8         A.  Dr. Kevin H. Reinert.

 

 9         Q.  Where do you work?

 

10         A.  Lorillard Tobacco.

 

11         Q.  How long have you worked there?

 

12         A.  Six plus years.

 

13         Q.  What’s your title at Lorillard?

 

14         A.  I’m Director of Regulatory Science Policy

 

15   in the compliance department and I’m also Director

 

16   of Scientific — Scientific Affairs in the R&D,

 

17   research and development department.

 

18         Q.  Today you are here as the corporate

 

19   representative for Lorillard; true?

 

20         A.  That is correct.

 

21         Q.  And that means that you are the person that

 

22   has been chosen by Lorillard to speak on behalf of

 

23   the company; correct?

 

24         A.  In the matters in front of us today, yes,

 

25   that would be correct.

 

 

                                                                    22

 1         Q.  Right.  You understand that you are

 

 2   testifying as the corporate representative in the

 

 3   Geatz case; correct?

 

 4         A.  That’s correct.

 

 5         Q.  You are testifying as the corporate

 

 6   representative for Lorillard in the Laurendeau case;

 

 7   correct?

 

 8         A.  Yes.

 

 9         Q.  You are testifying as the corporate

 

10   representative for Lorillard in the Caron case;

 

11   correct?

 

12         A.  That’s correct.

 

13         Q.  You’re testifying as the corporate

 

14   representative for Lorillard in the Buck case;

 

15   correct?

 

16         A.  That’s correct.

 

17         Q.  You’re testifying as the corporate

 

18   representative for Lorillard in the Lewinstein case;

 

19   correct?

 

20         A.  That’s correct.

 

21             MR. BERGER:  And to be clear, his

 

22   testimony is within the scope of the notice on

 

23   topics on which we agreed to produce him.

 

24         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Sir, testifying as the

 

25   corporate representative for Lorillard is something

 

 

                                                                    23

 1   you’ve done on, what, numerous occasions in the

 

 2   past; correct?

 

 3         A.  Numerous, yes.

 

 4         Q.  Okay.  You started at Lorillard in what?

 

 5   2007?

 

 6         A.  Yes.  February 2007.

 

 7         Q.  All right.  How soon after starting at

 

 8   Lorillard were you being put up as the corporate

 

 9   representative for Lorillard in cases involving

 

10   asbestos-containing Micronite filter?

 

11         A.  2009 would be when I was actually being

 

12   deposed.

 

13         Q.  In March of 1952 Lorillard started selling

 

14   Kent cigarettes with the Micronite filter; correct?

 

15         A.  That’s correct.

 

16         Q.  Each Micronite filter attached to a Kent

 

17   cigarette contained approximately 300 million

 

18   crocidolite asbestos fibers by your estimation;

 

19   correct?

 

20         A.  That’s correct.

 

21         Q.  Lorillard ceased production of the

 

22   asbestos-containing Kent cigarettes in May of 1956;

 

23   correct?

 

24         A.  That’s correct.

 

25         Q.  No other cigarette company ever placed

 

 

                                                                    24

 1   asbestos into filters before Lorillard did; true?

 

 2         A.  Not that I know of.

 

 3         Q.  And to your knowledge no other cigarette

 

 4   company ever placed asbestos into filters after

 

 5   Lorillard did; correct?

 

 6         A.  That’s correct, not that I know of.

 

 7         Q.  To your knowledge the only company ever to

 

 8   intentionally put asbestos in a cigarette filter was

 

 9   Lorillard; right?

 

10             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

11             THE WITNESS:  To my knowledge that’s

 

12   correct.

 

13         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Okay.  And Lorillard was

 

14   intentionally putting crocidolite asbestos in Kent

 

15   cigarettes with the Micronite filter from March of

 

16   ’52 through May of ’56; correct?

 

17             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

18             THE WITNESS:  That was part of the filter,

 

19   yes.

 

20         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Okay.  At no time during

 

21   the life of the asbestos-containing Kent cigarette

 

22   did it ever contain a warning about asbestos

 

23   hazards; true?

 

24         A.  That’s correct.

 

25         Q.  At no time during the period of time that

 

 

                                                                    25

 1   Lorillard was making the asbestos-containing Kent

 

 2   cigarette did it ever contain a warning about

 

 3   asbestos hazards; correct?

 

 4         A.  That would be correct.

 

 5         Q.  It didn’t even disclose that it contained

 

 6   asbestos; correct?

 

 7             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

 8             THE WITNESS:  Not directly, no.  That’s

 

 9   correct.

 

10         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  In fact, in no paid

 

11   advertising or on the packages of Kent Micronite

 

12   filtered cigarettes from March of ’52 through May of

 

13   ’56 was it ever disclosed that it contained

 

14   asbestos; correct?

 

15             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

16             THE WITNESS:  I don’t believe I’ve seen

 

17   that, that’s correct.

 

18         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  In a four-year period

 

19   approximately Lorillard sold billions of Kent

 

20   cigarettes containing asbestos; true?

 

21         A.  Approximately 13 billion.

 

22         Q.  And during that period of time did

 

23   Lorillard ever once measure the full quantity of

 

24   asbestos released into the smoke from an entire

 

25   cigarette using electron microscopy?

 

 

                                                                    26

 1         A.  Yes.

 

 2         Q.  Okay.  Who did that?

 

 3         A.  Dr. Fullam.

 

 4         Q.  And –

 

 5         A.  Or Mr. Fullam, I should say.

 

 6         Q.  Okay.  And here’s the question.  Was the

 

 7   entire amount counted?

 

 8         A.  He trapped all the smoke — I should say

 

 9   Lorillard trapped all the smoke from the cigarette

 

10   and then sent it to Dr. or Mr. Fullam and he

 

11   analyzed the materials.

 

12         Q.  Okay.  What I’m asking is did anyone ever

 

13   take all the smoke from — the smoke from an entire

 

14   Kent cigarette and count all the asbestos fibers

 

15   inside to determine how many there were?

 

16             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

17             THE WITNESS:  Well, you trap the smoke and

 

18   then the smoke was — or the trapped smoke, the

 

19   trapped particulates including the asbestos, was

 

20   sent to Mr. Fullam and he analyzed them.

 

21         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Right.  And did he count

 

22   how many asbestos fibers were present in the smoke

 

23   from an entire Kent cigarette?

 

24             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, assumes

 

25   facts.

 

 

                                                                    27

 1             THE WITNESS:  Yes.

 

 2         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  How many were there?

 

 3         A.  None.

 

 4         Q.  Mr. — to what — what report are you

 

 5   referring?

 

 6         A.  There’s February — there’s a letter dated

 

 7   February something 1954 that actually says no fibers

 

 8   were found in the smoke of a Kent cigarette.

 

 9         Q.  Do you have any of the communication from

 

10   Lorillard to Dr. Fullam where it says the smoke

 

11   we’re sending you is the smoke from an entire

 

12   cigarette having been smoked?

 

13             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, assumes

 

14   facts.

 

15             THE WITNESS:  I don’t believe it says

 

16   entire cigarette, but it would be consistent with

 

17   the way one would sample a cigarette.

 

18         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  All right.  Well, we’ll

 

19   get to the studies in a minute.  To your knowledge

 

20   has any company other than Lorillard ever

 

21   intentionally placed asbestos into a leisure product

 

22   that the consumer inhales through?

 

23             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

24             THE WITNESS:  Not into a leisure product

 

25   that I know of that they would inhale through that I

 

 

                                                                    28

 1   know of.

 

 2         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  No one has done it since

 

 3   that you know of; correct?

 

 4             MR. BERGER:  Same objection.

 

 5             THE WITNESS:  That I know of, no.  That’s

 

 6   correct.

 

 7         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  You’re not an expert in

 

 8   asbestos; correct?

 

 9             MR. BERGER:  Objection.

 

10             THE WITNESS:  Not — not necessarily,

 

11   that’s correct.

 

12         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  You’re a Ph.D., not an

 

13   M.D.; right?

 

14         A.  That is correct.

 

15         Q.  Lorillard was founded in 1760; true?

 

16         A.  That is correct.

 

17         Q.  Where was it located in 1760?

 

18         A.  Bronx, New York.

 

19         Q.  Was that the headquarters at that time?

 

20         A.  There was a building where they made snuff

 

21   and I believe that would be the headquarters.

 

22         Q.  Okay.  Where’s the headquarters now?

 

23         A.  Here in Greensboro.

 

24         Q.  Greensboro, North Carolina?

 

25         A.  That is correct.

 

 

                                                                    29

 1         Q.  How long has that been the headquarters?

 

 2         A.  They moved down, I believe, sometime in the

 

 3   ’90s.  I’m not exactly sure which date.

 

 4         Q.  And was that down from New Jersey?

 

 5         A.  It was New York.

 

 6         Q.  New York.  Okay.  For a period of time was

 

 7   the headquarters in New Jersey?  Was it ever there?

 

 8         A.  I don’t believe it was, but I’m not a

 

 9   company historian.

 

10         Q.  Okay.  Were there any offices for Lorillard

 

11   in New Jersey, any facilities?

 

12         A.  There was a manufacturing facility in

 

13   Jersey City, New Jersey.

 

14         Q.  When did Lorillard first start making

 

15   tobacco products?

 

16         A.  1760.

 

17         Q.  Okay.  And prior to — let me ask you this.

 

18   When did cigarettes start being manufactured?

 

19         A.  I’m not sure –

 

20             MR. BERGER:  Objection.

 

21             THE WITNESS:  – the specific date.

 

22   Again, I’m not a company historian.

 

23         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Okay.  So Lorillard was

 

24   making tobacco products for about 100 years before

 

25   the Civil War; correct?

 

 

                                                                    30

 1         A.  Yes.  That would be about a hundred years.

 

 2         Q.  Where did it get its tobacco from?

 

 3         A.  That I don’t know.

 

 4         Q.  Do you know how much of Lorillard’s tobacco

 

 5   was produced through slave labor?

 

 6         A.  That I don’t know.

 

 7             MR. BERGER:  I’m going to object.  This

 

 8   is, of course, outside the scope of the notice.

 

 9         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Do you know the answer

 

10   to the question?

 

11         A.  I do not.

 

12         Q.  How many employees does Lorillard currently

 

13   have?

 

14         A.  About 3,000.

 

15         Q.  How many did it have in about 1955?

 

16         A.  I do not know.

 

17         Q.  What’s Lorillard’s current net worth?

 

18             MR. BERGER:  I’m going to object.  This is

 

19   not something we agreed to produce him on today.

 

20         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Okay.  Do you know

 

21   Lorillard’s current net worth?

 

22         A.  I don’t.

 

23         Q.  You receive a salary from Lorillard?

 

24         A.  Yes.  I do.

 

25         Q.  What’s your salary?

 

 

                                                                    31

 1         A.  Two hundred and thirty-three thousand.

 

 2         Q.  Okay.  Do you receive any bonuses?

 

 3         A.  Discretionary bonus.

 

 4         Q.  So that means based on your performance,

 

 5   the performance of the company, et cetera, et

 

 6   cetera, you may receive a discretionary bonus each

 

 7   year?

 

 8             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, assumes

 

 9   facts.

 

10             THE WITNESS:  There are several things

 

11   that I have put on for my bonus and how well I do

 

12   and how well the company does.  That’s correct.

 

13         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Now, you’re the Director

 

14   of Regulatory Science Policy, so what types of

 

15   things do you have to do to be able to get a bonus?

 

16         A.  Well, again, I have to name the things that

 

17   would be in there.  One of them is to work with the

 

18   regulatory aspects of our E cigarette, insure that

 

19   those are adequately covered.  I also for my bonus,

 

20   I have a clause in there about doing this type of

 

21   thing, this deposition work.  And then I’m trying to

 

22   remember the third one, but it’s a three-component

 

23   aspect.

 

24         Q.  So you actually — you said there’s a

 

25   clause in there.  You actually have a written

 

 

                                                                    32

 1   agreement with Lorillard about this?

 

 2         A.  There are three goals and I can remember

 

 3   two of them at this point and I neglected to look up

 

 4   the third one before today.

 

 5         Q.  What is the goal as it pertains to the work

 

 6   you do testifying on behalf of Lorillard in asbestos

 

 7   cases?

 

 8         A.  That I’m knowledgeable, that I do things

 

 9   appropriately and ethically, truthfully, and that’s

 

10   pretty much it.  It has nothing to do with whether

 

11   it’s positive or negative from an outcome

 

12   perspective.

 

13         Q.  Have you ever as the corporate

 

14   representative for Lorillard come into a deposition

 

15   or a trial in a case involving asbestos-containing

 

16   Kent Micronite cigarette and said we believe the

 

17   cigarette actually did contribute to the person’s

 

18   disease?

 

19         A.  I wouldn’t say that because that’s not the

 

20   case.

 

21         Q.  Okay.  In your opinion the

 

22   asbestos-containing Kent Micronite cigarette could

 

23   never increase a person’s risk for any

 

24   asbestos-related disease; correct?

 

25             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

 

                                                                    33

 1             THE WITNESS:  Well, certainly any

 

 2   additional amount and, of course, we’ve measured

 

 3   zero to traces to three fibers per cigarette in the

 

 4   relevant studies, would add to anybody’s exposure,

 

 5   but the exposures are very, very low.

 

 6             MR. PANATIER:  I’m just going to object to

 

 7   nonresponsive.

 

 8         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  In your opinion, in the

 

 9   company’s opinion the Kent cigarette that contained

 

10   asbestos could never increase a person’s risk for

 

11   mesothelioma.  That’s your opinion; right?

 

12             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, lack of

 

13   foundation.

 

14             THE WITNESS:  It would be a very minor

 

15   amount that was added.

 

16         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  So let me — so let me

 

17   clarify the question then.  In your opinion Kent

 

18   cigarettes could increase the risk for mesothelioma,

 

19   but in your opinion it would be very small?

 

20             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, lack of

 

21   foundation.  Your opinion is vague, whether you’re

 

22   asking him as an expert or as the corporate rep.

 

23   And if you’re asking him as the corporate rep, it’s

 

24   outside the scope of the notice.

 

25             MR. PANATIER:  All questions today are as

 

 

                                                                    34

 1   the corporate representative.

 

 2         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Okay.  So my question is

 

 3   to you as Lorillard.  I want Lorillard’s opinion,

 

 4   okay, unless I specifically say otherwise just for

 

 5   clarity.  I want Lorillard’s opinion.  Is it

 

 6   Lorillard’s opinion that in smoking a Kent cigarette

 

 7   with the asbestos-containing Micronite filter the

 

 8   risk for mesothelioma can be increased?

 

 9             MR. BERGER:  I object.  That’s not

 

10   included in the notice for today.

 

11             MR. PANATIER:  And I disagree.  I believe

 

12   it is, but go ahead.

 

13             THE WITNESS:  I don’t believe it increased

 

14   the risk.

 

15         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Okay.  And that’s

 

16   whether a person smoked a pack a day of Kent

 

17   cigarettes with the asbestos filter, two packs a

 

18   day, three or four packs a day; right?

 

19         A.  We’re only looking at no release to three

 

20   fibers, and that would be correct.

 

21         Q.  And when you keep saying no release to

 

22   three fibers, you’re talking about some of the tests

 

23   that were done in the ’50s; right?

 

24         A.  On the representative cigarettes, that’s

 

25   correct.

 

 

                                                                    35

 1         Q.  Okay.  In 1952 putting asbestos fibers in

 

 2   cigarette filters was not the industry standard; was

 

 3   it?

 

 4             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

 5             THE WITNESS:  Well, it was not done

 

 6   previously.  It’s been patented, so it was not done

 

 7   previously.

 

 8         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Right.  It was not the

 

 9   industry standard as of ’52 to put asbestos into

 

10   cigarette filters; right?

 

11             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

12             THE WITNESS:  That would be correct.

 

13         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  And it wasn’t the

 

14   industry standard even when you guys were doing it

 

15   because no one else was doing it; right?

 

16             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

17             THE WITNESS:  It was patented, so no one

 

18   else could do it.

 

19         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  They couldn’t do it in

 

20   the way you did it; correct?

 

21         A.  Well, according to the patent is how they

 

22   couldn’t do it.

 

23         Q.  Did it ever become the industry standard

 

24   after you stopped doing it?

 

25             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

 

                                                                    36

 1             THE WITNESS:  Not to my knowledge.

 

 2         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Has anyone attempted to

 

 3   do it through today –

 

 4             MR. BERGER:  Objection.

 

 5         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  – to your knowledge?

 

 6         A.  Not to my knowledge.

 

 7         Q.  The Kent cigarette with the

 

 8   asbestos-containing Micronite filter was basically a

 

 9   four-year experiment that ultimately failed, didn’t

 

10   work out; right?

 

11             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

12             THE WITNESS:  Oh, I disagree.

 

13         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  They stopped making it;

 

14   correct?

 

15         A.  That’s correct.

 

16         Q.  As soon as they stopped making it, they put

 

17   in a cellulose acetate filter basically; correct?

 

18         A.  It was crimped cellulose acetate, that’s

 

19   correct.

 

20         Q.  And cellulose acetate is what?  Wood?

 

21         A.  It’s a petroleum, can be made from

 

22   petroleum.  It can be made from wood.  It’s a

 

23   cellulose essentially polymer.

 

24         Q.  And cellulose is what?

 

25         A.  It’s a large, sugar-type molecule.

 

 

                                                                    37

 1         Q.  Okay.  To your knowledge does cellulose

 

 2   acetate cause mesothelioma?

 

 3         A.  Not to my knowledge.

 

 4         Q.  Okay.  And as soon as Kent revised the

 

 5   filter after May of 1956 and lowered the price, they

 

 6   sold a whole lot more Kent cigarettes; right?

 

 7         A.  Yes.  That is correct.

 

 8         Q.  Okay.  Now, Lorillard had the opportunity

 

 9   to include a filter nobody else had when they

 

10   patented the Micronite filter and put that into

 

11   their cigarettes; right?

 

12             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

13             THE WITNESS:  It was developed from

 

14   currently available filter material, that’s correct.

 

15         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Right.  And by patenting

 

16   it, they could prevent others from using it; right?

 

17         A.  Typically the way things work, that’s

 

18   correct.

 

19         Q.  And Lorillard’s goal was to be able to

 

20   corner the market on that type of filter and then

 

21   market that filter to folks who were concerned about

 

22   or had health concerns about smoking; right?

 

23             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

24             THE WITNESS:  Acute health concerns,

 

25   that’s correct.

 

 

                                                                    38

 1         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  If you put out a

 

 2   cotton-cellulose combination filter, something like

 

 3   that, you wouldn’t have been able to distinguish

 

 4   yourself really from everybody else as far as your

 

 5   filter is concerned; true?

 

 6         A.  It didn’t work as well, that’s correct.

 

 7         Q.  All right.  To the extent others were

 

 8   making filter cigarettes at that time, you would

 

 9   have been just like those guys; right?

 

10         A.  Very ineffective and just like the rest of

 

11   the crowd, that’s correct.

 

12         Q.  Now, Micronite was a name Kent made up;

 

13   right?

 

14         A.  A trade name.

 

15         Q.  Right.  It wasn’t like a scientific name

 

16   for a substance that existed in the world that Kent

 

17   went and found.  Kent put asbestos in a filter along

 

18   with crepe paper, cotton and cellulose; correct?

 

19             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

20             THE WITNESS:  The filter material

 

21   contained those components, that’s correct.

 

22         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  And then they called it

 

23   Micronite; true?

 

24         A.  That was the trade name of the filter, that

 

25   is correct.

 

 

                                                                    39

 1         Q.  I’m going to mark your CV as Exhibit 2.  Is

 

 2   that a current CV?

 

 3         A.  I believe so.  It looks like the 2012

 

 4   version.

 

 5             (Exhibit Number 2 was marked for

 

 6   identification.)

 

 7             MR. BERGER:  Chris, before you ask the

 

 8   next question, people on the phone that are not on

 

 9   mute, will you please mute your phones?

 

10         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  All right, sir.  So when

 

11   Lorillard started making the asbestos Micronite

 

12   cigarette, they employed a company called

 

13   Hollingsworth & Vose to actually make the filtering

 

14   material; right?

 

15             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

16             THE WITNESS:  Hollingsworth & Vose

 

17   Specialties.

 

18         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  That company made the

 

19   actual filtering material that contained the

 

20   asbestos.  They then sold the bulk material to

 

21   Lorillard, who then actually made the filters.  Is

 

22   that accurate?

 

23         A.  The master rolls were transported to

 

24   Lorillard and Lorillard actually made the filters,

 

25   that’s correct.

 

 

                                                                    40

 1             (Exhibit Number 3 was marked for

 

 2   identification.)

 

 3         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Okay.  All right.

 

 4   Exhibit 3 will be the 1952 agreement between

 

 5   Hollingsworth & Vose and Lorillard.  Sir, you’ve

 

 6   seen that document before and have been asked about

 

 7   it before; right?

 

 8         A.  Many times, yes.

 

 9             MR. PANATIER:  Yeah.

 

10             MR. BERGER:  Is this two copies of the

 

11   same thing?

 

12             MR. PANATIER:  It may be.  It may be two

 

13   together.  I can pull it apart.  That would be

 

14   easier on the court reporter.

 

15             MR. BERGER:  Just wanted to make sure it’s

 

16   what you intended.

 

17             MR. PANATIER:  Yeah.

 

18         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  You said you had seen

 

19   this before; right?

 

20         A.  Yes.

 

21         Q.  Appears to be an accurate copy of it; true?

 

22         A.  I believe so.

 

23         Q.  Okay.  And today to speed things up as we

 

24   go through these documents, if you see one that you

 

25   question its accuracy or its authenticity, will you

 

 

                                                                    41

 1   please tell me?

 

 2         A.  I will.

 

 3             MR. BERGER:  I object.  That’s not his

 

 4   duty nor his burden.  If there’s authenticity issues

 

 5   you want to work out for trial, we’re happy to work

 

 6   with you, counsel.

 

 7             MR. PANATIER:  The witness can verify

 

 8   authenticity if he wants.  Okay.  Sir –

 

 9             THE WITNESS:  I will try.

 

10             MR. BERGER:  I will need foundation to do

 

11   it.  He’s not the records custodian.

 

12         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Sir, will you turn to

 

13   page 18, please?  All right.  There’s a paragraph

 

14   there marked 23.  Is that there?

 

15         A.  Yes.  It is.

 

16         Q.  Okay.  And what that says is Lorillard

 

17   agrees that it will indemnify and save Specialties

 

18   harmless and against all damages, costs, expenses

 

19   and liabilities arising from or caused by or in any

 

20   way connected with any claims, suits, actions or

 

21   proceedings of any kind whatsoever which at any time

 

22   may be made or brought by any natural or corporate

 

23   person or persons alleging any misrepresentations by

 

24   Lorillard as to the tobacco smoke filter sold by

 

25   Specialties to Lorillard hereunder or any harmful

 

 

                                                                    42

 1   effects of any finished products sold by Lorillard

 

 2   provided that this indemnification shall not extend

 

 3   to claims or liability in connection with which

 

 4   Specialties shall have been fully covered and

 

 5   indemnified by manufacturer’s product liability

 

 6   insurance, et cetera, et cetera.  You’ve read that

 

 7   before; right?

 

 8         A.  Yes.

 

 9         Q.  Okay.  This was — the meaning of that

 

10   agreement as you’ve testified in the past is if

 

11   anyone brought a claim for any injury or damages

 

12   from the sale of the Micronite filter, Lorillard

 

13   would indemnify H&V; correct?

 

14         A.  In typical contract language that would be

 

15   correct.

 

16         Q.  And indemnify means defend them.  It means

 

17   to the extent they have to pay any damages, they

 

18   would refund them in that type of context; correct?

 

19             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, lack of

 

20   foundation.

 

21             THE WITNESS:  Calls for a legal call.

 

22   I — I don’t know how to define indemnify.

 

23         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Why don’t you explain

 

24   what you understand the relationship to have been?

 

25         A.  Well, it’s –

 

 

                                                                    43

 1             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

 2             THE WITNESS:  It’s typical contract

 

 3   language.  I see it in contracts I sign.

 

 4         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Okay.  That’s not what

 

 5   I’m asking you.  I’m asking you what do you think it

 

 6   means?

 

 7             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

 8             THE WITNESS:  I’m not — it calls for

 

 9   legal speculation on my part and I’m not qualified

 

10   to do that.

 

11         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Okay.  You’ve done it

 

12   before; haven’t you?

 

13             MR. BERGER:  Objection, assumes facts.

 

14             THE WITNESS:  Well, it says hold harmless

 

15   and that’s all I can say because it’s what it says

 

16   here.  I don’t know if I’ve done it before or not.

 

17         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Going forward,

 

18   Hollingsworth & Vose and Lorillard had an agreement

 

19   to split costs of research, development, et cetera,

 

20   as it related to the Micronite filter; correct?

 

21         A.  I believe that’s listed in here, that’s

 

22   correct.

 

23             MR. PANATIER:  All right.  Okay.  This

 

24   will be — what are we on?  Four?

 

25             (Exhibit Number 4 was marked for

 

 

                                                                    44

 1   identification.)

 

 2         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  All right, sir.  Sir,

 

 3   this is a March 24th, 1952 article from the United

 

 4   States Tobacco Journal.  Once you get it back, I’ll

 

 5   ask you some questions about it.

 

 6         A.  Look at it real quick here.

 

 7         Q.  Sure.

 

 8         A.  Okay.

 

 9         Q.  Okay.  The head of the article says — and

 

10   is that Ganger?

 

11         A.  Ganger.

 

12         Q.  Ganger reveals Lorillard’s research on Kent

 

13   cigarette.  Now, Ganger apparently was the executive

 

14   VP of Lorillard; correct?

 

15         A.  That’s what it says, that’s correct.

 

16         Q.  And what it says is executive vice

 

17   president of company discloses data on technical

 

18   studies resulting in new filter tip emphasizes

 

19   maintenance of wide consumer appeal, and it’s a

 

20   somewhat long article, but what I want to do is go

 

21   to the second column, the last full paragraph on the

 

22   second column starting with it was about this time.

 

23   Do you see that?

 

24         A.  Yes.  I see it.

 

25         Q.  It was about this time that the University

 

 

                                                                    45

 1   of Chicago’s metallurgical laboratories were working

 

 2   with even greater secrecy with what turned out later

 

 3   to be the first atomic pile.  A secret mission from

 

 4   the University of Chicago — secret mission from the

 

 5   University of Chicago journeyed to the firm of

 

 6   Hollingsworth & Vose in East Walpole, Massachusetts.

 

 7             This company had worked very closely with

 

 8   the Army and Navy in the development of this new

 

 9   filter material and they continued their work with

 

10   the scientists engaged in atomic research.  These

 

11   technologists had heard of the gas mask and

 

12   respirator filter and were themselves seeking a

 

13   filter which could filter radioactive effluent gases

 

14   to prevent the contamination of areas adjacent to

 

15   atomic energy plants.

 

16             They — and if you go to the next page –

 

17   let’s see here.  Adapted this material to their

 

18   needs.  It met their most rigid requirements.  We,

 

19   of course, knew nothing about these developments nor

 

20   did anyone else in the tobacco industry, but several

 

21   years after the war the government declassified this

 

22   information.

 

23             So what is being reported here is generally

 

24   accurate as far as your understanding, that the

 

25   filter media containing crocidolite asbestos had

 

 

                                                                    46

 1   been used in various different disciplines before in

 

 2   the context of the war and in atomic labs and it

 

 3   ultimately was declassified and Lorillard was

 

 4   interested in using it in the cigarettes; correct?

 

 5         A.  At least exploring it at the time.

 

 6         Q.  Okay.  The next paragraph says over in New

 

 7   Jersey at our research laboratory Dr. Harris B.

 

 8   Parmele, our Director of Research, for a great many

 

 9   years had been seeking and studying scientific

 

10   literature on filtration.  In the course of his

 

11   studies he learned of the filter that the government

 

12   had used so successfully in gas masks, respirators

 

13   and at various of the atomic energy plants.

 

14             He immediately sensed the possible

 

15   significance of this new material in our industry.

 

16   And again, that’s also accurate as far as your

 

17   understanding is concerned; correct?

 

18         A.  As far as I know based on the company

 

19   records, that’s correct.

 

20         Q.  Mr. Parmele by the 1950s, how old of a guy

 

21   was he?

 

22         A.  He started in ’29.  I’m not sure how old he

 

23   was when he started.  It’s Dr. Parmele.

 

24         Q.  Right.  So he was by no means a young guy

 

25   anymore by the ’50s?

 

 

                                                                    47

 1         A.  I don’t know how old he was.  Probably my

 

 2   age.

 

 3         Q.  How old are you?

 

 4         A.  Fifty-six.

 

 5         Q.  Okay.  Go down to the paragraph starting

 

 6   but.  But at this point we ran into something very

 

 7   unusual and something which was very disappointing.

 

 8   The filter material was so good, so perfect that it

 

 9   not only filtered out all of the nicotine and tars

 

10   but even filtered out all of the smoke.

 

11             This admittedly was going just a little too

 

12   far.  So I’ll stop there.  The way the filters were

 

13   being used in different areas, scientific areas and

 

14   in the armed services and so forth, was what’s

 

15   generally referred to as an absolute filter; right?

 

16         A.  Zero filter or absolute, that’s correct.

 

17   Nothing came through.

 

18         Q.  Right.  A zero filter.  And typically that

 

19   is a — that is a combination of — it’s from a

 

20   combination of factors, the material as well as how

 

21   tightly packed it is; correct?

 

22         A.  It’s materials and the packing and the

 

23   construction of the actual filter.

 

24         Q.  Right.  And so the filters that had been

 

25   used in the past in different labs and in gas masks

 

 

                                                                    48

 1   and so forth were filters that were packed so tight

 

 2   that they only let air through.  They did not let

 

 3   any particulate through; true?

 

 4             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

 5             THE WITNESS:  I don’t know how tightly

 

 6   they were packed.

 

 7             MR. PANATIER:  Okay.  I’m sorry.  Who

 

 8   objected?

 

 9             MR. BERGER:  I did.

 

10             MR. PANATIER:  Okay.  You objected?  Okay.

 

11   Thought it came from over here.

 

12             MR. JONES:  That was me.

 

13             MR. PANATIER:  You objected?  No

 

14   objections from you.

 

15         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  All right.  And so in

 

16   the context of trying to create a filter media that

 

17   included asbestos for cigarettes, they couldn’t use

 

18   a zero filter; right?

 

19         A.  That’s right.  Nothing would come through.

 

20         Q.  Right.  If they used the same type of

 

21   filter that had been used in atomic labs, hospitals,

 

22   gas masks, et cetera, the only thing a person would

 

23   be smoking would be hot air; right?

 

24         A.  That air would be coming through.  That

 

25   would be the only thing.

 

 

                                                                    49

 1         Q.  So as it was featured in the Kent Micronite

 

 2   cigarette, the filter was not the same filter that

 

 3   was used in atomic labs and hospitals, et cetera;

 

 4   correct?

 

 5         A.  It’s not the same, that’s correct.

 

 6         Q.  All right.  In fact, what it says in the

 

 7   next sentence is a cigarette smoker would not be

 

 8   content to smoke in warm air and that was just what

 

 9   happened when we first used this marvelous and

 

10   amazing filter material; right?  That’s what you and

 

11   I just discussed?

 

12         A.  That’s exactly right.

 

13         Q.  Okay.  So Dr. Parmele and his associates in

 

14   our research laboratories faced a job a little

 

15   unusual in research work.  Instead of trying to make

 

16   something more perfect, their task was to make it

 

17   less perfect.

 

18             In other words, in working backwards, their

 

19   objective was to strike the ideal point at which,

 

20   first, the full, natural taste and aroma of good

 

21   tobacco would come through and, second, the amount

 

22   of nicotine and tars remaining in the smoke would be

 

23   so small that from a physiological standpoint they

 

24   would prove to be insignificant; correct?

 

25         A.  That’s what it says.

 

 

                                                                    50

 1         Q.  Is it Lorillard’s position that they got

 

 2   the filter to the point where tar and nicotine would

 

 3   be insignificant physiologically?

 

 4             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

 5             THE WITNESS:  The physiological definition

 

 6   based on the information I reviewed and in our

 

 7   records says that the acute effects such as phlegm

 

 8   production, irritation of the throat and cough were

 

 9   reduced significantly.

 

10         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Okay.  Now, when

 

11   Lorillard had to basically work backwards from the

 

12   filter other people were using to loosen it up so

 

13   enough of the good stuff, I guess, would come

 

14   through from cigarette smoking that people smoked

 

15   cigarettes for, do you know at what ratio it was –

 

16   how tightly it was packed compared to the original

 

17   materials that were used in labs and so forth?

 

18             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, move to

 

19   strike preamble.

 

20             THE WITNESS:  I don’t know how packed –

 

21   how the filters previously were packed, how tight

 

22   they were.  I do know that the filter we produced

 

23   was a 32-to-1 compression ratio, which is pretty

 

24   high.

 

25         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Okay.  What does that

 

 

                                                                    51

 1   mean?

 

 2         A.  Thirty-two-to-one?

 

 3         Q.  Yeah.  What does that mean?

 

 4         A.  Something that is an inch wide is now

 

 5   compressed to something that is one-thirty-second of

 

 6   an inch.

 

 7         Q.  And they felt that was enough to allow

 

 8   enough of the smoke to come through that people

 

 9   would still want to smoke their cigarettes; right?

 

10         A.  Based on the efficiency measurements, only

 

11   40 percent of the tar and nicotine and other

 

12   particulates were coming through the cigarette at

 

13   that time.

 

14         Q.  Now, go down to the paragraph starting with

 

15   the word now, the same column.  Do you see that?

 

16         A.  I see that.

 

17         Q.  Okay.  Now, the results are quite simple to

 

18   point out.  We are about to introduce to the public

 

19   a new brand which will be known as Kent cigarettes

 

20   and which will use this new Micronite filter tip and

 

21   this radically different filter material.

 

22             Micronite is our name for the filter which

 

23   removes particles as small as two-tenths of a

 

24   micron, which is two-ten-thousandths of a

 

25   millimeter.  Now, that’s what you and I discussed

 

 

                                                                    52

 1   before.  Micronite is the name Lorillard gave to

 

 2   this filter; correct?

 

 3         A.  Right.

 

 4         Q.  Now, go to the next column directly across

 

 5   from the section I just read, the paragraph starting

 

 6   when.

 

 7         A.  I see.

 

 8         Q.  Okay.  When we say that we have tested this

 

 9   cigarette, we mean that we have tested it in every

 

10   conceivable way.  Now, was that true, sir?

 

11             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

12             THE WITNESS:  Certainly premarket two

 

13   researchers had — two research organizations had

 

14   tested it.  I’m not sure what is actually meant by

 

15   every conceivable way.

 

16         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  And what had they tested

 

17   it for premarket?

 

18         A.  Tested it for inorganic materials such as

 

19   asbestos.

 

20         Q.  Okay.  Who did that testing premarket?

 

21         A.  Dr. Killian and the Lorillard laboratories.

 

22         Q.  Who in the Lorillard laboratories?

 

23         A.  It was under the direction of Dr. Parmele.

 

24         Q.  Do you have those actual reports from the

 

25   Lorillard laboratories?

 

 

                                                                    53

 1         A.  I do not.

 

 2             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

 3             THE WITNESS:  I do not have those reports.

 

 4         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  No one has those to your

 

 5   knowledge?

 

 6         A.  They do not exist to my knowledge.

 

 7         Q.  And we have some of Dr. Killian’s reports;

 

 8   don’t we?

 

 9         A.  Not the reports.

 

10         Q.  Right.  We have some statements about his

 

11   reports; true?

 

12         A.  Handwritten documents describing what the

 

13   results were.

 

14         Q.  Okay.  So for the two premarketing studies

 

15   that were done, we don’t actually have the reports;

 

16   right?

 

17             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

18             THE WITNESS:  The two Killian studies, we

 

19   have the handwritten documents from Dr. Parmele and

 

20   we have some table information in a letter from

 

21   Parmele to, I believe, Ganger in 1951.

 

22         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Okay.  You told me we

 

23   don’t have the reports for either Killian’s work or

 

24   Parmele’s work; correct?

 

25         A.  I — that’s correct.

 

 

                                                                    54

 1         Q.  Okay.  Hand that back and we’ll put the –

 

 2   can you hand me the paper clip?  Thanks.  Put back

 

 3   on there.  Who is Melvin First?

 

 4         A.  He was a preeminent industrial hygienist

 

 5   filtration expert from Harvard.

 

 6         Q.  Okay.  And, in fact, he’s a witness that

 

 7   Lorillard calls in these cases; right?

 

 8             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

 9             THE WITNESS:  Used to call directly and

 

10   now calls by videotape.

 

11         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Right.  He has passed

 

12   away?

 

13         A.  Yes.  He has.

 

14         Q.  Right.  And you said he was a preeminent

 

15   what?

 

16         A.  Industrial hygienist filtration expert.

 

17             MR. PANATIER:  Okay.  This will be

 

18   Exhibit 5.

 

19             (Exhibit Number 5 was marked for

 

20   identification.)

 

21         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Sir, Exhibit 5 is the

 

22   proceedings of the Tenth AEC air cleaning

 

23   conference.  Is it funny?

 

24         A.  No.  It’s just I haven’t seen this in a

 

25   while.

 

 

                                                                    55

 1         Q.  Yeah.  Held — of the AEC air cleaning

 

 2   conference held in New York, New York, August 1968,

 

 3   and it’s edited by Melvin First; correct?

 

 4         A.  That’s correct.

 

 5         Q.  Is that the same Melvin First that you

 

 6   referenced as being a preeminent industrial

 

 7   hygienist?

 

 8         A.  Filtration expert and industrial hygienist,

 

 9   yes.

 

10         Q.  Who went to Harvard?

 

11         A.  He taught at Harvard and he was a professor

 

12   emeritus at Harvard.  I don’t know where he got his

 

13   degrees.

 

14         Q.  Okay.  If you will turn to page 70, there

 

15   is a second block there that’s highlighted.  What it

 

16   says is the search for domestic sources in filter

 

17   materials came to a highly successful conclusion in

 

18   1951 with the development by the Naval research

 

19   laboratory of all-glass-fiber papers made in part

 

20   from superfine spun glass fibers having diameters

 

21   substantially below one micron.

 

22             The domestic industry able to produce

 

23   unlimited quantities of glass fibers as small as

 

24   one-quarter micron, asbestos was no longer needed.

 

25   First of all, did I read that right?

 

 

                                                                    56

 1         A.  That’s what it says.

 

 2         Q.  Okay.  And what they’re saying here is they

 

 3   got to the point that for filters, asbestos was no

 

 4   longer needed.  They could use glass; right?

 

 5             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

 6             THE WITNESS:  That’s what it says in this

 

 7   context.

 

 8         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Okay.  Abandonment of

 

 9   asbestos, which is difficult to disperse, allowed

 

10   much greater control of manufacturing procedures and

 

11   the production of better and more uniform papers.

 

12   The use of asbestos fibers in glass fiber containing

 

13   absolute filter papers increases resistance to HF

 

14   and results in a slight cost reduction, but better

 

15   papers can be made without asbestos.  Now, what is

 

16   HF?

 

17         A.  Hydrogen fluoride.

 

18         Q.  Okay.  At this time in 1951 the government

 

19   had declassified the fact that it had been using

 

20   asbestos in different contexts; right?

 

21         A.  That’s what brought it to our attention,

 

22   that’s correct.

 

23         Q.  Right.  And if a commercial company such as

 

24   Lorillard wanted to use asbestos at this point, they

 

25   could do it; right?

 

 

                                                                    57

 1             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

 2             THE WITNESS:  I believe they could have

 

 3   used it previous to that.  It was just in the

 

 4   filtration aspects it was declassified.

 

 5         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Uh-huh.  And do you

 

 6   agree with what Mr. First says here, the use of

 

 7   asbestos fibers and glass fiber containing absolute

 

 8   filter papers increases resistance to HF and results

 

 9   in a slight cost reduction, but better papers can be

 

10   made without asbestos?

 

11         A.  I’m not sure of the — this is written in

 

12   1968, so I’m not sure whether at the time frame

 

13   we’re talking about whether that was the case or

 

14   not.

 

15         Q.  Okay.  He certainly is relating back to

 

16   1951; correct?

 

17         A.  Well, he’s noting that it’s 1951 that Naval

 

18   research laboratory developed this.

 

19         Q.  Right.  That’s the date he is discussing;

 

20   correct?

 

21         A.  He said 1951, that’s correct.

 

22         Q.  Right.  And what he said was abandonment of

 

23   asbestos, which is difficult to disperse, allowed

 

24   much greater control of manufacturing procedures and

 

25   the production of better and more uniform papers;

 

 

                                                                    58

 1   correct?

 

 2         A.  He says that.

 

 3         Q.  Okay.  You can set that aside, sir.  I’ll

 

 4   just put it in the pile.  Lorillard never had to put

 

 5   asbestos in cigarettes; did it?

 

 6             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

 7             THE WITNESS:  Lorillard had various

 

 8   programs underway that they were looking at

 

 9   alternatives and the asbestos Micronite filter was

 

10   the only one that gave them the removal of the

 

11   particulates that was desired.  Whether they had to

 

12   or not, if that was the reason for putting it in,

 

13   then that was probably one of the only things

 

14   available at the time.

 

15             MR. PANATIER:  Objection, nonresponsive.

 

16         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Did Lorillard ever have

 

17   to put asbestos in its filters?

 

18             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, asked and

 

19   answered.

 

20             THE WITNESS:  No.  They did not.

 

21         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Sir, Morris Fishbein was

 

22   a doctor who during the 1950s was a paid consultant

 

23   for Lorillard; correct?

 

24         A.  Yes.  Sometime during the 1950s.

 

25         Q.  And, actually, over a number of years he

 

 

                                                                    59

 1   received thousands and thousands of dollars from

 

 2   Lorillard; correct?

 

 3         A.  I don’t know the exact amounts.  I’d have

 

 4   to go to the contracts and so on.

 

 5         Q.  Well, you know that for certain years he

 

 6   would get $25,000 for a year.  Other years he would

 

 7   be paid monthly; right?

 

 8         A.  I’d have to look at the contracts to be

 

 9   exact on that.

 

10         Q.  You don’t dispute that he was a paid

 

11   consultant for Lorillard in the ’50s?

 

12         A.  I do not dispute that.

 

13         Q.  And you have been shown the article from

 

14   the Journal of the American Medical Association

 

15   which was edited by Dr. Fishbein from 1949; correct?

 

16         A.  We believe he was the editor at the time,

 

17   that is correct.

 

18             MR. PANATIER:  This will be Exhibit 6.

 

19             (Exhibit Number 6 was marked for

 

20   identification.)

 

21         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  You’ve seen this before;

 

22   right?

 

23         A.  Yes.

 

24         Q.  Okay.  If you’ll turn to the next page,

 

25   first of all, this was an article published in the

 

 

                                                                    60

 1   Journal of the American Medical Association; right?

 

 2             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

 3             THE WITNESS:  It’s an editorial.

 

 4         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Right.  It’s an

 

 5   editorial published in JAMA, which is the Journal of

 

 6   the American Medical Association; correct?

 

 7         A.  That is correct.

 

 8         Q.  And that’s a big medical journal; right?

 

 9         A.  It is the AMA’s journal.

 

10         Q.  And the AMA is what?

 

11         A.  American Medical Association.

 

12         Q.  It’s a big journal; right?

 

13         A.  It’s an important journal.

 

14         Q.  Big and important?

 

15             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

16             THE WITNESS:  Big and important.  It’s a

 

17   — it’s a good journal.

 

18         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Okay.  On the second

 

19   page there’s an editorial called Asbestosis and

 

20   Cancer of the Lung.  You’ve seen that before; right?

 

21         A.  Yes, sir.

 

22         Q.  Okay.  What this says is — and there’s

 

23   some highlights on there, I think, for you.  Until

 

24   recently the coexistence of asbestosis and cancer of

 

25   the lung was considered by many investigators a

 

 

                                                                    61

 1   coincidence.  Since 1935, 23 such cases were

 

 2   recorded by American, English and German physicians.

 

 3   First, did I read that right?

 

 4         A.  Yes.

 

 5         Q.  Okay.  The next highlight says — well,

 

 6   actually, I’ll just read it for context.  Wedler

 

 7   noted 14 cases of asbestosis cancer in a series of

 

 8   92 necropsies on patients with asbestosis or about

 

 9   15 percent of cancer of the lung in persons who died

 

10   from this industrial disease.  The exposure time

 

11   ranged from 3 to 27 years, average 15 years.  Did I

 

12   read that right?

 

13         A.  Yes.

 

14         Q.  Okay.  What that’s saying is they’ve seen

 

15   lung cancer in folks who had asbestosis; right?

 

16         A.  Yes.  They had asbestosis and then lung

 

17   cancer and sued.  That’s what that says.

 

18         Q.  Okay.  And the exposure time for those

 

19   folks ranged from as little as three years up to

 

20   27 years; right?

 

21         A.  That’s what it says.

 

22         Q.  Okay.  Sir, just reading that first couple

 

23   of sentences, what you know is that at the very

 

24   least asbestos is implicated in both asbestosis and

 

25   cancer; correct?

 

 

                                                                    62

 1             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

 2             THE WITNESS:  Yes.  And if you read

 

 3   further, it talks about high levels of exposure, but

 

 4   we can get there.

 

 5         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Yeah.  And that’s the

 

 6   way it will go in the deposition.  We’ll ultimately

 

 7   get there if you want to say some additional things,

 

 8   but here’s the question.  Just from reading the

 

 9   first couple of sentences of this editorial, a

 

10   person can glean that asbestos causes asbestosis and

 

11   can cause lung cancer as well; correct?

 

12         A.  If one were to read just the first

 

13   paragraph, that is correct.

 

14         Q.  Okay.  We’re going to read some more.  If

 

15   you go to the next highlight it says during

 

16   23 years, 1924 to 1946 inclusive, 235 deaths either

 

17   caused by asbestosis or in which asbestosis had been

 

18   the established — had been established at necropsy

 

19   were reported to the chief inspector.  Cancer of the

 

20   lungs or pleura was found in 31 of these cases,

 

21   13.2 percent.  First of all, did I read that right?

 

22         A.  I believe so.

 

23         Q.  Mesothelioma occurs typically in the pleura

 

24   or the peritoneum; correct?

 

25         A.  That’s the two major places, that’s

 

 

                                                                    63

 1   correct.

 

 2         Q.  Then if you go to the next highlight, a

 

 3   causal relation between asbestosis and cancer of the

 

 4   lung is supported by the following observations.

 

 5   The incidence rate of cancer of the lung in this

 

 6   group is excessive since the normal death rate from

 

 7   cancer of the lung among adults examined at necropsy

 

 8   at present is about one percent of all necropsies;

 

 9   right?

 

10         A.  That’s what it says.

 

11         Q.  Okay.  What is a necropsy?

 

12         A.  You’re cutting people open once they’re

 

13   dead to look at what may have caused their death.

 

14   It’s like an autopsy almost, but you get into the

 

15   actual tissue work.

 

16         Q.  And so as of 1949 what is being said here

 

17   is there is a causal relation between the disease

 

18   asbestosis caused by asbestos and lung cancer;

 

19   correct?

 

20             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

21             THE WITNESS:  That’s what this article

 

22   says.

 

23         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Okay.  And this article

 

24   was featured in the journal edited by Dr. Fishbein,

 

25   who just a few years later was a paid consultant for

 

 

                                                                    64

 1   Lorillard; right?

 

 2         A.  It’s an editorial that we believe Fishbein

 

 3   wrote because he was the editor of the journal at

 

 4   the time.

 

 5         Q.  Okay.  You can set that aside, sir.  Have

 

 6   you ever read Newsweek?

 

 7         A.  Sometimes.

 

 8         Q.  It’s a magazine of — I think it’s online

 

 9   now.

 

10         A.  It’s only online now.

 

11         Q.  Right.  But during the period of time that

 

12   it was in print, which was many, many years; right?

 

13         A.  I’m not a — I don’t know how long it was

 

14   in print.

 

15         Q.  Well, you agree with me Newsweek was in

 

16   print for decades; right?

 

17         A.  I don’t know.

 

18         Q.  How often have you walked past a newsstand?

 

19         A.  Very rarely.

 

20         Q.  Rarely.  Okay.  What about airports?  Do

 

21   you ever go to airports?

 

22         A.  I don’t look at Newsweek, so I don’t know

 

23   how long it was on the stand.  I’m sorry.

 

24         Q.  Well, I don’t look at Cosmo either, but I

 

25   see it when I walk by.  So my question is is

 

 

                                                                    65

 1   Newsweek something that you have seen as a magazine

 

 2   that was out there in the mainstream?

 

 3         A.  It was on — it was out there.  I agree.

 

 4             MR. PANATIER:  Okay.  All right.  So this

 

 5   will be Exhibit 7.

 

 6             (Exhibit Number 7 was marked for

 

 7   identification.)

 

 8         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Sir, do you see that’s

 

 9   Newsweek from May 15th, 1950?

 

10         A.  I see that.

 

11         Q.  So this is the next year after Fishbein

 

12   writes his editorial; right?

 

13         A.  Yes.

 

14         Q.  This is a Newsweek that costs 20 cents and

 

15   there’s Groucho Marx on the cover –

 

16         A.  Yes.

 

17         Q.  – right?  Okay.  So if you’ll turn to the

 

18   next page, this is from page 53 of the magazine.

 

19   You can see there’s an article there under the

 

20   headline Medicine called small studies.  Do you see

 

21   that?

 

22         A.  I see that, yes.

 

23         Q.  Okay.  And if you’ll go to the highlighted

 

24   paragraph, what it says is studies conducted by the

 

25   United States Public Health Service now point to

 

 

                                                                    66

 1   airborne particles as the cause of some forms of

 

 2   cancer and respiratory ailments.  Dr. W.C. Hueper of

 

 3   the National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland,

 

 4   referred specifically to air pollution with

 

 5   asbestos, selenium, beryllium, arsenic and chromates

 

 6   as the probable cause of increased lung and

 

 7   respiratory tract cancer.  First, did I read that

 

 8   right?

 

 9         A.  Yes.

 

10         Q.  So if you’re just someone who picked up a

 

11   Newsweek in May of 1950 for 20 cents and you read

 

12   this paragraph, what you could take from that is at

 

13   the very least asbestos has been implicated as a

 

14   cause of lung cancer; correct?

 

15             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, assumes

 

16   facts.

 

17             THE WITNESS:  Talks about air pollution,

 

18   and in the ’50s air pollution was different than

 

19   anything you might see today.

 

20         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  And one of the air

 

21   pollutants is asbestos; correct?

 

22         A.  It says air pollution with asbestos and

 

23   many other things, yes.

 

24         Q.  Okay.  Now, Dr. Heuper, do you have any

 

25   opinion of Dr. Heuper?

 

 

                                                                    67

 1         A.  He wrote quite a few articles that talked

 

 2   about the etiology of cancer.

 

 3         Q.  And etiology means cause of cancer; right?

 

 4         A.  That’s correct.

 

 5         Q.  Where does it come from is what etiology

 

 6   means?

 

 7         A.  That’s correct.

 

 8         Q.  And Dr. Heuper published probably dozens of

 

 9   papers on this subject; true?

 

10         A.  On cancer, yes.

 

11         Q.  Okay.  All right, sir.  You can set that

 

12   aside.  Now, we saw this Newsweek cost 20 cents.

 

13   How much did a pack of Kents cost in 1952?

 

14         A.  Thirty-one cents.

 

15         Q.  Thirty-one cents.  Okay.  So for less than

 

16   what a pack of Kents cost, you could buy a Newsweek

 

17   in 1950; right?

 

18         A.  Apparently.

 

19             MR. PANATIER:  Next I’m going to show you

 

20   Exhibit 8.

 

21             (Exhibit Number 8 was marked for

 

22   identification.)

 

23         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  All right, sir.  So

 

24   that’s a letter from Dr. Parmele; right?

 

25         A.  Parmele to Arthur D. Little, that’s

 

 

                                                                    68

 1   correct.

 

 2         Q.  And who’s Arthur D. Little?

 

 3         A.  It’s a consultancy at least as I know them

 

 4   now in Massachusetts and other places.

 

 5         Q.  What’s the date of that correspondence?

 

 6         A.  June 2nd, 1950.  It was a good day.

 

 7         Q.  Okay.  June 2nd, 1950 is about three weeks

 

 8   after this Newsweek article came out, which was

 

 9   May 15th, 1950; right?

 

10         A.  About two weeks, yes.

 

11         Q.  Okay.  And there’s — it’s highlighted

 

12   there, but what is — what’s that first highlight

 

13   say, that paragraph?

 

14         A.  Well, the paragraph says we have read about

 

15   your new paper and asbestos filtering material with

 

16   a great deal of interest.

 

17         Q.  Keep reading.

 

18         A.  We would like very much to obtain a pound

 

19   or less of this material for experimental purposes

 

20   and are not particular as to whether it is in sheet

 

21   or bulk form.

 

22         Q.  Okay.  Is that the whole paragraph?

 

23         A.  That is the whole paragraph.

 

24         Q.  All right.  So this is three weeks after

 

25   the Newsweek article.  This is Dr. Parmele writing

 

 

                                                                    69

 1   to Arthur D. Little saying we’d like to get some of

 

 2   this asbestos filtration media to look at; right?

 

 3         A.  That’s what it says.

 

 4         Q.  Okay.  And Dr. Parmele was the guy who kind

 

 5   of spearheaded the whole asbestos and cigarette

 

 6   filters thing; right?

 

 7         A.  He was director –

 

 8             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

 9             THE WITNESS:  He was director of research.

 

10         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Right.  He was the guy

 

11   that spearheaded it for Lorillard?

 

12         A.  He was involved in most of the

 

13   correspondence.

 

14         Q.  He was the main guy; right?

 

15             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

16             THE WITNESS:  He was director of research.

 

17         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Right.  There was no one

 

18   above Mr. Parmele directing him to go put asbestos

 

19   in cigarettes?

 

20             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, assumes

 

21   facts.

 

22             THE WITNESS:  I don’t know that for a

 

23   fact, but he probably was.  He was in charge of

 

24   research, so it probably was him, but I don’t know

 

25   for a fact.

 

 

                                                                    70

 1             MR. PANATIER:  All right, sir.  We can put

 

 2   that up here.  This will be Exhibit 9.

 

 3             (Exhibit Number 9 was marked for

 

 4   identification.)

 

 5         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Okay.  Sir, what’s the

 

 6   date of that letter?

 

 7         A.  February 16th, 1951.

 

 8         Q.  And that’s a letter from Dr. Parmele to

 

 9   who?

 

10         A.  Desmond Molins of the Molins Machine

 

11   Company.

 

12         Q.  What does the first highlighted paragraph

 

13   say?

 

14         A.  We recently received the pure cellulose

 

15   filter plugs referred to in your letter of

 

16   February 6th.

 

17         Q.  Now, a filter plug — now, I’m not a

 

18   cigarette manufacturer.  Can you tell us what that

 

19   is?  Is that just the material that goes inside the

 

20   filter that attaches to the tobacco cylinder?

 

21         A.  It could be the long plug which is cut or

 

22   it could be the actual size.  It’s hard to tell, but

 

23   that gets wrapped in a plug wrap and then gets

 

24   wrapped in filter paper and attached to the

 

25   cigarette.

 

 

                                                                    71

 1         Q.  So when you talk about filter plug, that’s

 

 2   really just kind of the bulk material inside and

 

 3   it’s in cylindrical form.  It may be the length of

 

 4   one filter or many to be cut to length?

 

 5         A.  A plug is cylindrical, that’s correct.

 

 6         Q.  So Parmele is telling the guy at Molins

 

 7   Machine Company we’ve looked at some cellulose

 

 8   plugs; right?

 

 9         A.  Well, he’s saying we received them.  We

 

10   haven’t gotten to the paragraph where he’s looking

 

11   at them.

 

12         Q.  So go to the — go to the next highlighted

 

13   paragraph.

 

14         A.  Yes, sir.

 

15         Q.  Go ahead and read that out loud.

 

16         A.  Regarding tar removal efficiency, the pure

 

17   cellulose filter plugs are quite remarkable.

 

18   According to our tests, they remove about 75 percent

 

19   of the tar in the smoke.  This figure is vastly

 

20   higher than the 35 percent removal accomplished with

 

21   the cotton wool found in the Kool Tip cigarettes

 

22   which you furnished to us a few weeks ago.

 

23         Q.  So my question is when the Micronite filter

 

24   was introduced, what percentage of the tar did it

 

25   remove?

 

 

                                                                    72

 1         A.  Sixty percent.

 

 2         Q.  And what Parmele is saying there is for at

 

 3   least the plugs he tested, the pure cellulose plugs,

 

 4   they removed 75 percent of the tar; correct?

 

 5         A.  That’s what it says in this letter, that’s

 

 6   correct.

 

 7         Q.  Okay.  That’s 15 percent more than the

 

 8   Micronite filter; correct?

 

 9         A.  That is correct.

 

10         Q.  What does the next paragraph say?

 

11         A.  As a matter of fact, these pure cellulose

 

12   plugs are quite interesting except that, as you

 

13   know, Mr. Ganger is desirous of staying with our

 

14   material because of its glamorous background.

 

15         Q.  So Mr. Ganger, again, is at that time the

 

16   executive vice president of Lorillard?

 

17         A.  I believe so according to documents we read

 

18   previously.

 

19         Q.  And what Parmele is telling the Molins

 

20   Machine Company is your stuff is pretty good, but we

 

21   want to use our stuff and he’s talking about the

 

22   Micronite; right?

 

23             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

24             THE WITNESS:  That’s what we were looking

 

25   at at the time, that’s correct.

 

 

                                                                    73

 1         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  We want to stay with the

 

 2   Micronite because the executive VP of the company

 

 3   thinks it’s more glamorous; right?

 

 4         A.  That’s what it says here.

 

 5         Q.  And what they’re talking about, he says the

 

 6   glamorous background.  What they’re talking about is

 

 7   sort of it’s what an artist would call provenance,

 

 8   which is where it came from, the fact that the stuff

 

 9   had been used in labs and hospitals and masks;

 

10   right?

 

11         A.  I don’t know the exact reason for calling

 

12   it that, but that certainly could be one of the

 

13   reasons.

 

14         Q.  There was a — as of that date, which is

 

15   February 16th, 1951, Lorillard was aware of a

 

16   filtration media which did not contain asbestos

 

17   which filtered tar at least 15 percent better than

 

18   the ultimate Micronite filter that went in the

 

19   cigarette; correct?

 

20             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

21             THE WITNESS:  Well, filtration is not the

 

22   only thing you’ve got to look at, but that’s what

 

23   this letter says.

 

24             MR. PANATIER:  Okay.  Thanks.  We can set

 

25   that over here.  This will be Exhibit 10.

 

 

                                                                    74

 1             (Exhibit Number 10 was marked for

 

 2   identification.)

 

 3         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Sir, this is dated just

 

 4   a few days later, right, February 19th, 1951?

 

 5         A.  I don’t remember the date on that one.

 

 6         Q.  February 16th?

 

 7         A.  16th, three days.

 

 8         Q.  So a few days later.  This is the Molins

 

 9   response to Mr. Parmele.  If you turn the page over

 

10   you can see who signed it; right?  It’s Mr. Molins?

 

11         A.  That’s — I believe that’s what that says.

 

12         Q.  That’s his signature?

 

13         A.  Signature, I guess, yes.

 

14         Q.  But it’s on their letterhead.  It’s their

 

15   response to Dr. Parmele; correct?

 

16         A.  It appears to be, I mean, based on the

 

17   timing.

 

18         Q.  Right.  And, in fact, read the first

 

19   paragraph.  It’s not highlighted, but go ahead and

 

20   read that.

 

21         A.  Thank you for your two letters of

 

22   February 12th and 16th.  Regarding your first

 

23   letter, we did anticipate the cigarettes being hard

 

24   to draw and we are trying to make that improvement.

 

25         Q.  Okay.  So he references the letter of the

 

 

                                                                    75

 1   16th there; correct?

 

 2         A.  Yes.

 

 3         Q.  What does the first highlight say?

 

 4         A.  It really looks as if the cellulose is

 

 5   likely to give as good or better results than your

 

 6   own material.

 

 7         Q.  And let’s read — read the second

 

 8   highlight.

 

 9         A.  I note that Mr. Ganger is desirous of

 

10   staying with your own material because of its

 

11   glamorous background, but I gather that you are

 

12   going to advertise your product on the lines of its

 

13   filter efficiency.

 

14             Assuming, therefore, that you did market

 

15   your own product using your own material and other

 

16   manufacturers wish to follow suit, it seems to me

 

17   that they might well stumble across pure cellulose

 

18   and then be able to claim similar results to you.

 

19   In other words, it seems to me that a glamorous

 

20   background is of little value unless you have got

 

21   the solid figures behind it.  However, I do not wish

 

22   to presume in any way to teach you your own

 

23   business.

 

24         Q.  Okay.  So what he’s — what he’s saying

 

25   there is look, other companies are probably going to

 

 

                                                                    76

 1   figure out that pure cellulose is a pretty good

 

 2   filter; right?

 

 3             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

 4             THE WITNESS:  That’s what he says here.

 

 5         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  And, in fact, that’s

 

 6   exactly what happened.  A few years after Micronite

 

 7   came out, other companies started using cellulose in

 

 8   their filters and got very good results; didn’t

 

 9   they?

 

10             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, assumes

 

11   facts.

 

12             THE WITNESS:  The results weren’t the same

 

13   as ours.

 

14         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  My question is other

 

15   companies were using cellulose just a few years

 

16   after Micronite was introduced and they got very

 

17   good filtration results; correct?

 

18             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, assumes

 

19   facts.

 

20             THE WITNESS:  Well, your operative of very

 

21   good is that none of those until sometime later on

 

22   became as effective as the Micronite.

 

23         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Okay.  Sir, would you

 

24   agree that by 1954, which is, you know, anywhere

 

25   from one-and-a-half to two years after Micronite was

 

 

                                                                    77

 1   introduced, there were at least two other companies

 

 2   who had better filters for tar and nicotine on the

 

 3   market that did not contain asbestos?

 

 4         A.  They were similar.

 

 5         Q.  Some were better; correct?

 

 6         A.  I don’t know in ’54 if they were better,

 

 7   but they were certainly similar.

 

 8         Q.  At least comparable?

 

 9         A.  Yes.

 

10         Q.  Okay.  We can set that aside, sir.  As of

 

11   the time when Lorillard learned that other companies

 

12   were selling filters that were at least comparable

 

13   to the Micronite filter that did not contain

 

14   asbestos, at that time did Lorillard make the

 

15   decision, okay, let’s take the asbestos out?

 

16         A.  No.  They did not.  They continued looking

 

17   at alternatives.

 

18         Q.  Okay.  They did not at that time say let’s

 

19   just go with the cellulose filter; true?

 

20         A.  No.  That’s correct.

 

21         Q.  Okay.  Now, you have in the past been shown

 

22   testimony from another fellow who has now passed

 

23   away, Mr. MacHenry; correct?

 

24         A.  Yes.  I’ve read that information.

 

25         Q.  Right.  Richard MacHenry; true?

 

 

                                                                    78

 1         A.  That’s correct.

 

 2         Q.  Richard MacHenry was at a company called

 

 3   American Viscose; right?

 

 4         A.  I believe so.

 

 5         Q.  And American Viscose was a company that

 

 6   manufactured synthetic fibrous material; true?

 

 7         A.  That’s correct.

 

 8         Q.  American Viscose was one of the companies

 

 9   that Mr. Parmele went to in search of a substitute

 

10   for the asbestos in the Micronite filter; right?

 

11         A.  One of –

 

12             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

13             THE WITNESS:  One of several companies

 

14   that they looked at from ’51 all the way through

 

15   ’56.

 

16         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  And you’re aware that

 

17   Mr. MacHenry testified that in his conversations

 

18   with Mr. Parmele, Mr. Parmele said that he was

 

19   concerned about potential lawsuits down the road as

 

20   well as potential cancer from the asbestos in

 

21   cigarettes; correct?

 

22             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

23             THE WITNESS:  I don’t remember the

 

24   specific cite.  If I can look at it, I’ll confirm or

 

25   not.

 

 

                                                                    79

 1         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Sure, sure.  I’ll have

 

 2   you look at — this is Mr. MacHenry’s testimony from

 

 3   November 14th, 1995.  And I have boxed in in

 

 4   highlights for you three areas of testimony from

 

 5   page 54 to 55.  I’ll show that to your lawyer and

 

 6   then show it to you.

 

 7             MR. BERGER:  Dr. Reinert, you can, of

 

 8   course, look at anything that you want to in that

 

 9   document and transcript.

 

10             MR. PANATIER:  Yeah.  You can sit here and

 

11   read the whole deposition if you’d like.

 

12             MR. BERGER:  It’s been an hour.  Should we

 

13   take a break, take our break while he’s reading?

 

14             MR. PANATIER:  We’ll take it after this

 

15   question.

 

16             MR. BERGER:  Okay.

 

17             THE WITNESS:  Okay.

 

18         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Okay.  You’ve had a

 

19   chance to review those boxed in?

 

20         A.  Yes.

 

21         Q.  All right.  Let me go ahead and see that

 

22   real fast.  This will make it a little easier.  Mr.

 

23   MacHenry testified that Mr. Parmele was worried

 

24   about the inhalation of fibers and lung cancer from

 

25   the cigarettes; correct?

 

 

                                                                    80

 1         A.  That’s what it says there.  On the previous

 

 2   page it said he didn’t have any distinct

 

 3   recollection of the discussions.

 

 4         Q.  Okay.  Mr. MacHenry testified to this, this

 

 5   question.  I guess the $64,000 question that we have

 

 6   been asking all morning is did that come from him,

 

 7   the concerns about the dangers of inhaling asbestos

 

 8   fiber and disease, did that come from him or is that

 

 9   something you just made up?  And Mr. MacHenry said

 

10   that came from him; right?  You read that?

 

11         A.  That’s what he says.

 

12         Q.  Okay.  And he said your testimony today

 

13   with regard to Dr. Parmele’s concern about the

 

14   dangers of inhaling asbestos fiber, mainly the

 

15   diseases that you mentioned, where did that come

 

16   from?  Is that from him or from you?  And he said he

 

17   stated that to me.  He said that; right?

 

18         A.  That’s what he says on that page.

 

19         Q.  Now, you know from reviewing documents for

 

20   Kent that Mr. Parmele and Mr. MacHenry corresponded

 

21   quite a bit; right?

 

22             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

23             THE WITNESS:  I didn’t — I have not seen

 

24   a lot of that correspondence.

 

25         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Let me just back up.

 

 

                                                                    81

 1   They did correspond?

 

 2         A.  If that’s what you say, then they did.

 

 3         Q.  Well, I’m not — I’m not trying to put

 

 4   words in your mouth.  I’m asking you are you aware

 

 5   that they corresponded with regards to the

 

 6   production of synthetic fibers?

 

 7         A.  I’ve seen a few letters back and forth.  Is

 

 8   that quite a bit?  I really don’t know.

 

 9             MR. PANATIER:  All right.  We can take a

 

10   break.

 

11             THE WITNESS:  Okay.

 

12             THE VIDEOGRAPHER:  Off the record, end of

 

13   number one at 10:15 a.m.

 

14             (A recess was taken and Exhibit Number 11

 

15   was marked for identification.)

 

16             THE VIDEOGRAPHER:  Back on the record at

 

17   10:30 a.m.

 

18         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  All right, sir.  So I

 

19   have given you the testimony from Dr. William Smith.

 

20   And this is testimony you have either heard or seen

 

21   before; correct?

 

22             MR. BERGER:  To be clear for the record,

 

23   this is only part of his testimony.

 

24         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Right.  This is the

 

25   afternoon session for May 7th, 1997; correct?

 

 

                                                                    82

 1         A.  That’s what it says on the front of the

 

 2   document.

 

 3         Q.  Right.  And you have seen and/or heard

 

 4   testimony from Dr. Smith before; correct?

 

 5         A.  Yes.  I have.

 

 6         Q.  Dr. Smith was a doctor at NYU and

 

 7   Sloan-Kettering in the 1950s; correct?

 

 8         A.  I believe so.

 

 9         Q.  Okay.  The section I’ve asked you to read

 

10   there is on page 96.  It’s blocked in.  And

 

11   basically Dr. Smith said that he met with a

 

12   representative of Kent in the 1950s and told him

 

13   what he knew about asbestos hazards; correct?

 

14             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

15             THE WITNESS:  Talks about meeting with the

 

16   man from Kent.  Don’t know who the man is.

 

17         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Right.  He didn’t

 

18   remember the guy’s name; true?

 

19         A.  He just says the man from Kent.

 

20         Q.  To your knowledge he just didn’t remember

 

21   his name?

 

22             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

23             THE WITNESS:  I don’t know why he didn’t

 

24   remember or why he calls him the man from Kent.  I

 

25   really don’t know.

 

 

                                                                    83

 1         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  All right.  Anyway, this

 

 2   doctor says –

 

 3             MR. BERGER:  Phone, mute, please.  You,

 

 4   rustling around, we can hear you.

 

 5             MR. PANATIER:  Guys, whoever is — we’re

 

 6   not going to continue until everybody mutes their

 

 7   phone, whoever is inside of a clothes dryer.

 

 8             ATTORNEY ON THE PHONE:  That’s a weird

 

 9   thing for a doctor to say.

 

10             MR. PANATIER:  So we know you’re not

 

11   muted.  Mute.  Okay.  You know, we can — we can

 

12   actually mute this on this end.

 

13             THE WITNESS:  Then they won’t hear me.

 

14             MR. PANATIER:  I wonder if they –

 

15             THE WITNESS:  They won’t hear me.

 

16             MR. PANATIER:  There’s a way — well, we

 

17   can turn the volume way down.  Yeah, it’s all the

 

18   way down.

 

19             MR. BERGER:  Let’s turn it down.  There

 

20   you go.

 

21         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Okay.  All right.  Sir,

 

22   Dr. Smith testifies he met with a man from Kent in

 

23   the 1950s and he advised the man from Kent that he

 

24   didn’t think it would be prudent to put asbestos

 

25   fibers in their cigarettes; correct?

 

 

                                                                    84

 1         A.  That’s what he says here, that’s correct.

 

 2         Q.  Okay.  All right.  We can set that aside.

 

 3   Sir, in the 1950s with the introduction of the Kent

 

 4   with the Micronite filter, Lorillard started an

 

 5   aggressive advertising campaign; true?

 

 6             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

 7             THE WITNESS:  Well, I’m not an advertising

 

 8   expert.  They had an advertising campaign.  I don’t

 

 9   know whether it was aggressive or not.

 

10             MR. PANATIER:  All right.  I want to show

 

11   you Exhibit 11.

 

12             MR. BERGER:  I’ll just give you the heads

 

13   up, Chris.  We’re going to run into scope issues

 

14   because we didn’t agree to produce him — I mean,

 

15   these are the kinds of advertising topics he’s not

 

16   prepared on, so just giving you the heads up.

 

17             MR. PANATIER:  Yeah.  I think it falls

 

18   under the corporate conduct section, but you can

 

19   make your objection.

 

20         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Sir, this is an

 

21   August 7th, 1952 letter; correct?

 

22         A.  That’s what it says.

 

23         Q.  It’s from Todd Wool and it says next to

 

24   that in handwriting, it says VP, executive

 

25   secretary.  It appears that that’s crossed out.  Do

 

 

                                                                    85

 1   you know who Todd Wool was?

 

 2         A.  I don’t remember his exact title.

 

 3         Q.  Okay.  He was a Lorillard employee;

 

 4   correct?

 

 5         A.  I believe so.

 

 6         Q.  Okay.  And he is writing a Mr. James.  And

 

 7   who is Mr. James?

 

 8         A.  It’s Alden James.  I believe he was in

 

 9   advertising.

 

10         Q.  Okay.  He says I — Todd Wool says I have

 

11   examined the proposed advertisement of Kent

 

12   cigarettes dated August 5th, ad number 17 revised,

 

13   containing the expression amazing new Kents give

 

14   greatest health protection in cigarette history.  As

 

15   originally designed, this phrase read amazing new

 

16   Kents give far greater health protection.

 

17             So from the first paragraph we know that

 

18   there was a revision in the advertisement.  It

 

19   originally said amazing new Kents give far greater

 

20   health protection and the new version says amazing

 

21   new Kents give greatest health protection in

 

22   cigarette history; correct?

 

23             MR. BERGER:  I object.  This is outside

 

24   the scope.  We didn’t agree to produce him as an

 

25   advertising witness.  He, Dr. Reinert, can testify

 

 

                                                                    86

 1   to identifying ads, the timing of ads, as the

 

 2   scientific representative of Lorillard,

 

 3   substantiation for statements made in ads.  This

 

 4   question that you’re asking him is outside the

 

 5   scope.  He’s not prepared on this.  He’s not your

 

 6   witness.

 

 7             MR. PANATIER:  Okay.  I completely

 

 8   disagree that he’s — that it’s outside the scope.

 

 9   As well, we’re not asking him scientific information

 

10   or anything.  I’m asking him questions as the

 

11   corporate representative to testify as the corporate

 

12   representative regarding Lorillard’s advertising.

 

13   So, I mean, you can –

 

14             MR. BERGER:  Well, he’s not designated as

 

15   Lorillard’s corporate representative on advertising.

 

16             MR. PANATIER:  He’s noticed as he’s

 

17   noticed, so –

 

18             MR. BERGER:  He’s noticed as we worked out

 

19   an agreement on the scope of what we were producing

 

20   him.  I just told you what he was prepared to

 

21   testify on and what he’s not prepared to testify on.

 

22             MR. PANATIER:  Okay.  I’m just going to

 

23   state for the record that with regard to the Geatz

 

24   notice at the very least he’s noticed for number 18,

 

25   which is sales literature including but not limited

 

 

                                                                    87

 1   to sales brochures, promotional literature regarding

 

 2   Defendant’s asbestos-containing products.  So that’s

 

 3   — that’s why I believe it’s inside the scope.

 

 4             MR. BERGER:  Well, okay, to which we

 

 5   objected and to which we have produced

 

 6   correspondence to you as well as cross-notices

 

 7   outlining the scope on which this witness was being

 

 8   produced.  And I’ve stated on the record, you know,

 

 9   what areas on advertising he can talk about and what

 

10   areas he can’t.

 

11             MR. PANATIER:  Okay.  You’ve made your

 

12   objection.

 

13         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Sir, so what they’re

 

14   saying is they have revised the ad to say now

 

15   amazing new Kents give greatest health protection in

 

16   cigarette history; correct?

 

17             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, outside

 

18   the scope, lack of foundation.

 

19             MR. PANATIER:  I’ll give you a running

 

20   objection.  If you want, I’ll give you a running

 

21   objection.  That may make it easier.

 

22             MR. BERGER:  I’m going to listen to the

 

23   questions you ask and object as needed.

 

24         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Is that correct, sir?

 

25         A.  That’s what it says here.

 

 

                                                                    88

 1         Q.  Okay.  It says we all desire to promote the

 

 2   brand in the most efficient manner possible, but in

 

 3   view of the pending matter before the Federal Trade

 

 4   Commission I cannot help but feel that such a broad

 

 5   claim may focus attention again on our Kent

 

 6   advertising as it is so broad that it might be very

 

 7   difficult to prove.  I, therefore, take this method

 

 8   of notifying you that I have approved the

 

 9   advertisement subject to what is here said.  Did I

 

10   read that right?

 

11             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, outside

 

12   the scope, lack of foundation.

 

13             THE WITNESS:  You read it correctly.

 

14         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Okay.  And so what Mr.

 

15   Wool says is he feels that the claim they’re making

 

16   is a broad claim and may focus attention on Kent

 

17   advertising because it’s so broad that the

 

18   statements that are made may be difficult to prove;

 

19   right?

 

20             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, outside

 

21   the scope, lack of foundation for this witness.

 

22             THE WITNESS:  Well, it’s really not in my

 

23   area of what I’ve reviewed, but the statements –

 

24   with that said, the statements made in here are

 

25   supported by actual data generated either by

 

 

                                                                    89

 1   Lorillard or by its contractors at the time.

 

 2         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  That’s your opinion?

 

 3         A.  No.  It’s based on the information I know

 

 4   about acute health protection and that they’re

 

 5   talking about phlegm production, cough, throat

 

 6   irritation.  And we have all the sensitive smoker

 

 7   studies.  We have the efficiency studies.  We have

 

 8   many studies, the fingertip studies, the — not

 

 9   iodine studies at this point, but we will have them

 

10   very shortly.  It’s not my opinion.  It’s based on

 

11   the information that we have in our records.

 

12             MR. PANATIER:  Objection, nonresponsive.

 

13   That’s not the question I asked you.

 

14         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Mr. Wool, it was his

 

15   opinion that the claims being made would be

 

16   difficult to prove at that very time; right?

 

17             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, lack of

 

18   foundation, outside the scope, calls for

 

19   speculation.

 

20             THE WITNESS:  That’s what it says here –

 

21             MR. PANATIER:  Right.

 

22             THE WITNESS:  – but it’s not my area of

 

23   expertise area that I’ve reviewed.

 

24         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  And he approves it

 

25   anyway?

 

 

                                                                    90

 1             MR. BERGER:  Same objections.

 

 2             THE WITNESS:  It says he approves it.

 

 3         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Right.  In light of his

 

 4   reservations, he approves it?

 

 5             MR. BERGER:  Same objections.

 

 6             THE WITNESS:  That’s what the letter says.

 

 7             MR. PANATIER:  Okay.  You can set that

 

 8   over here.  This will be Exhibit 12.

 

 9             (Exhibit Number 12 was marked for

 

10   identification.)

 

11         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  And let me ask you this.

 

12   Are you aware of someone at Lorillard currently who

 

13   testifies as the corporate representative for

 

14   Lorillard on advertising?

 

15             MR. BERGER:  Will you read that back for

 

16   me, Miss Court Reporter?

 

17             (The record was read by the reporter.)

 

18             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

19             MR. SHACKELFORD:  Vague.  What advertising

 

20   are you talking about?

 

21         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Can you answer the

 

22   question?

 

23         A.  It’s not my area to designate people.

 

24         Q.  Okay.  Sir, this is Exhibit 12.  Sir,

 

25   that’s a Lorillard advertisement for Kent; right?

 

 

                                                                    91

 1         A.  Yes.  It is.

 

 2         Q.  And this is an advertisement for the Kent

 

 3   cigarette with a Micronite filter that contained

 

 4   asbestos; right?

 

 5         A.  This would be pre-’54.

 

 6         Q.  Right.  So that means it contained

 

 7   asbestos?

 

 8         A.  That’s correct.

 

 9         Q.  Okay.  What it says up top is Kent and Kent

 

10   alone has the exclusive Micronite filter.  It

 

11   removes far more tars and nicotine than any other

 

12   filter cigarette, king-size or regular, old or new.

 

13   Did I read that right?

 

14         A.  That’s what that box says.

 

15         Q.  Now, are you aware of any Kent

 

16   advertisement where it says just so you know,

 

17   consumer, we are aware of a nonasbestos filter

 

18   material called cellulose which actually is better

 

19   for filtering tar than our filter?  Did you ever see

 

20   that in any ad?

 

21             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, assumes

 

22   facts.

 

23             THE WITNESS:  I haven’t seen that in ads.

 

24         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  It says smokers, here’s

 

25   proof you can see.  Kent gives greater protection

 

 

                                                                    92

 1   than any other cigarette.  Did I read that right?

 

 2         A.  That’s what that says.

 

 3         Q.  It says Kent and only Kent can show you the

 

 4   visual proof of greater protection, so important to

 

 5   at least one out of three smokers medical reports

 

 6   say sensitive to tars and nicotine.  So my question

 

 7   is when they say that at least one out of three

 

 8   smokers are sensitive to tars and nicotine, where is

 

 9   that coming from?

 

10         A.  That’s coming from the fingertip study work

 

11   which was later published and from other activities

 

12   that were done by contractors for Lorillard at the

 

13   time.

 

14         Q.  Okay.  The fingertip studies, are those the

 

15   ones that showed the temperature change?

 

16         A.  Yes.  Vasoconstriction, temperature change,

 

17   et cetera, in the fingers did not occur with Kent.

 

18         Q.  Right.  Did it — was it ever shown that

 

19   the vasoconstriction, the temperature drop in

 

20   fingers was ever directly tied to any disease?

 

21             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

22             THE WITNESS:  I don’t know if it was

 

23   directly shown, but at the same time the — this is

 

24   referring to acute effects, and vasoconstriction and

 

25   temperature change and so on could be considered

 

 

                                                                    93

 1   acute effects.

 

 2         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Yeah, but do temperature

 

 3   change or vasoconstriction cause any diseases?

 

 4         A.  Certainly we know today that

 

 5   vasoconstriction can cause chronic problems, but

 

 6   this is not the focus of this particular ad.

 

 7         Q.  Uh-huh.  Now, at this time Kent knew that

 

 8   there was, as Kent has referred to it, a cancer

 

 9   scare; right?

 

10             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, outside

 

11   the scope.

 

12             THE WITNESS:  It’s not –

 

13             MR. BERGER:  That’s not contained in any

 

14   notice.

 

15             THE WITNESS:  This is not referring to

 

16   cancer.

 

17         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Well, in fact, Kent

 

18   actually never actually says anything about cancer

 

19   in any of its advertisements; correct?

 

20             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, vague,

 

21   outside the scope, lack of foundation.

 

22             THE WITNESS:  It’s all focused on acute

 

23   and all the information in our records shows that it

 

24   was focused on acute effects.

 

25         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Okay.  All right.  You

 

 

                                                                    94

 1   can set that aside.  Or actually can you hold it up,

 

 2   please?  Go ahead and hold it up for the camera.

 

 3   Can you zoom in on that, sir?  Thank you.

 

 4             MR. BERGER:  Are you going to ask a

 

 5   question?

 

 6             MR. PANATIER:  I am.  Just let me know

 

 7   once you’ve got it.  I appreciate it.

 

 8         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Okay.  All right, sir.

 

 9   If you’ll turn it around, I just wanted to ask you

 

10   about the stuff at the bottom there.  There’s a set

 

11   of three pictures and it has Kent Micronite filter,

 

12   cotton filter and cellulose filter; right?

 

13             And it shows a person inhaling those –

 

14   cigarettes with those three different filters

 

15   through a glass tube and then demonstrating on the

 

16   paper that’s below each tube how much stain there is

 

17   from whatever was in the cigarettes; right?

 

18         A.  It’s showing the tar and other

 

19   particulates.

 

20         Q.  Do you know whether or not those were other

 

21   competitors’ brands of cigarettes or whether those

 

22   were what you might call a mock-up, the same tobacco

 

23   with just the three different filters?

 

24         A.  I’m not sure if they were others’ brands,

 

25   but the other advertisements actually talk about

 

 

                                                                    95

 1   other brands when they do the same type of study.

 

 2         Q.  Right.

 

 3         A.  So I don’t know in particular.

 

 4         Q.  Okay.  And it’s true that you can

 

 5   manipulate the amount of particulate that gets

 

 6   through a given filter, whether it be Micronite,

 

 7   cotton or cellulose by how tightly you wind the

 

 8   filter; right?

 

 9             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

10             THE WITNESS:  It’s part of filtration

 

11   science is how tight the filter is is one of the

 

12   components.

 

13         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Right.  I mean, the

 

14   original filters that caused Dr. Parmele to get his

 

15   idea to put asbestos in cigarette filters were those

 

16   absolute filters where they were wound so tightly

 

17   that they let nothing but air through; correct?

 

18             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

19             THE WITNESS:  I don’t know how tight they

 

20   were.  We talked about that previously.  It was a

 

21   lot of the design and how they were constructed

 

22   along with the compression and the laying down of

 

23   the fibers as to how they might operate.  I don’t

 

24   know more than that.

 

25         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Because this ad would

 

 

                                                                    96

 1   have come out sometime between ’52 and ’54?

 

 2         A.  Yes.  This is — it would be 1954 or

 

 3   earlier, yes.

 

 4         Q.  This is after we know that Mr. Parmele has

 

 5   admitted that the cellulose filter is actually a

 

 6   better filter for tar particles; correct?

 

 7             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, assumes

 

 8   facts.

 

 9             THE WITNESS:  Certainly from an efficiency

 

10   perspective, but you remember in the documents they

 

11   talked about a draw problem.  And you have to have

 

12   the correct draw along with the efficiency and

 

13   several other factors.

 

14         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Yeah.  And in this ad,

 

15   of course, the cellulose filter is shown as being

 

16   not as good as the Kent Micronite filter; right?

 

17         A.  Looks to be number two.

 

18         Q.  Yeah.  And the worst one would be the

 

19   straight cotton filter; right?

 

20         A.  It looks that way from this photograph of a

 

21   very old article or an ad.

 

22             MR. PANATIER:  Okay.  We can set that

 

23   aside, sir.  Next will be Exhibit 13.

 

24             (Exhibit Number 13 was marked for

 

25   identification.)

 

 

                                                                    97

 1         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Sir, it’s true that

 

 2   Lorillard wanted folks who were health conscious to

 

 3   buy their cigarettes; right?

 

 4             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

 5             THE WITNESS:  That was certainly noted in

 

 6   the materials that were presented.

 

 7         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  And you mean — when you

 

 8   say materials that were presented, you’re talking

 

 9   about advertisements as well as their own internal

 

10   documents; correct?

 

11             MR. BERGER:  Objection.

 

12             THE WITNESS:  It was from an acute

 

13   perspective, yes.  That would be correct.

 

14         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Right.  Did Kent ever

 

15   say to your knowledge in any advertising or anything

 

16   that it told the public our perspective when we say

 

17   that this provides health protection, we are only

 

18   focused on acute issues like a temperature drop or

 

19   vasoconstriction?  We’re not — we’re not talking

 

20   about long-term, chronic diseases.  Did they ever do

 

21   that?

 

22             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, lack of

 

23   foundation, outside the scope.

 

24             THE WITNESS:  Some ads certainly talked

 

25   about the irritation and the one out of three

 

 

                                                                    98

 1   sensitive smokers, which refers to the irritation.

 

 2   And irritation is an acute effect.

 

 3         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Right.  And so what I’m

 

 4   asking is at any time did Kent’s ads make it clear

 

 5   that, hey, we are only talking about acute effects

 

 6   when we’re talking about this health protection.  We

 

 7   are not talking about health protection from

 

 8   long-term diseases that may develop later on?

 

 9             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, lack of

 

10   foundation, outside the scope.

 

11             THE WITNESS:  As I said, they were talking

 

12   about irritation and sensitive smokers.  I don’t

 

13   believe they mentioned acute in the ads or in the

 

14   information.

 

15         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  And they certainly

 

16   didn’t distinguish and say our representations about

 

17   sensitive smokers, et cetera, do not apply to

 

18   chronic diseases.  They never said that; right?

 

19             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, outside

 

20   the scope.

 

21             THE WITNESS:  Chronic diseases were not

 

22   mentioned.

 

23         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  At no point?

 

24         A.  I don’t –

 

25             MR. BERGER:  Same objection.

 

 

                                                                    99

 1             THE WITNESS:  I don’t remember seeing

 

 2   that.

 

 3         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  All right.  You have in

 

 4   front of you Exhibit 13.  That is a — that’s on Dr.

 

 5   Parmele’s letterhead; correct?

 

 6         A.  Yes.

 

 7         Q.  It is dated March 12th of 1952.  This is

 

 8   the very month that Lorillard began selling Kent

 

 9   with the asbestos-containing Micronite filter; true?

 

10         A.  That would be correct.

 

11         Q.  It’s what’s called a dear doctor letter and

 

12   you’ve seen these before; true?

 

13         A.  Yes.  I have.

 

14         Q.  Okay.  It says P. Lorillard Company has

 

15   recently introduced Kent cigarettes, a new filter

 

16   tipped cigarette which we believe to be worthy of

 

17   your attention.  For your information and in the

 

18   interests of those patients whom you have felt

 

19   obliged to advise to cut down or cut out smoking, we

 

20   are enclosing a brochure which discusses in some

 

21   detail the physiological advantages of the Micronite

 

22   filter which is used in our Kent cigarettes.  I read

 

23   that right; right?

 

24         A.  Yes.  You did.

 

25         Q.  And this is Lorillard addressing the

 

 

                                                                   100

 1   subject of the new cigarette to physicians, to

 

 2   doctors; right?

 

 3         A.  That’s what it says.

 

 4         Q.  Okay.  If you skip to the third paragraph,

 

 5   as you know, Lorillard has carefully avoided the use

 

 6   of questionable medical claims in its Old Gold

 

 7   advertising.  The company is not contemplating any

 

 8   change in this policy for Kents.  We do feel,

 

 9   however, that the performance of the Micronite

 

10   filter has a direct bearing on health and cigarette

 

11   smoking.  He said that; right?

 

12         A.  That’s what the paragraph says.

 

13         Q.  So in the first sentence he says Lorillard

 

14   has carefully avoided the use of questionable

 

15   medical claims in its Old Gold advertising and we’re

 

16   not contemplating any change in policy for the Kent

 

17   cigarettes; right?  He says that?

 

18         A.  That’s what he says.

 

19             MR. BERGER:  Objection, asked and

 

20   answered.

 

21         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  And then the next

 

22   sentence says we do feel, however, that the

 

23   performance of the Micronite filter has a direct

 

24   bearing on health and cigarette smoking; true?

 

25         A.  It says that.

 

 

                                                                   101

 1         Q.  Does he say when we talk about health and

 

 2   cigarette smoking, we’re only talking about acute

 

 3   effects and not long-term chronic effects?

 

 4         A.  He doesn’t say that here, but the brochure

 

 5   that he’s referring to certainly does.

 

 6         Q.  So Kent made representations about

 

 7   long-term protection, long-term health effect

 

 8   protection?

 

 9             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

10             THE WITNESS:  No.  What I just told you

 

11   was the fact that the information that came within

 

12   the brochure, which is 11 pages long, talks about

 

13   the acute effects that we’ve been talking about for

 

14   the last half hour or so.

 

15         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  We really believe that

 

16   we have a good thing here.  We are hoping that when

 

17   you have read the enclosed brochure and smoked the

 

18   physician’s gift box of Kent cigarettes which we are

 

19   forwarding, you will be as convinced of their merit

 

20   as we are.  So they send a brochure and they also

 

21   send a box of cigarettes to these doctors; right?

 

22         A.  That’s what it says they did.

 

23             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

24         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  How many of these dear

 

25   doctor letters went out with a box of cigarettes to

 

 

                                                                   102

 1   doctors?

 

 2             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, assumes

 

 3   facts.

 

 4             THE WITNESS:  I don’t know how many

 

 5   letters went out.

 

 6         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Okay.  They did go out;

 

 7   right?

 

 8             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, assumes

 

 9   facts.

 

10             THE WITNESS:  I believe so.

 

11         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Okay.  And it says the

 

12   physician’s gift box of Kent cigarettes.  Is that

 

13   different than a carton or different than a pack of

 

14   cigarettes?  What is that?

 

15         A.  I don’t know what a gift box looks like.

 

16         Q.  In the — in the history of the Kent

 

17   Micronite with asbestos cigarettes did it come in

 

18   various sizes of packs as far as how many cigarettes

 

19   were included?

 

20         A.  It always had 20 cigarettes in the pack.

 

21         Q.  Did it ever sell smaller packs with five or

 

22   ten cigarettes?

 

23         A.  No, not to my knowledge.

 

24         Q.  Okay.  We can set that over here.  Now,

 

25   Kent was sending these dear doctor letters to

 

 

                                                                   103

 1   doctors because as Dr. Parmele actually says, they

 

 2   want doctors to tell their customers or their

 

 3   patients to smoke Kent cigarettes instead of other

 

 4   cigarettes; right?

 

 5             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, assumes

 

 6   facts, outside the scope.

 

 7             THE WITNESS:  The letter stands on its

 

 8   own.

 

 9         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  And that’s what –

 

10         A.  I don’t know what else was implied by that.

 

11         Q.  Well, I’m not asking you what’s implied.

 

12   I’m basically asking you to agree with what’s said,

 

13   which is Dr. Parmele and Lorillard is asking doctors

 

14   to consider telling their patients to smoke Kent

 

15   cigarettes?

 

16             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.  It’s a

 

17   different question.  It’s outside the scope and

 

18   assumes facts.

 

19             THE WITNESS:  It’s certainly what the

 

20   second paragraph seems to say.

 

21         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  That’s — that is what

 

22   it says; right?

 

23             MR. BERGER:  Same objection.

 

24             THE WITNESS:  That’s what I’m saying.

 

25         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Kent also put

 

 

                                                                   104

 1   advertisements in the Journal of the American

 

 2   Medical Association; right?

 

 3         A.  Yes.  I believe so.

 

 4         Q.  You and I have already discussed the

 

 5   Journal of the American Medical Association;

 

 6   correct?

 

 7         A.  Yes.  We did earlier.

 

 8         Q.  That’s where Dr. Fishbein’s article in 1949

 

 9   about asbestosis and lung cancer occurred; true?

 

10         A.  His editorial was in 1949, that’s correct.

 

11   We believe it’s his editorial.

 

12         Q.  Right.

 

13         A.  It’s not signed.

 

14             MR. PANATIER:  Okay.  This will be

 

15   Exhibit 14.

 

16             (Exhibit Number 14 was marked for

 

17   identification.)

 

18         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Here you go.  Sir, this

 

19   is from the Journal of the American Medical

 

20   Association, July 11th, 1953.  Do you see that?

 

21         A.  Yes.  I do.

 

22         Q.  Okay.  And if you turn it over, there is a

 

23   Lorillard advertisement; right?

 

24         A.  That’s what it appears to be.

 

25         Q.  This is an advertisement that Lorillard put

 

 

                                                                   105

 1   into the Journal of the American Medical

 

 2   Association; right?

 

 3         A.  Yes.  In the same issue where cigarettes

 

 4   were discussed, that’s correct.

 

 5         Q.  Okay.  And there, in fact, was an article

 

 6   on cigarettes; right?

 

 7             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

 8             THE WITNESS:  Yes, on page 1035.

 

 9             MR. BERGER:  Withdraw the objection.

 

10         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  So on 1035 there’s a

 

11   special report, chemical laboratory, a study of

 

12   cigarettes, cigarette smoke and filters, and it just

 

13   so happens that in this edition there is also a

 

14   Lorillard advertisement; right?

 

15         A.  I don’t know if you could say it just so

 

16   happens.  There’s an ad from Lorillard here in the

 

17   same issue as the article.

 

18         Q.  Right.  It did happen that there was an ad

 

19   from Lorillard in the same journal; correct?

 

20         A.  I believe so.

 

21         Q.  Okay.  What it says is “Some Questions

 

22   about Filter Cigarettes that may have occurred to

 

23   you, Doctor, and their answers by the makers of

 

24   Kent.”  Did I read that right?

 

25         A.  That’s what the title says.

 

 

                                                                   106

 1         Q.  It says what materials are used in

 

 2   cigarette filters.  Answer, until just recently

 

 3   cellulose, cotton or crepe paper were the only

 

 4   materials used in cigarette filters.  Now, after

 

 5   long search and countless experiments, Kent’s

 

 6   Micronite filter has been developed.  It employs the

 

 7   same filtering material used in atomic energy plants

 

 8   to purify the air of minute radioactive particles.

 

 9   Did I read that right?

 

10         A.  Yes.

 

11         Q.  Now, it’s very clear, and you and I have

 

12   established this, it’s not the same filter.  It uses

 

13   some of — it uses the same ingredient as in those

 

14   filters; correct?

 

15         A.  It doesn’t say it’s the same material, the

 

16   same filter.  It doesn’t say that.

 

17         Q.  I’m not asking you that.  The question I’m

 

18   asking you is you and I have established that it is

 

19   not the same exact filter.  It is the same filter

 

20   material that was being used; correct?

 

21             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

22             THE WITNESS:  It’s the same components of

 

23   the filter material, that is correct.

 

24         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Okay.  We saw in the

 

25   newspaper article earlier where the executive vice

 

 

                                                                   107

 1   president of Lorillard said we had to engineer back

 

 2   from the atomic labs and so forth to loosen the

 

 3   filter so you could get smoke through it.  Do you

 

 4   remember that?

 

 5         A.  I’m not sure he said loosen, but he did say

 

 6   we had to reduce its efficiency.

 

 7         Q.  Right.  And one of the things, that it was

 

 8   loosening; right?

 

 9             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

10             THE WITNESS:  Loosen is a term of art in

 

11   filters, but yes.

 

12         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Yeah, okay.  If you go

 

13   to the other highlight, it says question, does an

 

14   effective cigarette filter also remove the flavor?

 

15   Answer, Kent’s Micronite filter, the first cigarette

 

16   filter that really works, lets smokers enjoy the

 

17   full pleasure of a really fine cigarette yet gives

 

18   them the greatest protection ever from tars and

 

19   nicotine.  So here they’re telling doctors that the

 

20   Micronite filter gives the greatest protection ever

 

21   from tars and nicotine; right?

 

22         A.  That’s what it says, referring to acute

 

23   aspects, although it doesn’t say acute.

 

24         Q.  Right.  And you anticipated my next

 

25   question.  It doesn’t say we’re only talking about

 

 

                                                                   108

 1   acute aspects here; right?

 

 2         A.  It does not say that.

 

 3         Q.  Because tar and nicotine also have

 

 4   long-term chronic effects; correct?

 

 5             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, outside

 

 6   the scope.

 

 7             THE WITNESS:  And again, I’m not the

 

 8   company representative to talk about long-term

 

 9   chronic effects of tar and nicotine.

 

10         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Okay.  Well, I’m asking

 

11   you about underlying claims made in the ad, so

 

12   that’s why I’m asking you.  So do you as Lorillard,

 

13   do you agree that tars and nicotine also have

 

14   long-term chronic effects?

 

15             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, outside

 

16   the scope.  He’s established he’s not here to talk

 

17   about that.

 

18             MR. PANATIER:  You can answer, sir.

 

19             THE WITNESS:  The information in our files

 

20   concerning Kent Micronite cigarettes from ’52 to ’56

 

21   only refers to acute effects.

 

22         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Lorillard never

 

23   conducted any long-term studies on its cigarettes

 

24   with regard to the tobacco or to the asbestos to

 

25   determine whether or not there were any long-term or

 

 

                                                                   109

 1   latent chronic effects for the Kent Micronite filter

 

 2   containing asbestos; correct?

 

 3             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, outside

 

 4   the scope.  I instruct him not to answer.

 

 5         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Are you going to follow

 

 6   the lawyer’s instruction that you’re not going to

 

 7   answer the question?

 

 8         A.  I am.

 

 9         Q.  Okay.  Well, let me just ask you this

 

10   question from a scientific perspective.  Sir, if a

 

11   company wants to know whether or not a product it

 

12   sells will have chronic effects on individuals, it

 

13   should research the ingredients it’s putting in the

 

14   product; right?

 

15             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, outside

 

16   the scope.

 

17             THE WITNESS:  One would typically do some

 

18   research to insure that there was no exposure, and

 

19   we did that.

 

20             MR. PANATIER:  Okay.  I’m going to object

 

21   to unresponsive.

 

22         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  My question is do you

 

23   agree that a company should conduct research on its

 

24   product to insure there are no dangerous chronic

 

25   effects?

 

 

                                                                   110

 1             MR. BERGER:  Same objection.

 

 2             THE WITNESS:  If chronic effects are known

 

 3   and coupled with the type of exposure, that would be

 

 4   correct.

 

 5         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  And, in fact, Lorillard

 

 6   to your knowledge never conducted any studies on the

 

 7   chronic effects that could occur from using the

 

 8   Micronite filter containing asbestos; correct?

 

 9             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.  Are you

 

10   limiting your question to studies of the chronic

 

11   effects of asbestos?

 

12             MR. PANATIER:  Yes.

 

13             THE WITNESS:  We did not conduct chronic

 

14   studies on asbestos.

 

15             MR. PANATIER:  You can set that aside,

 

16   sir.  This is Exhibit 15.

 

17             (Exhibit Number 15 was marked for

 

18   identification.)

 

19         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Sir, this is another

 

20   edition of the Journal of the American Medical

 

21   Association; correct?

 

22         A.  Yes.

 

23         Q.  And it’s dated what?

 

24         A.  August 1, 1953.

 

25         Q.  So this is two months after Exhibit 14,

 

 

                                                                   111

 1   which was July 11th, 1953; correct?

 

 2         A.  One month.

 

 3         Q.  Okay.  One month.  I don’t know the

 

 4   calendar real well, apparently.  So, sir, this

 

 5   Journal of the AMA is one month after the one we

 

 6   looked at before; right?

 

 7         A.  That’s correct.

 

 8         Q.  Okay.  If you’ll turn the page, Lorillard

 

 9   has taken out another ad in this edition; correct?

 

10         A.  It appears to be an ad in this edition,

 

11   that’s correct.

 

12         Q.  All right.  What does the first highlight

 

13   say?

 

14         A.  I’m going to look at this a little bit,

 

15   though.

 

16             MR. PANATIER:  You can look at it all you

 

17   want.

 

18             MR. BERGER:  Take your time.

 

19             THE WITNESS:  Okay.

 

20         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  All right.  What does

 

21   the first highlight say?

 

22         A.  It’s the third paragraph.  All members of

 

23   the medical profession will be interested in the

 

24   facts about this new cigarette.  To avoid possible

 

25   confusion and misunderstanding by the general

 

 

                                                                   112

 1   public, the details of the Kent studies given on

 

 2   these pages are for physicians only and will not

 

 3   appear in Kent advertising or promotion to the

 

 4   general public.

 

 5         Q.  All right.  Go ahead and read the next

 

 6   paragraph.

 

 7         A.  Micronite as a cigarette filter, and a

 

 8   series of ellipses, the new filter material called

 

 9   Micronite stems directly from the improved

 

10   protective filters developed to meet critical air

 

11   purification problems in atomic energy plants.

 

12         Q.  Okay.  And, again, we’ve talked about this.

 

13   They’re talking only about the ingredient.  They’re

 

14   not talking about the actual filters; correct?

 

15             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

16             THE WITNESS:  It’s not the same filter,

 

17   but a lot of the components are similar.

 

18         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  And what components are

 

19   similar in your opinion?

 

20         A.  Certainly the crocidolite –

 

21         Q.  Uh-huh.

 

22         A.  – and possibly some types of the cellulose

 

23   that may have been used, but I’m not sure of all the

 

24   components.

 

25         Q.  The only component you actually know that

 

 

                                                                   113

 1   is in common with the original filters is

 

 2   crocidolite asbestos?

 

 3             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

 4             THE WITNESS:  They both use paper.  It may

 

 5   have been a different kind of paper, but they both

 

 6   use paper.

 

 7         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Okay.  So, like I said,

 

 8   the only ingredient that you actually know the Kent

 

 9   cigarettes have in common with the ones used in

 

10   atomic labs and so forth is crocidolite; right?

 

11             MR. BERGER:  Objection, asked and

 

12   answered.

 

13             THE WITNESS:  Crocidolite is specifically

 

14   named.

 

15         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Okay.  What does the

 

16   next paragraph say?

 

17         A.  When investigations showed that this filter

 

18   medium was capable of removing all of the minute

 

19   particles from a stream of cigarette smoke, the

 

20   filter was modified for use in Kent cigarettes.

 

21   This was done in such a way as to permit the passage

 

22   of pleasant aromatic smoke constituents but with the

 

23   removal of the more objectionable fractions of

 

24   tobacco smoke to an extent never before

 

25   accomplished.

 

 

                                                                   114

 1         Q.  All right.  So one of the things it says

 

 2   here is we’re going to give some information to

 

 3   physicians, but to avoid confusion we’re not going

 

 4   to give it to the general public; right?

 

 5             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

 6             THE WITNESS:  That’s what it says in the

 

 7   first paragraph –

 

 8         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  You –

 

 9         A.  – or third paragraph or the first one that

 

10   I read.

 

11         Q.  Sure.  You took some time to look through

 

12   that.  Does that advertisement indicate that one of

 

13   the things they went ahead and told the physicians

 

14   is our filter has asbestos in it?

 

15         A.  I don’t believe this mentions asbestos.

 

16         Q.  Okay.  So even though they were telling the

 

17   doctors some stuff they said they weren’t going to

 

18   tell the general public, they still didn’t tell the

 

19   doctors this has asbestos in it; right?

 

20         A.  I don’t believe it says there’s asbestos in

 

21   here.

 

22             MR. PANATIER:  Okay.  We can set that

 

23   aside, sir.  Next will be Exhibit 16.

 

24             (Exhibit Number 16 was marked for

 

25   identification.)

 

 

                                                                   115

 1         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  You know what?  We can

 

 2   shortcut this.  Lorillard placed additional ads in

 

 3   the Journal of the American Medical Association in

 

 4   addition to the two that we have discussed?

 

 5         A.  I’m not sure how many more or I haven’t

 

 6   kept track of that.

 

 7         Q.  Okay.  Just to shortcut it, can you agree

 

 8   they placed other ads in the Journal of the American

 

 9   Medical Association?

 

10         A.  If there’s evidence of it, then I would

 

11   agree to that.  I don’t know.

 

12         Q.  All right.  I’m going to show you one then.

 

13   This is October 3rd, 1953.  This is Exhibit 16.

 

14   Sir, is that another Kent ad in the Journal of the

 

15   American Medical Association?

 

16         A.  It appears to be.

 

17         Q.  Okay.  And there’s a highlighted section

 

18   there.  What does that say?

 

19         A.  Thus, Kent was the first filter that really

 

20   works, gives one smoker out of every three who is

 

21   susceptible to nicotine and tar — tars the

 

22   protection he needs while offering the satisfaction

 

23   he expects of fine tobacco.  Fingertip test is

 

24   showing that.

 

25         Q.  And they’re showing the fingertip test,

 

 

                                                                   116

 1   which is the temperature test –

 

 2         A.  Yes.

 

 3         Q.  – right?  Okay.  Do they — and feel free

 

 4   to look through that.  I think there’s several

 

 5   paragraphs there, but do they state that the studies

 

 6   that they have done only apply to acute or I guess

 

 7   you could say immediate effects of tar and nicotine

 

 8   as opposed to chronic?

 

 9             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

10             THE WITNESS:  Well, it does say to compare

 

11   the efficiency of various filters as they affect

 

12   physiological responses in the cigarette smoker,

 

13   drop in skin temperature, surface skin temperature

 

14   at the last phalanx, in the finger, was measured.

 

15   And that’s an acute effect.

 

16         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  They don’t distinguish

 

17   between acute and chronic.  They just reference a

 

18   test for an acute whatever you’d call it, an acute

 

19   effect; right?

 

20         A.  They don’t distinguish, but this is in the

 

21   JAMA and I hope the doctors know the difference.

 

22         Q.  Okay.  Again, this is in JAMA.  It doesn’t

 

23   talk about the fact that they were putting asbestos

 

24   in the cigarettes; right?

 

25         A.  It does not.

 

 

                                                                   117

 1             MR. PANATIER:  All right.  Now you can set

 

 2   that aside, sir.  This will be Exhibit 17.

 

 3             (Exhibit Number 17 was marked for

 

 4   identification.)

 

 5         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Sir, this is a letter

 

 6   from May 7th, 1953.  This is from Dr. Parmele to

 

 7   Alden James; right?

 

 8         A.  Yes.

 

 9         Q.  Alden James was the director of

 

10   advertising; correct?

 

11         A.  That’s what it says, yes.

 

12         Q.  This is about a year and two months after

 

13   the Kent Micronite cigarette with the asbestos in

 

14   the filter came out; right?

 

15         A.  That’s about correct, uh-huh.

 

16         Q.  Okay.  The last paragraph that Dr. Parmele

 

17   writes on the first page is the only drawback to the

 

18   work in question is that Dr. Friedell found that

 

19   certain competitive filtered brands were almost as

 

20   good as Kent’s.  However, this is not mentioned in

 

21   the report and there is no reason why it should ever

 

22   be known.

 

23             However, because of this situation, quote,

 

24   we should get there first, unquote, when it comes to

 

25   relating Kent cigarettes with the work in question.

 

 

                                                                   118

 1   So what we know from this is already Dr. Parmele is

 

 2   aware that other cigarettes are already a year and

 

 3   two months later almost as good as Kent’s in their

 

 4   filtration; correct?

 

 5         A.  That’s what it says in the paragraph.

 

 6         Q.  All right.  You can set that aside.  Now,

 

 7   sir, after May of 1953 did Lorillard make the

 

 8   decision based on this news to remove asbestos

 

 9   immediately?

 

10             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

11             THE WITNESS:  Well, we all know that the

 

12   asbestos was removed in 1956.

 

13         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  They did not make that

 

14   decision in May of 1953; correct?

 

15         A.  That’s correct.

 

16             MR. PANATIER:  Okay.  I’m going to show

 

17   you — make sure I have the right paper.  Okay.

 

18   This will be Exhibit 18.

 

19             (Exhibit Number 18 was marked for

 

20   identification.)

 

21         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Sir, this is a letter

 

22   with attached report from Dr. Parmele to H. A. Kent,

 

23   who is the executive officer for Lorillard; right?

 

24         A.  That’s what it says on the letter.

 

25         Q.  Does executive officer mean just an

 

 

                                                                   119

 1   executive officer or the executive officer?

 

 2         A.  I don’t know how that was designated in

 

 3   1954.

 

 4         Q.  Was he the highest guy?

 

 5         A.  He was president, CEO at one point.  I

 

 6   don’t — I believe he was because the cigarette was

 

 7   named after him, so –

 

 8         Q.  Right.  It was actually named after the guy

 

 9   to whom the letter is addressed; right?

 

10         A.  Kent is named after H. A. Kent, that’s

 

11   correct.

 

12         Q.  Right.  There’s not another Kent that this

 

13   cigarette was named after.  It’s this guy; right?

 

14         A.  Not that I know of.

 

15         Q.  Okay.  And so this is from August 20th of

 

16   1954; true?

 

17         A.  It says that, yes.

 

18         Q.  Okay.  If you look at number one there,

 

19   there’s a highlight.  And what Dr. Parmele says is

 

20   Lorillard, dash, dash, current data about the

 

21   filtering efficiency of Kent cigarettes to be

 

22   completely normal.  However, we are sorry to admit

 

23   that the performance of regular L&Ms, the now

 

24   king-size Sano and the now regular Du Marier with

 

25   respect to both tar and nicotine removal is a little

 

 

                                                                   120

 1   superior to that displayed by Kent.  Did I read that

 

 2   right?

 

 3         A.  That’s what the highlight says, that’s

 

 4   correct.

 

 5         Q.  And so what Parmele is telling Mr. Kent is

 

 6   there are it looks like three different cigarettes

 

 7   that based on studies we’ve looked at are better

 

 8   than Kent in filtering tar and nicotine; right?

 

 9         A.  It says their filtering efficiency is

 

10   better.  That’s what it says.

 

11         Q.  And he actually attaches the reports;

 

12   correct?

 

13         A.  From Lorillard, Dr. Killian and the Snell

 

14   laboratories.  I believe they’re attached.

 

15         Q.  Right.  And they have little graphs for

 

16   each one where it shows tar removal percent,

 

17   nicotine removal percent for each one of those

 

18   studies?

 

19         A.  Yes.

 

20         Q.  Okay.  At this time, this is August 20th,

 

21   1954, they have been selling Kent with the Micronite

 

22   asbestos filter for two years and five months.  Is

 

23   that accurate?

 

24         A.  I believe so.

 

25         Q.  And at this point they are aware that at

 

 

                                                                   121

 1   least three other brands filter tar and nicotine

 

 2   better; right?

 

 3         A.  That’s what it says, yes.

 

 4         Q.  Those three other brands do not contain

 

 5   asbestos; correct?

 

 6         A.  They do not.

 

 7         Q.  Okay.  Did you review Mr. Geatz’s

 

 8   deposition?

 

 9         A.  Did not.

 

10         Q.  You did not?

 

11         A.  Did not.

 

12         Q.  Did you review any case-specific testimony

 

13   or evidence for the Geatz case?

 

14         A.  Other than the notices or — I didn’t

 

15   review anything else.

 

16         Q.  So you don’t know anything about Mr. Geatz?

 

17             MR. BERGER:  Dr. Reinert is not going to

 

18   offer case-specific testimony on any of the

 

19   plaintiffs.

 

20             MR. PANATIER:  All right.  You’re making

 

21   that stipulation?

 

22             MR. BERGER:  Yeah.  He hasn’t reviewed the

 

23   depositions of any of the five plaintiffs in which

 

24   the cases that this is noticed in.

 

25             MR. PANATIER:  Okay.  So –

 

 

                                                                   122

 1             MR. BERGER:  Just to save time.

 

 2             MR. PANATIER:  Sure.  So just to be clear,

 

 3   Dr. Reinert is not going to offer testimony about

 

 4   what they smoked, when they smoked, whether they

 

 5   smoked Kents, if the Kents had asbestos when they

 

 6   smoked them, any of those issues; correct?

 

 7             MR. BERGER:  He’s not going to come in and

 

 8   say specifically I looked at Mr. Geatz’s case and,

 

 9   you know, I have an opinion that Mr. Geatz didn’t

 

10   smoke Kent because blank; okay?

 

11             MR. PANATIER:  All right, all right.

 

12             MR. BERGER:  He’s a company witness.  He

 

13   could certainly testify about the product.

 

14             MR. PANATIER:  Sure, yeah.  Okay.  All

 

15   right.  We can set that aside.  Sir, I will show you

 

16   Exhibit 19.

 

17             (Exhibit Number 19 was marked for

 

18   identification.)

 

19         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Sir, Exhibit 19 is

 

20   entitled “A Frank Statement to Cigarette Smokers.”

 

21   Do you see that?

 

22         A.  I see it.

 

23         Q.  It’s dated in January 1954?

 

24         A.  Yes.

 

25         Q.  It’s endorsed by a series of sponsors

 

 

                                                                   123

 1   they’re called, which are various tobacco companies

 

 2   including Lorillard; correct?

 

 3         A.  That’s correct.

 

 4         Q.  Okay.  There’s a number of paragraphs

 

 5   there, but I want you to go to the highlighted

 

 6   section.  The sentence just above the number one,

 

 7   starting there, can you read that out loud?

 

 8             MR. BERGER:  Dr. Reinert, I object.  I

 

 9   instruct you not to read or answer the questions.

 

10             THE WITNESS:  I wasn’t going to because

 

11   it’s not what I’m here to talk about today.

 

12             MR. BERGER:  It’s well outside the scope

 

13   of the notice.

 

14         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Okay.  Sir, do you

 

15   believe that the jury in this case is entitled to

 

16   consider the credibility of all the witnesses and

 

17   all the parties?

 

18             MR. BERGER:  Objection, argumentative.

 

19             THE WITNESS:  One has to be truthful and

 

20   ethical.

 

21         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Right.  And you

 

22   understand, of course, that it’s the jury that

 

23   evaluates the credibility of the parties; correct?

 

24             MR. BERGER:  Objection, argumentative,

 

25   lack of foundation.

 

 

                                                                   124

 1             THE WITNESS:  I don’t know the court

 

 2   proceedings.  I just come and do — talk about the

 

 3   information we have and if I’m an expert, I talk

 

 4   about it as an expert and they decide whatever they

 

 5   decide.

 

 6         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Okay.  You’re aware that

 

 7   one of the things juries do is evaluate credibility

 

 8   of witnesses and parties; correct?

 

 9             MR. BERGER:  Objection, asked and answered

 

10   and lack of foundation.

 

11             THE WITNESS:  We all do that anytime we

 

12   talk to people or listen to people.

 

13         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Sir — sir, you’ve

 

14   testified in court before; right?

 

15         A.  I have.

 

16         Q.  Okay.  You know that one of the things

 

17   juries do is evaluate the credibility of the

 

18   witnesses and the parties; correct?

 

19             MR. SHACKELFORD:  And they do so on the

 

20   basis of properly admitted evidence –

 

21             MR. PANATIER:  You know what?  How many

 

22   people are going to talk?

 

23             MR. SHACKELFORD:  – which this is not an

 

24   example.

 

25             MR. PANATIER:  You know, if you’re a

 

 

                                                                   125

 1   talking lawyer, maybe you should be sitting right

 

 2   there, but you’re not.  He’s the talking lawyer.

 

 3             MR. SHACKELFORD:  I’m counsel of record in

 

 4   four of the cases and I have a –

 

 5             MR. PANATIER:  That doesn’t mean everybody

 

 6   gets to talk.

 

 7             MR. SHACKELFORD:  I understand, and I’m

 

 8   making an objection for four of the cases in which

 

 9   this deposition is noticed.  Your question is

 

10   improper.  You’re asking him about topics that are

 

11   not at issue in the case.  If you want to lay a

 

12   foundation that document refers to asbestos, go

 

13   ahead and try.  Otherwise, it’s inappropriate and

 

14   the argumentative questions you’re asking him are

 

15   completely out of line.

 

16             MR. PANATIER:  You should be teaching law

 

17   school.  Sir –

 

18             MR. SHACKELFORD:  And you should attend

 

19   law school and study evidence.

 

20             MR. PANATIER:  You know what?  If you want

 

21   to — if you want to instruct him not to answer, be

 

22   my guest.  Until then, I’m going to ask these

 

23   questions and you can talk all you want.  Okay,

 

24   professor?

 

25             MR. SHACKELFORD:  Ask all the questions

 

 

                                                                   126

 1   you like and I’ll make all the objections that are

 

 2   appropriate.

 

 3         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  So, sir, you know having

 

 4   testified to juries in these cases that one of the

 

 5   things juries do is they get to evaluate the

 

 6   credibility of witnesses and parties; right?

 

 7             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form,

 

 8   argumentative.

 

 9             THE WITNESS:  I suppose that’s what they

 

10   do as part of their decision making, but I’m — I’ve

 

11   not been a juror.

 

12         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Right.  And, sir, you

 

13   understand that it’s important when a witness says

 

14   something to know whether or not that witness is

 

15   credible; right?

 

16             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form,

 

17   argumentative, outside the scope.

 

18             THE WITNESS:  Well, certainly one would

 

19   want to determine whether they are or are not.

 

20         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Uh-huh.  Is it your

 

21   testimony that Lorillard has always been honest with

 

22   the general public about the statements its made

 

23   with regard to its cigarettes?

 

24             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, instruct

 

25   him not to answer.

 

 

                                                                   127

 1             MR. PANATIER:  What’s wrong with that

 

 2   question, guys?

 

 3             MR. SHACKELFORD:  Objection, vague,

 

 4   overbroad, lacks foundation.

 

 5             MR. BERGER:  It doesn’t have anything to

 

 6   do with the notice or what we’re here for today on

 

 7   these Kent filter cases.  If you want to ask

 

 8   questions about asbestos in the filter, let’s do

 

 9   that.  If you’re trying to ask about credibility in

 

10   general, cigarettes in general, no.  If you’re

 

11   trying to lay some foundation that you think you can

 

12   ask about the frank statement because it goes to

 

13   credibility, no.  We’re not going there.

 

14         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Okay.  Sir, can you

 

15   answer the question?

 

16         A.  I’m not going to.

 

17         Q.  You haven’t been instructed not to answer.

 

18   You’re just not going to — you’re just not going to

 

19   answer the question?

 

20         A.  I was instructed not to answer.

 

21         Q.  Sir, do you believe that Lorillard has a

 

22   reputation for honesty?  Because guess what?

 

23             MR. SHACKELFORD:  Objection, vague,

 

24   overbroad, lacks foundation.

 

25             MR. PANATIER:  Read your evidence rules.

 

 

                                                                   128

 1   That does come in.

 

 2         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Does Lorillard have a

 

 3   reputation for honesty, sir?

 

 4             MR. BERGER:  Objection, lack of

 

 5   foundation.

 

 6             THE WITNESS:  I’m not prepared to talk

 

 7   about that today.

 

 8         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Okay.  Do you have an

 

 9   opinion as to whether or not Lorillard has a

 

10   reputation for honesty?

 

11             MR. SHACKELFORD:  Objection, beyond the

 

12   scope.

 

13             MR. BERGER:  Yeah.  I’m objecting.  It’s

 

14   beyond the scope.  You’re asking him for his

 

15   personal opinion.

 

16             THE WITNESS:  Certainly since I’ve been

 

17   with them, I know that they are.

 

18         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Okay.  Since you’ve been

 

19   with them since 2007?

 

20         A.  That’s when I started, that’s correct.

 

21         Q.  You weren’t there in 1994?

 

22         A.  I was not.

 

23         Q.  Okay.  And you weren’t there in 1954 when

 

24   they issued what was called a frank statement to

 

25   cigarette smokers; correct?

 

 

                                                                   129

 1         A.  That would be truly amazing if I was.

 

 2         Q.  You weren’t?

 

 3         A.  I was not.

 

 4         Q.  Okay.  You can set that aside only because

 

 5   you’ve been instructed not to answer and have said

 

 6   you will not answer; correct?

 

 7         A.  I have said I will not answer.

 

 8         Q.  Lorillard knew that there was enough

 

 9   evidence to presume that tobacco smoke caused cancer

 

10   in cigarettes as of 1946; correct?

 

11             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, outside

 

12   the scope, instruct him not to answer.

 

13             (Exhibit Numbers 20 and 21 were marked for

 

14   identification.)

 

15             MR. PANATIER:  Okay.  So just to speed

 

16   this up a bit, Exhibit 20 refers to that issue.  I

 

17   assume — that’s the 1946 Parmele letter.  I assume

 

18   any questions you’ll instruct him not to answer?

 

19             MR. BERGER:  Yes.

 

20             MR. PANATIER:  Okay.  That’s Exhibit 20.

 

21         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Sir, I’m going to show

 

22   you Exhibit 21.  Sir, Exhibit 21 is an editorial in

 

23   the Journal of the American Medical Association from

 

24   April 3rd, 1954; correct?

 

25         A.  It appears to be that, yes.

 

 

                                                                   130

 1         Q.  All right.  And one of the things I think

 

 2   you’ve agreed you’re here to testify about is the

 

 3   science underlying statements made by Lorillard in

 

 4   its advertisements; correct?

 

 5         A.  Yes.

 

 6         Q.  Okay.  This is the same Journal of the

 

 7   American Medical Association that Dr. Fishbein

 

 8   published his editorial in in 1949; correct?

 

 9         A.  We believe it was from Fishbein, that’s

 

10   correct.

 

11         Q.  And it is also the same journal that we

 

12   have gone through with the jury three different

 

13   advertisements that Lorillard placed in that journal

 

14   at different times; correct?

 

15         A.  We have looked at three.

 

16         Q.  Okay.  This one from April of 1954 is

 

17   entitled, “Cigarette Hucksterism and the AMA.”  Do

 

18   you know what hucksterism means?

 

19         A.  A huckster is a person that or a group that

 

20   uses information or does things that are

 

21   inappropriate.

 

22         Q.  Okay.  What this article says in the AMA

 

23   Journal is the unauthorized and medically unethical

 

24   use of the prestige and reputation of the American

 

25   Medical Association and the Journal in Kent

 

 

                                                                   131

 1   cigarette advertisements currently appearing in

 

 2   mass — in the American press and other channels of

 

 3   mass communication constitutes an outrageous example

 

 4   of commercial exploitation of the American Medical

 

 5   profession.  First question, did I read that right?

 

 6         A.  Yes.

 

 7         Q.  Second, you’re aware that Kent was citing

 

 8   to its advertisements in the JAMA journal or the

 

 9   Journal of the American Medical Association in its

 

10   other ads; correct?

 

11         A.  I believe it had some of those based on the

 

12   data that were presented by the AMA in the chemical

 

13   laboratory document from 1953.

 

14         Q.  Okay.  The implication in these

 

15   advertisements that the American Medical Association

 

16   authorizes, supports or approves any particular

 

17   brand of cigarettes or combination of claims made in

 

18   their behalf, whether pygmy-size or king-size, with

 

19   or without filters, nicotinized or denicotinized,

 

20   provides a most reprehensible instance of

 

21   hucksterism.

 

22             The manner in which the P. Lorillard

 

23   Company has extolled its particular brand of

 

24   cigarettes by reference in its advertisements to the

 

25   American Medical Association and the journal is to

 

 

                                                                   132

 1   be strongly condemned.  Did I read that right?

 

 2         A.  That’s what it says.

 

 3         Q.  We could see just from that first paragraph

 

 4   the American Medical Association disapproves of how

 

 5   Kent has carried on its advertising with reference

 

 6   to the AMA; correct?

 

 7         A.  That’s what that says.

 

 8         Q.  On the basis of only one factor isolated

 

 9   from many, the P. Lorillard Company blatantly

 

10   implies that the efficiency of their brand of filter

 

11   tip solves the health problems associated with

 

12   cigarette smoking.  This approach to a vital problem

 

13   is ill-conceived and lacks factual medical support.

 

14   Now, they’re talking about the medical support for

 

15   Lorillard’s claims; correct?

 

16         A.  I’m not sure if they’re referring to the

 

17   medical support that Lorillard generated or the

 

18   medical support in the medical community.  I don’t

 

19   know what that exactly means.

 

20         Q.  Well, what they’re saying is that on the

 

21   basis of only one factor isolated from many, the P.

 

22   Lorillard Company blatantly implies that the

 

23   efficiency of their brand of filter tip solves the

 

24   health problems associated with cigarette smoking.

 

25   So they’re talking about a representation by

 

 

                                                                   133

 1   Lorillard; correct?

 

 2             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

 3             THE WITNESS:  They’re referring to the way

 

 4   P. Lorillard has placed the information.

 

 5         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Okay.  The inference

 

 6   that any type of filter has the approval of the

 

 7   American Medical Association is equally without

 

 8   foundation.  Until the clinical relationship between

 

 9   the amount of nicotine and tars and their effect on

 

10   the individual smoker is conclusively established,

 

11   no filter can offer a panacea except one that

 

12   possesses 100 percent efficiency.  And other than my

 

13   pronunciation of that one word, did I read that

 

14   right?

 

15         A.  You said it correctly actually.  Yes.  You

 

16   read it properly.

 

17         Q.  Okay.  The hard facts of the matter are

 

18   that a completely efficient filter would permit the

 

19   smoker to inhale nothing but hot air.  You agree

 

20   with that; right?

 

21         A.  We’ve seen that before, yes.

 

22         Q.  Okay.  Certainly there is no adequate

 

23   evidence to prove conclusively that reduction of

 

24   nicotine and tars by means of a filter that is

 

25   60 percent inefficient has any physiological

 

 

                                                                   134

 1   significance.  The amount of nicotine and tars that

 

 2   reach the smoker’s oral cavity is the one factor of

 

 3   fundamental importance.  And, sir, I’ll stop there.

 

 4   What they’re talking about is what’s important to

 

 5   look at isn’t just how much smoke is kept out of the

 

 6   body but what gets into the body; right?

 

 7             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

 8             THE WITNESS:  They are talking about what

 

 9   is inhaled there.

 

10         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Okay.  This cannot be

 

11   determined merely by establishing the efficiency of

 

12   a filter.  The presentation of one fact and the

 

13   exclusion of all other pertinent facts can result in

 

14   a serious misrepresentation of the true status of

 

15   health in relation to the smoking problem.  Smokers

 

16   who are misled are likely to obtain a false sense of

 

17   security without real protection.  Did I read that

 

18   right?

 

19         A.  That’s what the document says.

 

20         Q.  Now, I want to go back to the second

 

21   paragraph in the first column.  Do you remember

 

22   earlier where you said look, it’s the fingertip

 

23   study, hopefully doctors know that we’re just

 

24   talking about acute effects?  Do you remember that?

 

25         A.  I did say that, that’s correct.

 

 

                                                                   135

 1         Q.  Well, here’s what they say in that first

 

 2   paragraph.  On the basis of only one factor isolated

 

 3   from many, the P. Lorillard Company blatantly

 

 4   implies that the efficiency of their brand of filter

 

 5   tip solves the health problems associated with

 

 6   cigarette smoking.  Now, they do not call out and

 

 7   say the acute health problems of cigarette smoking.

 

 8   They simply say the health problems associated with

 

 9   cigarette smoking; correct?

 

10         A.  That’s what they say here, that’s correct.

 

11             MR. PANATIER:  All right.  Sir, you can

 

12   set that aside.  Sir, in –

 

13             MR. BERGER:  It’s been another hour.

 

14             MR. PANATIER:  Let’s do it, yeah.  Sure.

 

15             THE VIDEOGRAPHER:  One moment.  Off the

 

16   record, end of number two at 11:29 a.m.

 

17             (A recess was taken.)

 

18             THE VIDEOGRAPHER:  Starting of number

 

19   three, on the record at 11:40 a.m.

 

20             (Exhibit Number 22 was marked for

 

21   identification.)

 

22         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  All right, sir.  This

 

23   next one is going to be Exhibit 22.  Sir, you’re

 

24   aware that in March of 1955 a — just a civilian, a

 

25   nonemployee of Lorillard wrote a letter to Dr.

 

 

                                                                   136

 1   Parmele with some questions; right?

 

 2             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, assumes

 

 3   facts.

 

 4             THE WITNESS:  It’s Mr. Anacker writing on

 

 5   March 3rd of 1955.

 

 6         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Oh, and just to be

 

 7   clear, Mr. Anacker was responded to by Dr. Parmele

 

 8   on March 3rd?

 

 9         A.  That’s correct.  This is a letter to

 

10   Anacker.  I apologize.

 

11         Q.  Right, no.  That’s my fault.  So what we

 

12   know is Mr. Anacker asked Dr. Parmele some

 

13   questions.  Dr. Parmele wrote him back; correct?

 

14         A.  That’s what it appears to be.

 

15         Q.  The letter from Dr. Parmele says dear Mr.

 

16   Anacker, your interesting letter addressed to the P.

 

17   Lorillard Company has been referred to the writer’s

 

18   attention.  The writer is Dr. Parmele; right?

 

19         A.  That’s who’s responding to him, that’s

 

20   correct.

 

21         Q.  We will attempt to answer your questions as

 

22   clearly and concisely as possible in the following

 

23   manner, one, he had asked the brand name or names of

 

24   the filter tipped cigarettes manufactured by

 

25   Lorillard.  And Parmele answers Kent and Old Gold

 

 

                                                                   137

 1   filter kings; right?

 

 2         A.  That’s what it says.

 

 3         Q.  Mr. Anacker had also asked what is the

 

 4   filtering element composed of; correct?

 

 5         A.  He says that.

 

 6         Q.  Dr. Parmele writes back and says the

 

 7   filtering element of Kent cigarettes is composed of

 

 8   Micronite, which is a rather complex mixture, the

 

 9   exact nature of which we believe it is unethical for

 

10   us to disclose.  Did I read that right?

 

11         A.  That’s what it says.

 

12         Q.  So this person explicitly asks what’s in

 

13   the filter and Dr. Parmele says, well, we call it

 

14   Micronite but I can’t tell you exactly what it’s

 

15   made of; right?

 

16             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

17             THE WITNESS:  That’s what he says.  He

 

18   says he’s not disclosing the exact nature.

 

19         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  He certainly doesn’t say

 

20   it has asbestos in it; right?

 

21         A.  He does not say that.

 

22         Q.  And he says it’s a rather complex mixture,

 

23   but we know it was a mixture of asbestos, crepe

 

24   paper, cellulose and something else?

 

25         A.  Cotton.

 

 

                                                                   138

 1         Q.  And cotton; right?

 

 2         A.  Yes.  It’s a four-component, seven-layer

 

 3   filter, which could be considered complex.

 

 4         Q.  Okay, right.  Either way, he doesn’t give

 

 5   any of the ingredients in Micronite; right?

 

 6             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

 7             THE WITNESS:  They’re not listed here.

 

 8         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  And he tells this guy we

 

 9   believe it would be unethical for us to disclose it;

 

10   right?

 

11         A.  That’s what it says.

 

12         Q.  What’s unethical about telling someone

 

13   what’s in your filter?

 

14         A.  I don’t know what Parmele’s frame of mind

 

15   was in this.

 

16         Q.  Because were the ingredients in the patent

 

17   for Micronite?

 

18         A.  The crocidolite was in the patent –

 

19         Q.  Right.

 

20         A.  – and the other constructs were in the

 

21   patent.

 

22         Q.  Right.  So it wasn’t unethical for

 

23   Lorillard to have a patent out there that said what

 

24   the ingredients were; right?

 

25         A.  The patent was out there, so I suppose not.

 

 

                                                                   139

 1         Q.  But when this guy, John Anacker, whoever

 

 2   that is, writes, he says it’s unethical for us to

 

 3   tell you what’s in it; right?

 

 4         A.  That’s what Parmele says.

 

 5             MR. PANATIER:  All right.  You can set

 

 6   that aside.  The next will be Exhibit 23.

 

 7             (Exhibit Number 23 was marked for

 

 8   identification.)

 

 9             MR. BERGER:  A heads up.  We’ll be careful

 

10   on the scope on this depending on how you ask the

 

11   question.

 

12         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Sir, Exhibit 23 is a

 

13   letter dated October 13th, 1955 from the Federal

 

14   Trade Commission to the president of Lorillard;

 

15   correct?

 

16         A.  It’s on Federal Trade Commission typed

 

17   letterhead and it is to William J. Halley.

 

18         Q.  Okay.  And William J. Halley at that time

 

19   was the president of Lorillard; correct?

 

20         A.  That’s what it says.

 

21         Q.  All right.  If you will skip down to the

 

22   third paragraph, it says in our industry conferences

 

23   commission representatives have explained their view

 

24   that considerable filter advertising is directed to

 

25   the smokers who want and expect to gain some

 

 

                                                                   140

 1   physical benefits by using filter cigarettes in the

 

 2   place of nonfilter cigarettes.  Now, do you — do

 

 3   you agree that generally speaking the folks who were

 

 4   choosing filtered cigarettes were seeking some

 

 5   health benefit above what an unfiltered cigarette

 

 6   would present?

 

 7             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, lack of

 

 8   foundation, move to strike the preamble.  Dr.

 

 9   Reinert, have you ever seen that before?  Do you

 

10   need time to read it?

 

11             THE WITNESS:  I was just — I was just

 

12   going to say I’ve never seen this letter before.

 

13   That was what I was saying first and I’m going to

 

14   look at it.

 

15             MR. PANATIER:  Take your time.

 

16             THE WITNESS:  I don’t typically talk about

 

17   FTC issues.  Okay.

 

18             MR. PANATIER:  Okay.

 

19             THE WITNESS:  And I have not seen this

 

20   before.

 

21         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  All right.  Well, you’ve

 

22   seen it now, so here’s the question.  Going back to

 

23   what I asked before, do you agree generally speaking

 

24   folks who chose a filter cigarette were trying to be

 

25   a little bit more health conscious than the folks

 

 

                                                                   141

 1   who smoked unfiltered?

 

 2             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, lack of

 

 3   foundation, calls for speculation.

 

 4             THE WITNESS:  I don’t really know why they

 

 5   would choose them.

 

 6         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Just as you’re sitting

 

 7   here as a doctor, went to college, you don’t know

 

 8   why someone may choose a filtered cigarette over an

 

 9   unfiltered cigarette?

 

10             MR. BERGER:  Same objection.

 

11             THE WITNESS:  There’s a lot — probably a

 

12   lot of reasons as to why they might do it.  I’m not

 

13   — it’s not my information that I reviewed in the

 

14   company’s literature.

 

15         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  So as the company, I’m

 

16   asking Lorillard.  You know you’re Lorillard today;

 

17   right?

 

18         A.  I am, that’s correct.

 

19         Q.  And I’m asking if Lorillard has an opinion

 

20   as to why its own customers would choose a filtered

 

21   cigarette over an unfiltered cigarette generally

 

22   speaking insofar as Lorillard manufactured filtered

 

23   and unfiltered cigarettes?

 

24             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, outside

 

25   the scope, instruct him not to answer.

 

 

                                                                   142

 1         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  The next sentence is in

 

 2   our opinion the amount of nicotines, tars and other

 

 3   substances left in the smoke after the filtration

 

 4   process is the important factor in the mind of the

 

 5   smoker.  It seems to us that the claim that the

 

 6   Micronite filter cleans your smoke implies a

 

 7   complete removal of substances in the smoke that may

 

 8   be harmful or have an adverse effect upon the

 

 9   smoker.

 

10             So my question is did the Micronite filter

 

11   remove all of the substances in the smoke that

 

12   Lorillard believed would be harmful or have an

 

13   adverse effect upon the smoker?

 

14             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

15             THE WITNESS:  Well, we know that it

 

16   didn’t.  It was only 60 percent effective at the

 

17   beginning and close to 40 percent at the end.

 

18         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Okay.  This same

 

19   impression might well be obtained from the phrase

 

20   the Micronite filter removes every trace of

 

21   harshness.  These claims would then be governed by

 

22   guide one.  Did I read that right?

 

23         A.  That’s what that says.

 

24         Q.  Turn the page.  According to scientific

 

25   test results in our files as recent as two weeks

 

 

                                                                   143

 1   ago, the smoke of Kent cigarettes does not contain

 

 2   significantly less nicotine or tar than the smoke

 

 3   from other filter tipped cigarettes and insofar as

 

 4   the claim cleans the smoke is concerned contains

 

 5   substantial quantities of both nicotine and tar.

 

 6             So I’m going to stop there and ask you

 

 7   based on the report we saw from early 19 — or

 

 8   August 1954, I believe, you know that what they’re

 

 9   saying here in October of 1955 is accurate?  In

 

10   other words, there were other cigarettes that were

 

11   better at getting out the tar and nicotine than the

 

12   Kent with the Micronite filter; correct?

 

13             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, lack of

 

14   foundation.

 

15             THE WITNESS:  I haven’t seen the report

 

16   that they’re referring to, but we do know based –

 

17   as you noted based earlier that some cigarettes were

 

18   doing a better job.

 

19         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Okay.  The same test

 

20   results indicate that the smoke from Kent cigarettes

 

21   does not contain significantly less nicotine and

 

22   other popular brand — than another popular brand of

 

23   nonfilter cigarette and contains more tar in the

 

24   smoke as compared to the smoke of the same nonfilter

 

25   popular brand cigarette.

 

 

                                                                   144

 1             So they’re saying two things there.  First,

 

 2   they’re saying that the test results indicate that

 

 3   the smoke from Kent cigarettes does not contain

 

 4   significantly less nicotine than another popular

 

 5   brand of nonfiltered cigarette.  I’m going to stop

 

 6   there and ask you a question.  Typically people when

 

 7   they smoked an unfiltered cigarette would not smoke

 

 8   the entire cigarette; right?

 

 9             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, calls for

 

10   speculation.

 

11             THE WITNESS:  Certainly you had to have

 

12   something to have in your mouth so you couldn’t

 

13   smoke it down and burn your lips.

 

14         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Right.  You had to have

 

15   something to hold onto or put in your mouth;

 

16   correct?

 

17         A.  That’s correct.

 

18         Q.  And so for a person smoking an unfiltered

 

19   cigarette, they wouldn’t smoke all of the tobacco in

 

20   the cigarette.  You simply couldn’t do it?

 

21         A.  And you normally wouldn’t do that with a

 

22   filtered cigarette either because you’d burn the

 

23   filter.

 

24         Q.  So I’m going to object to nonresponsive.

 

25   The question I asked is with an unfiltered cigarette

 

 

                                                                   145

 1   you can’t smoke all of the tobacco; correct?

 

 2             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, calls for

 

 3   speculation.

 

 4             THE WITNESS:  You can’t unless you put it

 

 5   in a pipe or something.

 

 6         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Okay.  With a filtered

 

 7   cigarette typically you don’t want to smoke all of

 

 8   the tobacco because you could burn the filter, but

 

 9   you can smoke considerably more of the tobacco in a

 

10   filtered cigarette than you can in an unfiltered

 

11   cigarette; correct?

 

12             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, lack of

 

13   foundation, calls for speculation.

 

14             THE WITNESS:  I haven’t done the studies

 

15   nor the measurements and, again, I haven’t seen the

 

16   data from this document.

 

17         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  That wasn’t my question.

 

18   My question is you can smoke more tobacco in a

 

19   filtered cigarette than you can in a tar cigarette

 

20   based on the fact that you can hold a filtered

 

21   cigarette by the filter; right?

 

22             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, lack of

 

23   foundation, calls for speculation.

 

24             THE WITNESS:  If you had a short straight,

 

25   you could smoke — I mean, a long straight, you

 

 

                                                                   146

 1   could smoke more tobacco in a long straight than you

 

 2   could in a 70-millimeter filtered cigarette.  So it

 

 3   depends on the situation.  It depends on what you’re

 

 4   comparing.  It’s apples and oranges.

 

 5         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Well, sir, you’ve made

 

 6   it apples and oranges.  I’ll try to make — ask a

 

 7   better question.  If you have cigarettes that are

 

 8   equal — if you have cigarettes that are equal in

 

 9   terms of the length of the tobacco cylinder and the

 

10   width and one has a filter and one doesn’t,

 

11   generally speaking you can smoke more of the tobacco

 

12   in a filtered cigarette than in the unfiltered;

 

13   correct?

 

14             MR. BERGER:  That’s a better question, but

 

15   I’m still going to object.  It calls for

 

16   speculation.

 

17             THE WITNESS:  Probably.

 

18             MR. PANATIER:  Okay.

 

19             THE WITNESS:  But I haven’t done the

 

20   studies and I’m not smoking them or somebody I have

 

21   followed isn’t smoking them, so I don’t know how far

 

22   down they would smoke it, but it’s probably correct.

 

23             MR. PANATIER:  All right.  You can set

 

24   that aside, sir.  Next I will show you Exhibit 24.

 

25             (Exhibit Number 24 was marked for

 

 

                                                                   147

 1   identification.)

 

 2         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Sir, this is a

 

 3   February 2nd, 1954 letter.  It’s on P. Lorillard

 

 4   Company letterhead.  It’s from Dr. Parmele; correct?

 

 5         A.  Yes.  It’s from Parmele to Halley.

 

 6         Q.  Right.  So this is from Parmele, the

 

 7   research director, to the president of Lorillard;

 

 8   right?

 

 9         A.  Yes.

 

10         Q.  And he says in the first paragraph in

 

11   answer to your request we have finally put our house

 

12   in order so to speak by preparing a summation of our

 

13   various outside research projects for the year of

 

14   1954.  A total amount of $120,000 was budgeted for

 

15   this purpose.  This can be broken down as follows.

 

16             And then what Dr. Parmele does is he lists

 

17   various different outside researchers who have done

 

18   work for Lorillard and how much they get paid;

 

19   right?

 

20         A.  It says what the budget is for these

 

21   various outside researchers, that’s correct.

 

22         Q.  There’s also a brief description of the

 

23   work that each researcher did; correct?

 

24         A.  That they’re supposed to.  This is early

 

25   ’54.  This is for the ’54 budget, so it’s the work

 

 

                                                                   148

 1   they’re supposed to be doing –

 

 2         Q.  Sure.

 

 3         A.  – in the year.

 

 4         Q.  Sure.  So to be clear, this is the work

 

 5   that Lorillard has set up for these researchers to

 

 6   do and they’re — he’s asking for the president to

 

 7   approve the budget for the work; right?

 

 8         A.  It’s a summation of the budget.  I don’t

 

 9   know if he says whether he’s asking for an approval

 

10   or not.

 

11         Q.  That’s fair.  He’s just giving a summation

 

12   of the budget?

 

13         A.  That’s what it says.

 

14         Q.  Section one is the Armour Research

 

15   Foundation; right?

 

16         A.  It does say that.

 

17         Q.  Fifteen thousand dollars; correct?

 

18         A.  Yes.

 

19         Q.  Number two is John A. Killian and it says

 

20   that he’s doing quarterly tests on the comparative

 

21   filtering efficiency of competitive filter tipped

 

22   brands; right?

 

23         A.  Yes, and we saw that earlier.

 

24         Q.  He’s paying him $25,000; right?

 

25         A.  That’s correct.

 

 

                                                                   149

 1         Q.  And here’s a reference to Dr. Fishbein and

 

 2   it says that they’re paying Dr. Fishbein 50,000;

 

 3   right?

 

 4         A.  Yes, uh-huh.

 

 5         Q.  And then they enumerate it looks like four

 

 6   different subparts of things he’s doing and he

 

 7   breaks down the money; right?

 

 8         A.  Yes.  An acute one is listed here as

 

 9   number — as letter B, the stomach work.

 

10         Q.  Sure.  Then it goes to things listed under

 

11   nonbudgeted projects are listed as follows:  Miss

 

12   Althea Revere, and it says this covers work for 12

 

13   months beginning February 1st, 1954, $2,083.33 to be

 

14   paid monthly, microscopical, botanical and

 

15   microchemical studies of tobacco and smoke; right?

 

16         A.  That’s what it says.

 

17         Q.  Dr. David M. Kendall, it says no contract

 

18   with Dr. Kendall seems necessary at this time since

 

19   the work is on a month-to-month basis and of a trial

 

20   run nature to see if he and his spectrophotometer

 

21   can help us in our work.  At present he is

 

22   attempting to prove the absence of harmful fibers in

 

23   Kent smoke.  Did I read that right?

 

24         A.  That’s what it says.

 

25         Q.  The harmful fibers he’s talking about are

 

 

                                                                   150

 1   asbestos?

 

 2         A.  And you see in the report that that’s

 

 3   exactly what he was looking for.

 

 4         Q.  Right.  As of February 12th, 1954 it is Dr.

 

 5   Parmele who is saying that the asbestos fibers in

 

 6   Kent smoke, they are harmful; correct?

 

 7             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

 8             THE WITNESS:  He’s calling for the work to

 

 9   be showing that there are no harmful fibers in the

 

10   Kent smoke.

 

11         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  He says he’s attempting

 

12   to prove the absence of harmful fibers in the smoke;

 

13   right?

 

14         A.  Yes.

 

15         Q.  And he is saying that the fibers are

 

16   harmful; right?

 

17             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

18             THE WITNESS:  That’s what it says here.

 

19             MR. PANATIER:  Okay.  Dr. –

 

20             THE WITNESS:  His terms.

 

21         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Dr. Parmele knew that

 

22   the asbestos fibers were harmful; correct?

 

23             MR. BERGER:  Objection.

 

24         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Because he wrote it?

 

25             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, calls for

 

 

                                                                   151

 1   speculation.

 

 2             THE WITNESS:  He wrote it.  Those are his

 

 3   words.

 

 4         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Okay.  And, therefore,

 

 5   he knew because he wrote it that the asbestos fibers

 

 6   in Kent cigarettes were harmful; correct?

 

 7             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, calls for

 

 8   speculation.

 

 9             THE WITNESS:  I think you’re making a leap

 

10   here from he may have been calling the asbestos

 

11   fibers as a harmful substance, but it does not imply

 

12   that what was in the Kent smoke was harmful.

 

13             MR. PANATIER:  I’m going to object to

 

14   nonresponsive.

 

15         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Based on what Dr.

 

16   Parmele wrote, he believed the asbestos fibers in

 

17   Kent smoke were harmful; correct?

 

18             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, calls for

 

19   speculation.

 

20             THE WITNESS:  That, I don’t — I don’t

 

21   agree with you.

 

22         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  He believed the asbestos

 

23   fibers as present in — well, I’ll make it very

 

24   simple.  Based on what he wrote, Dr. Parmele

 

25   believed asbestos fibers were harmful?

 

 

                                                                   152

 1             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, lack of

 

 2   foundation, calls for speculation.

 

 3             THE WITNESS:  It says harmful fibers in

 

 4   his words.

 

 5         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Number three says Dr.

 

 6   E. F. Fullam.  We mentioned him earlier; right?

 

 7         A.  Yes.

 

 8         Q.  A hundred dollars per day.  Dr. Fullam with

 

 9   his electron microscope has been employed to do one

 

10   specific job for us, namely, confirm the absence of

 

11   any harmful fibers in Kent smoke.  So, again, Dr.

 

12   Parmele refers to the asbestos fibers as harmful;

 

13   right?

 

14         A.  That’s what he says and he’s confirming the

 

15   absence there.

 

16         Q.  Right.  They’ve hired him to try to confirm

 

17   that there is no asbestos fiber in the smoke;

 

18   correct?

 

19         A.  That’s what it says.

 

20         Q.  Okay.  And they’re paying him a hundred

 

21   dollars a day to do it?

 

22         A.  That’s what it says.

 

23         Q.  All right.  They’re paying Dr. Kendall $550

 

24   per month to try to prove the absence of harmful

 

25   fibers in Kent smoke; right?

 

 

                                                                   153

 1         A.  By an alternative method, that’s correct.

 

 2         Q.  Okay.  We can set that aside.  So this was

 

 3   February 12th, 1954.  Did Lorillard at any point

 

 4   after this date say in any of its advertisements in

 

 5   magazines or newspapers or TV or on any of its

 

 6   packaging that this product contains harmful fibers?

 

 7             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

 8             THE WITNESS:  No.  They did not.

 

 9         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  They could have if they

 

10   wanted; right?

 

11             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

12             THE WITNESS:  There was no release at that

 

13   point in time.

 

14         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  They could have stated

 

15   this product that you’re about to smoke contains

 

16   harmful asbestos fibers; right?

 

17             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, lack of

 

18   foundation, calls for speculation.

 

19             THE WITNESS:  They could have, but based

 

20   on the assessment of no release, only traces, in

 

21   fact, there weren’t even traces at this point.  It

 

22   was no release.

 

23             MR. PANATIER:  I’m going to object to

 

24   nonresponsive.

 

25         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Nothing prevented

 

 

                                                                   154

 1   Lorillard from putting a warning about asbestos on

 

 2   its — on its packages; correct?

 

 3             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

 4             THE WITNESS:  Other than the information

 

 5   they’ve generated, no.  Nothing prevented them.

 

 6         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Do you know how much it

 

 7   would have cost for them to put a warning label on

 

 8   their packages or their cartons of cigarettes?

 

 9         A.  No idea.

 

10         Q.  Probably pennies or less; right?

 

11             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

12             THE WITNESS:  I have no idea.

 

13         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Well, a pack cost 33

 

14   cents; right?

 

15         A.  Thirty-one.

 

16         Q.  Thirty-one.  So you’re getting a pack of

 

17   cigarettes, which has 20 cigarettes in it.  You’re

 

18   getting the box.  You’re getting the cellophane.

 

19   You’re getting all the fancy printing.  That cost 33

 

20   cents.  So you’re the company.  I want to know does

 

21   the company agree that it would have been pennies or

 

22   less to put some sort of warning or admonition that

 

23   the product contained asbestos in it?

 

24             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, lack of

 

25   foundation, calls for speculation.

 

 

                                                                   155

 1             THE WITNESS:  It would be speculation and

 

 2   I have no idea how much it would cost.

 

 3             MR. PANATIER:  Okay.  I’ll show you

 

 4   Exhibit 25.

 

 5             (Exhibit Number 25 was marked for

 

 6   identification.)

 

 7         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Sir, this is a letter

 

 8   from Dr. Parmele to the supervisor of the fine

 

 9   particles section at Armour Research Foundation;

 

10   correct?

 

11         A.  Yes, uh-huh, yes, sir.

 

12         Q.  This is four days after the budget document

 

13   we saw, which was dated February 12th, 1954; true?

 

14         A.  Yes.  It’s four days.

 

15         Q.  What Dr. Parmele says to Mr. Fisher is

 

16   earlier work done here in our laboratory has

 

17   indicated that smoke from an ordinary cigarette

 

18   contains traces of what might be termed foreign

 

19   particles such as mold spores, grains of silt and

 

20   the like.

 

21             Therefore, in the course of your regular

 

22   work on our project we wonder if Mr. Langer would

 

23   make casual observations for the presence of such

 

24   foreign material when viewing normal smoke particles

 

25   under the microscope.  We would particularly be

 

 

                                                                   156

 1   interested in knowing whether the foreign material

 

 2   is any different in Kent smoke than in Old Gold

 

 3   smoke.  I’m going to stop there and just say does he

 

 4   ask them to look for asbestos there?

 

 5         A.  No, because part of the contract was to

 

 6   look at the number and size of particulates

 

 7   generated by Old Gold versus Kent.

 

 8         Q.  Right.

 

 9         A.  So he’s asking him to do those sorts of

 

10   things.

 

11         Q.  Right.  And one of the things he says is I

 

12   want you to tell us whether the foreign material is

 

13   any different in Kent smoke than in Old Gold; right?

 

14         A.  That was the focus of most of Armour’s

 

15   work, that’s correct.

 

16         Q.  Right.  He doesn’t say you might want to be

 

17   on the lookout for asbestos in the Kent smoke; does

 

18   he?

 

19         A.  No, but it would certainly show up

 

20   differently if it was coming out.

 

21         Q.  We believe that the Kent smoke will be

 

22   cleaner than the Old Gold smoke and we further

 

23   believe that there will be no evidence of particles

 

24   of the Micronite filter in the Kent smoke.  Although

 

25   all of this would be interesting to know about, it

 

 

                                                                   157

 1   is, of course, not important enough to go into in a

 

 2   large way.  What does he mean by that?

 

 3             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

 4             THE WITNESS:  Well, I wasn’t there, but

 

 5   looking at what it was — what it was saying was

 

 6   their focus and their early reports talked about the

 

 7   size and number of particulates between Old Gold and

 

 8   Kent and that still appears to remain the focus.

 

 9         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Okay.  He doesn’t say

 

10   look for asbestos; true?

 

11         A.  We’ve established that.  That’s correct.

 

12             MR. PANATIER:  Okay.  You can set that

 

13   aside.  This next one will be Exhibit 26.

 

14             (Exhibit Number 26 was marked for

 

15   identification.)

 

16         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Now, Armour Research

 

17   Foundation, who we’ve seen in that previous letter,

 

18   they conducted general studies on the smoke from

 

19   Kent cigarettes; correct?

 

20         A.  And Old Golds.

 

21         Q.  Right.  You know that the Armour Research

 

22   Foundation found asbestos fibers from the Kent

 

23   filter after drawing through 1500 cc’s of air;

 

24   correct?

 

25         A.  In an unlit cigarette, that is correct.

 

 

                                                                   158

 1         Q.  Right.  So they did a couple of things.

 

 2   First, they drew air through an unlit cigarette and

 

 3   found about 20 or so fibers; correct?

 

 4         A.  Yes.  It’s about seven times the amount

 

 5   that one would normally draw through a cigarette

 

 6   unlit, though.

 

 7         Q.  So I’m going to object to nonresponsive and

 

 8   ask you Armour drew air through an unlit cigarette,

 

 9   about 1500 cc’s, and they found 20 or so asbestos

 

10   fibers; right?

 

11         A.  That’s correct.

 

12         Q.  And they were using a contraption with a

 

13   moving filter; correct?

 

14         A.  No.

 

15             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

16             THE WITNESS:  That’s incorrect.

 

17         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  What were they using

 

18   there?

 

19         A.  It was a moving slide impinger coated with

 

20   silicon grease.

 

21         Q.  Okay.  And so the moving slide that was

 

22   coated in grease, whatever was pulled through the

 

23   cigarette had to hit that target in order to be

 

24   counted; correct?

 

25         A.  Yes.

 

 

                                                                   159

 1         Q.  Okay.  It says in one case a large bundle

 

 2   of undispersed fibers was found as shown in figure

 

 3   four and I’m going to show you this document in a

 

 4   minute or I may not even have to.  When one

 

 5   centimeter of a Kent was smoked and then

 

 6   extinguished, no fibers could be collected.  When a

 

 7   cigarette was smoked just enough to light it, three

 

 8   fibers were deposited in a filtration test.

 

 9             How efficiently the jet collected the

 

10   fibers is not known, but an adhesive coating on the

 

11   slide did not make any noticeable difference.  So

 

12   let me ask you some questions about that.  First,

 

13   did Armour Research Foundation analyze the total

 

14   amount of asbestos, count the total amount of

 

15   asbestos from smoking an entire Kent cigarette?

 

16         A.  Apparently from that, they had not.  There

 

17   are additional studies that are listed in report 11

 

18   and so on — I mean, 12 and so on.

 

19         Q.  You’re not aware that Armour Research

 

20   Foundation ever smoked an entire cigarette and

 

21   counted all of the asbestos fibers in an entire

 

22   cigarette’s worth of smoke?

 

23         A.  Some of their work was, in fact, to look at

 

24   smoking of Kent and smoking of Old Gold cigarettes.

 

25   And in order to do that, they would have had to

 

 

                                                                   160

 1   smoke the cigarette.

 

 2         Q.  That’s not my question.  Beyond this one

 

 3   report that I’m talking to you about where they

 

 4   found three fibers when the cigarette was just lit,

 

 5   did they ever set out to count the number of

 

 6   asbestos fibers after smoking an entire Kent

 

 7   cigarette?

 

 8             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, lack of

 

 9   foundation.

 

10             THE WITNESS:  I don’t know that I’ve

 

11   specifically seen that written, but they — as I

 

12   said previously, they did smoke the cigarettes to

 

13   look at the total particulate load and of which they

 

14   would have looked for any particulates, of which

 

15   asbestos would be considered in there.

 

16         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Are you aware of any

 

17   report where they said we looked for asbestos beyond

 

18   this one where they said we noted we saw some

 

19   asbestos?

 

20         A.  They have some figures — pictures,

 

21   actually, in I think report 12.

 

22         Q.  And do they say we set out to quantify and

 

23   actually count the fibers in one full cigarette’s

 

24   worth of smoke?

 

25             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.  Let us

 

 

                                                                   161

 1   know if you need to see the document.

 

 2             THE WITNESS:  Well, I’d have to look at

 

 3   more of the Armour documents in order to actually

 

 4   verify that.  So I don’t — I don’t know if I’ve

 

 5   seen that, but their work was to look at the total

 

 6   particulate load from cigarettes, Old Gold and Kent.

 

 7   And in the Kent they would have been looking for any

 

 8   particulates and did a comparison based on that.

 

 9             And the majority of their work is

 

10   certainly in that format, but whether they say they

 

11   smoked a whole cigarette to look for asbestos

 

12   fibers, I don’t believe I’ve seen that stated.

 

13             MR. PANATIER:  I’m going to object to

 

14   nonresponsive.

 

15         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  I’m just going to focus

 

16   on the last part.  The question is did Armour ever

 

17   state in any of their reports that we actually set

 

18   out to quantify the amount of asbestos fibers in

 

19   smoke from an entire smoked Kent cigarette to your

 

20   knowledge?

 

21             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, lack of

 

22   foundation.

 

23             THE WITNESS:  I don’t believe I’ve seen

 

24   it, but I’d have to look at the reports, pre-report

 

25   11 and post-report 11, to see if that’s said or not.

 

 

                                                                   162

 1         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  They also say how

 

 2   efficiently the jet collects the fibers is not

 

 3   known; right?

 

 4         A.  That’s what it says in report 11, but they

 

 5   did calibrate that system in another report.

 

 6         Q.  Okay.  So you have said throughout this

 

 7   deposition consistently, you said that Kent

 

 8   cigarettes only release between traces and three

 

 9   fibers; right?

 

10         A.  That’s correct.  Well, zero to traces to

 

11   three fibers.

 

12         Q.  And you have said that in court to juries

 

13   before.  You said based on the studies done in the

 

14   ’50s it’s my opinion that Kent with Micronite

 

15   asbestos filters only released between zero and

 

16   three fibers; right?

 

17             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

18             THE WITNESS:  That’s not only my opinion,

 

19   but it’s based on the information that we have at

 

20   hand.

 

21         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Well, the three fibers

 

22   is based on lighting the cigarette only; right?

 

23         A.  But then you smoke the cigarette one

 

24   centimeter and there’s nothing released.

 

25         Q.  Did they smoke it more than one centimeter?

 

 

                                                                   163

 1         A.  I don’t know.

 

 2         Q.  Okay.  And then they even say they don’t

 

 3   know for that study that you’ve relied upon, they

 

 4   don’t know how efficiently the jet collects the

 

 5   fibers; correct?

 

 6         A.  And — yes, that’s correct.  And as I said,

 

 7   they did calibrate that system using various methods

 

 8   in either the previous or the post studies.

 

 9         Q.  This is report number 11 you know I’m

 

10   referring to?

 

11         A.  I know which one you’re referring to.

 

12         Q.  And you rely upon it; don’t you?

 

13         A.  It’s the only one that has actual

 

14   quantifiable numbers in it.

 

15         Q.  Right.  And you rely upon it even though

 

16   the researchers themselves, we don’t — say we don’t

 

17   know how efficiently the fibers were collected;

 

18   correct?

 

19             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

20             THE WITNESS:  It says that.

 

21             MR. PANATIER:  I’m just going to mark that

 

22   as 26.

 

23             MR. BERGER:  I think you already have.

 

24             MR. PANATIER:  Oh, did I?  Oh, I had

 

25   already marked it.  Okay.

 

 

                                                                   164

 1             MR. BERGER:  Uh-huh.

 

 2         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  By the way, what type of

 

 3   microscopy was Armour using in report 11?

 

 4         A.  Dark field.

 

 5         Q.  What does that mean?

 

 6         A.  You have a light that comes in at a certain

 

 7   angle and it reflects, refracts the light in a

 

 8   certain way so that you can see items that aren’t

 

 9   normally observable under a regular optical

 

10   microscope.

 

11         Q.  It’s not an electron microscope?

 

12         A.  No.  It is not.

 

13             MR. PANATIER:  Exhibit 27 is next.

 

14             MR. BERGER:  I think you already marked

 

15   this as Exhibit 25 unless I’m mistaken.

 

16             MR. PANATIER:  I’m sorry.  Let’s see.  It

 

17   may just be — yeah.  It is.  I’m sorry.  Just

 

18   another copy.

 

19             MR. BERGER:  All right.

 

20             MR. PANATIER:  Something else will be

 

21   Exhibit 27.

 

22             MR. BERGER:  Mr. Jones maybe.

 

23             (Exhibit Number 27 was marked for

 

24   identification.)

 

25             MR. PANATIER:  Here you go.

 

 

                                                                   165

 1             MR. BERGER:  Okay.

 

 2         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Sir, you’ve seen

 

 3   Exhibit 27 before; right?

 

 4         A.  Yes.

 

 5         Q.  That is a letter from Dr. Parmele to Althea

 

 6   Revere?

 

 7         A.  That’s correct.

 

 8         Q.  Althea Revere was a lady that had an

 

 9   electron microscope; right?

 

10         A.  Yes.  She did.

 

11         Q.  I’m sorry.  That’s dated January 28th,

 

12   1954, so that’s actually several months before the

 

13   Armour report, report 11; right?

 

14         A.  Yes.  And it’s a month before, so from the

 

15   — where she was noted as being off budget.

 

16         Q.  Okay.  Right.  So this is before the letter

 

17   that Dr. Parmele sent to the president of the

 

18   company?

 

19         A.  That’s correct, about a month or so.  Maybe

 

20   even less than that.  I don’t remember the exact

 

21   date of the February letter.

 

22         Q.  This lays out basically the scope of the

 

23   retainer between Lorillard and Miss Revere; right?

 

24         A.  Yes.  And it’s consistent with that one we

 

25   saw earlier.

 

 

                                                                   166

 1         Q.  Okay.  If you’ll turn the page, the second

 

 2   highlight, that just basically says you’re expected

 

 3   to provide monthly reports; right?

 

 4             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

 5             THE WITNESS:  It says that.

 

 6         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  And Lorillard is not in

 

 7   possession of any of Miss Revere’s monthly reports;

 

 8   correct?

 

 9         A.  I haven’t seen any.

 

10         Q.  Lorillard did retain Miss Revere again in

 

11   about 1957 or 1958 to do some additional analysis;

 

12   correct?

 

13         A.  I don’t — I’m not sure I know about that.

 

14   It’s certainly outside the time frame.

 

15         Q.  Okay.  Lorillard doesn’t have any of her

 

16   reports from this work; right?

 

17             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

18             THE WITNESS:  I haven’t seen any and I’ve

 

19   asked.  They don’t exist.

 

20         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  They don’t exist.  Okay.

 

21   We do have references to her work that are discussed

 

22   by, for instance, Dr. Parmele; correct?

 

23         A.  Yes.  There are several cover letters about

 

24   that.

 

25         Q.  Do you know where the reports went or

 

 

                                                                   167

 1   whether they were destroyed?

 

 2             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

 3             THE WITNESS:  I have no idea.

 

 4         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Okay.  There clearly was

 

 5   no policy to destroy documents from this era since

 

 6   Lorillard has produced so many of them; correct?

 

 7             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, lack of

 

 8   foundation, calls for speculation.

 

 9             THE WITNESS:  Records were kept for

 

10   business reasons.  I don’t know any more than that,

 

11   this time frame.

 

12             MR. PANATIER:  Okay.  We can set that one

 

13   aside.

 

14             (Exhibit Number 28 was marked for

 

15   identification.)

 

16         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  This is three months

 

17   later.  This is April 26th, 1954.  Just review that

 

18   document for us.  Have you seen that before?

 

19         A.  Yes.  I have.

 

20         Q.  Can you hand that back real fast?  I can

 

21   make it a little quicker.  This is from April 26th,

 

22   1954; true?

 

23         A.  Yes.

 

24         Q.  And this is from Parmele to the president

 

25   of Lorillard again, and what he says is — and I’ll

 

 

                                                                   168

 1   give it back to you or, actually, here.  I’ve got my

 

 2   own copy.  How convenient is that?  What Dr. Parmele

 

 3   says to Mr. Halley is as you know, Dr. Fullam of

 

 4   Schenectady, New York recently examined Kent smoke

 

 5   and confirmed Miss Revere’s earlier observations,

 

 6   namely, that such smoke contained traces of mineral

 

 7   fiber.

 

 8             We are embarked upon a program of

 

 9   attempting to work out a method for the elimination

 

10   of the presence of such fibers in smoke.  Did I read

 

11   that right?

 

12         A.  That’s what it says.

 

13         Q.  Okay.  What we learned from this is two

 

14   things.  One, Ms. Revere has found asbestos in

 

15   smoke; correct?

 

16             MR. BERGER:  Objection to the form,

 

17   assumes facts, lack of foundation.

 

18             THE WITNESS:  It says that her earlier

 

19   observation contained traces of mineral fiber.

 

20         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Right.  And the word

 

21   traces, of course, is Mr. Parmele’s.  We don’t know

 

22   what Ms. Revere said?

 

23             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

24             THE WITNESS:  Traces was actually Mr.

 

25   Fullam’s and I believe Parmele uses it.  What Revere

 

 

                                                                   169

 1   used, I don’t know.

 

 2         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Okay.  Mr. Parmele

 

 3   clearly saw Ms. Revere’s results which showed

 

 4   mineral fiber, dash, asbestos fiber; correct?

 

 5             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, lack of

 

 6   foundation.

 

 7             THE WITNESS:  They were used

 

 8   interchangeably in the ’50s.

 

 9         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Okay.  Clearly Dr.

 

10   Parmele has seen Ms. Revere’s report which showed

 

11   asbestos in the smoke; true?

 

12             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, lack of

 

13   foundation.

 

14             THE WITNESS:  He’s talking about the

 

15   results.  It could have been a phone call because

 

16   the actual contract says either a phone conversation

 

17   or a report.  So it may have been a report, may have

 

18   been a call.  I don’t know.

 

19         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Right, but back to the

 

20   point.  He learned from Ms. Revere that there was

 

21   asbestos in the smoke from the Kent cigarettes?

 

22             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

23             THE WITNESS:  It seems like that’s the

 

24   case.

 

25         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  And he also is saying

 

 

                                                                   170

 1   that Dr. Fullam has also found asbestos in the smoke

 

 2   from the Kent cigarettes; true?

 

 3         A.  At this point in time that’s what it says.

 

 4         Q.  Okay.  And it says we are embarked upon a

 

 5   program of attempting to work out a method for the

 

 6   elimination of the presence of such fibers in the

 

 7   smoke.  Now, would you agree that over the course of

 

 8   about two years Lorillard spends thousands of hours

 

 9   and tens of thousands of dollars trying to develop a

 

10   way to keep the asbestos fixed in the filter so it

 

11   doesn’t come out?

 

12             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

13             THE WITNESS:  I haven’t seen those data or

 

14   those documents.

 

15         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Well, let me just ask

 

16   you this.  Lorillard was trying to come up with a

 

17   way to keep the asbestos from getting out of the

 

18   filter when it was smoked; right?

 

19         A.  Up until this point in time there was

 

20   essentially no asbestos in the — in the — when you

 

21   smoke it.  It didn’t come through because you’re

 

22   missing the February Parmele to Halley or Parmele to

 

23   somebody letter which says that he didn’t find

 

24   anything.  And now we’re embarking on experimental

 

25   programs, which there’s a lot of information in the

 

 

                                                                   171

 1   company files that talks exactly about that.

 

 2             MR. PANATIER:  Yeah.

 

 3             THE WITNESS:  So you’re incorrect.

 

 4             MR. PANATIER:  I’m going to object to

 

 5   nonresponsive.

 

 6         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  My question was

 

 7   Lorillard was attempting in the lifetime of the

 

 8   Micronite filter that contained asbestos to try to

 

 9   find a way to fix the asbestos so it did not come

 

10   out in the smoke; correct?

 

11         A.  In experimental filters, that is correct.

 

12         Q.  Sir, they were trying to keep it from

 

13   coming out in the ones they were selling; correct?

 

14         A.  That’s incorrect.

 

15         Q.  Okay.  So you’re saying that the Kent

 

16   filters that Kent was spending time and money and

 

17   resources to try to prevent asbestos from coming out

 

18   of just experimental filters that it was making, not

 

19   the ones it was selling?  Is that what you’re

 

20   saying?

 

21         A.  That’s not what –

 

22             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

23             THE WITNESS:  That’s what I’m saying

 

24   Fullam and Revere were doing.

 

25         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Right, okay.  And you

 

 

                                                                   172

 1   say there is a February 1954 communication regarding

 

 2   Mr. Fullam that will help address that?

 

 3         A.  Yes.

 

 4         Q.  Okay.  I may have that, so we’ll look at

 

 5   that in a little bit.  You can set that aside.  Dr.

 

 6   Fullam –

 

 7             MR. BERGER:  If we’ve finished Revere and

 

 8   you’re about to look at a series of stuff about

 

 9   Fullam –

 

10             MR. PANATIER:  I’m not.

 

11             MR. BERGER:  No?  Okay.  Then let’s kind

 

12   of keep an eye on where you’re at in your

 

13   questioning.  We’re going to need a lunch break.

 

14         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Oh, yeah, yeah.  Dr.

 

15   Fullam and Ms. Revere were both using electron

 

16   microscopes; correct?

 

17         A.  Yes.

 

18         Q.  Did Dr. Parmele have an electron microscope

 

19   that he used to analyze the smoke from Kent

 

20   cigarettes?

 

21         A.  Not that I know of.

 

22             MR. PANATIER:  Okay.  This is the last one

 

23   and then we’ll go to lunch.

 

24             MR. BERGER:  Okay.

 

25             MR. PANATIER:  This will be Exhibit 29.

 

 

                                                                   173

 1             (Exhibit Number 29 was marked for

 

 2   identification.)

 

 3             MR. BERGER:  Are you marking the letter,

 

 4   the handwritten notes or are you trying to do both?

 

 5             MR. PANATIER:  I’m marking the whole

 

 6   thing.  I can separate them if you want to.  I don’t

 

 7   care.

 

 8             MR. BERGER:  Well, I have an objection

 

 9   that I know they’re separate documents.

 

10             MR. PANATIER:  Okay.

 

11             MR. BERGER:  It’s your deposition.  If you

 

12   want to mark it together, you can mark it together

 

13   as long as the record is clear.

 

14             MR. PANATIER:  We’ll make it easy.

 

15         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Here’s Exhibit 29, sir.

 

16   That’s a date — that’s a letter dated June 4th,

 

17   1954; true?

 

18         A.  Yes.

 

19         Q.  If you turn to the second page it says in

 

20   spite of repeated attempts we have been unable so

 

21   far to detect any asbestos in the smoke of Kent

 

22   cigarettes.  This is probably due to inadequate

 

23   microscopic technique.  We will continue to hunt for

 

24   traces of asbestos and let you know the results, and

 

25   that’s from a fellow at H&V Specialties to Dr.

 

 

                                                                   174

 1   Parmele; correct?

 

 2         A.  Yes.  It’s Breymeier to Parmele.

 

 3         Q.  Right.  Now, he is saying that he hasn’t

 

 4   seen any asbestos, but he actually says it’s

 

 5   probably due to an inadequate microscopic technique;

 

 6   true?

 

 7         A.  That’s what this says.  I just received an

 

 8   oil emersion microscope objective in a previous

 

 9   correspondence.

 

10             MR. PANATIER:  All right.  So we can set

 

11   that aside and we’ll finish this with Exhibit 30.

 

12             (Exhibit Number 30 was marked for

 

13   identification.)

 

14         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Sir, do you see that

 

15   this is a handwritten journal entry or book entry by

 

16   Mr. Briarmeier, who authored the prior letter?

 

17         A.  It appears to be Breymeier’s entry.

 

18         Q.  Breymeier.  Okay.  It says P. Lorillard

 

19   visit, April 21st, 1954.  It said conference at New

 

20   York on 21 April ’54.  Present, Dr. Parmele, HWK and

 

21   myself.  Dr. Parmele is dissatisfied with the use of

 

22   thermoplastic fibers for stiffening purposes.  Did I

 

23   read that right?

 

24         A.  I believe that’s what it says.

 

25         Q.  Wants us to try some powdered resin or

 

 

                                                                   175

 1   similar binder.  Did I read that right?

 

 2         A.  That’s correct.

 

 3         Q.  Dr. P was concerned with the asbestos in

 

 4   Kent smoke, which has been found by Mrs. Farr,

 

 5   Washington, D.C., and whose son is trying to peddle

 

 6   an idea for preventing the asbestos fiber from

 

 7   dusting out of the filter tip.  Did I read that

 

 8   right?

 

 9         A.  That’s what it says.

 

10         Q.  Okay.  Wants us to corroborate the findings

 

11   of Ms. Farr, who claims she is able to spot asbestos

 

12   fibers with the optical microscope using an oil

 

13   emersion technique objective.  And that’s what you

 

14   mentioned before, the oil emersion objective –

 

15         A.  That’s correct.

 

16         Q.  – right?  And so what Mr. Breymeier has

 

17   said is that Dr. Parmele was concerned about the

 

18   fact that there was asbestos in Kent smoke which had

 

19   been found by Ms. Farr; correct?

 

20         A.  In experimental cigarettes, that’s correct.

 

21         Q.  Does he say in experimental cigarettes

 

22   right there?

 

23         A.  Breymeier doesn’t, but if you put all of

 

24   the correspondence together, that’s what Revere and

 

25   Farr and Fullam were looking at after February.

 

 

                                                                   176

 1         Q.  This is your — this is, of course, your

 

 2   interpretation.  It doesn’t say experimental

 

 3   cigarettes there; does it?

 

 4         A.  It doesn’t say that.

 

 5         Q.  And the experimental cigarettes are

 

 6   supposed to be better than the one they are

 

 7   currently selling; correct?

 

 8             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, lack of

 

 9   foundation.

 

10             THE WITNESS:  Different.  I wouldn’t say

 

11   better.

 

12         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Well, they’re supposed

 

13   to be an improvement on what’s being sold; correct?

 

14             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, lacks

 

15   foundation.

 

16             THE WITNESS:  When you do experiments,

 

17   some are good and some are bad.

 

18         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  And we have Fullam,

 

19   Revere and Farr who have found asbestos fibers in

 

20   whether they’re experimental or the ones being sold,

 

21   they’ve found them; correct?

 

22             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, assumes

 

23   facts.

 

24             THE WITNESS:  The samples that those three

 

25   are talking about after February are, in fact,

 

 

                                                                   177

 1   they’re finding traces.

 

 2         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Two have found asbestos

 

 3   through electron microscope and one has done it

 

 4   through this oil emersion technique; correct?

 

 5             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, assumes

 

 6   facts.

 

 7             THE WITNESS:  She says she’s able to see

 

 8   it, but there’s — I don’t know that she’s actually

 

 9   seen anything or not.  It doesn’t say that in this

 

10   document.

 

11         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  It sounds that she found

 

12   asbestos in Kent smoke, but it doesn’t detail

 

13   exactly what she was doing at the time that she saw

 

14   it; correct?

 

15         A.  It says that she believes she can see

 

16   asbestos fibers with the optical microscope using

 

17   oil emersion objective.  That’s what she says.

 

18         Q.  Okay.  But I’m just trying to be clear.

 

19   She has reported that she has found asbestos in the

 

20   smoke of Kent cigarettes?

 

21             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

22             THE WITNESS:  She just says here that

 

23   she’s able to corroborate the findings of Mrs. Farr

 

24   and claims she’s able to spot asbestos fibers with

 

25   the optical microscope using oil emersion objective.

 

 

                                                                   178

 1   I don’t see smoke in that sentence.

 

 2         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Okay.  I’m going to read

 

 3   it to you.  Dr. P was concerned with the asbestos in

 

 4   Kent smoke which has been found by Ms. Farr.  Did I

 

 5   read that the correctly?

 

 6         A.  That does say Kent smoke.

 

 7             MR. PANATIER:  Okay.  Let’s go on our

 

 8   lunch break.

 

 9             MR. BERGER:  Before we go off the record,

 

10   seeing Mr. Jones here as a guest and is not counsel

 

11   of record makes me want to ask whether, Mr.

 

12   Panatier, Mr. Jones, do you have any experts that

 

13   you’ve retained that are listening in to this

 

14   deposition today?

 

15             MR. PANATIER:  No, no, no, no.  No.  I

 

16   don’t use that expert.

 

17             MR. BERGER:  Goldberg, Egilman?  Are

 

18   either of those –

 

19             MR. PANATIER:  No.  No experts are

 

20   listening in.

 

21             MR. BERGER:  Okay.  Thank you.

 

22             THE VIDEOGRAPHER:  Off the record?

 

23             MR. PANATIER:  Off the record.

 

24             THE VIDEOGRAPHER:  Okay.  One moment.  Off

 

25   the record, end of number three at 12:28 p.m.

 

 

                                                                   179

 1             (A luncheon recess was taken.)

 

 2             THE VIDEOGRAPHER:  Starting of number

 

 3   four, back on the record at 1:36 p.m.

 

 4         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Sir, what percentage by

 

 5   weight of the filters was made up by the crocidolite

 

 6   asbestos?

 

 7         A.  Seven percent.

 

 8         Q.  Did it ever contain more than that?

 

 9         A.  No.

 

10         Q.  Who is Vincent M. Losito?

 

11         A.  He’s a person that signs a lot of these

 

12   documents.  I don’t remember his exact title.  I

 

13   believe he’s in the treasury or something of the

 

14   company.

 

15         Q.  You know what interrogatories are; right?

 

16         A.  I’ve reviewed them.  I don’t know the

 

17   specific term for — from a legal perspective.

 

18         Q.  Generally you know that the sides in a

 

19   case, they send questions to each other and they

 

20   have to answer the questions and send them back and

 

21   sign a thing swearing to them; right?

 

22         A.  I generally am aware of that.

 

23         Q.  Okay.  I’m going to read this to you and

 

24   then I’ll let you see the verification.  This is

 

25   from Defendant Lorillard Tobacco Company’s response

 

 

                                                                   180

 1   to Plaintiff’s interrogatories and request for

 

 2   production in the State of Minnesota, County of

 

 3   Ramsey in the Geatz case; okay?  And Lorillard says

 

 4   that –

 

 5             MR. BERGER:  What number are we on?

 

 6             MR. PANATIER:  It’s page 30.  It’s

 

 7   interrogatory number ten.

 

 8             MR. BERGER:  Thank you.

 

 9         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  And the question they’re

 

10   asked is please identify each asbestos-containing

 

11   product that Defendant mined, manufactured,

 

12   marketed, produced, researched, sold, distributed or

 

13   patented at any time.  For each product identified,

 

14   produce a bunch of information, dates, all that kind

 

15   of stuff?

 

16         A.  Yes.

 

17         Q.  And the answer is Lorillard states that

 

18   between approximately March 1952 and May 1956 P.

 

19   Lorillard Company manufactured and sold Kent

 

20   cigarettes.  That’s correct; right?

 

21         A.  That is correct.

 

22         Q.  Between these dates the filter material

 

23   used in Kent cigarettes contained cotton, crepe

 

24   paper, cellulose acetate and crocidolite asbestos;

 

25   correct?

 

 

                                                                   181

 1         A.  That’s correct.

 

 2         Q.  The crocidolite asbestos may have composed

 

 3   approximately 7 to 25 percent by weight of the

 

 4   filter material used in the cigarette filter.

 

 5   That’s what they say?

 

 6         A.  That’s what — I believe I remember seeing

 

 7   that.

 

 8         Q.  Okay.  It was between 7 and 25 percent

 

 9   weight.  It wasn’t seven percent only and never

 

10   higher; correct?

 

11             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

12             THE WITNESS:  That’s consistent with the

 

13   patents, but the cigarette itself had seven percent.

 

14         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Well, what Mr. Losito

 

15   said is the crocidolite asbestos may have composed

 

16   approximately 7 to 25 percent by weight of the

 

17   filter material used in the — used in the cigarette

 

18   filter; correct?  You need to see that?

 

19         A.  Yes.  I’ve seen or at least heard of that.

 

20         Q.  All right.

 

21         A.  And that’s consistent with the patents.

 

22         Q.  Okay.  What percentage of crocidolite

 

23   asbestos was in the filters attached to the

 

24   cigarettes tested by the Armour Foundation?

 

25         A.  Those cigarettes were those that were on

 

 

                                                                   182

 1   the market, so they would have been seven percent.

 

 2         Q.  How do you know that?

 

 3         A.  Because they were the cigarettes that were

 

 4   on the market and that’s what those cigarettes

 

 5   contained.

 

 6         Q.  What are you relying upon for that opinion?

 

 7         A.  Well, there’s several places, there’s

 

 8   several ways you can calculate that.  One is taking

 

 9   the number of cigarettes sold and dividing that into

 

10   the amount of — of asbestos used and then taking

 

11   that and using the weight of the filter according to

 

12   JAMA, 53 and 55, and making a calculation based on

 

13   that.

 

14             You can also take the — there was a

 

15   weekly amount that was being used and we

 

16   manufactured for approximately 218 weeks.  You work

 

17   216 weeks and you can calculate the same way.  And

 

18   then there is a study in 1989 where the gravimetric

 

19   procedure was used and the filter was combusted in a

 

20   muffle furnace and the amount was ten milligrams per

 

21   filter.  And when you divide that through by .136

 

22   milligrams, it’s seven percent.

 

23         Q.  Okay.  So let me ask you about the first

 

24   method you talked about, which was dividing the

 

25   number of cigarettes sold by the weight of asbestos

 

 

                                                                   183

 1   used.  That would give you the average; right?

 

 2         A.  It’s an average amount, that’s correct.

 

 3         Q.  It did vary from cigarette to cigarette or

 

 4   from run to run; correct?  Some runs may have had a

 

 5   little higher, some runs may have had a little bit

 

 6   lower?

 

 7         A.  And I –

 

 8             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, assumes

 

 9   facts, calls for speculation.

 

10             THE WITNESS:  I don’t know what the

 

11   tolerance was.  I don’t have that information.

 

12         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  It’s true that from

 

13   cigarette to cigarette even in a mechanized

 

14   manufacturing process the precise amount of each

 

15   ingredient in each filter is not going to be exact

 

16   from cigarette to cigarette.  That’s correct; isn’t

 

17   it?

 

18             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

19             THE WITNESS:  It would be fairly similar

 

20   in one rod that was made from the width of the

 

21   filter material and then the next one could be just

 

22   slightly different, but I don’t have data around

 

23   that.

 

24         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Right.  So a filter — a

 

25   rod that is manufactured is a long piece of filter

 

 

                                                                   184

 1   material; right?

 

 2         A.  That’s correct.

 

 3         Q.  You would expect the filters cut from that

 

 4   to be very similar?

 

 5         A.  Very similar through the same part of the

 

 6   filter material.

 

 7         Q.  But then you have another rod that’s made

 

 8   and that one may differ somewhat from the previous

 

 9   rod; right?

 

10         A.  Could be slightly different, but again, I

 

11   don’t have any data around that.

 

12         Q.  Not only would the composition potentially

 

13   be slightly different, but the actual — the actual

 

14   layout and the microscopic patterns of the

 

15   crocidolite on the paper and where the crepe paper

 

16   wrinkles and all that is going to differ from

 

17   cigarette to cigarette; correct?

 

18             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

19             THE WITNESS:  They would be different.  I

 

20   haven’t seen anything in the records that really

 

21   discusses that to any significant degree.

 

22         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Okay.  In your

 

23   opinion — we’ve been talking about this.  In your

 

24   opinion which tests were ever done on the actual

 

25   Kent cigarettes that were being sold to the general

 

 

                                                                   185

 1   public as far as measuring for asbestos?

 

 2         A.  The Laboratory of Industrial Hygiene, the

 

 3   Kendall work, the first set of Fullam’s work and the

 

 4   Armour Research Foundation.

 

 5         Q.  Okay.  Let me just kind of go through those

 

 6   a little bit.  Laboratory of Industrial Hygiene,

 

 7   what measurement technique were they using?

 

 8         A.  Gravimetric.

 

 9         Q.  Gravimetric is where you weigh the smoke;

 

10   right?

 

11         A.  You weigh what’s left –

 

12             MR. BERGER:  Object.

 

13             THE WITNESS:  You weigh what’s left after

 

14   the burning or muffling of all the organic material

 

15   away.  There were three other studies that were done

 

16   premarket on cigarettes that were to be for sale,

 

17   but they weren’t actually on the market yet by the

 

18   way.

 

19         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Laboratory of Industrial

 

20   Hygiene was not using an electron microscope for

 

21   measurement purposes; correct?

 

22         A.  No.  They used a gravimetric procedure or

 

23   weight procedure.

 

24         Q.  Kendall, what measurement technique was

 

25   Kendall using?

 

 

                                                                   186

 1         A.  Infrared spectroscopy.

 

 2         Q.  That is not electromicroscopy; correct?

 

 3         A.  That’s correct.

 

 4         Q.  Armour was using what we discussed before

 

 5   was not electromicroscopy; correct?

 

 6         A.  Dark field microscopy.

 

 7         Q.  That is a form of light microscopy?

 

 8         A.  That’s correct.

 

 9         Q.  You know, I looked for the reference that

 

10   you gave me, a February 1954 correspondence of some

 

11   sort regarding Fullam’s first test as you’ve said.

 

12   I’ve not found that.

 

13         A.  You won’t because the samples were sent in

 

14   March, but his actual — the letter from Parmele to

 

15   somebody else, I was in error, was in May.

 

16         Q.  So there’s a May letter from who to who?

 

17         A.  Parmele wrote it.  I think it was to — I’m

 

18   not sure exactly who it was — it was an internal

 

19   letter, but it mentions the lack.  No fibers were

 

20   found.

 

21         Q.  So when you say Fullam did a first test,

 

22   first test on what was being sold to the general

 

23   public, that was you gleaned that from a May

 

24   correspondence from Parmele to somebody?

 

25         A.  That’s correct.

 

 

                                                                   187

 1         Q.  May 1954?

 

 2         A.  That’s correct.

 

 3         Q.  Do you know what Mr. Kendall’s limit of

 

 4   detection was for asbestos in smoke using the x-ray

 

 5   to fraction method or whatever it was he was using?

 

 6         A.  He was using infrared spectrophotometry.

 

 7         Q.  Right.

 

 8         A.  And he mentions — if you have his report,

 

 9   I can tell you exactly what it says.  It was some

 

10   point zero something of the tar.  And if the

 

11   cigarette was — I’m just using this as an example.

 

12   If the cigarette was a 20-milligram tar product,

 

13   then he could see down to .02 micrograms.

 

14         Q.  Are you aware that Mr. Kendall has

 

15   testified that using his technique there could be as

 

16   many as 12 million asbestos fibers and he would not

 

17   have been able to detect them?

 

18             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, lack of

 

19   foundation.  You’re saying assumes facts.

 

20             THE WITNESS:  I’d have to look at his

 

21   testimony.

 

22         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Sure.  I’m going to give

 

23   you the testimony of Dr. Kendall from the Ierardi

 

24   case in November 13th, 1991.  I’m referring to the

 

25   top of page 2109.  And you can continue onto the

 

 

                                                                   188

 1   next page if you like.

 

 2             MR. BERGER:  As with the other

 

 3   transcripts, you can read as much as you need to,

 

 4   Doctor.

 

 5             THE WITNESS:  Bad math.  And what was your

 

 6   question?

 

 7         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Right.  Dr. Kendall

 

 8   testified in I believe that’s 1991 –

 

 9         A.  Yes.

 

10         Q.  – that there could be as many as 12

 

11   million asbestos fibers in the sample and using his

 

12   technique, he would not have found them; correct?

 

13         A.  That’s what he says here.  And that’s

 

14   inconsistent with the reports as I’ve read them and

 

15   they’re from ’54, not from ’91.

 

16         Q.  Well, that’s Mr. Kendall’s testimony in

 

17   ’91.  You understand that; right?

 

18         A.  I understand that.

 

19         Q.  Okay.  Had you ever been shown this

 

20   testimony before?

 

21         A.  I have seen this.

 

22         Q.  Okay.  Hand that back, please.  In fact,

 

23   and I think you had a chance to look at this.  He’s

 

24   asked this question.  So if the assumption we’ve

 

25   made — assumptions we’ve made are correct, a

 

 

                                                                   189

 1   release of 850,000 fibers per cigarette would not be

 

 2   detectable under your technique; isn’t that right?

 

 3   He said correct; right?

 

 4         A.  Yes.  And the assumptions that are made in

 

 5   there that one milligram equals 400 million fibers

 

 6   is incorrect because one — ten milligrams only

 

 7   equals 300 million fibers.  So he’s off — they’re

 

 8   off by an order of magnitude.  All those

 

 9   calculations are incorrect whether he testified or

 

10   not.

 

11         Q.  First of all, it’s 300 — it’s your

 

12   testimony that there’s only 300 million crocidolite

 

13   fibers in ten milligrams; correct?

 

14         A.  It’s based on NAS data from 1986, 30 fibers

 

15   per nanogram, and you can do the math.

 

16         Q.  So you say they’re off by an order of

 

17   magnitude –

 

18         A.  At least.

 

19         Q.  – and that means a factor of ten; right?

 

20         A.  Yes.

 

21         Q.  So if they’re off by a factor of ten, then

 

22   what Mr. Kendall should have said is if there were

 

23   as many as 1.2 million asbestos fibers, I would not

 

24   have seen them; correct?

 

25             MR. BERGER:  Objection to the form,

 

 

                                                                   190

 1   foundation and incomplete hypothetical.

 

 2         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  That’s one-tenth of 12

 

 3   million; right?

 

 4         A.  Based on the assumptions that are there

 

 5   using those calculations.  I’d have to sit down and

 

 6   recalculate that through because I don’t remember

 

 7   all of what Kendall said in that document.

 

 8         Q.  And one-tenth of 850,000 fibers per

 

 9   cigarette is 85,000 fibers; right?

 

10         A.  That’s correct.

 

11         Q.  Okay.

 

12         A.  But that’s inconsistent with his report.

 

13         Q.  It’s not inconsistent with what he says

 

14   because he said it; right?

 

15         A.  He says it in there.

 

16             MR. BERGER:  Objection.

 

17             THE WITNESS:  Testimony.

 

18             MR. BERGER:  Object.

 

19             MR. PANATIER:  All right, sir.  This next

 

20   one will be Exhibit 31.

 

21             (Exhibit Number 31 was marked for

 

22   identification.)

 

23         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Sir, this a letter dated

 

24   July 20th, 1954.  It’s from Parmele to Fullam.  Do

 

25   you see that?

 

 

                                                                   191

 1         A.  Yes.  I do.

 

 2         Q.  Mr. Parmele says under separate cover we

 

 3   are sending you 20 packages of Kent cigarettes.

 

 4   They are as follows:  Five packages of long vacuum

 

 5   cleaning cigarettes, five packages of regular Kents,

 

 6   five packages of gelatin sprayed and five of a new

 

 7   type of experimental Micronite filter; right?

 

 8         A.  That’s what it says.

 

 9         Q.  Okay.  So what Fullam is getting is he’s

 

10   getting four different types of Kent cigarettes, but

 

11   included in that a full quarter of them are the

 

12   regular Kent cigarettes; correct?

 

13         A.  That’s what it says.

 

14         Q.  What Parmele says is we will appreciate it

 

15   very much if you will observe the relative amounts

 

16   of mineral fiber in the smoke from these four lots

 

17   following the same general technique which you used

 

18   in the investigation prior to this.  We hope the

 

19   results of your examinations will disclose that we

 

20   are on the right track.

 

21             We are very anxious to have the smoke from

 

22   our cigarettes as free of mineral fiber as possible,

 

23   at least as free or as pure as the air which we

 

24   normally breathe.  Did I read that right?

 

25         A.  That’s what it says.

 

 

                                                                   192

 1         Q.  Okay.  I’ve got a few questions about that.

 

 2   First is Parmele is saying he’s very anxious to have

 

 3   smoke from our cigarettes as free of mineral fiber

 

 4   as possible and he’s talking about regular Kents;

 

 5   correct?

 

 6             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

 7             THE WITNESS:  He’s talking about the

 

 8   samples that he sent and regular Kents are in that

 

 9   sample.

 

10         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  So he’s talking about

 

11   the whole set and that includes regular Kents;

 

12   correct?

 

13         A.  I’m not sure if he’s talking about regular

 

14   Kents there or not, but he’s certainly talking about

 

15   the samples that are experimental, which one, three

 

16   and four are.

 

17         Q.  And he’s also talking about regular Kents?

 

18         A.  Whether he’s including that or not, I’m not

 

19   sure.

 

20         Q.  He never separates them out and says I am

 

21   anxious about the asbestos in our experimental

 

22   cigarettes.  I am not anxious about the asbestos in

 

23   the regular Kents; correct?

 

24         A.  He doesn’t say that in here.  I agree.

 

25         Q.  And then he says we’re anxious to have the

 

 

                                                                   193

 1   smoke from our cigarettes as free of mineral fiber

 

 2   as possible, at least as free or as pure as the air

 

 3   which we normally breathe.  Now, sir, you know the

 

 4   air we normally breathe has asbestos in it; right?

 

 5         A.  Well, today it’s very low levels.  Back

 

 6   then I don’t know exactly what the levels would have

 

 7   been.

 

 8         Q.  Okay.  In the context of 1954 when this is

 

 9   sent, he’s saying I would like to get whatever the

 

10   levels are that are released down to at least what

 

11   regular air is, and regular air at that time

 

12   contained asbestos fibers; correct?

 

13             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form,

 

14   foundation.

 

15             THE WITNESS:  As I said, I don’t know what

 

16   the levels were, but the asbestos was generally in

 

17   background at this time.

 

18         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  This does not suggest in

 

19   any way nor does Mr. Fullam say that regular Kent

 

20   cigarettes do not release asbestos fibers; does it?

 

21         A.  It doesn’t say that.  It says what it says.

 

22             MR. PANATIER:  Okay.  All right.  You can

 

23   set that aside.  The next will be Exhibit 32.

 

24             (Exhibit Number 32 was marked for

 

25   identification.)

 

 

                                                                   194

 1         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Sir, this is dated

 

 2   October 11th, 1954.  This is a document you’ve seen

 

 3   before; true?

 

 4         A.  Yes.

 

 5         Q.  This is to Ms. Farr, F-a-r-r, and she’s one

 

 6   of the ladies who was using the oil dispersion

 

 7   method of measurement as well as electron

 

 8   microscopy; is that correct?

 

 9             MR. BERGER:  Objection, lack of

 

10   foundation.

 

11             THE WITNESS:  We believe she was working

 

12   with Mrs. Revere.  I don’t know any more than that.

 

13         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Okay.  It says under

 

14   separate cover we are sending you 12 samples of Kent

 

15   cigarettes in which the filters have been treated by

 

16   various and sundry means to reduce the occurrence of

 

17   asbestos mineral fiber in the smoke.  So she is

 

18   receiving 12 Kent cigarettes where they have done

 

19   different things to those to try to prevent or

 

20   reduce the asbestos from coming out of the filter;

 

21   correct?

 

22         A.  In the experimentals that have been sent I

 

23   would agree with that.

 

24         Q.  Okay.  The point of the experimentals was

 

25   to find a way to keep the asbestos from coming out

 

 

                                                                   195

 1   of the filter; correct?

 

 2             MR. BERGER:  Objection, assumes facts.

 

 3             THE WITNESS:  I don’t know exactly what

 

 4   the point was, but she was supposed to analyze those

 

 5   and determine what the levels were.

 

 6         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  And hopefully determine

 

 7   which, if any, of those experimental cigarettes had

 

 8   a treatment of some sort that would reduce the

 

 9   asbestos fiber the most; correct?

 

10         A.  That’s what it appears to be.

 

11         Q.  Okay.  It says we will appreciate it very

 

12   much if both you and Ms. Revere will give us these

 

13   samples — will give these samples your usual good

 

14   attention and let us know as promptly as possible

 

15   what, if anything, has been accomplished.  Is

 

16   Lorillard in possession of any actual reports from

 

17   Ms. Farr?

 

18         A.  Not that I know of.  I haven’t seen them.

 

19             MR. PANATIER:  Okay.  You can set that

 

20   aside, sir.  The next exhibit will be Exhibit 33.

 

21             (Exhibit Number 33 was marked for

 

22   identification.)

 

23         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Sir, this is of the same

 

24   date as the previous document.  This is a letter

 

25   from Parmele to Mr. — to Dr. Fullam; correct?

 

 

                                                                   196

 1         A.  Yes.  It is.

 

 2         Q.  And he says fundamentally the same thing to

 

 3   Dr. Fullam.  He says in line with our recent

 

 4   telephone conversation, we are sending you a package

 

 5   containing 12 samples of Kent cigarettes labeled

 

 6   from one to twelve.  These samples represent various

 

 7   treatments which we are currently trying in the

 

 8   hopes of reducing the occurrence of mineral fibers

 

 9   in the smoke.  Did I read that right?

 

10         A.  Yes.

 

11         Q.  And again, this is so Dr. Fullam can look

 

12   at these, see which, if any, of them are effective

 

13   at reducing fibers in the smoke; right?

 

14         A.  In these experimentals that are sent, yes.

 

15         Q.  That’s right.  And the purpose of the

 

16   experimentals is to try to find which experimental

 

17   cigarette, if any, does the best job of reducing

 

18   asbestos in the smoke; right?

 

19             MR. BERGER:  Objection, lack of

 

20   foundation.

 

21             THE WITNESS:  I don’t know exactly what

 

22   each of these samples consisted of.  It seems to be

 

23   that they are experimentals and we have some later

 

24   information which talks about the various and sundry

 

25   treatments.  So we can connect the dots.

 

 

                                                                   197

 1         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Uh-huh.  In fact,

 

 2   there’s a chart and I think we’ll see that.

 

 3         A.  Yes.

 

 4         Q.  There’s a chart that lists what they did to

 

 5   each filter and then there’s Dr. Fullam’s results

 

 6   where he said basically how long it took him to

 

 7   count for his own asbestos fibers?

 

 8         A.  That’s correct.

 

 9         Q.  Okay.  The purpose of the experimental

 

10   cigarettes was to find a way — to find a potential

 

11   substitute filter for the regular Kent cigarettes;

 

12   correct?

 

13             MR. BERGER:  Objection, lack of

 

14   foundation.

 

15             THE WITNESS:  I believe the work which was

 

16   continuing from 1951 up until when the switch was

 

17   made in ’56 was concentrated on looking at

 

18   alternative designs and alternative levels, some of

 

19   which included asbestos and some of which did not.

 

20         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Okay.  The ones that

 

21   we’ve been talking about here, those have all dealt

 

22   with the issue of asbestos; correct?

 

23         A.  It’s hard to tell because some of the ones

 

24   on the document you’re going to show me in a little

 

25   bit may or may not contain asbestos.  So we’re not

 

 

                                                                   198

 1   totally sure.

 

 2         Q.  Let me rephrase the question.  For all the

 

 3   documents you and I have gone through thus far, they

 

 4   have all addressed the issue of asbestos in the

 

 5   filter in various ways to try and reduce the

 

 6   asbestos in the smoke coming out of the filters;

 

 7   correct?

 

 8             MR. BERGER:  Object to the form.

 

 9             THE WITNESS:  For the most part.

 

10             MR. PANATIER:  Okay.  We can set that

 

11   aside.  This next exhibit will be Exhibit 34.

 

12             (Exhibit Number 34 was marked for

 

13   identification.)

 

14         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Sir, this is 16 days

 

15   later after the one that we’ve just seen and this is

 

16   another letter from Parmele to Fullam where he sends

 

17   looks like six more samples; correct?

 

18         A.  Number 13 through 18, I believe that would

 

19   be six.

 

20         Q.  Okay.  And he says, again, each lot

 

21   represents a different treatment for the purpose of

 

22   eliminating the occurrence of mineral fibers in the

 

23   smoke; right?

 

24         A.  That’s what it says.

 

25         Q.  Again, right in line with the same sort of

 

 

                                                                   199

 1   procedure and purpose as we’ve discussed regarding

 

 2   these tests that have been sent out; correct?

 

 3         A.  Additional experimentals to look for that,

 

 4   that’s correct.

 

 5         Q.  So to this point Lorillard has sent Mr.

 

 6   Fullam now 18 total different experimental

 

 7   treatments for the filter containing asbestos;

 

 8   right?

 

 9         A.  Well, we also have the three that were sent

 

10   before, so it could be more than that, but 18 is

 

11   what’s in the upcoming information.

 

12         Q.  We have 18 experimental in this series and

 

13   then we have another four total cigarette types that

 

14   were sent including one that was the regular Kents;

 

15   correct?

 

16         A.  That’s what that document said, that’s

 

17   correct.

 

18         Q.  All right.  So it looks like we — so long

 

19   as there was no overlap in the previous experimental

 

20   types, we either have 18 experimental types that

 

21   were sent to Dr. Fullam or 21 and regular Kent; is

 

22   that fair?

 

23         A.  That’s probably correct.

 

24         Q.  Okay.  Have you done anything to look and

 

25   see whether the — of the three experimental types

 

 

                                                                   200

 1   that were sent before, if any of those types

 

 2   overlapped the 18?

 

 3         A.  I haven’t specifically sat down and done

 

 4   that, but I believe there is a gelatin sprayed, I

 

 5   believe there’s a vacuum sprayed and I forget what

 

 6   the third one was on the 18.

 

 7         Q.  Okay.  It’s possible there was some

 

 8   overlap?

 

 9         A.  It’s very possible.

 

10         Q.  Okay.  We can set that aside.  At the very

 

11   least we know that Kent has created at least 18

 

12   different experimental types of filters in an effort

 

13   to try to prevent or reduce asbestos coming out of

 

14   the filter; is that right?

 

15             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form,

 

16   foundation.

 

17             THE WITNESS:  I don’t know what the

 

18   specific purpose of those experimentals was except

 

19   for the fact that the company from 1951 through ’56

 

20   when it changed to the crimped cellulose acetate was

 

21   looking for alternative filter designs, so –

 

22         Q.  Well –

 

23         A.  – those filter designs were being

 

24   developed.  And they wanted to insure that the

 

25   asbestos fiber or mineral fiber as it’s noted in

 

 

                                                                   201

 1   many of these documents was at or below what we

 

 2   would find in the normal breathing air.

 

 3         Q.  Well, sir, what we know is that the work

 

 4   that Ms. Revere was specifically asked to do, the

 

 5   work that Ms. Farr was specifically asked to do

 

 6   which we’ve gone through and the work that Mr.

 

 7   Fullam was specifically asked to do all dealt with

 

 8   measuring whether or not and to what extent in some

 

 9   cases asbestos was coming out of the experimental

 

10   filters; correct?

 

11         A.  That’s what those documents say, but that’s

 

12   only part of the story.

 

13             MR. PANATIER:  Sure.

 

14             MR. BERGER:  Move to strike counsel’s

 

15   comment.

 

16             MR. PANATIER:  I’m going to object to it

 

17   as nonresponsive.  Strike the nonresponsive portion.

 

18   Okay.  So this will be Exhibit 35.

 

19             (Exhibit Number 35 was marked for

 

20   identification.)

 

21         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Sir, Exhibit 35 is a

 

22   December 1st, 1954 letter?

 

23         A.  Yes.

 

24         Q.  Right.  And that is to Harold Knudson at

 

25   Hollingsworth & Vose; right?

 

 

                                                                   202

 1         A.  Yes.

 

 2         Q.  From Parmele?

 

 3         A.  Yes, from Dr. Parmele.

 

 4         Q.  And he attaches Dr. Fullam’s studies of the

 

 5   18; right?

 

 6         A.  Yes.  There’s 18 studies here.

 

 7         Q.  And what Dr. Fullam was asked to do in

 

 8   those studies was to basically not count the

 

 9   asbestos fibers but to count the number of grids

 

10   under the microscope he had to count before he saw

 

11   the first asbestos fiber; correct?

 

12             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, lack of

 

13   foundation.

 

14             THE WITNESS:  Consistent with how you do

 

15   electron microscopy, that’s correct.

 

16         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Right, but they didn’t

 

17   ask for a quantification of asbestos fibers.  They

 

18   just said we want to know basically how long you had

 

19   to look before you saw an asbestos fiber and then

 

20   rank each one of these experimental cigarettes;

 

21   correct?

 

22             MR. BERGER:  Objection, lack of

 

23   foundation.

 

24             THE WITNESS:  Well, this is a way to

 

25   quantify and it’s even used today.

 

 

                                                                   203

 1         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Well, it’s a — it is a

 

 2   way to compare, but pick one of those, any one of

 

 3   those, sample — let’s say sample 14.  Do you see

 

 4   sample 14?

 

 5         A.  Yes.

 

 6         Q.  Okay.  How many asbestos fibers did he

 

 7   find?

 

 8         A.  It doesn’t say because he had 16 screens

 

 9   that were blank or grid — excuse me — until he

 

10   found one, but there is an EPA methodology to

 

11   calculate what your fiber burden would be based on

 

12   that, so it is quantitative.

 

13         Q.  Yes.  So how many fibers did he find in

 

14   sample number seven?

 

15         A.  It doesn’t list the fibers.

 

16         Q.  Right.

 

17         A.  I’d have to go through a calculation to

 

18   tell you what the fiber burden was.

 

19         Q.  Right.  And what was the total number of

 

20   grids that he was counting from?

 

21         A.  You mean the total number — there’s 353 on

 

22   here and it’s only 18 that he found them in.  So 18

 

23   divided by 353 is background.

 

24         Q.  Well, he was told to stop counting once he

 

25   found an asbestos fiber and just provide that

 

 

                                                                   204

 1   information; correct?

 

 2         A.  I don’t –

 

 3             MR. BERGER:  Object to form, lack of

 

 4   foundation, assumes facts.

 

 5             THE WITNESS:  I don’t know if that’s what

 

 6   he was told or not.

 

 7         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Well, that’s what he

 

 8   reported; correct?  He reported simply how many

 

 9   grids he had to count before he found an asbestos

 

10   fiber; right?

 

11         A.  And that’s consistent with the way one does

 

12   counting even today.

 

13         Q.  Okay.  He found asbestos in every single

 

14   one of them?

 

15         A.  Yes.

 

16         Q.  Okay.  You can set that aside, sir.  You

 

17   said there were, I believe, two premarketing tests

 

18   that had been done.  Who did those?

 

19         A.  Three.

 

20         Q.  Okay.

 

21         A.  Killian did two and Lorillard did one.

 

22         Q.  Do you actually have the actual report of

 

23   the Lorillard test?

 

24             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, assumes

 

25   facts.

 

 

                                                                   205

 1             THE WITNESS:  I have the table –

 

 2             MR. PANATIER:  Okay.

 

 3             THE WITNESS:  – and the cover letter that

 

 4   transmits that table.

 

 5         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  What’s the date of that

 

 6   document?

 

 7         A.  It’s November ’50 — ’51.  Excuse me.

 

 8   November ’51.  I don’t know the day.

 

 9         Q.  And what method was used to do this

 

10   analysis?

 

11         A.  It was a gravimetric procedure using dry

 

12   Kjeldahl flask and another procedure using toluene.

 

13         Q.  How did they attempt to — did they attempt

 

14   to even quantify the number of asbestos fibers that

 

15   would be released from a full cigarette’s worth of

 

16   smoke?

 

17         A.  Well, they quantified — quantified the

 

18   amount released by using a gravimetric procedure,

 

19   but each individual fiber would not be counted.

 

20         Q.  Okay.  Did Killian’s work or Lorillard’s

 

21   work utilize an electron microscope?

 

22         A.  No.

 

23         Q.  Do you agree that for whatever samples were

 

24   sent to any researcher who was looking with an

 

25   electron microscope with the exception of this

 

 

                                                                   206

 1   Fullam letter from May of 1954 that I have not been

 

 2   able to find, that every single one found asbestos

 

 3   fibers using an electron microscope?

 

 4             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form,

 

 5   foundation.

 

 6             THE WITNESS:  They found traces.

 

 7         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  They found crocidolite

 

 8   asbestos fibers; correct?

 

 9         A.  Traces of crocidolite asbestos fibers in

 

10   samples that we would consider experimental, that’s

 

11   correct.

 

12         Q.  If we wanted to — if we wanted to know

 

13   exactly how many fibers Althea Revere found, do we

 

14   have a way to know?

 

15         A.  I wouldn’t know how to do that.

 

16         Q.  Right, because we don’t actually have

 

17   anything written down about what she found; correct?

 

18             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, lack of

 

19   foundation.

 

20             THE WITNESS:  Other than what Parmele says

 

21   from her reports is traces, and that’s

 

22   unquantifiable by definition.

 

23         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  If he’s using it — if

 

24   he’s using it in that way as an electron

 

25   microscopist may use it, do you know what the sort

 

 

                                                                   207

 1   of vernacular means for trace?  In other words, if

 

 2   you had — if you had a thousand something, what

 

 3   would a trace amount be?  One, two?

 

 4         A.  Depends –

 

 5             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

 6             THE WITNESS:  Depends on your analytical

 

 7   method.  Trace is normally defined as something you

 

 8   might find but can’t.  It’s below the quantifiable

 

 9   level of your approach or your analytical method.

 

10         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Yeah.  And we have no

 

11   way to know, the jury has no way to know really how

 

12   many asbestos fibers Althea Revere found; correct?

 

13         A.  Other than trace, that’s all we know.

 

14         Q.  And trace means at the level of detection,

 

15   means was detected; correct?

 

16         A.  They saw them but could not quantify.

 

17   That’s typically what trace means.

 

18         Q.  Fullam’s one through eighteen that he did,

 

19   he was using an electron microscope and he found

 

20   asbestos in every single one of those; correct?

 

21         A.  Yes.

 

22         Q.  And have you gone through the calculation

 

23   to determine how many asbestos fibers would have

 

24   been there based on your math?

 

25         A.  I have not –

 

 

                                                                   208

 1             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

 2             THE WITNESS:  I have not gone through

 

 3   that.  I do know that it’s 18 screens were counted

 

 4   out of 353.  And when you divide 18 by 353, that’s

 

 5   one-twentieth and that’s EPA background today.

 

 6         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  What’s EPA background?

 

 7         A.  It’s one-twentieth of the screens counted.

 

 8         Q.  Right, but how does that quantify into

 

 9   what’s in the air?

 

10         A.  You have to use EPA’s calculation to

 

11   calculate that.

 

12         Q.  Do you know what that is?

 

13         A.  I can look it up in the air document.  I’m

 

14   not an asbestos analytical expert.

 

15         Q.  Right.  Are you a microscopist?

 

16         A.  I have done some, but that’s not my forte.

 

17         Q.  Have you published in the area of asbestos?

 

18         A.  I have not.

 

19         Q.  Have you actually looked — have you

 

20   actually attempted to look at smoke samples for

 

21   asbestos in old Kent cigarettes?

 

22         A.  I don’t have any samples that are — that

 

23   can be smoked that are relevant.

 

24         Q.  Have you ever gone on eBay to look for

 

25   some?

 

 

                                                                   209

 1         A.  No.  I have not.

 

 2         Q.  Okay.  You have, I believe, two smoked

 

 3   cigarettes; right?

 

 4         A.  Two butts that are pretty much destroyed.

 

 5         Q.  Yeah.  And those came from the ’50s; right?

 

 6         A.  Yes.  They were customer returns or

 

 7   complaints or something.

 

 8         Q.  Has Lorillard made any attempt to locate a

 

 9   pack of original cigarettes from the ’50s and

 

10   conduct an analysis using all the proper protocols

 

11   and blanks and all the other scientific stuff you

 

12   need to have for a good study to determine how much

 

13   asbestos is released from Kent cigarettes that had

 

14   asbestos in them?

 

15             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form,

 

16   foundation, calls for speculation.

 

17             THE WITNESS:  It’s pointless, but no, I

 

18   don’t believe they have done it to my knowledge.

 

19             MR. PANATIER:  Okay.  This will be

 

20   Exhibit 36.

 

21             (Exhibit Number 36 was marked for

 

22   identification.)

 

23         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Before I give you that,

 

24   sir, you’d agree that as of 1952 Lorillard had

 

25   already decided that it may want to look for new

 

 

                                                                   210

 1   types of mineral fiber instead of asbestos; correct?

 

 2             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

 3             THE WITNESS:  I think as of 1951 when

 

 4   decisions were being made to go in this direction

 

 5   that they were continuing to look for alternative

 

 6   filter designs.

 

 7         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Is it true that

 

 8   throughout the entire life of the Kent Micronite

 

 9   cigarette that had asbestos they were constantly

 

10   looking for a replacement for asbestos?

 

11         A.  They were –

 

12             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

13             THE WITNESS:  They were constantly looking

 

14   for or continuously is probably a better word

 

15   looking for alternative filter designs, whether

 

16   asbestos was in or asbestos was out.  They were

 

17   looking at both ways.

 

18         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Alternative filter

 

19   designs would have included looking for something to

 

20   replace the asbestos; correct?

 

21         A.  Certainly included it, but some of the

 

22   alternative filter designs included asbestos.

 

23         Q.  Right.  And they included other methods of

 

24   fixing the asbestos in the filter as well; correct?

 

25             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

 

                                                                   211

 1             THE WITNESS:  Other methods of creating

 

 2   the filter, yes.

 

 3         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Which included how the

 

 4   asbestos was fixed inside the filter?

 

 5             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

 6             THE WITNESS:  There are other methods of

 

 7   doing it.

 

 8         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  And they studied them?

 

 9         A.  There are other methods which they looked

 

10   at.

 

11         Q.  This is a September 3rd, 1952 letter from

 

12   H&V, Hollingsworth & Vose, to Lorillard; correct?

 

13         A.  Yes.  It’s from H&V Specialties to

 

14   Lorillard.

 

15         Q.  And this is from L. B. Nichols to Mr.

 

16   Bennett at Lorillard and it says during one of our

 

17   meetings in your offices in New York we pointed out

 

18   that the mineral fiber suitable for your filters

 

19   occurs only in South Africa and is not regularly

 

20   stocked in this country.  He’s talking about

 

21   crocidolite; correct?

 

22         A.  I believe so.

 

23         Q.  You agreed that for full protection of

 

24   supply, we should maintain a four to six-month

 

25   inventory at all times.  Did I read that right?

 

 

                                                                   212

 1         A.  Yes.

 

 2         Q.  What that means is they wanted to make sure

 

 3   they had enough in case there was a break in the

 

 4   supply chain or something like that, a strike,

 

 5   anything, so they could continue to produce the

 

 6   cigarettes; right?

 

 7             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

 8             THE WITNESS:  That’s typically what that

 

 9   would mean.

 

10         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Okay.  This is done and

 

11   we now have approximately 25,000 pounds on hand with

 

12   biweekly receivals equal to our consumption.  At our

 

13   current operating schedule this amounts to a 28-week

 

14   supply and we are committed for regular deliveries

 

15   through October.

 

16             If and when our efforts to prove in a more

 

17   desirable mineral fiber are successful, you probably

 

18   will wish to change over on fairly short notice so

 

19   that our inventory will be surplus.  And at that

 

20   time clearly what’s being expressed here is that

 

21   there were already efforts to find a more desirable

 

22   mineral fiber; correct?

 

23         A.  Well, as I said before, even before the

 

24   filter started manufacturing there was a continual

 

25   look at alternative methods.

 

 

                                                                   213

 1         Q.  So it’s correct here that’s what’s going

 

 2   on?

 

 3             MR. BERGER:  Objection, asked and

 

 4   answered.

 

 5             THE WITNESS:  They’re just concerned that

 

 6   they’ll have something on hand that they’ll, quote,

 

 7   get stuck with and want to have assurances that they

 

 8   won’t.

 

 9         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Because as he says,

 

10   there have already been efforts to find a more

 

11   desirable mineral fiber; correct?

 

12         A.  It does say mineral fiber and that was one

 

13   of the approaches that they were using as we’ve said

 

14   before.

 

15         Q.  It says if you approve, we will attempt to

 

16   cut our commitments for this fiber in half and

 

17   gradually reduce the inventory to a lower level.  In

 

18   addition, however, should a quick change be made to

 

19   another fiber, we should like to have Lorillard

 

20   agree to protect us against an inventory loss on the

 

21   obsolete material.

 

22             And so what Lorillard is being told is,

 

23   hey, Hollingsworth & Vose is concerned of a rapid

 

24   switch and they’ll be stuck with all this surplus

 

25   asbestos; correct?

 

 

                                                                   214

 1         A.  They just want to make sure that whatever

 

 2   they’ve bought, they have coverage.

 

 3         Q.  And they had that concern in September of

 

 4   1952, which is six months after they started selling

 

 5   the asbestos cigarette; right?

 

 6         A.  That would be the math.

 

 7             MR. PANATIER:  Okay.  We can set that

 

 8   aside.  This will be the Exhibit 37.

 

 9             MR. BERGER:  I object to these being

 

10   stapled and marked together since they’re separate

 

11   documents and separate dates, but preserving my

 

12   objection, it’s your deposition.  You can do what

 

13   you want, counsel.

 

14             MR. PANATIER:  Okay.  I’ll stipulate

 

15   they’re separate documents, but we’ll leave them

 

16   stapled just for — or if you want to peel them

 

17   apart, you can peel them apart.  I don’t care.

 

18   That’s fine.

 

19             (Exhibit Number 37 was marked for

 

20   identification.)

 

21         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Sir, let’s look first at

 

22   the letter on top.  This is a letter to Dr. Parmele

 

23   from Dr. Fishbein, who we’ve discussed at length;

 

24   right?

 

25         A.  We have discussed him, yes.

 

 

                                                                   215

 1         Q.  And he’s just discussing in general the

 

 2   fact that they have tried to do a study of 20

 

 3   physicians who smoke Kent cigarettes to see if those

 

 4   physicians have improved morning coughing symptoms,

 

 5   sputum production, et cetera; right?

 

 6         A.  Yes.  Those acute symptoms, that’s correct.

 

 7         Q.  And it was this Dr. Pearlman who was

 

 8   heading up that study; correct?

 

 9         A.  There were several studies and several MDs

 

10   who had studies that they were conducting and he’s

 

11   one of them.

 

12         Q.  And they were all being paid by Lorillard;

 

13   correct?

 

14         A.  I don’t know about the contracts.

 

15         Q.  They were all being compensated in some way

 

16   by Lorillard to run these studies; correct?

 

17             MR. BERGER:  Objection, lack of

 

18   foundation.

 

19             THE WITNESS:  It was run through Fishbein

 

20   and I don’t know the specifics of the contract that

 

21   Fishbein had with Pearlman or with any of the

 

22   others.

 

23         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Okay.  Turn the page to

 

24   the back of that page.  He says you may send the

 

25   check directly to S. J. Pearlman at 55 East

 

 

                                                                   216

 1   Washington Street.  I understand it is to be for

 

 2   $3,000.  He will make a suitable distribution to the

 

 3   doctors who participated and out of this take his

 

 4   own fees and expenses.  That help straighten it out?

 

 5         A.  Yes.  It does.

 

 6         Q.  Okay.  So now if you will turn the page to

 

 7   the next document, this is the report to Dr. S.

 

 8   Pearlman from J. M. Silver, M.D. dated May 12th,

 

 9   1954; correct?

 

10             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

11             THE WITNESS:  That’s what it says.

 

12         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  And he says at the top

 

13   white male physician, age 31, and he says I have

 

14   been smoking cigarettes in the past 14 years.

 

15   During the first five or six years there were no

 

16   known pulmonary effects.  And that’s tough to read,

 

17   if you can read it, but following that period I

 

18   developed cough, especially prominent each AM,

 

19   accompanied by moderate expectoration or –

 

20   expectoration?

 

21         A.  Yes.

 

22         Q.  And expectoration is basically you’re

 

23   hocking up phlegm; right?

 

24         A.  Yes.

 

25         Q.  And he talks about — he goes on to talk

 

 

                                                                   217

 1   about how he believes Kent improved his cough and

 

 2   expectoration; right?

 

 3         A.  I need to read it.  I haven’t seen this in

 

 4   some time.

 

 5         Q.  It’s the next paragraph.

 

 6         A.  Yes.  He said since the time I started

 

 7   smoking Kent, since that time I have not been

 

 8   troubled with cough and the morning expiration –

 

 9   expectoration has decreased considerably, yes.

 

10         Q.  In the second or third to last paragraph he

 

11   says the other concern I have had is the effect of

 

12   the asbestos which is used in the filter.  There

 

13   have been unofficial reports of cases of asbestosis

 

14   found in people smoking Kent and said to be solely

 

15   as a result of such smoking.  He says that; correct?

 

16         A.  That’s what he says.

 

17         Q.  If you turn the page to the next page,

 

18   there’s another highlight.  I feel that as an

 

19   individual Kent serve my purpose best, but I would

 

20   like to see a scientific investigation of the

 

21   effects of the asbestos contained in the filter.

 

22   Did I read that right?

 

23         A.  That’s what Silver says.

 

24         Q.  Did Dr. Parmele either himself or through

 

25   Dr. Fishbein at this time communicate to Dr. Silver

 

 

                                                                   218

 1   that we have all these studies showing that Kent

 

 2   doesn’t release any asbestos?  Are you aware of any

 

 3   of that?

 

 4         A.  I haven’t seen anything.

 

 5         Q.  Did Kent ever publish any ad or report that

 

 6   says we know that, you know, people may have heard

 

 7   things about asbestos in our filter.  Look at all

 

 8   these studies we did that shows that no asbestos can

 

 9   come out of the filters.  Did they ever do that?

 

10             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

11             THE WITNESS:  I don’t believe Lorillard

 

12   published that.

 

13         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Okay.  Did Lorillard

 

14   ever issue a press release to that effect in any

 

15   way?

 

16         A.  Not that I know of.

 

17         Q.  Okay.  You can set that in our pile there.

 

18   Lorillard knew that having asbestos in its filters

 

19   was a problem because they knew that some asbestos

 

20   was coming out of the filters when people smoked the

 

21   cigarettes; correct?

 

22             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, lack of

 

23   foundation.

 

24             THE WITNESS:  I don’t know that that’s the

 

25   case.

 

 

                                                                   219

 1             MR. PANATIER:  Let me show you Exhibit 38.

 

 2             (Exhibit Number 38 was marked for

 

 3   identification.)

 

 4         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Sir, is that a summary

 

 5   of a meeting with Lorillard on October 5th, 1954?

 

 6   It says present were Hopewell, Blacknall, Parmele,

 

 7   Nicholson, Knudson and Nichols; is that right?

 

 8         A.  It says that at the top.  I’m not sure what

 

 9   the genesis of the document is, but –

 

10         Q.  It’s signed on the back –

 

11             MR. BERGER:  You need time to read it?

 

12             THE WITNESS:  It doesn’t have a Bates

 

13   stamp, so I’m not even sure where it’s from.

 

14         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Do you see on the back

 

15   it’s — the name of A. K. Nicholson?  He was at

 

16   Hollingsworth & Vose; correct?

 

17         A.  Yes.  He was.

 

18         Q.  And you know from not only this document

 

19   but others that repeatedly Parmele met with the

 

20   Hollingsworth & Vose people when they were trying to

 

21   work on the issue of trying to fix asbestos in the

 

22   filters or work on experimental filters for Kent

 

23   cigarettes; correct?

 

24             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, assumes

 

25   facts, lacks foundation.

 

 

                                                                   220

 1             THE WITNESS:  I have seen some

 

 2   correspondence primarily from H&V files that says

 

 3   that –

 

 4             MR. PANATIER:  All right.

 

 5             THE WITNESS:  – or demonstrates that.

 

 6         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  If you go to the second

 

 7   big paragraph, there’s a highlight there.  It says

 

 8   prior to the meeting in New York we had made plans

 

 9   to shut down the Groton plant, this is 1954, but at

 

10   the meeting in New York we insisted that we should

 

11   be allowed to continue to operate Collinsville or

 

12   Cominsville on the reduced basis of one card.  When

 

13   he says one card, what’s he talking about?

 

14         A.  A carding machine.

 

15         Q.  Okay.  A carding machine is a machine that

 

16   is basically a textile machine; correct?

 

17         A.  Yes.  It aligns fibers.

 

18         Q.  Okay.  This was agreed to by Mr. Hopewell,

 

19   although it was stressed that in view of the large

 

20   inventory on hand at both H&V and Lorillard, it was

 

21   in their opinion wrong to continue production of the

 

22   current material because of their desire to

 

23   immediately find ways of fixing the asbestos fibers

 

24   and for the somewhat longer term program to

 

25   eliminate the use of asbestos completely.

 

 

                                                                   221

 1             So two things, two questions I have for

 

 2   you.  In 1954 they’re saying that they’re — they

 

 3   had a desire to immediately find ways of fixing the

 

 4   asbestos fibers and they’re talking about the

 

 5   asbestos fibers in the filter; correct?

 

 6             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

 7             THE WITNESS:  It’s the asbestos fibers

 

 8   that would be in the filter material and whether or

 

 9   not it refers to experimentals, it doesn’t say.

 

10         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Well, in fact, it does

 

11   not say this refers to experimentals; does it?

 

12         A.  That’s what I said.  Whether or not it

 

13   does, it doesn’t say.

 

14         Q.  Right.  And I went a step further, which is

 

15   it does not say this applies to experimental

 

16   cigarettes; correct?

 

17         A.  It doesn’t say experimental.

 

18         Q.  Okay.  And when they say ways of fixing the

 

19   asbestos fibers, they’re not talking about repairing

 

20   a broken asbestos fiber.  They’re talking about

 

21   fixing it, meaning securing it; correct?

 

22             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form,

 

23   foundation.

 

24             THE WITNESS:  That’s typically what

 

25   they’re referring to when you talk about fixing in

 

 

                                                                   222

 1   this type of context.

 

 2         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  And it says for the

 

 3   somewhat longer-term program to eliminate the use of

 

 4   asbestos completely.  So at least as of this point

 

 5   there is a discussion of getting rid of asbestos

 

 6   completely out of the cigarette filter; correct?

 

 7         A.  Yes, for many reasons.

 

 8         Q.  Okay.  And, in fact, this is 1954.  It

 

 9   wasn’t taken out until May of 1956; correct?  So a

 

10   little less than two years later; right?

 

11         A.  Yes.

 

12             MR. PANATIER:  Okay.  You can set that

 

13   aside, sir.  This next exhibit is Exhibit 39.

 

14             (Exhibit Number 39 was marked for

 

15   identification.)

 

16         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Sir, Exhibit 39 is a

 

17   letter from Parmele to Nicholson.  Again, this is

 

18   the Nicholson we saw on the previous page, A. K.

 

19   Nicholson from Hollingsworth & Vose; right?

 

20         A.  That’s correct.

 

21         Q.  Dated October 25th, 1954.  And Dr. Parmele

 

22   says in connection with a matter which we have

 

23   recently discussed, my associates still feel that

 

24   the experiments on the fixation of asbestos fibers

 

25   in our Micronite web are not a matter of cost but,

 

 

                                                                   223

 1   on the contrary, research and development.  So,

 

 2   again, they’re talking about the securing of

 

 3   asbestos fibers in the Micronite web; right?  That’s

 

 4   what fixing means?

 

 5             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

 6             THE WITNESS:  That’s apparently what it

 

 7   says.

 

 8         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  I mean, that’s what it

 

 9   means?

 

10         A.  That’s what it says.

 

11         Q.  Yeah.  And he says are not a matter of cost

 

12   but research and development.  And you know from

 

13   this back and forth that whether something was a

 

14   matter of cost or research and development

 

15   determined whether or not they would split the cost

 

16   between Lorillard and Hollingsworth & Vose or

 

17   whether they would bear the cost completely on their

 

18   own; right?

 

19         A.  Yeah.  It referred — it does refer back to

 

20   the contract.

 

21         Q.  Right.

 

22         A.  Agreement.

 

23         Q.  Right.  And so Parmele and Nicholson are

 

24   trying to work out or at least Parmele is here

 

25   trying to work out really who’s going to pay for

 

 

                                                                   224

 1   this; right?

 

 2         A.  Yes.  And it says R&D, so –

 

 3         Q.  Yeah.

 

 4         A.  Which is experimental.

 

 5         Q.  Right.  Well, and the experimental that

 

 6   he’s talking about is experimental filters that

 

 7   would help better secure the asbestos; correct?

 

 8         A.  Yes, but the operative we’re both

 

 9   discussing at this point is experimental.  And

 

10   that’s where they’re headed at this point at this

 

11   time.

 

12         Q.  Well, he says experiments on the fixation

 

13   of asbestos in our Micronite web.  Now, the

 

14   Micronite web was used in Kent cigarettes already

 

15   being sold in public.  It was a Micronite web;

 

16   correct?

 

17         A.  It was called the Micronite filter.

 

18         Q.  And it had a Micronite webbed media in it;

 

19   correct?

 

20             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

21             THE WITNESS:  And, likewise, after the

 

22   Micronite was — the asbestos was removed, it was

 

23   still called Micronite.

 

24             MR. PANATIER:  Yeah.

 

25             THE WITNESS:  So I’m not sure exactly what

 

 

                                                                   225

 1   Micronite web he is referring to here.

 

 2         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Well, sir, he doesn’t

 

 3   specify any one of the previous 18 experimental

 

 4   mixtures that were put together for Dr. Fullam; does

 

 5   he?

 

 6         A.  No, but he doesn’t do the contrary either.

 

 7         Q.  He doesn’t say I’m talking about an

 

 8   experimental batch that was sent to Althea Revere or

 

 9   to Wanda Farr; right?

 

10         A.  Right.

 

11         Q.  He just says our Micronite web; right?

 

12         A.  And I still don’t know exactly which web

 

13   he’s talking about, whether it’s the commercial one

 

14   which I didn’t — we don’t see that we have an issue

 

15   with the fixation or the experimental where we did.

 

16         Q.  They are concerned about and Mr. Parmele is

 

17   concerned about the release of asbestos from the

 

18   Kent cigarettes that are on sale to the public;

 

19   correct?

 

20         A.  I don’t know that –

 

21             MR. BERGER:  Objection to the form,

 

22   foundation.

 

23             THE WITNESS:  I don’t know that that’s the

 

24   case.

 

25         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Okay.  You don’t know?

 

 

                                                                   226

 1         A.  I don’t believe so, but I don’t know.

 

 2             MR. PANATIER:  Okay.  All right, sir.  You

 

 3   can set that aside.  This next exhibit will be

 

 4   Exhibit 40.

 

 5             (Exhibit Number 40 was marked for

 

 6   identification.)

 

 7         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Sir, that’s a letter to

 

 8   Dr. Parmele from R. J. Lurvey at H&V; right?

 

 9         A.  Yes.

 

10         Q.  All right.  And he says this is to inform

 

11   you that six experimental master rolls were shipped

 

12   Friday, October 22nd, from West Groton by ABC

 

13   Trucking.  Then he details what was sent; right?

 

14         A.  Yes.

 

15         Q.  Okay.  If you turn the page to the very

 

16   last paragraph, he says both trials gave some

 

17   difficulty on the cards.  Excess plasticizer

 

18   accumulated at various spots causing sticking.  As

 

19   will be noted from observation of the web, the

 

20   asbestos had a tendency to collect in the card and

 

21   come loose in small strings to give a spotty

 

22   appearance to the web.  And he’s talking about their

 

23   experimental filters; right?

 

24         A.  This is all about experimental.

 

25         Q.  However, our only interest at presenting is

 

 

                                                                   227

 1   solving the problem of tieing down the asbestos;

 

 2   right?

 

 3         A.  Compared to the rest of the samples, yes.

 

 4         Q.  Sir, all of these documents that we’ve

 

 5   looked to to this point regarding the testing that

 

 6   — and experimental filter material that is being

 

 7   made, every bit of it addresses the desire to either

 

 8   decrease or eliminate the asbestos coming out of

 

 9   whatever it is they’re testing; right?

 

10             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, assumes

 

11   facts, lack of foundation.

 

12             THE WITNESS:  This one talks about

 

13   experimental master rolls and they call them

 

14   Micronite.  So it appears that what they’re trying

 

15   to do is fix and deal with issues associated with

 

16   the experimental rolls.  This is — this whole

 

17   document here is only experimental.

 

18         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  In other words –

 

19         A.  It specifically says that.

 

20         Q.  Sir, in other words, for the last 10

 

21   documents we’ve looked at or 15 documents we’ve

 

22   looked at, they’re not developing these experimental

 

23   filters to try to improve draw; are they?

 

24             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, lack of

 

25   foundation.

 

 

                                                                   228

 1             THE WITNESS:  It doesn’t say anything

 

 2   about draw in these.

 

 3             MR. PANATIER:  Right.

 

 4             THE WITNESS:  It’s just one of those

 

 5   things that one would have to have under control

 

 6   before you really start working with it otherwise.

 

 7         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Right.  And none of

 

 8   these things talk about, you know, we’re just trying

 

 9   to change up the color of the filter; right?

 

10         A.  There was no directive to change the color

 

11   of the filter.

 

12         Q.  None of these are talking about, hey, we’re

 

13   just trying to change the taste of cigarettes;

 

14   right?

 

15         A.  That’s part of developing cigarettes, so

 

16   that’s already being done by another group, not by

 

17   the people making the –

 

18         Q.  Right.  This group has nothing to do with

 

19   changing taste of the cigarettes or anything like

 

20   that; right?

 

21             MR. BERGER:  Object to lack of foundation.

 

22             THE WITNESS:  But the draw and the taste

 

23   were the major issues with the cigarette, including

 

24   the price.

 

25         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Sir, do any of these

 

 

                                                                   229

 1   documents discuss taste?

 

 2         A.  The ones you’ve selected do not.

 

 3         Q.  Sir, all of the ones that I’ve shown you

 

 4   talk about how they are trying to deal with the

 

 5   asbestos, problem of asbestos in smoke; correct?

 

 6             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form,

 

 7   foundation.

 

 8             THE WITNESS:  Certainly as you’ve selected

 

 9   them, they do exactly that.

 

10         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  And I’m not the author

 

11   of these.  Lorillard or H&V is the author of these,

 

12   not me, the lawyer; right?

 

13         A.  For the most part.

 

14         Q.  Have any of these documents appeared to be

 

15   documents that me, the lawyer, typed up and created

 

16   or are all these documents that you’ve looked at so

 

17   far regarding the testing of this material been

 

18   documents you know to exist in Lorillard’s files

 

19   either produced by Lorillard or H&V?

 

20             MR. BERGER:  Objection, argumentative,

 

21   asked and answered, lack of foundation.

 

22             THE WITNESS:  There’s certainly one.  I

 

23   don’t know where it came from because it doesn’t

 

24   even have a Bates stamp on it, but you have selected

 

25   documents that only look at the asbestos side of

 

 

                                                                   230

 1   things.  There are documents in the files that talk

 

 2   about the poor taste, the tough draw, the price, the

 

 3   cost of the filter.  There’s nothing here that talks

 

 4   about that at all that you’ve selected.

 

 5         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Right.  This is a

 

 6   specific issue.  There are other documents talking

 

 7   about the specific issue of taste; correct?

 

 8         A.  There are documents out there that talk

 

 9   about that, that is correct.

 

10         Q.  There are specific documents out there that

 

11   talk about the issue of draw; correct?

 

12         A.  Yes.  There are.

 

13         Q.  Do taste or draw to your knowledge

 

14   regardless of how hard it draws or how bad it tastes

 

15   or how good it tastes have any influence on the

 

16   disease mesothelioma to your knowledge?

 

17         A.  No.  It wouldn’t.

 

18             MR. PANATIER:  Okay.  We can set that

 

19   aside, sir.

 

20             THE WITNESS:  I think I’m ready for a –

 

21             MR. PANATIER:  Break?  Okay.

 

22             THE WITNESS:  An hour.

 

23             MR. PANATIER:  That’s fine.  We’re moving.

 

24   We’re moving fast.

 

25             THE VIDEOGRAPHER:  Off the record,

 

 

                                                                   231

 1   counselors?  Off the record, end of number four at

 

 2   2:35 p.m.

 

 3             (A recess was taken.)

 

 4             THE VIDEOGRAPHER:  Starting of number

 

 5   five, on the record at 2:47 p.m.

 

 6             MR. PANATIER:  Sir, this is Exhibit 41.

 

 7             (Exhibit Number 41 was marked for

 

 8   identification.)

 

 9         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Sir, this is another one

 

10   of those handwritten memos by Mr. Brey — and is it

 

11   Breymeier?

 

12         A.  Breymeier, yes.

 

13         Q.  Okay.  And Mr. Breymeier is a Hollingsworth

 

14   & Vose employee; correct?

 

15         A.  That’s correct.

 

16         Q.  We’ve seen a lot of typed correspondence

 

17   from him; right?

 

18             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

19             THE WITNESS:  I’ve seen at least one

 

20   letter, maybe two.

 

21         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  All right.  This is his

 

22   notes of a Lorillard meeting.  Present were Knudson,

 

23   Nicholson, who are both H&V employees; right?

 

24         A.  Yes.

 

25         Q.  Parmele, who’s with Lorillard; true?

 

 

                                                                   232

 1         A.  Yes.

 

 2         Q.  Breymeier, Lurvey.  Is the other one

 

 3   McGlory?

 

 4         A.  Looks like McGlory.  I can’t –

 

 5         Q.  Okay.

 

 6         A.  It’s hard to read.

 

 7         Q.  And then at least two people from

 

 8   Lorillard, one Lorillard labs.  He doesn’t list who

 

 9   it is.  And then Mr. Block, Lorillard engineer.  You

 

10   know Mr. Block; right?

 

11         A.  Chip Block, yes.

 

12         Q.  All right.  And then a consultant from

 

13   somewhere.  It just says consultant.  What he writes

 

14   is Dr. Parmele’s main emphasis was to find a way of

 

15   anchoring asbestos fibers in finished filter pending

 

16   the replacement of asbestos by microfibers.  Did I

 

17   read that right?

 

18         A.  Okay.  It’s hard to read this writing.

 

19         Q.  It is.

 

20         A.  Yes, yes.  That’s correct.

 

21         Q.  Okay.  So Dr. Parmele has emphasized that

 

22   his main emphasis was to find a way of anchoring the

 

23   asbestos and that would, sir, be sort of consistent

 

24   with what we’ve seen about fixing asbestos?

 

25   Anchoring, fixing asbestos in a filter are basically

 

 

                                                                   233

 1   the same thing; correct?

 

 2             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, lack of

 

 3   foundation.

 

 4             THE WITNESS:  There may be differences in

 

 5   the textile industry, but it probably means similar

 

 6   things.

 

 7         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  The truth is you don’t

 

 8   have to work to anchor something that’s already

 

 9   anchored; right?

 

10         A.  Unless you’re working in the experimental

 

11   arena, that would probably be correct.

 

12         Q.  You don’t have to work to try to fix

 

13   something or secure it in place if it’s already in

 

14   place; right?

 

15             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

16             THE WITNESS:  If it’s fixed and already in

 

17   place, no, you would not have to do anything to it.

 

18         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Right.  Lorillard are

 

19   afraid to push Kents aggressively at present because

 

20   of what they consider their vulnerable position due

 

21   to the presence of asbestos.  It’s that handwriting,

 

22   but did I read that right?

 

23         A.  That’s what Breymeier writes, yes.

 

24         Q.  Okay.  They fear that the competition might

 

25   hit below the belt with a rumor campaign that

 

 

                                                                   234

 1   asbestos causes asbestosis, pneumoconiosis, cancer,

 

 2   et cetera.  Did I read that right?

 

 3         A.  Yes.

 

 4         Q.  Do you have any doubt about what Mr.

 

 5   Breymeier wrote here that that was discussed at this

 

 6   meeting?

 

 7             MR. BERGER:  Objection, lack of

 

 8   foundation.

 

 9             THE WITNESS:  It’s Breymeier’s cut on what

 

10   was discussed.  It’s not — it’s not a transcript or

 

11   anything of that nature.

 

12         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Right.  It says on the

 

13   next page Dr. Parmele stated that the roving

 

14   approach was pretty well licked and wanted no

 

15   emphasis placed on that part of the development

 

16   program.  All efforts are to be exerted to solve the

 

17   asbestos-dust-in-Kent-smoke problem.  And it’s

 

18   asbestos dash dust dash in dash Kent dash smoke

 

19   problem; correct?

 

20         A.  That’s what it says.

 

21         Q.  So according to Mr. Breymeier, Dr. Parmele

 

22   said all efforts are to be exerted to solve the

 

23   asbestos dust in Kent smoke problem; right?

 

24         A.  That’s what this says.

 

25         Q.  Not the asbestos dust in experimental Kent

 

 

                                                                   235

 1   smoke problem; right?  He didn’t say that?

 

 2         A.  Experimental is not listed, but roving

 

 3   approach was an experimental approach, which in the

 

 4   same paragraph they’re talking about something

 

 5   experimental.  So it’s hard to tell.

 

 6         Q.  Right.  And, in fact, what he says about

 

 7   the roving approach is that there should be no

 

 8   emphasis placed on the roving approach.  That’s what

 

 9   Parmele said; right?

 

10         A.  Well, that’s what Breymeier says Parmele

 

11   said because this is Breymeier’s rendition or

 

12   recollection of the actual meeting.

 

13         Q.  And he went from talking about

 

14   experimental, says no emphasis on the roving

 

15   approach.  All efforts are to be exerted to solve

 

16   the asbestos-dust-in-Kent-smoke problem.  That was

 

17   the next sentence; correct?

 

18         A.  That’s the next sentence.  I don’t know if

 

19   there was a break between that and experimentals or

 

20   not.  I can’t tell.

 

21         Q.  Experimental isn’t specifically called out

 

22   in that sentence; is it?

 

23         A.  But roving approach was called out in other

 

24   documents to be considered experimental.

 

25         Q.  Right.  And what’s happening here, sir, and

 

 

                                                                   236

 1   I thought we had established this, is that Dr.

 

 2   Parmele is saying we are done with the roving

 

 3   approach.  He doesn’t want emphasis on that.  He

 

 4   wants emphasis on the asbestos in Kent smoke

 

 5   problem; correct?

 

 6             MR. BERGER:  Objection, argumentative.

 

 7             THE WITNESS:  That’s what he says here.

 

 8             MR. PANATIER:  Okay.  Now, sir, you can

 

 9   set that aside.

 

10             THE WITNESS:  There’s no date on it

 

11   either.

 

12         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  It’s September 21st of

 

13   some year; correct?

 

14         A.  Of some year, that’s correct.  There’s no

 

15   year date.

 

16         Q.  Right, right.  And I think we’ll be able to

 

17   pick out the year pretty soon –

 

18         A.  Okay.

 

19         Q.  – based on another conversation.  I think

 

20   you’re going to find it’s ’54, but we’ll talk about

 

21   that.  Sir, you do not dispute that as of the date

 

22   that Lorillard started manufacturing

 

23   asbestos-containing cigarettes that Lorillard knew

 

24   that asbestos was implicated as a disease-causing

 

25   agent in industry, in textile industries; correct?

 

 

                                                                   237

 1             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

 2             THE WITNESS:  Causing asbestosis at high

 

 3   levels of exposure, yes, that’s correct.

 

 4         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Right.  And Lorillard

 

 5   knew at the very least that asbestos had been

 

 6   implicated in causing lung cancer for folks who had

 

 7   asbestosis; correct?

 

 8         A.  That’s –

 

 9             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

10             THE WITNESS:  That’s what the state of the

 

11   art was saying at the time.  You had to have

 

12   asbestosis before lung cancer would ensue.

 

13         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Right.  And Kent would

 

14   have been aware of that; correct?

 

15             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

16             THE WITNESS:  Lorillard or –

 

17         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  I’m sorry.  Lorillard

 

18   would have been aware of that; correct?

 

19             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, vague as

 

20   to time.

 

21             THE WITNESS:  I believe Lorillard would be

 

22   generally aware of current state of the art articles

 

23   at the time.

 

24         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  That would include

 

25   things like Dr. Fishbein’s editorial; correct?

 

 

                                                                   238

 1         A.  That would be correct, generally aware of

 

 2   the articles that were available at the time in

 

 3   state of the art.

 

 4         Q.  Prior to their decision to place asbestos

 

 5   into a consumer leisure product that people would

 

 6   inhale through, were there any studies of that type

 

 7   of product that you’re aware of that Kent can point

 

 8   to and say there’s a study of a leisure product with

 

 9   asbestos in it that people inhaled through and it

 

10   found this would be safe?  Are you aware of

 

11   anything?

 

12             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, lack of

 

13   foundation.

 

14             THE WITNESS:  I don’t know if there were

 

15   other consumer products at the time that contained

 

16   asbestos, but certainly Lorillard performed

 

17   precommercialization studies and we talked about

 

18   those earlier.

 

19         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Right.  What I’m asking,

 

20   sir — and I’m just going to object to

 

21   nonresponsive.  What I’m asking, sir, is are you

 

22   aware of any studies that existed of consumer

 

23   products, leisure style consumer products like a

 

24   cigarette that contained asbestos that people were

 

25   inhaling through that demonstrated that those

 

 

                                                                   239

 1   products were safe?

 

 2             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, lack of

 

 3   foundation.

 

 4             THE WITNESS:  I don’t know of any.

 

 5         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Now, I would like to

 

 6   show you — this will be Exhibit 42.  Already marked

 

 7   it, of course.

 

 8             (Exhibit Number 42 was marked for

 

 9   identification.)

 

10         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Sir, Exhibit 42 is a

 

11   November 5th, 1954 letter from Frank Hopewell at

 

12   Lorillard to A. K. Nicholson at Hollingsworth &

 

13   Vose; correct?

 

14         A.  Yes.

 

15         Q.  And he says in the first paragraph I got

 

16   your letter of October 27th and wish to state that

 

17   I’ve given the subject matter some careful study.

 

18   And he says we do not wish, in fact, we are unable

 

19   to dispute the arguments which you have presented

 

20   indicating that in your opinion the expenses

 

21   incurred by the experimental work in question should

 

22   be a matter of cost.

 

23             And, remember, we had talked about how the

 

24   two companies kind of went back and forth on what

 

25   are they going to split, what are they going to bear

 

 

                                                                   240

 1   individually; right?

 

 2         A.  Yes.  We talked about that with respect to

 

 3   one of the previous letters and also with the

 

 4   contract.

 

 5         Q.  Right.  And that’s, again, what’s being

 

 6   discussed here; right?

 

 7         A.  I suppose so.  It doesn’t specifically say

 

 8   that.

 

 9         Q.  Under ordinary circumstances we would

 

10   probably agree.  Nevertheless, the presence of

 

11   asbestos in our Kent filter was developed into a –

 

12   has developed into a rather serious handicap.  Now,

 

13   he doesn’t say experimental Kent filter.  He just

 

14   says our Kent filter; correct?

 

15             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

16             THE WITNESS:  That’s what it says.

 

17         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  In other words, we are

 

18   vulnerable in a number of ways as long as this

 

19   situation exists and we will not be satisfied until

 

20   the item in question is completely removed or as a

 

21   temporary measure has been adequately fixed.  So

 

22   what he’s saying is we won’t be satisfied until the

 

23   item in question — and the item in question is

 

24   asbestos; correct?

 

25         A.  Well, that’s probably what it’s referring

 

 

                                                                   241

 1   to, but there’s a lot of refers in here and it’s

 

 2   hard to tell exactly what he’s saying.

 

 3         Q.  From the plain reading it’s your

 

 4   understanding he’s saying the item in question would

 

 5   be asbestos and you would either be removing it or

 

 6   as a temporary measure adequately fixing it;

 

 7   correct?

 

 8             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, asked and

 

 9   answered.

 

10             THE WITNESS:  I think you’re using the

 

11   word fixed differently or he’s using the word fixed

 

12   differently here.  I mean, he’s — in fixing a

 

13   problem, fixing an issue, not fixing as in placement

 

14   of a particular fiber.  I think it’s a different use

 

15   of the term here.

 

16         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Okay.  I can do it that

 

17   way, which is so he’s saying we will not be

 

18   completely satisfied until the item in question,

 

19   we’ve agreed based on the plain reading that’s

 

20   probably asbestos, is removed or the issue of

 

21   asbestos is fixed; right?

 

22         A.  It’s referring to the asbestos in the

 

23   middle of the paragraph and that’s about all I can

 

24   tell you about that.

 

25         Q.  Okay.  Third paragraph or fourth paragraph.

 

 

                                                                   242

 1   Referring to the third paragraph of your letter

 

 2   regarding conversations held in early 1952, we fully

 

 3   realize that we will — that we mutually agreed that

 

 4   it would be highly desirable to carry on joint

 

 5   research in order to keep in front of the

 

 6   competition.  Now, Lorillard and H&V did carry on

 

 7   joint research; correct?

 

 8         A.  They worked together and split costs on

 

 9   various things, that’s correct.

 

10         Q.  At that time we may have had new approaches

 

11   and new materials in mind for such joint research.

 

12   However, our aim in either case was to stay in front

 

13   of the competition.  Thus, although the solving of

 

14   the current asbestos problem was not particularly in

 

15   our minds in 1952, yet it now presents a mutually

 

16   aggravating problem which is in the long run –

 

17   which in the long run adds one more factor to making

 

18   it difficult to stay in front.  Did I read that

 

19   correctly?

 

20         A.  Yes.  You read that correctly.

 

21         Q.  And, again, he’s talking about the asbestos

 

22   problem in regular Kent cigarettes; correct?

 

23             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

24             THE WITNESS:  The asbestos problem can

 

25   come in many forms.  It costs more and causes

 

 

                                                                   243

 1   cigarettes to cost more.  The asbestos took more

 

 2   manpower, person power, whatever is politically

 

 3   correct to make the filters.  There was quite a bit

 

 4   of waste associated with the filter as it is.

 

 5   There’s a lot of, quote, baggage associated with

 

 6   that word problem that follows the asbestos.

 

 7         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Does he bring up waste,

 

 8   cost or whatever the other thing was you said, man

 

 9   hours or whatever?

 

10         A.  Not in this particular letter.

 

11         Q.  Okay.

 

12         A.  Because –

 

13         Q.  He says the current asbestos problem;

 

14   right?

 

15         A.  That’s what he says.

 

16             MR. BERGER:  Dr. Reinert, were you

 

17   finished with your prior answer?

 

18             THE WITNESS:  No.  I wasn’t.

 

19             MR. BERGER:  Would you like to finish your

 

20   answer, please?

 

21             THE WITNESS:  Yes.  I would.

 

22             MR. PANATIER:  Go ahead.

 

23             THE WITNESS:  And, again, as we talked

 

24   before the break, this is a listing of items that

 

25   are totally out of context from the record as it

 

 

                                                                   244

 1   stands in Lorillard’s files.  And the asbestos

 

 2   problem can relate on paper documented information

 

 3   to the things I just talked about.  So you choose to

 

 4   go and talk about it from just a health perspective,

 

 5   but there’s many other ways that this problem can be

 

 6   identified and I’m just trying to make that point.

 

 7             MR. PANATIER:  Objection to nonresponsive.

 

 8         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  In this document cost,

 

 9   waste, man hours not addressed at all, not brought

 

10   up; right?

 

11         A.  It is not mentioned or they are not

 

12   mentioned.  Excuse me.

 

13             MR. PANATIER:  You can set that aside.

 

14   Now, this will be Exhibit 43.

 

15             THE WITNESS:  You want to write 43 on

 

16   that?

 

17             MR. PANATIER:  I was doing it in invisible

 

18   ink.

 

19             (Exhibit Number 43 was marked for

 

20   identification.)

 

21         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Sir, Exhibit 43 is a

 

22   November 16th, 1954 response from Mr. Nicholson to

 

23   Mr. Hopewell.  In fact, he references his

 

24   November 5th letter, which you and I just discussed;

 

25   correct?

 

 

                                                                   245

 1         A.  Yes.

 

 2         Q.  He says Dear Mr. Hopewell, I have been

 

 3   giving your letter of November 5th careful

 

 4   consideration and in view of the problem that you

 

 5   feel is now facing us both because of the presence

 

 6   of asbestos in the Kent filter, I feel we should

 

 7   agree to your suggestion that the development of a

 

 8   method of fixing asbestos in the current material

 

 9   should be considered in the same category as the

 

10   research program devoted to the elimination of

 

11   asbestos and the cost of problems shared equally.

 

12   Did I read that right?

 

13         A.  Yes.  You did.

 

14         Q.  And he actually refers to development of a

 

15   method of fixing asbestos in the current material;

 

16   correct?

 

17         A.  He says that, yes.

 

18             MR. PANATIER:  Okay.  Sir, you can set

 

19   that aside.  Next is Exhibit 44.

 

20             (Exhibit Number 44 was marked for

 

21   identification.)

 

22         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Sir, that’s a memo from

 

23   November 18th, 1954.  If you turn to the back, you

 

24   can see that this is authored by A. K. Nicholson,

 

25   who we’ve seen before; correct?

 

 

                                                                   246

 1         A.  Yes.

 

 2         Q.  It says summary of a meeting held in New

 

 3   York with P. Lorillard.  Present were Hopewell,

 

 4   Parmele, Nicholson and Knudson.  We were informed by

 

 5   Hopewell of two new developments.  First, a decision

 

 6   by the FTC that no manufacturer of cigarettes can

 

 7   claim that its cigarette is better than any other

 

 8   from a health viewpoint.

 

 9             Second, that it is Lorillard’s belief that

 

10   asbestos must be eliminated from the Kent cigarette

 

11   as soon as possible because of a whispering campaign

 

12   started by the competitors of the harmful effects of

 

13   asbestos.  Did I read that right?

 

14         A.  Yes.  You did.

 

15         Q.  And you recall that Mr. Breymeier’s

 

16   handwritten notes reflected that Lorillard was

 

17   concerned about a whisper campaign, a below the belt

 

18   whisper campaign about the harmful effects of

 

19   asbestos?  Do you recall that?

 

20         A.  A rumor campaign, yes, false accusations.

 

21         Q.  Right.  And those accusations were that

 

22   asbestos could cause asbestosis, pneumoconiosis and

 

23   cancer; correct?

 

24         A.  Well, I think probably they’re referring

 

25   to — and again, this is I’m interpreting and

 

 

                                                                   247

 1   probably shouldn’t do that.  The rumor campaign

 

 2   would be that the levels that are not — or trace

 

 3   amounts coming out of the filters would cause that,

 

 4   which is not supported in any way, shape or form by

 

 5   any of the state of the art at the time.

 

 6         Q.  I’m just going to object to nonresponsive.

 

 7   What Mr. Breymeier said in that previous memo was

 

 8   competition might hit below the belt with rumor

 

 9   campaign that asbestos causes asbestosis,

 

10   pneumoconiosis, cancer, et cetera; right?

 

11         A.  Well, that’s what that says.

 

12         Q.  And that is consistent with the comments

 

13   being made by Mr. Nicholson here about a whispering

 

14   campaign started by their competitors about the

 

15   harmful effects of asbestos; right?  Those two

 

16   things are consistent?

 

17             MR. BERGER:  Objection, calls for

 

18   speculation.

 

19             THE WITNESS:  Whispering campaign, rumor

 

20   campaign, and it says something similar, that’s

 

21   correct.

 

22         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  There’s a second

 

23   paragraph there and it says since Lorillard can no

 

24   longer advertise Kent as being the best filter

 

25   tipped cigarette, it believes there is no reason for

 

 

                                                                   248

 1   continuing its high quality with the need of

 

 2   charging a premium price.  And since the public is

 

 3   satisfied with a poorer performance, Lorillard

 

 4   believes that the direction to go is — in is toward

 

 5   a cheaper construction and poorer performing filter

 

 6   tip.

 

 7             In view of the above, we were — I think

 

 8   it’s we were instructed to promptly discontinue that

 

 9   part of our research program devoted to the fixing

 

10   of asbestos fibers and direct the entire attention

 

11   of the program toward the complete elimination of

 

12   asbestos.  Did I read that right?

 

13         A.  That’s what it says.

 

14         Q.  Okay.  Lorillard has told H&V we’re going

 

15   to get rid of asbestos, direct research towards that

 

16   and not towards the fixing or the securing that you

 

17   and I have talked about of asbestos in filters;

 

18   correct?

 

19         A.  That’s what it says here.

 

20             MR. PANATIER:  Okay.  You can set that

 

21   aside, sir.  Next will be Exhibit 45.

 

22             (Exhibit Number 45 was marked for

 

23   identification.)

 

24         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Sir, this is a report of

 

25   a phone conversation between Knudson and Parmele,

 

 

                                                                   249

 1   November 22nd, 1954.  There’s just a highlight there

 

 2   and it says — well, I’ll just read the whole

 

 3   paragraph.  Parmele indicated that he had tried to

 

 4   reach Nicholson and in his absence wished to talk to

 

 5   me.

 

 6             He indicated some embarrassment over the

 

 7   fact that Mr. Nicholson and I had on the previous

 

 8   Thursday been in Mr. Hopewell’s office and were not

 

 9   informed of their intention to promptly discontinue

 

10   the use of asbestos in the Micronite webbing.  So

 

11   apparently at this point Lorillard had made a

 

12   decision to discontinue the use of asbestos in

 

13   Micronite.  Is that true?

 

14         A.  Well, one, I haven’t seen this before and

 

15   I’m not sure I saw that last one before; but with

 

16   that said, there appears to be some movement in that

 

17   direction.

 

18         Q.  Right.  Well, it says their intention is to

 

19   promptly discontinue the use of asbestos; right?

 

20         A.  That’s what it says here.

 

21         Q.  That’s November 22nd, ’54.  Asbestos was

 

22   removed May ’56; right?

 

23         A.  That’s correct.

 

24         Q.  Okay.  That’s not very prompt; is it?

 

25             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

 

                                                                   250

 1             THE WITNESS:  I don’t know the genesis of

 

 2   this Knudson.

 

 3         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  I mean, if you were a

 

 4   year-and-a-half late to dinner, you wouldn’t be

 

 5   prompt; right?

 

 6             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

 7             THE WITNESS:  Prompt depends on the system

 

 8   it’s generated in.  In research promptness is often

 

 9   a lot longer than coming to dinner.

 

10         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  They knew as of this

 

11   date that they could immediately switch to cellulose

 

12   acetate and have a very good filter; correct?

 

13         A.  That’s — that I — I don’t agree with

 

14   that.

 

15         Q.  Well, we saw in ’51 that cellulose acetate

 

16   could produce a very good filter; right?

 

17         A.  And I also said –

 

18             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, lack of

 

19   foundation.

 

20             THE WITNESS:  I also said when you said

 

21   that that there are other things besides just

 

22   filtering efficiency that are important, draw,

 

23   taste, machinability.  Can you make cigarettes out

 

24   of it?  No one else picked it up either.

 

25         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Well, we know that at

 

 

                                                                   251

 1   least two or three companies depending on what you

 

 2   look at did by about a year-and-a-half to two years

 

 3   after Kent started making the Micronite filter and

 

 4   they had better filtering for tar and nicotine than

 

 5   Kent did; correct?

 

 6             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, lack of

 

 7   foundation.

 

 8             THE WITNESS:  That’s correct, but they

 

 9   weren’t up to 75 percent that Molins was talking

 

10   about either.  So something else went on between

 

11   those two periods of time.

 

12         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  They weren’t at

 

13   75 percent, but they were better than Kent; right?

 

14             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

15             THE WITNESS:  According to the documents

 

16   we reviewed, yes.

 

17         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  And, in fact –

 

18         A.  Three of them.

 

19         Q.  Right.  And, in fact, according to what

 

20   Parmele had processed from looking at the data, he’s

 

21   the one that told the president of the company that

 

22   three companies are better than us at filtering tar

 

23   and nicotine; right?

 

24         A.  The filters or the cigarettes that were

 

25   mentioned in there, that’s exactly what it says.

 

 

                                                                   252

 1             MR. PANATIER:  Okay.  You can set that

 

 2   aside.  This will be Exhibit 46.

 

 3             (Exhibit Number 46 was marked for

 

 4   identification.)

 

 5         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Sir, this is a

 

 6   December 1st, 1954 letter from Dr. Parmele to Mr.

 

 7   Lurvey at H&V; right?

 

 8         A.  Yes.

 

 9         Q.  I just want to go to the very end.  He said

 

10   we are holding some of each of these two lots of

 

11   cigarettes to send to our microscopists in case we

 

12   decide that seems advisable.  In view of our

 

13   contemplated elimination of asbestos, there is no

 

14   longer much point of sending samples to the

 

15   microscopists except to gain information for

 

16   possible use in the future.

 

17             To your knowledge after December 1st, 1954

 

18   did Lorillard conduct any tests whatsoever on the

 

19   potential for the cigarettes to release asbestos in

 

20   smoke?

 

21         A.  I don’t believe I’ve seen anything there.

 

22         Q.  Okay.  They continued to sell the

 

23   asbestos-containing Micronite cigarettes through

 

24   1955 and halfway through 1956; right?

 

25             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

 

                                                                   253

 1             THE WITNESS:  That’s –

 

 2         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  With no further — with

 

 3   no further testing; right?

 

 4         A.  Well, this –

 

 5             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

 6             THE WITNESS:  This letter talks about

 

 7   experimentals again, so I would presume since the

 

 8   majority of the letter talks about experimentals,

 

 9   that the closure of the letter probably would, too.

 

10         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Sir, would you agree

 

11   that if you are trying to improve a product, you

 

12   generally experiment?

 

13         A.  On the product that’s not for sale, that’s

 

14   what I would do.

 

15         Q.  Right.  And the experiments are — and

 

16   especially in this case they are designed to

 

17   hopefully come up with a product that is better than

 

18   the one that’s being sold in whatever respect;

 

19   right?

 

20         A.  Typically that’s why you would do product

 

21   development, that’s correct.

 

22         Q.  And so anytime you’re talking about your

 

23   experimental products, you’re always relating them

 

24   back to what you’re currently selling to say is this

 

25   worse or is this better than what we’re currently

 

 

                                                                   254

 1   selling; right?

 

 2             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, lack of

 

 3   foundation.

 

 4             THE WITNESS:  That’s typically what you

 

 5   would do.

 

 6             MR. PANATIER:  Okay.  Just wanted to

 

 7   check.  This will be 1947 — 1947.

 

 8             (Exhibit Number 47 was marked for

 

 9   identification.)

 

10         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Okay.  This is

 

11   Exhibit 47.  Sir, this is an October 26th, 1956

 

12   letter to Mr. Parmele from the National Better

 

13   Business Bureau; right?

 

14         A.  Yes, and I’ve never seen it.

 

15         Q.  Okay.  This is four months after Lorillard

 

16   has stopped manufacturing the crocidolite

 

17   asbestos-containing cigarettes; right?

 

18             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

19             THE WITNESS:  I guess it would be.

 

20   March — May of ’56 was the discontinuation.

 

21   October, I believe that’s four months if I can do

 

22   the math right.

 

23         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  All right.  Just at the

 

24   very end it says we do believe that the public

 

25   should be apprised of the fact that the Micronite

 

 

                                                                   255

 1   filter is now fabricated from cellulose.  Is that a

 

 2   true statement?

 

 3             MR. BERGER:  He’s already testified he

 

 4   hasn’t read the document before.

 

 5             THE WITNESS:  Yeah.  I would like to look

 

 6   at it.  He’s just saying they want to continue to

 

 7   use Micronite as I said earlier when they change

 

 8   over to the crimped cellulose acetate.

 

 9         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Ultimately what

 

10   Lorillard used instead of putting asbestos in their

 

11   cigarettes was crimped cellulose acetate; right?

 

12             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

13             THE WITNESS:  Yes.  A new material from

 

14   Tennessee has been called crimped cellulose acetate.

 

15         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Cellulose acetate was an

 

16   option in 1952; correct?

 

17         A.  It was a component of our Micronite at that

 

18   time.

 

19         Q.  It was actually already in the cigarette;

 

20   right?

 

21         A.  As I said, it was a component of the

 

22   cigarette.  It wasn’t the filter itself.

 

23         Q.  Right.  And then it became the filter

 

24   itself; correct?

 

25             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, lack of

 

 

                                                                   256

 1   foundation, assumes facts.

 

 2             THE WITNESS:  Tennessee Eastman developed

 

 3   a new type of cellulose acetate which then met the

 

 4   specifications required by Lorillard to produce the

 

 5   appropriate filter and the change was made.

 

 6         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Did Lorillard ask

 

 7   Eastman to come up with a new cellulose acetate

 

 8   filter?

 

 9         A.  I don’t know the genesis.  I do know there

 

10   are documents in the file back and forth about its

 

11   performance and development.

 

12         Q.  To your knowledge can you tell us whether

 

13   or not Lorillard played a role in the development of

 

14   the cellulose acetate?

 

15         A.  We did testing on our end and worked with

 

16   them, but I don’t know what that exactly was.

 

17         Q.  Do you know when cellulose acetate from

 

18   Eastman first became available?

 

19             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, vague.

 

20             THE WITNESS:  I believe the crimped

 

21   cellulose acetate became available in 1956.  That

 

22   was a new development in the manufacture.

 

23         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  What’s the difference

 

24   between cellulose acetate and crimped cellulose

 

25   acetate?

 

 

                                                                   257

 1         A.  Crimped cellulose acetate has more bends in

 

 2   it.  It’s not just a straight polymer.  It bends and

 

 3   crosses over itself.

 

 4         Q.  So it’s crimped?

 

 5         A.  Yes, crimped.

 

 6         Q.  So the difference between cellulose acetate

 

 7   and crimped cellulose acetate is the crimping; fair?

 

 8         A.  Yes, yes.  It bends over itself and allows

 

 9   per unit of volume more places for particles to

 

10   impact and be trapped.

 

11         Q.  Was — to your knowledge could you crimp

 

12   things in 1951?

 

13         A.  I have — I’m not a polymer chemist, so I

 

14   don’t know.

 

15         Q.  You can set that aside.

 

16         A.  I don’t know that anybody was using it if

 

17   it was.

 

18         Q.  Lorillard was considered a good size or a

 

19   big company back in the early ’50s; right?

 

20             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, lack of

 

21   foundation.

 

22             THE WITNESS:  I don’t know.  I’m not

 

23   familiar with the industrial regimes of the 1950s.

 

24         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Okay.  Well, I’m sorry.

 

25   How many employees did Lorillard have back in the

 

 

                                                                   258

 1   ’50s?

 

 2         A.  I answered earlier this morning that I

 

 3   don’t know.

 

 4         Q.  And do you know what its typical net income

 

 5   was each year –

 

 6             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

 7         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  – in the ’50s?

 

 8         A.  We have documents that I’ve testified about

 

 9   previously, but I don’t have them today.  They’re in

 

10   my files, I suppose.

 

11         Q.  Sure.  We would look in annual reports,

 

12   things like that, to get the answers to that;

 

13   correct?

 

14         A.  Yes.  And then there’s also internal

 

15   documents and there’s documents from Wooten and so

 

16   on that might — that are available.

 

17         Q.  Sir, if Lorillard — you said you believed

 

18   Lorillard would have become aware of the general

 

19   state of the art literature as it pertained to

 

20   asbestos around or at a reasonable time after it

 

21   came out; right?

 

22         A.  We should — we would have been generally

 

23   aware of that.

 

24         Q.  So Lorillard would have been aware that

 

25   folks who were making asbestos products were already

 

 

                                                                   259

 1   getting sick and dying from asbestos; correct?

 

 2             MR. BERGER:  Objection to the form.

 

 3             THE WITNESS:  Those data were generally

 

 4   available and, as I said earlier, that was typically

 

 5   high levels of exposure over longer periods of time.

 

 6         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Sir, was there any

 

 7   corresponding literature to your knowledge that

 

 8   showed that folks working with or making cellulose

 

 9   acetate were getting sick and dying from that?

 

10             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, lack of

 

11   foundation, assumes facts.

 

12             THE WITNESS:  I don’t follow that

 

13   literature.

 

14         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Are you aware of any

 

15   such literature?

 

16         A.  I don’t follow it, so I’m not aware.

 

17         Q.  Is Lorillard aware of it to your knowledge?

 

18             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, outside

 

19   the scope.

 

20             THE WITNESS:  I can’t answer that.  I

 

21   don’t know.

 

22         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Lorillard knew that

 

23   there was research demonstrating that folks who

 

24   actually made asbestos products were getting sick

 

25   and dying and yet decided to place the same material

 

 

                                                                   260

 1   into their cigarettes; correct?

 

 2             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

 3             THE WITNESS:  State of the art said that

 

 4   it was high levels of exposure over longer periods

 

 5   of time.

 

 6         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  And how many of those

 

 7   state of the art articles studied asbestos through

 

 8   direct inhalation –

 

 9             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

10         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  – through a product?

 

11             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

12             THE WITNESS:  I believe I answered this

 

13   earlier, but I don’t know of one.

 

14         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Okay.  Did Lorillard to

 

15   your knowledge ever go out and get an industrial

 

16   hygiene opinion as to what level directly inhaled

 

17   asbestos should be permitted?

 

18             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

19             THE WITNESS:  I don’t know of that.

 

20         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  You are not aware of

 

21   that ever happening; correct?

 

22             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, vague as

 

23   to time.

 

24             THE WITNESS:  I don’t know that we didn’t

 

25   and I don’t know that we did.

 

 

                                                                   261

 1         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Is there any regulatory

 

 2   standard for the number of asbestos fibers allowed

 

 3   from direct inhalation of a leisure consumer

 

 4   product?

 

 5             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

 6             THE WITNESS:  I’m not sure that that

 

 7   exists other than clean-up standards from O’Hara

 

 8   from 1989 and ’93 out of EPA.

 

 9         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Lorillard knew customers

 

10   had no clue that there was asbestos in its

 

11   cigarettes; correct?

 

12             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, lack of

 

13   foundation, assumes facts.

 

14             THE WITNESS:  I don’t know if Lorillard

 

15   knew that they didn’t, but certainly we didn’t put

 

16   warnings or advertise that aspect.

 

17         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Lorillard had no reason

 

18   to expect that customers would believe there was

 

19   asbestos in their cigarettes; right?

 

20             MR. BERGER:  Objection the form, lack of

 

21   foundation.

 

22             THE WITNESS:  I don’t know how to answer

 

23   that.  That’s a — I’m not even sure how to answer

 

24   that question.

 

25         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Well, sir, let me see if

 

 

                                                                   262

 1   I can make it a little bit better question.  I had

 

 2   lunch at Subway today and I had a sandwich, didn’t

 

 3   have onions on it; but if it did have onions and I

 

 4   asked Subway the question, hey, if you made a

 

 5   sandwich with onions, would you expect that a

 

 6   consumer may be aware of that, Subway might say,

 

 7   well, maybe they’d smell the onions.

 

 8             Was there anything about Kent cigarettes

 

 9   that contained asbestos that you as Lorillard would

 

10   say, hey, there was something there that should have

 

11   told them it had asbestos in it?  Answer that

 

12   question.

 

13             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

14             THE WITNESS:  Well, based on the fact that

 

15   the product didn’t release or only to traces to

 

16   three fibers, there was no reason to warn.  And I

 

17   don’t think Subway told you there were nitrosamines

 

18   in your lunch meat either.

 

19             MR. PANATIER:  Objection, nonresponsive.

 

20         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Sir, was there anything

 

21   about Kent cigarettes with asbestos in them that

 

22   would cause a customer to believe they contained

 

23   asbestos?

 

24             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

25             THE WITNESS:  Can you repeat the question?

 

 

                                                                   263

 1         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Was there anything about

 

 2   the Kent cigarettes with the Micronite filter that

 

 3   contained asbestos that would cause a customer to

 

 4   believe that the product had asbestos in it?

 

 5         A.  It wasn’t labeled and it wasn’t warned and

 

 6   it wasn’t listed, so I don’t think the customer

 

 7   would have known that.

 

 8         Q.  In order for a customer to know, they would

 

 9   either have to be told or they would have to go to

 

10   their local science lab, open up the filter and look

 

11   at it under a microscope; right?

 

12             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, lack of

 

13   foundation.

 

14             THE WITNESS:  Unless they read some of the

 

15   publications that were out at the time like Consumer

 

16   Reports and Consumer Research Bulletin and a few of

 

17   the others, which did note the fact that there was

 

18   asbestos in those.

 

19         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  And how many of those

 

20   publications actually said there was asbestos in

 

21   Kent cigarettes?

 

22         A.  I don’t know the specific number, but it

 

23   was listed.

 

24         Q.  Lorillard knew asbestos — well, let me

 

25   withdraw that.  I’ve covered that.  Did any of the

 

 

                                                                   264

 1   testing that we looked at from the 1950s follow FTC

 

 2   protocols for testing smoke in cigarettes?

 

 3         A.  They weren’t available until 1963, so — I

 

 4   mean, ’66.  Excuse me.  So no.  They were similar

 

 5   but not FTC protocol per se.

 

 6         Q.  Did any of those studies follow ISO

 

 7   protocols?

 

 8             MR. BERGER:  Objection to –

 

 9             THE WITNESS:  ISO was not had protocols –

 

10   they didn’t have protocols for testing cigarettes

 

11   then either.

 

12         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Okay.  And again, sir,

 

13   you have mentioned the three fibers thing again.

 

14   And the company that talked about three fibers said

 

15   themselves that they really weren’t sure about the

 

16   accuracy of their measurements due to the technique;

 

17   correct?

 

18             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, incomplete

 

19   hypothetical.

 

20             THE WITNESS:  That’s what they say in the

 

21   report and then I answered further.

 

22             MR. PANATIER:  Okay.  This next one will

 

23   be — what are we on?  Forty-eight?  Forty-eight.

 

24             (Exhibit Number 48 was marked for

 

25   identification.)

 

 

                                                                   265

 1             MR. BERGER:  A complete copy?

 

 2             MR. PANATIER:  Yeah.

 

 3         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Sir, you’ve seen that

 

 4   before?  That’s Dr. Longo’s published paper?

 

 5         A.  Yes.

 

 6         Q.  Okay.  And Dr. Longo published this

 

 7   article, Crocidolite Asbestos Fibers in Smoke from

 

 8   Original Kent Cigarettes; correct?

 

 9         A.  That’s his title.

 

10         Q.  It was published in Cancer Research in

 

11   1995?

 

12         A.  That’s correct.

 

13         Q.  If you go to the page marked 2234, do you

 

14   see that?

 

15         A.  Yes.

 

16         Q.  It has a table, asbestos structures per

 

17   puff.  Do you see that table?

 

18         A.  I see the table.

 

19             MR. PANATIER:  Okay.

 

20             MR. BERGER:  By the way, just to preserve

 

21   the record, you’re moving into questions about Longo

 

22   and I see Millette coming up.  As I told you I would

 

23   do, I’m going to put an objection on the record.  I

 

24   think this is outside the scope of the corporate

 

25   representative deposition notice and getting into

 

 

                                                                   266

 1   this expert testimony.  That said, I’m going to

 

 2   allow you to go ahead and ask the questions and for

 

 3   the witness to answer if he’s able to.

 

 4             MR. PANATIER:  That’s very gracious.  Just

 

 5   for the record, I will state that I am

 

 6   cross-examining the company on what it believes

 

 7   about whether or not its products are hazardous.

 

 8         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Sir, the table one

 

 9   there, it has several different analyses that were

 

10   done, puff one, puff two, where the cigarette was

 

11   rolled, pinched or nonmanipulated.  I want to go to

 

12   nonmanipulated, seven through nine.  Do you see

 

13   that?

 

14         A.  I see that.

 

15         Q.  And it says, first of all, this was done

 

16   through an electron microscope; right?

 

17         A.  The analysis was done through EM, that’s

 

18   correct.

 

19         Q.  Okay.  TEM; true?

 

20         A.  Yes.

 

21         Q.  Transmission electromicroscopy; right?

 

22         A.  That’s what it says.

 

23         Q.  That’s the same type of microscopy that

 

24   Althea Revere was doing; right?

 

25         A.  I believe it was TEM.  It’s electron

 

 

                                                                   267

 1   microscopy, so –

 

 2         Q.  Right.  The nonmanipulated smoke for puff

 

 3   one, there’s three samples.  One is — and let’s

 

 4   just do structures larger than five microns; okay?

 

 5   16,920, 18,390 and 480.  Did I read that right?

 

 6         A.  Yes.

 

 7         Q.  Puff two, structures larger than five

 

 8   microns, 18,330, 29,550, 3,210.  So what they’re

 

 9   saying here is for a nonmanipulated smoked cigarette

 

10   from one puff to two puffs, they measured anywhere

 

11   from 480 to 29,550 crocidolite fibers; correct?

 

12         A.  That’s what the document says.

 

13         Q.  Okay.  Now, if you go to the last page,

 

14   sir, it says our data probably underestimates the

 

15   amount of crocidolite released in an actual smoking

 

16   situation for three reasons.  A, these tests

 

17   examined only smoke from the first two puffs and

 

18   there was still substantial release of asbestos

 

19   during the second puff.

 

20             B, the numbers given in conformance with

 

21   EPA counting rules, 11, reflects structures and not

 

22   fibers.  Overall 18.7 percent of the structures

 

23   observed were aggregates rather than individual

 

24   fibers.  An aggregate includes at least three and

 

25   often hundreds of fibers.

 

 

                                                                   268

 1             And C, the structures recovered from the

 

 2   smoking apparatus are only those that had settled on

 

 3   the interior of the syringe and had become suspended

 

 4   in the wash water.  Structures that remained

 

 5   adherent to the wall were not counted.  Did I read

 

 6   that right?

 

 7         A.  Yes.

 

 8         Q.  Now, have you or anybody at Lorillard to

 

 9   your knowledge authored any papers in a peer

 

10   reviewed journal that are critical of Dr. Longo’s

 

11   work here?

 

12         A.  No.  We have not.

 

13         Q.  Okay.  Have you ever presented at a

 

14   scientific conference at all or in front of a

 

15   regulatory agency of any type where you have voiced

 

16   objections to Dr. Longo’s study here as published in

 

17   Cancer Research in 1995?

 

18         A.  I have not.

 

19             MR. PANATIER:  All right.  You can set

 

20   that aside, sir.

 

21             (Exhibit Number 49 was marked for

 

22   identification.)

 

23             MR. PANATIER:  All right.  This next one

 

24   is 49.

 

25             MR. BERGER:  Which one is it?

 

 

                                                                   269

 1             MR. PANATIER:  2012.

 

 2             MR. BERGER:  Crepe paper study.

 

 3             MR. PANATIER:  No.  This isn’t crepe

 

 4   paper.  This — oh, is it?  Oh, you know what?  I

 

 5   won’t do that one yet.  We’ll keep it marked 50.

 

 6             THE WITNESS:  It’s 49.

 

 7             MR. PANATIER:  We’ll keep that one marked

 

 8   49 and I’ll make this next one 50.  I’m sorry.  This

 

 9   one is the –

 

10             MR. BERGER:  Is that the corrected July?

 

11             MR. PANATIER:  It’s the revised report

 

12   from July, yeah.

 

13             (Exhibit Number 50 was marked for

 

14   identification.)

 

15         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  So, sir, I’m going to

 

16   show you Exhibit 50 before I show you 49.  So this

 

17   is 50.  Oh, there’s two copies there.  I want to

 

18   pull one off.  I’m sorry.  Just give me the bottom

 

19   one.  Thanks.

 

20             MR. BERGER:  May I see that for a minute,

 

21   Doctor?  Thank you.

 

22         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Sir, Lorillard has seen

 

23   this before; correct?

 

24         A.  Yes.

 

25         Q.  And if you could just hold it up to the

 

 

                                                                   270

 1   camera so we know which one we’re talking about?

 

 2         A.  (Witness complies with attorney’s request.)

 

 3         Q.  Okay.  Thank you.  Sir, you are familiar

 

 4   with this study from July of 2012 by Dr. Longo at

 

 5   MAS; correct?

 

 6         A.  I’ve reviewed it.

 

 7         Q.  Okay.  And you know that Dr. Longo did this

 

 8   as a follow-up — as one of the follow-ups to his

 

 9   earlier work; correct?

 

10         A.  Yes.

 

11         Q.  Okay.  He actually looked at the smoke from

 

12   Kent cigarettes from the 1950s; true?

 

13         A.  Well, the cigarette was manufactured in the

 

14   1950s.  It’s certainly not a representative

 

15   cigarette of those manufactured in the 1950s.

 

16             MR. PANATIER:  All right.  I’m going to

 

17   object to nonresponsive.

 

18         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Sir, with regard to –

 

19   we’re going to go through some of the data from

 

20   this, but with regard to this study again, have you

 

21   or anyone at Lorillard to your knowledge ever

 

22   authored any criticisms of this study or given any

 

23   presentations that are critical of the study other

 

24   than your testimony in front of juries?

 

25             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

 

                                                                   271

 1             THE WITNESS:  I have not.

 

 2         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Okay.  If you’ll turn to

 

 3   page eight, it says table one, crocidolite asbestos

 

 4   structures released in Kent one cigarette smoke and

 

 5   they went through several different cigarettes;

 

 6   correct?

 

 7         A.  Yes.

 

 8         Q.  Okay.  And so let’s just look at this,

 

 9   which is they looked at crocidolite per cubic

 

10   centimeter, crocidolite per puff and crocidolite in

 

11   eight puffs; right?

 

12         A.  That’s what the header says, yes.

 

13         Q.  About how many puffs does it typically take

 

14   to finish a cigarette?

 

15             MR. BERGER:  Object to form, lack of

 

16   foundation.

 

17             THE WITNESS:  Depends on the length and

 

18   whether it’s a ventilated cigarette or air diluted

 

19   cigarette or not, but eight to ten is probably

 

20   reasonable.

 

21         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  All right.  So they

 

22   looked at crocidolite in eight puffs and they found

 

23   according to this table anywhere between 532

 

24   crocidolite structures to 4,284 in eight puffs; is

 

25   that correct?

 

 

                                                                   272

 1         A.  That’s the range, yes.

 

 2         Q.  So let me ask you this question.  If Kent

 

 3   cigarettes released fibers of these levels in the

 

 4   1950s, would you agree that that would be extremely

 

 5   dangerous?

 

 6             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, lack of

 

 7   foundation, calls for speculation.

 

 8             THE WITNESS:  You’re asking me if I’m

 

 9   assuming or making a judgment that these cigarettes

 

10   represent the Kent cigarettes from the ’50s and they

 

11   do not.

 

12             MR. PANATIER:  Okay.  Objection,

 

13   nonresponsive.

 

14         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Sir, I understand you

 

15   have different criticisms of this study and you have

 

16   told juries about those.  My question is, sir, I

 

17   want you to assume that a cigarette released

 

18   crocidolite in an amount of between 532 structures

 

19   after eight puffs to 4,284 in eight puffs.

 

20             Okay.  I just want you to assume that.  As

 

21   the corporate representative and as someone with

 

22   scientific training would you say that that is a

 

23   dangerous product?

 

24             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, move to

 

25   strike counsel’s preamble, lack of foundation.

 

 

                                                                   273

 1             THE WITNESS:  The numbers shown here

 

 2   assuming accepting your assumption, although I do

 

 3   not, would be high.

 

 4         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Dangerous?

 

 5             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

 6             THE WITNESS:  They’re still even when you

 

 7   calculate them based on today’s standards, they’re

 

 8   still below that, but they’re high.

 

 9         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  You said today’s

 

10   standard.  Is there — is there a standard today for

 

11   asbestos as directly inhaled through a consumer

 

12   product?

 

13         A.  It’s an OSHA standard.

 

14         Q.  There’s no OSHA standard for consumer

 

15   products directly inhaled asbestos; are there?

 

16         A.  It’s not — it’s the clean-up standard,

 

17   which is 10 times to 100 times lower than the OSHA

 

18   standard.

 

19         Q.  There is no actual standard for asbestos in

 

20   a leisure consumer product, is there, as far as

 

21   direct inhalation?

 

22             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, lack of

 

23   foundation.

 

24             THE WITNESS:  By today’s standards, no.

 

25   There’s not.

 

 

                                                                   274

 1         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  And don’t you agree the

 

 2   reason for that is because no one in their right

 

 3   mind would do such a thing?

 

 4             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form,

 

 5   argumentative.

 

 6             THE WITNESS:  By today’s standards, that’s

 

 7   correct.

 

 8         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Sir, if you turn to

 

 9   table two it says actual number of crocidolite

 

10   fibers in Kent smoke.  It goes cigarette two through

 

11   six.  Do you see that?

 

12         A.  Yes.

 

13         Q.  And it says here’s the actual amount of

 

14   crocidolite fibers in eight puffs and it ranges from

 

15   1,120 crocidolite fibers to 15 — or to 19,040.  Do

 

16   you see that?

 

17         A.  Yes.

 

18         Q.  Okay.  Again, sir, assuming — I want you

 

19   to assume that a cigarette manufacturer manufactured

 

20   a cigarette that released crocidolite asbestos in

 

21   those amounts or in that range.  Would you agree

 

22   that that would be a dangerous product?

 

23             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, lack of

 

24   foundation.

 

25             THE WITNESS:  If I agree with your

 

 

                                                                   275

 1   assumption, which, again, I will voice that I do

 

 2   not, these would be problematic.

 

 3         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  And when you say

 

 4   problematic, sir, can’t you just admit that that

 

 5   would be dangerous?

 

 6             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, lack of

 

 7   foundation.

 

 8             THE WITNESS:  They’re high, but the way

 

 9   they were generated and the product they were

 

10   generated from are not representative of the product

 

11   sold in the ’50s, and that’s why I have trouble

 

12   going further than that.

 

13             MR. PANATIER:  Okay.  I’m just going to

 

14   object to nonresponsive.

 

15         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Sir, if a product — and

 

16   let’s take it away from cigarettes.  Let’s say

 

17   there’s some consumer product that you inhaled

 

18   through and every time you inhaled through it, you

 

19   inhaled between 1,000 and 19,000 crocidolite fibers.

 

20   Is that a dangerous product, sir?

 

21             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, lack of

 

22   foundation.

 

23             THE WITNESS:  I wouldn’t put it on the

 

24   market if that was truly the case.

 

25         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  If that was truly the

 

 

                                                                   276

 1   case, it would be unreasonable to put that on the

 

 2   market and it would needlessly endanger people;

 

 3   right?

 

 4             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, lack of

 

 5   foundation, compound.

 

 6             THE WITNESS:  If those are the numbers,

 

 7   then I wouldn’t go forward with it.

 

 8         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Now, Lorillard has not

 

 9   made any attempt to either recreate or rebuild as

 

10   they were built or manufactured in the 1950s a Kent

 

11   Micronite with asbestos cigarette in order to test

 

12   it; has it?

 

13             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, lack of

 

14   foundation –

 

15             THE WITNESS:  They –

 

16             MR. BERGER:  – assumes facts.

 

17             THE WITNESS:  They haven’t.

 

18         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Lorillard has the

 

19   resources to do that if they want to; don’t they?

 

20             MR. BERGER:  Objection, lack of

 

21   foundation, assumes facts, calls for speculation.

 

22             THE WITNESS:  I guess resources exist, but

 

23   the recipes do not nor does the equipment.

 

24         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Sir, Lorillard has the

 

25   resources to build a Kent cigarette just like they

 

 

                                                                   277

 1   built them in the 1950s and study them if they

 

 2   wanted to do it; correct?

 

 3             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, incomplete

 

 4   hypothetical, lack of foundation, argumentative,

 

 5   incomplete — assumes facts, asked and answered.

 

 6             THE WITNESS:  We do not know how the

 

 7   machine was constructed and we do not know the

 

 8   actual recipe of the filter.

 

 9         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  And, sir, are you saying

 

10   it’s impossible to figure that out by going through

 

11   any of the thousands of documents that Lorillard

 

12   has?

 

13         A.  I haven’t seen that listed anywhere and I

 

14   have looked at thousands of documents.

 

15         Q.  So let me follow up to that, which is has

 

16   Lorillard tried?

 

17         A.  Not to my knowledge.

 

18         Q.  Okay.  Okay, sir.  You can set that aside.

 

19   Now, let’s go to Exhibit 49.  Sir, you know

 

20   Exhibit 49 to be Dr. Longo’s follow-up to the

 

21   exhibit we just looked at where he actually analyzed

 

22   the crepe paper in the 1950s era original Kent

 

23   cigarette; correct?

 

24         A.  If you want to call it analysis, you may.

 

25         Q.  Well, sir, if you turn to page two, you

 

 

                                                                   278

 1   know who William Carson Hinds is; don’t you?

 

 2         A.  Yes.  I do.

 

 3         Q.  He’s an expert retained by Lorillard;

 

 4   right?

 

 5         A.  I believe –

 

 6             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

 7             THE WITNESS:  I believe he’s an expert

 

 8   retained by Lorillard.  I don’t retain the experts.

 

 9         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  But you’re the boss.  I

 

10   mean, you’re the company; right?  You can tell the

 

11   lawyers who to retain and who not to because you’re

 

12   the client; right?

 

13             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, lacks

 

14   foundation, calls for speculation.

 

15             THE WITNESS:  I don’t tell the lawyers

 

16   what to do.  I’m just here as a company

 

17   representative in this particular issue at this

 

18   point in time.

 

19         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Yeah, but, I mean,

 

20   you’re the company.  You could fire these guys if

 

21   you wanted to?

 

22             MR. BERGER:  Objection, argumentative,

 

23   lacks foundation.

 

24             THE WITNESS:  I can’t fire anybody, so –

 

25         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  So, sir, on page three

 

 

                                                                   279

 1   Mr. Hinds is asked how could you determine when

 

 2   analyzing the filter, how could you determine

 

 3   whether or not that crepe paper had deteriorated?

 

 4   Answer, well, if it had become crumbly and lost

 

 5   its — became no longer pliable, it could

 

 6   actually — bits of it could fall out, would fall

 

 7   out.

 

 8             Question, so if you were inspecting a

 

 9   cigarette where the crepe paper had deteriorated,

 

10   would you expect to — you would expect to find

 

11   what?  Answer, I would expect to find that if you

 

12   mechanically disturbed the crepe paper, it would

 

13   break and crumble, fall apart.

 

14             Question, and how would you mechanically

 

15   disturb it?  I would use tweezers and pull on it a

 

16   little bit at the end.  Question, and you would

 

17   expect it to crumble like what, for example?

 

18   Answer, crumble like a piece of newsprint that’s

 

19   been in the sun for a couple of years.

 

20             Answer, okay.  Question — Question, okay.

 

21   Answer, loses its strength.  You know that Dr. Longo

 

22   did exactly what — what Dr. Hinds suggested;

 

23   correct?

 

24             MR. BERGER:  Objection.

 

25             THE WITNESS:  Yes.  He did.

 

 

                                                                   280

 1         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  And the crepe paper did

 

 2   not crumble like newspaper.  In fact, it stressed –

 

 3   stretched very nicely; didn’t it?

 

 4             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, lack of

 

 5   foundation.

 

 6             THE WITNESS:  There are specific studies

 

 7   that can be used to determine tensile strength and

 

 8   they do not do it like this.

 

 9         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  They did it how your

 

10   experts said to do it; didn’t they?

 

11         A.  That’s –

 

12             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, vague,

 

13   incomplete hypothetical.

 

14             THE WITNESS:  That’s what the expert said

 

15   in his deposition or trial testimony according to

 

16   this.  That’s correct.

 

17         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Okay.  Thank you, sir.

 

18   You can set that aside.  Sir, there’s another

 

19   researcher, Dr. Millette, who has a company called

 

20   MVA and you’re familiar with his work; correct?

 

21         A.  Yes.

 

22             MR. PANATIER:  This will be Exhibit 51.

 

23             (Exhibit Number 51 was marked for

 

24   identification.)

 

25         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Sir, you’ve reviewed

 

 

                                                                   281

 1   this before?  This is from September of 2010?

 

 2         A.  Yes.

 

 3         Q.  Sir, if you will please turn to page three,

 

 4   you see there’s a results section; is that right?

 

 5         A.  I see.

 

 6         Q.  Okay.  And you know that what Mr. — what

 

 7   Dr. Millette did was he analyzed smoke from Kent

 

 8   cigarettes; correct?

 

 9             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

10             THE WITNESS:  He analyzed Kent cigarettes,

 

11   that’s correct, some with and without the

 

12   asbestos-containing filters.

 

13         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Right.  Some of them

 

14   were actually from another era or did not contain

 

15   asbestos; is that right?

 

16         A.  After 1956.

 

17         Q.  Right.  And if you just look at — we’ll

 

18   just start at the top.  It says he did a sample

 

19   where he said 56 crocidolite fibers were found by

 

20   TEM at a magnification of 20,700 times after

 

21   digestion of the filter glass fibers.  This

 

22   corresponds to approximately 10,000,000 crocidolite

 

23   fibers per filter or approximately 1,353,000

 

24   crocidolite fibers per puff assuming eight puffs

 

25   during testing; correct?

 

 

                                                                   282

 1         A.  That’s what it says.

 

 2         Q.  All right.  Sample two, this corresponds to

 

 3   approximately 309,000 crocidolite asbestos fibers

 

 4   per filter or approximately 39,000 crocidolite

 

 5   filters per puff assuming eight puffs during

 

 6   testing; is that correct?

 

 7         A.  Fibers, yes.

 

 8         Q.  Okay.  Sample 1612, no crocidolite fibers

 

 9   were found by TEM.  This was below the analytical

 

10   sensitivity of 39,000 crocidolite fibers per filter.

 

11   It is understood this test involved two puffs.  And

 

12   that would be one of the ones where there was no

 

13   asbestos in the original; correct?

 

14             MR. BERGER:  Object to the form.

 

15             THE WITNESS:  No, no.  That’s incorrect.

 

16             MR. PANATIER:  Okay.

 

17             THE WITNESS:  That’s the same as the ones

 

18   above, just with two puffs.

 

19         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Okay.  So and there’s

 

20   another one where he didn’t find any; right?

 

21         A.  Again, two puffs.  He didn’t find anything,

 

22   but it refers to the sample where he did have eight

 

23   puffs above under intense.

 

24         Q.  Right.  Then if you look at 1614, he said

 

25   this corresponds to approximately 3,950,000

 

 

                                                                   283

 1   crocidolite asbestos fibers per filter or

 

 2   approximately 494,000 crocidolite fibers per puff

 

 3   assuming eight puffs during testing; correct?

 

 4         A.  That’s what it says.

 

 5         Q.  And I’m not going to go through the rest of

 

 6   these, but, sir, again, would you agree that if a

 

 7   product released — a consumer product released

 

 8   1,353,000 crocidolite fibers per puff, that would be

 

 9   a dangerous product you would not put on the market;

 

10   correct?

 

11             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, lack of

 

12   foundation.

 

13             THE WITNESS:  It would not be one that I

 

14   would put on.

 

15         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Similarly, even if it

 

16   was 494,000 crocidolite fibers per puff, you

 

17   wouldn’t put it on the market; right?

 

18             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, lack of

 

19   foundation, calls for speculation.

 

20             THE WITNESS:  I would not put that on.

 

21         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Do you agree that a

 

22   company should not conceal the hazards of its

 

23   product from consumers?

 

24             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

25             THE WITNESS:  If there are hazards, that

 

 

                                                                   284

 1   would be correct.

 

 2         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  And, in fact, sir, I

 

 3   think you’ve agreed in the past that if a company is

 

 4   aware of a hazard, it must be passed along to the

 

 5   consumer; right?

 

 6             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

 7             THE WITNESS:  If we’re aware of a

 

 8   particular hazard, then that should pass on.  I

 

 9   agree.

 

10         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  All right.  Failure to

 

11   pass on a hazard needlessly endangers people;

 

12   correct?

 

13             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, lack of

 

14   foundation.

 

15             THE WITNESS:  Well, if you don’t inform if

 

16   a hazard exists, then yes, that would be correct.

 

17         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  You can set that aside,

 

18   sir.  Let’s take a — well, hold on.  I’ve got a few

 

19   questions and then we’ll take a break.  I’m just

 

20   about done.  Sir, has Lorillard or yourself ever

 

21   authored any publications, criticisms of Dr.

 

22   Millette’s work in a scientific forum, whether that

 

23   be in a paper or a scientific conference or

 

24   regulatory testimony?

 

25         A.  No.

 

 

                                                                   285

 1         Q.  Okay.  Lorillard agrees there’s no known

 

 2   safe level of asbestos; correct?

 

 3         A.  Excuse me?

 

 4         Q.  Lorillard agrees there is no known safe

 

 5   level of asbestos; correct?

 

 6             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, lack of

 

 7   foundation.

 

 8             THE WITNESS:  I don’t know that Lorillard

 

 9   has specifically identified anything like that.

 

10         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  It would be fair to say

 

11   that Lorillard is not aware of a known safe level of

 

12   exposure to asbestos; correct?

 

13             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, lack of

 

14   foundation.

 

15             THE WITNESS:  It really requires a medical

 

16   opinion and I’m certainly not a medical doctor and I

 

17   don’t believe we have anything in our files or

 

18   information that describes that in any way, shape or

 

19   form.

 

20         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Right.  And so it’s

 

21   perfectly fine if the answer is you don’t know, but

 

22   I’m asking for the company’s position.  Is the

 

23   company’s position as to whether or not there is a

 

24   known safe level of asbestos that it does not know?

 

25             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, lack of

 

 

                                                                   286

 1   foundation.  This witness has already testified.

 

 2   You have our interrogatory responses from the

 

 3   company on this topic.

 

 4             MR. PANATIER:  And I’m questioning the

 

 5   company on this topic.

 

 6             THE WITNESS:  I don’t know of any listing

 

 7   of a threshold or no threshold.

 

 8         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Okay.  If a scientist

 

 9   walked in the door of Lorillard tomorrow and says I

 

10   want to know Lorillard’s opinion on whether or not

 

11   there’s a safe level of asbestos, Lorillard would

 

12   respond we are unaware of a position on that issue;

 

13   is that fair?

 

14             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form,

 

15   argumentative, vague, lacks foundation.

 

16             THE WITNESS:  I don’t know of a position

 

17   and I don’t know that a position would be tendered.

 

18         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Okay.  Lorillard agrees

 

19   that crocidolite asbestos can cause mesothelioma;

 

20   correct?

 

21         A.  Yes.

 

22         Q.  Lorillard agrees that smoking a tobacco

 

23   product alone does not cause mesothelioma; agreed?

 

24         A.  I don’t believe it’s been shown.

 

25         Q.  Right.  Lorillard agrees that crocidolite

 

 

                                                                   287

 1   is more potent as a carcinogen than other forms of

 

 2   asbestos; correct?

 

 3         A.  As I’ve –

 

 4             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

 5             THE WITNESS:  As I’ve answered in the

 

 6   past, it’s part of the amphibole class and sometimes

 

 7   crocidolite comes out on top and sometimes it’s not

 

 8   at the top.  It just depends on the study and its

 

 9   conduct.

 

10         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  But Lorillard agrees

 

11   that crocidolite is more potent as a carcinogen than

 

12   chrysotile asbestos; correct?

 

13         A.  Consistent with the literature, that would

 

14   be correct.

 

15         Q.  And often it is reported as more potent

 

16   than amosite asbestos; correct?

 

17             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

18             THE WITNESS:  Often, yes.

 

19         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Okay.  Sir, you agree

 

20   that the highest rate of mesothelioma ever reported

 

21   in an epidemiological study is from the

 

22   Hollingsworth & Vose plant where they made filter

 

23   material for Kent; correct?

 

24             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, lack of

 

25   foundation, outside the scope of the notice.

 

 

                                                                   288

 1             THE WITNESS:  I haven’t — I don’t know

 

 2   about that.

 

 3         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  You don’t know about

 

 4   that?

 

 5         A.  I don’t know that particular reference.

 

 6         Q.  Are you familiar with the Talcott study?

 

 7         A.  I have seen the Talcott study.

 

 8         Q.  And that’s a study of the Massachusetts

 

 9   facility where H&V made the filter material for

 

10   Kent; right?

 

11         A.  That’s one of the facilities, yes.

 

12         Q.  And they found an over 400 times increased

 

13   risk for mesothelioma there; did they not?

 

14         A.  I don’t –

 

15             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, lack of

 

16   foundation on this witness’s qualifications.

 

17             THE WITNESS:  I don’t remember the

 

18   specific information there.

 

19         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Are you an

 

20   epidemiologist?

 

21         A.  No.  I’m not.

 

22         Q.  Are you an industrial hygienist?

 

23         A.  I am not.

 

24         Q.  Are you an occupational medicine doctor?

 

25         A.  I am not.

 

 

                                                                   289

 1         Q.  How many people who worked for Lorillard in

 

 2   conjunction with the manufacture of the asbestos

 

 3   fiber have developed mesothelioma to Lorillard’s

 

 4   knowledge?

 

 5             MR. BERGER:  Objection, outside the scope

 

 6   of the notice, instruct the witness not to answer.

 

 7         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Let me ask you a

 

 8   slightly different question.  You know how many

 

 9   people have developed mesothelioma after working in

 

10   various plants that created the asbestos filter for

 

11   Kent; correct?

 

12             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, outside

 

13   the scope of the notice, instruct the witness not to

 

14   answer.

 

15         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Whenever you’ve

 

16   testified to a jury about Kent cigarettes that

 

17   contained asbestos, you’ve always maintained that

 

18   they were safe; correct?

 

19             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, lack of

 

20   foundation.

 

21             THE WITNESS:  I’ve maintained that they

 

22   released zero to traces to three fibers per

 

23   cigarette.

 

24         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  And that’s all based on

 

25   the various testing or reports of testing that

 

 

                                                                   290

 1   occurred in the ’50s; right?

 

 2         A.  That would be on the product as it was

 

 3   designed and the product as it was sold, that’s

 

 4   correct.

 

 5         Q.  Okay.  Some of those don’t even use an

 

 6   electron microscope to do the analysis, correct,

 

 7   that you rely on?

 

 8         A.  That’s correct.

 

 9         Q.  Okay.  Do you know what the detection limit

 

10   is for — well, let me ask you this question.  How

 

11   many — how much does crocidolite fiber weigh?

 

12         A.  Thirty fibers per nanogram is the NAS 1986

 

13   document.

 

14         Q.  Thirty fibers per nanogram.  There’s how

 

15   many nanograms in a microgram?

 

16         A.  A thousand nanogram, microgram.  Yes, a

 

17   thousand.

 

18         Q.  Okay.  Do you know what the detection limit

 

19   is of a light microscope for the width of an

 

20   asbestos fiber?

 

21             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

22             THE WITNESS:  It depends on the type of

 

23   light microscope.  If you do dark field or PLM or

 

24   PCM, you can get down to .02 microns, I believe.

 

25   I’d have to look and that’s off the top of my head,

 

 

                                                                   291

 1   but it’s — you can see individual fibers with — at

 

 2   least with dark field and Armour showed that.

 

 3         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Okay.  That was where

 

 4   they found three fibers just from lighting a

 

 5   cigarette?

 

 6         A.  Yes.

 

 7         Q.  Do you know whether they smoked that whole

 

 8   cigarette and looked at the number of fibers from

 

 9   that, reported that?

 

10         A.  We’ve been over this before.  It doesn’t

 

11   specifically identify that in the report, but the

 

12   other work that they were doing would entail smoking

 

13   the whole cigarette, particulates.

 

14         Q.  Right.  And you’re assuming they would have

 

15   looked for asbestos in that?

 

16         A.  They were looking at particulate shape and

 

17   number of particulates.  I would assume they would

 

18   look at particulate shape, which would be fibers as

 

19   opposed to particulate circular.

 

20         Q.  And you’re not aware of any other report

 

21   where they say we looked for asbestos and didn’t

 

22   find any; right?

 

23         A.  Reports 11 and 12 are the ones and then the

 

24   summary report for the year, the ones where they

 

25   talk about asbestos.

 

 

                                                                   292

 1         Q.  Right.  But other than the one that

 

 2   explicitly says here’s what we found with regard to

 

 3   asbestos, there’s no statement in any Armour report

 

 4   regardless of the report number that says we looked

 

 5   for asbestos and we didn’t find any; correct?

 

 6             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

 7             THE WITNESS:  I believe report 12 has some

 

 8   pictures of some of the information that was

 

 9   presented in 11 and I also — the summary report, I

 

10   believe it’s number two, which rolls up the year

 

11   actually talks about asbestos there and really

 

12   repeats the data again.

 

13         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Okay.  Sir, I’m aware of

 

14   all of that.  The question is different, though.

 

15   The question is in any of Armour’s reports, whether

 

16   they did a dozen reports or a hundred reports or a

 

17   million reports, did they ever state in any of their

 

18   reports we actively looked for asbestos and we did

 

19   not find any?

 

20             MR. BERGER:  Objection, move to strike

 

21   counsel’s preamble, asked and answered.

 

22             THE WITNESS:  I’d have to sit and look

 

23   through the three inches of reports to see if it was

 

24   mentioned other places.  The ones I’m familiar with

 

25   are the ones that I’ve told you about.

 

 

                                                                   293

 1         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  As you sit here you

 

 2   cannot think of any instance where they said that?

 

 3         A.  Without –

 

 4             MR. BERGER:  Objection, misstates prior

 

 5   testimony, asked and answered.

 

 6             THE WITNESS:  Without relooking at the

 

 7   information, I cannot state further.

 

 8         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  If a person smoked three

 

 9   packs a day of Kent Micronite cigarettes with

 

10   asbestos in them for four years, you’d say no

 

11   problem, right, from a health perspective?

 

12         A.  Well, we can look at the calculations based

 

13   on the three and it would be far below the standards

 

14   understood at that time and also below the standards

 

15   that we have today for occupational.

 

16         Q.  For occupational exposure; correct?

 

17         A.  That’s exactly right.  That’s what we have.

 

18         Q.  Is the OSHA PEL or the TLV in effect in the

 

19   ’30s, ’40s, ’50s, ’60s, were any of those standards

 

20   for direct inhalation from a consumer product?

 

21             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

22             THE WITNESS:  They were for occupational

 

23   exposure.

 

24         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  They were not for direct

 

25   occupational — direct exposure through a consumer

 

 

                                                                   294

 1   product; were they?

 

 2         A.  They’re for occupational.

 

 3         Q.  So the answer to my question, sir, is they

 

 4   were not for direct inhalation through a consumer

 

 5   product; correct?

 

 6             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, lacks

 

 7   foundation.

 

 8             THE WITNESS:  It’s not stated as such, so

 

 9   they were for occupational.

 

10         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  So the answer to my

 

11   question is correct, they were not for consumer

 

12   products; right?

 

13             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, lacks

 

14   foundation, asked and answered.

 

15             THE WITNESS:  It was not specifically

 

16   identified for consumer products.  I thought I said

 

17   that, but –

 

18             MR. PANATIER:  You didn’t.

 

19             MR. BERGER:  Move to strike the colloquy.

 

20             MR. PANATIER:  No, no, no, no.  Keep it

 

21   in.

 

22         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  So going back to my

 

23   question, if a person came in and testified — a

 

24   person comes in.  They’ve got mesothelioma.  They

 

25   smoked ten cigarettes for four years.  They smoked

 

 

                                                                   295

 1   four packs a day, right, four packs a day.  That’s a

 

 2   lot.  And they smoked from ’52 to ’56, the whole

 

 3   time that there was asbestos in the cigarettes.  You

 

 4   would still come into court and say the cigarettes

 

 5   didn’t release enough asbestos to contribute to that

 

 6   person’s disease; correct?

 

 7             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

 8             THE WITNESS:  Again, that requires a

 

 9   medical opinion.  What I know is that the — it was

 

10   zero to traces to three fibers per cigarette.  And

 

11   we can calculate what levels of fibers could be

 

12   released from — is that 80 cigarettes?  I guess

 

13   four packs would be 80 cigarettes.  So you can

 

14   calculate what those levels would be and then

 

15   someone who does the epidemiology and the medical

 

16   aspects of that can make a determination.  That’s

 

17   not my area.

 

18         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Do you agree that to the

 

19   extent a person inhaled any fibers, whether it’s

 

20   one, 10, 100,000, a million of crocidolite fibers

 

21   from a Kent cigarette, however many they inhaled is

 

22   over and above anything they would have inhaled just

 

23   in the general background?

 

24             MR. BERGER:  Let me object as to form and

 

25   foundation.  I think this is also outside the scope

 

 

                                                                   296

 1   of the notice.  You’re getting into expert

 

 2   testimony.

 

 3             THE WITNESS:  I didn’t measure background

 

 4   in the ’50s and we do have one report from the

 

 5   Laboratory of Industrial Hygiene that said that the

 

 6   inorganic background of which asbestos would be a

 

 7   part of was .1 to .2 milligrams.  So I don’t — I

 

 8   can’t answer it any further than that whether it was

 

 9   above or below it.  The target was to be the same or

 

10   less than background which we would normally

 

11   breathe.

 

12         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Okay.  My question –

 

13   I’m sorry.  I probably didn’t ask a very good

 

14   question.  My question is if you breathe a substance

 

15   — let’s say there’s a background level of whatever

 

16   the substance is in the air; okay?  If you breathe

 

17   that substance in addition to whatever is in the

 

18   air, then you would say what I breathed in was in

 

19   addition to what I’ve already breathed.

 

20             It’s kind of — it’s kind of a common sense

 

21   thing; right?  If there’s asbestos in the air and

 

22   you inhale asbestos fibers through a cigarette, that

 

23   is above and beyond whatever you’ve inhaled as the

 

24   background; correct?

 

25             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, lack of

 

 

                                                                   297

 1   foundation, outside the scope of the notice, calling

 

 2   for expert testimony.

 

 3             THE WITNESS:  It would be in addition.

 

 4         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  All right.  If you had a

 

 5   person who didn’t smoke Kent cigarettes and you had

 

 6   a person who did smoke Kent cigarettes, and let’s

 

 7   use your number, say they inhaled three fibers.  The

 

 8   person who didn’t smoke them, they live in the same

 

 9   area, they do the same thing, they’re connected at

 

10   the hip, has a certain amount of background exposure

 

11   to asbestos and the person who smoked the Kent

 

12   cigarette has more; right?

 

13             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, incomplete

 

14   hypothetical, outside the scope of the notice, calls

 

15   for expert testimony.

 

16             THE WITNESS:  Certainly if you’re getting

 

17   the few fibers from a Kent cigarette and that’s

 

18   added to the background, it’s more.  I don’t know

 

19   how else to answer that.

 

20         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Right.  Sir, is it

 

21   Lorillard’s position that — is it Lorillard’s

 

22   position that smoking cigarettes causes cancer?

 

23             MR. BERGER:  Object.  This is outside the

 

24   scope of the notice and it’s vague.

 

25             MR. SHACKELFORD:  What kind of cancer are

 

 

                                                                   298

 1   you referring to?

 

 2             MR. PANATIER:  You can answer.

 

 3             THE WITNESS:  It’s described on our

 

 4   website and that’s Lorillard’s position.

 

 5         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Have you read the

 

 6   website to see their position?

 

 7         A.  Sure.

 

 8         Q.  Okay.  What’s the position as reported on

 

 9   the website?

 

10             MR. BERGER:  Object, instruct the witness

 

11   not to answer.

 

12         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  So if I want to know

 

13   Lorillard’s position on whether or not asbestos –

 

14   on whether or not smoking causes cancer, I just go

 

15   to the website?

 

16             MR. BERGER:  Object, instruct the witness

 

17   not to answer.  It’s clearly outside the scope of

 

18   your notice.

 

19             MR. PANATIER:  It’s not.

 

20             MR. BERGER:  Find the category that says I

 

21   want to depose a witness on Lorillard’s position on

 

22   smoking and cancer.

 

23             MR. PANATIER:  Well, I could — I could

 

24   type out every question for you and give that to

 

25   you.

 

 

                                                                   299

 1             MR. BERGER:  If you’re going to do that,

 

 2   we could have saved time and done our deposition on

 

 3   written interrogatories.

 

 4             MR. PANATIER:  I’m sure that would have

 

 5   worked out real well.

 

 6         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Sir, do you agree that

 

 7   throughout the entire time that Kent made the

 

 8   Micronite filtered asbestos cigarette there was

 

 9   always a safer alternative to asbestos available?

 

10             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, lack of

 

11   foundation.

 

12             THE WITNESS:  There were other materials

 

13   that were available but wouldn’t have the same

 

14   performance.

 

15         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Sir, there were safer

 

16   alternatives to asbestos at the time that Kent

 

17   decided to put asbestos into the Micronite filter;

 

18   correct?

 

19             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

20             THE WITNESS:  That Lorillard decided to

 

21   put into the filter?  There were other materials

 

22   that were available that were not asbestos.  I would

 

23   agree to that.

 

24         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Okay.  There were — the

 

25   other materials that were available that were not

 

 

                                                                   300

 1   asbestos, you’re not aware that any of those are

 

 2   implicated in the disease mesothelioma; correct?

 

 3         A.  I am not aware of that, that’s correct.

 

 4         Q.  And those materials would be things such as

 

 5   cellulose acetate; right?

 

 6         A.  That’s one.

 

 7         Q.  Okay.  What else?

 

 8         A.  Rayon.

 

 9         Q.  Rayon, okay.

 

10         A.  A viscose-type material, paper.

 

11         Q.  Okay.  What else?

 

12         A.  Cotton, cellulose powder, cellulose

 

13   acetate, which we did use at a later date, E60

 

14   process; but again, it’s not just the filtration.

 

15   It’s a balance among many components which we’ve

 

16   talked about over and over today.

 

17         Q.  No one else in the history of making

 

18   cigarettes has felt that asbestos was ever required

 

19   to get the desired mixture of filtration plus flavor

 

20   plus draw; correct?

 

21             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

22             THE WITNESS:  I can’t answer on the

 

23   requirement side.  I just know that other people

 

24   didn’t use it.

 

25         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Okay.  Sir, do you agree

 

 

                                                                   301

 1   that a company should always opt for a safer

 

 2   ingredient if it is available?

 

 3             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

 4             THE WITNESS:  When they know that the

 

 5   material is hazardous, that would be correct.

 

 6         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Okay.  Prior to 1952

 

 7   you’ve agreed that there were publications that

 

 8   implicated asbestos as a cause of lung disease,

 

 9   cancer and death; correct?

 

10             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

11             THE WITNESS:  At high levels of exposure,

 

12   yes, that would be correct.

 

13         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  And prior to 1952 you’re

 

14   not aware of any publications showing cellulose

 

15   acetate, paper, crepe paper, cotton as a cause of

 

16   cancer or death; right?

 

17         A.  Certainly your cotton mills can explode due

 

18   to the dust, but I think that’s probably a different

 

19   ultimate response.  So no, I don’t know.

 

20         Q.  Okay.  And yet Kent at that time chose

 

21   crocidolite over cellulose for its filter; right?

 

22             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, lacks

 

23   foundation, assumes facts.

 

24             THE WITNESS:  I don’t know that the

 

25   asbestos was chosen in particular.  It was a

 

 

                                                                   302

 1   component of the filter construct that was chosen.

 

 2             MR. PANATIER:  Okay.  Let’s take a quick

 

 3   break.  I’m just about done.

 

 4             THE VIDEOGRAPHER:  Off the record, sir?

 

 5   Off the record, end of number five at 4:07 p.m.

 

 6             (A recess was taken.)

 

 7             THE VIDEOGRAPHER:  Starting of number six,

 

 8   back on the record at 4:23 p.m.

 

 9             MR. PANATIER:  Sir, just a few more

 

10   questions.

 

11         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  With regard to some of

 

12   the advertisements we looked at earlier there were

 

13   claims Kent was making about skin temperature, et

 

14   cetera, smoker’s cough, throat irritation, et

 

15   cetera.  Do you recall that?

 

16         A.  Yes.

 

17         Q.  Okay.  With regard to skin temperature

 

18   drop, throat irritation, smoker’s cough, those three

 

19   things, did Kent actually conduct studies of those

 

20   things or have studies conducted?

 

21         A.  When Lorillard conducted studies of the

 

22   skin temperature –

 

23         Q.  Right.

 

24         A.  – Lorillard also conducted gastric acidity

 

25   studies, which would be an acute effect.  And then

 

 

                                                                   303

 1   we do have information from the various doctors’

 

 2   studies that talked about the lessening of the

 

 3   throat irritation, the cough, the phlegm production,

 

 4   et cetera.

 

 5         Q.  Right.  So we — Lorillard has conducted

 

 6   and then has reports for the skin temperature drop

 

 7   research, throat irritation, smoker’s cough and the

 

 8   stomach acidity or the gastro issues; right?

 

 9         A.  We have the information that surrounds

 

10   those.  There may or may not be direct reports as

 

11   we’ve found through the other aspects.

 

12         Q.  Okay.

 

13         A.  There’s also the iodine 131 study done by

 

14   Dr. Friedell under Dr. Fishbein’s author — or not

 

15   authorship, but directorship, management where he

 

16   looked at blood flow changes.  And that’s again

 

17   another acute-type effect.

 

18         Q.  Okay.  And you have reports for a number of

 

19   these?

 

20         A.  Some of them we have reports.  Some of them

 

21   would be letters with transmittal with the data.  A

 

22   lot of the skin temperature studies just have the

 

23   charts.

 

24         Q.  Okay.  Which ones do you have complete

 

25   reports for off the top of your head?

 

 

                                                                   304

 1         A.  I don’t remember.  I’d have to go back

 

 2   through the seven or eight banker’s boxes to find

 

 3   them.

 

 4         Q.  Okay.  Now, we have gone through a series

 

 5   of documents that were from either Kent or H&V or

 

 6   communications from Kent or H&V.  You called out a

 

 7   few that you said you had not seen before.  Setting

 

 8   those aside, for all the ones that you had seen

 

 9   before, are there any of those that you look at and

 

10   say these don’t appear to be company documents?

 

11             MR. BERGER:  That was stated before.

 

12   Objection to form, foundation, lack of foundation.

 

13             THE WITNESS:  I usually look for the

 

14   eight-digit — eight-digit Bates number.  If it has

 

15   an eight-digit Bates number, it’s probably

 

16   Lorillard.  If it doesn’t, then I don’t know where

 

17   it’s from.

 

18         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Right.  But for all the

 

19   documents you looked at, were there any that you

 

20   said I know this didn’t come from Lorillard, I know

 

21   this didn’t come from H&V?

 

22             MR. BERGER:  Counsel, I’ve said before

 

23   lack of foundation.

 

24             MR. PANATIER:  I’m asking him.  Go ahead.

 

25             MR. BERGER:  As I said before, if you’re

 

 

                                                                   305

 1   trying to authenticate documents under the rules,

 

 2   that’s something that we’re not going to fight you

 

 3   on.  We’re willing to work with you in trying to

 

 4   reach stipulations as possible.

 

 5             MR. PANATIER:  Well, until I know what

 

 6   you’re going to agree to and what you don’t agree

 

 7   to, I’m going to ask your company, the client,

 

 8   Lorillard.

 

 9         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  And, sir, my last

 

10   question on the issue is were there any documents

 

11   that you looked at today that you looked at them and

 

12   something about them stood out and you said there’s

 

13   no way this can be an H&V document or there’s no way

 

14   this can be a Lorillard document?

 

15             MR. BERGER:  And I want to object and make

 

16   it clear he’s answering in his personal — based on

 

17   his personal knowledge.  We did not agree to produce

 

18   him as the records custodian today.

 

19             THE WITNESS:  Yeah.  That’s certainly not

 

20   my area, but there are — there were a couple that I

 

21   didn’t have any indications on as to where they came

 

22   from.  And I — we can go back through them if you’d

 

23   like, but I think I noted them as we were going

 

24   through.  I either didn’t see them before or I

 

25   wasn’t sure where they were from.

 

 

                                                                   306

 1         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Right.  And I think I

 

 2   said that there were a few that you noted as we went

 

 3   through and if we had any issues with those, we

 

 4   could go back and find them in the transcript for

 

 5   the ones you noted; correct?

 

 6         A.  I believe so.

 

 7         Q.  Okay.  Sir, when it was clear that asbestos

 

 8   fibers were coming out of the Kent filter in

 

 9   whatever quantity, don’t you agree that the

 

10   reasonable thing to have done would be to stop

 

11   selling cigarettes with asbestos in the filter?

 

12             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

13             THE WITNESS:  Not based on the state of

 

14   the art where you had to have high exposures over a

 

15   longer period of time.

 

16         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  You don’t think it would

 

17   have been the reasonable thing just to move to

 

18   another filter immediately?

 

19             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

20             THE WITNESS:  Again, based on the lack or

 

21   very minimal numbers that we’ve seen coming out of

 

22   the cigarettes, I don’t know that that was an issue

 

23   at the time based again in that time frame and that

 

24   state of the art.

 

25         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  And sir, just to be

 

 

                                                                   307

 1   clear, based on the state of the art, what was

 

 2   available at the time, there were known filter media

 

 3   that were not implicated in asbestos disease at that

 

 4   time; correct?

 

 5             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

 6             THE WITNESS:  Well, they didn’t have

 

 7   asbestos, so yes, that would be correct.

 

 8         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  And Kent could have used

 

 9   any of those had they chosen; correct?

 

10         A.  Lorillard could have used those, did

 

11   investigate many.  And as I said before, it’s not

 

12   just a filtration.  There’s many other aspects that

 

13   go into the balance that a filter brings to a

 

14   cigarette.

 

15         Q.  And Lorillard could have used any of many

 

16   of the filter media you listed off about ten minutes

 

17   ago; correct?

 

18         A.  If those other criteria were satisfied.

 

19             MR. PANATIER:  Okay.  Thank you, sir.

 

20   That’s all the questions I have.

 

21             MR. BERGER:  Okay.  Dr. Reinert, good

 

22   afternoon.  My name is Jim Berger.  For the record

 

23   I’m going to mark as Exhibit 52 Lorillard’s

 

24   cross-notices of this deposition in the Buck, Caron,

 

25   Laurendeau, L-a-u-r-e-n-d-e-a-u, and Lewinstein

 

 

                                                                   308

 1   cases.

 

 2             (Exhibit Number 52 was marked for

 

 3   identification.)

 

 4                        EXAMINATION

 

 5   BY MR. BERGER:

 

 6         Q.  Thank you.  Dr. Reinert, I want to ask you

 

 7   a few questions this afternoon.  Let me start with

 

 8   this.  We’ve been talking throughout this deposition

 

 9   about the filter material that was used in the

 

10   original Kent filter and its origin.  How was the

 

11   filter material that was used on the original Kent

 

12   filter similar to the asbestos filter materials that

 

13   have been used in gas masks, atomic energy plants

 

14   and hospitals?

 

15         A.  Well, they all contain crocidolite and they

 

16   all contained paper or some other larger diameter

 

17   material which was a substrate to anchor the

 

18   crocidolite in that filter.

 

19         Q.  And were the gas masks and atomic energy

 

20   filter papers patented?

 

21         A.  I know of a lot of patents with asbestos

 

22   prior to the ones that H&V and Lorillard put

 

23   together, I don’t know if they were specifically

 

24   patented or not.  I would assume so.

 

25         Q.  Okay.  And was the filter material that was

 

 

                                                                   309

 1   used in the original Kent filter, was that patented?

 

 2         A.  They did patent that in two Knudson patents

 

 3   and the equipment to manufacture the filter was also

 

 4   patented.

 

 5         Q.  And was the fact that asbestos was a

 

 6   component of the filter material contained within

 

 7   those Knudson patents?

 

 8         A.  Yes.

 

 9         Q.  Why did Lorillard — well, strike that.

 

10   Did Lorillard make a specific decision that it

 

11   wanted to use asbestos in the filter material on

 

12   Kents or did Lorillard choose to use a particular

 

13   filter material?

 

14         A.  They saw that the filter material was

 

15   declassified by the Army and the asbestos was part

 

16   of that and that’s the construct that they were

 

17   working with there.  To my knowledge and based on

 

18   the review of the data and information in our

 

19   records, there was no conscious decision to go and

 

20   put asbestos in.  It was already in the filter that

 

21   was being modified.

 

22         Q.  Okay.  And — strike that.  Now, in 1951

 

23   we’ve heard some reference to correspondence with

 

24   Molins and discussion of a filter material that was

 

25   referred to as pure cellulose.  Do you recall that?

 

 

                                                                   310

 1         A.  Yes, sir.

 

 2         Q.  Okay.  Why did Lorillard to your knowledge

 

 3   not use the Molins pure cellulose in a cigarette

 

 4   filter that it put on Kent or any other cigarette in

 

 5   1951 or 1952?

 

 6         A.  Pretty much for the same reasons none of

 

 7   the other alternatives went forward.  And it’s

 

 8   also — was also listed in one of the

 

 9   correspondences we saw today.  The draw was real

 

10   difficult.  And machinability, the ability to take

 

11   the bulk material and make it into a filter at a

 

12   high speed, let’s say 500 filters per minute, was –

 

13   was not possible at the time.

 

14         Q.  Okay.  And, you know, back in this time

 

15   frame we’re talking about, 1951, 1952, what were

 

16   some of the factors that Lorillard would have taken

 

17   into consideration in determining what type of

 

18   material it could actually use to manufacture — to

 

19   manufacture cigarette filters that met its

 

20   specifications for tar and nicotine filtering

 

21   efficiency?

 

22             MR. PANATIER:  Form.

 

23             THE WITNESS:  Well, you’d have to –

 

24         Q.  (By Mr. Berger)  Let me — I’m going to

 

25   interrupt you.  Let me reask a better question.

 

 

                                                                   311

 1   What considerations would Lorillard have taken into

 

 2   account in 1951 or 1952 with respect to the design

 

 3   and manufacturing specifications for the filter that

 

 4   it wanted to use on Kent cigarettes?

 

 5         A.  Consistency, availability, draw,

 

 6   efficiency, ability to manufacture, which I would

 

 7   call machinability, were some of those components

 

 8   that they would be looking at.

 

 9         Q.  Okay.  And when you say efficiency, what do

 

10   you mean by the word efficiency as Lorillard was

 

11   using it in relation to the Kent filter in 1952?

 

12         A.  Well, efficiency as we saw in a lot of the

 

13   documents today was defined as removing

 

14   particulates, primarily the tars and nicotine which

 

15   are associated with the particulates.

 

16         Q.  Okay.  And was there something about the

 

17   efficiency of the filter that was important to

 

18   Lorillard’s development of the Kent filter in 1952?

 

19         A.  Well, as described in the patents, one of

 

20   the components has to be of a similar size to the

 

21   diameter of the material that you’re trying to

 

22   remove.  It’s typical filtration 101, so to speak.

 

23   And tobacco smoke particles are .2 primarily to

 

24   .6 microns.  And the patents say this and, of

 

25   course, the materials we were using were

 

 

                                                                   312

 1   consistently between .2 and .6 microns, the

 

 2   crocidolite, which then sat in that matrix of the

 

 3   cellulose acetate and cotton overlaying on crepe

 

 4   paper.

 

 5         Q.  What was unique about the Kent filter when

 

 6   it was introduced?

 

 7         A.  Well, it had the highest efficiency.  I

 

 8   mean, it was the most effective.  It was only

 

 9   40 percent of the particulates including the tar,

 

10   tars and nicotines came through, and it was blue.

 

11   That was unique, too.

 

12         Q.  We’ve talked about testing that JAMA

 

13   performed on cigarettes and, in fact, we’ve seen

 

14   today JAMA tested various brands of cigarettes in

 

15   1953; correct?

 

16         A.  Yes, and also in 1955.

 

17         Q.  Okay.  And was Kent one of the brands of

 

18   cigarettes that JAMA tested in 1953 and 1955?

 

19         A.  Yes.  There’s two, two near the bottom of

 

20   the table.

 

21         Q.  Okay.  And what was JAMA testing for in

 

22   both 1953 and 1955 when it tested Kents?

 

23         A.  They weighed the filters.  They took other

 

24   parameter measurements, but primarily they were

 

25   looking at efficiency of the filter.

 

 

                                                                   313

 1         Q.  Okay.  And what filter did JAMA in its

 

 2   tests determine was the most efficient at removing

 

 3   tar and nicotine?

 

 4         A.  The asbestos component filter.

 

 5         Q.  Okay.  And what was the asbestos component

 

 6   filter?

 

 7         A.  It’s Kent.

 

 8         Q.  Okay.  And did those JAMA articles in 1953

 

 9   and 1955 ever criticize Lorillard for using asbestos

 

10   in the Kent filter?

 

11         A.  No.  They did not.

 

12         Q.  We’ve talked today about research, both

 

13   in-house and outside researchers that Lorillard used

 

14   to test the Kent filter to determine whether there’s

 

15   any asbestos fiber release.  Do you remember that

 

16   line of questions?

 

17         A.  Yes, sir.

 

18         Q.  Okay.  How many researchers, either

 

19   in-house or outside researchers, tested Kent and

 

20   found that there was no evidence of any fiber

 

21   release?

 

22             MR. PANATIER:  Objection, form.

 

23             THE WITNESS:  Well, we have six

 

24   researchers that conducted studies and in nine

 

25   separate occasions.  And I have to think how many –

 

 

                                                                   314

 1   two, three, at least five research — four

 

 2   researchers in five studies found no release.

 

 3         Q.  (By Mr. Berger)  Okay.  Now, one of the

 

 4   researchers was Dr. Killian; correct?

 

 5         A.  Yes, sir.

 

 6         Q.  How many cigarettes did Charles Killian

 

 7   test?

 

 8         A.  He originally started with 200 and smoked

 

 9   them into a dry Kjeldahl flask and then did the

 

10   gravimetric procedure which we discussed earlier

 

11   today.

 

12         Q.  And that was Dr. Killian’s first test;

 

13   correct?

 

14         A.  Yes, sir.

 

15         Q.  And what year was that?

 

16         A.  November of ’51.

 

17         Q.  Was that before Lorillard introduced Kent

 

18   on the market?

 

19         A.  Yes.  It’s one of the three premarket

 

20   studies conducted.

 

21         Q.  Okay.  What’s the second premarket study

 

22   that was conducted?

 

23         A.  The second premarket study is either

 

24   Lorillard did their study next or Killian actually

 

25   bumped his study up to a thousand cigarettes, really

 

 

                                                                   315

 1   increased his minimum detectable level by five X.

 

 2   They’re all in November and they overlap each other.

 

 3         Q.  Okay.  So Killian’s second study, you said

 

 4   he tested a thousand cigarettes; correct?

 

 5         A.  Yes, sir.

 

 6         Q.  What were his results?

 

 7         A.  No I think he called it silicates were

 

 8   detected I think is how he said it.

 

 9         Q.  What about the Lorillard study in November

 

10   of 1951?  How many cigarettes did Lorillard test?

 

11         A.  Parmele and his group tested 100 cigarettes

 

12   and smoked 100 into a dry Kjeldahl, which would be

 

13   similar to what Killian did.  He also smoked 100

 

14   cigarettes into toluene and then evaporated the

 

15   toluene and did gravimetric on both of those.

 

16         Q.  Okay.  And what were Dr. Parmele’s results?

 

17         A.  There was none detected.

 

18         Q.  And by none you mean — what do you mean by

 

19   none?

 

20         A.  No inorganic, no silicate, no mineral

 

21   fibers were detected.

 

22         Q.  Okay.  And after Kent was introduced on the

 

23   market, what was the next test that the company did

 

24   to determine whether there was any fiber release?

 

25         A.  Laboratory of Industrial Hygiene was next

 

 

                                                                   316

 1   in 1953.  I don’t remember the exact month.  I can

 

 2   look it up if we need to.

 

 3         Q.  And what was the result the Laboratory of

 

 4   Industrial Hygiene reported?

 

 5         A.  They also did a gravimetric.  We don’t have

 

 6   a lot of data on that particular study, but they did

 

 7   a comparison to the gravimetric background levels in

 

 8   New York City and they said it was similar to or

 

 9   even probably a little less than the background

 

10   levels in New York City, which were .1 to

 

11   .2 milligrams.

 

12         Q.  Okay.  So the Laboratory of Industrial

 

13   Hygiene didn’t find any evidence that the Kent

 

14   filter was contributing to the air levels or

 

15   background that were found?

 

16             MR. PANATIER:  Objection to form.

 

17         Q.  (By Mr. Berger)  Did the Laboratory of

 

18   Industrial Hygiene report any evidence that the Kent

 

19   filter was adding asbestos or silicates to what was

 

20   found in the New York City air?

 

21         A.  No.  Like I said, they said it was either

 

22   similar to or less than.  And that corroborates what

 

23   we find in some of the studies done by Armour where

 

24   the Kent filter cigarette actually removed materials

 

25   from the air and contributed less than the

 

 

                                                                   317

 1   background –

 

 2         Q.  All right.

 

 3         A.  – which we didn’t discuss earlier.

 

 4             MR. BERGER:  I’d like to mark this next.

 

 5   We’re on Exhibit 53, please.  And while you’ve got

 

 6   your hands off the keypad, this will be 54.

 

 7             (Exhibit Numbers 53 and 54 were marked for

 

 8   identification.)

 

 9             MR. PANATIER:  Is this just Kendall?

 

10             MR. BERGER:  Yes.

 

11             MR. PANATIER:  It’s just Kendall?

 

12             MR. BERGER:  Uh-huh.

 

13         Q.  (By Mr. Berger)  Doctor, I’ve handed you

 

14   what’s been marked Exhibit 53.  Will you tell us

 

15   what that is, please?

 

16         A.  This is Dr. David Kendall’s second monthly

 

17   report number 1978 in which he was looking at

 

18   determining the presence of silica and silicates

 

19   which were used interchangeably with mineral fiber

 

20   and asbestos in the ’50s in both Old Gold and Kent

 

21   cigarette smoke using infrared spectrophotometry.

 

22         Q.  And what’s the date on that report?

 

23         A.  This is February 27, 1954.

 

24         Q.  What’s infrared spectrophotometry for

 

25   basics?  For a layperson like me, Doctor, what’s

 

 

                                                                   318

 1   infrared spectrophotometry?

 

 2         A.  Well, it uses lights like you might keep

 

 3   your food hot on a warming table, the red lights.

 

 4   It’s a — infrared is a very heat oriented

 

 5   wavelength of light which we can’t see, but there

 

 6   are detectors here which different types of

 

 7   materials, both inorganic and organic, absorb

 

 8   different wavelengths of this light.

 

 9             And you can tell based on what’s being

 

10   absorbed what’s there.  And provided you calibrate

 

11   or use standards, which David Kendall did do, you

 

12   can tell how much is there.

 

13         Q.  So if Dr. Kendall was using this infrared

 

14   technique, how did he know — well, strike that.

 

15   Was he testing smoke samples from Kent, from

 

16   original Kent cigarettes?

 

17         A.  Yes, sir.

 

18         Q.  How many cigarettes did Dr. Kendall test?

 

19         A.  I believe he did them in lots of 200.  I’d

 

20   have to read through it to find out exactly how many

 

21   he did.  He used three solvents, three different

 

22   solvents, lots of 200.  So that’s probably at least

 

23   600, 600 cigarettes, the smoke of 600 cigarettes.

 

24         Q.  Okay.  And how did Dr. Kendall know whether

 

25   he was able to detect — strike that.  How did Dr.

 

 

                                                                   319

 1   Kendall know whether he would be able to detect any

 

 2   evidence of asbestos in the Kent smoke that he was

 

 3   examining?

 

 4             MR. PANATIER:  Form, speculation.  Strike

 

 5   that.

 

 6         Q.  (By Mr. Berger)  The report — does Dr.

 

 7   Kendall’s report contain any information about how

 

 8   he knew or would be able to detect whether there was

 

 9   any asbestos in the smoke from the Kent cigarettes

 

10   he was examining?

 

11         A.  Yes.  He ran standards.

 

12         Q.  Okay.  And what kind of standards did he

 

13   run?

 

14         A.  He actually pulled the Micronite filter and

 

15   put it into a null mull I think is what it says in

 

16   here and ground it very finely and then resuspended

 

17   it and ran a known amount of the Micronite fiber in

 

18   the infrared spectrophotometer.  And then he knew

 

19   what wavelengths to actually look for and how much

 

20   of that would be attributable to crocidolite if he

 

21   found it.

 

22         Q.  Okay.  So he pulled asbestos out of the

 

23   filter and ground it up; right?

 

24         A.  It was more than asbestos because you can’t

 

25   see the asbestos by the naked eye.

 

 

                                                                   320

 1         Q.  So he ground up part of a filter; right?

 

 2         A.  Yes.

 

 3         Q.  And ran its spectra to determine what the

 

 4   spectra of asbestos was; right?

 

 5         A.  That’s correct.

 

 6         Q.  And then used that spectra to compare to

 

 7   what he found in the Kent smoke; is that right?

 

 8         A.  That’s correct.

 

 9         Q.  Okay.  What did he report as his results

 

10   when he examined the smoke from the Kent cigarettes

 

11   he tested?

 

12         A.  Nothing.  There wasn’t anything found using

 

13   this method.

 

14         Q.  Now, is there any information in this

 

15   written report from Dr. Kendall about his limits of

 

16   detection?

 

17         A.  Yes.  He mentions that it’s — I have to

 

18   find it in here, .1 percent, I believe, but let me

 

19   find it.  Number six on page two says it is

 

20   estimated that point one — 0.1 percent by weight of

 

21   silica in the tars could have been detected if it

 

22   had been found to be present.

 

23             And I mentioned this earlier when we were

 

24   talking about the Kendall testimony.  If we had a

 

25   20-milligram cigarette, that would be

 

 

                                                                   321

 1   .02 micrograms.  If we had a ten-milligram

 

 2   cigarette, that would be .01 micrograms.  It’s –

 

 3   it’s pretty low.

 

 4             MR. BERGER:  Thank you, Doctor.  We’re

 

 5   done with that.  I’m going to hand counsel what’s

 

 6   been marked Exhibit 54.

 

 7             MR. PANATIER:  Here you go.

 

 8         Q.  (By Mr. Berger)  Dr. Reinert, I’d like you

 

 9   to look at that and will you tell us what that –

 

10   what Exhibit 54 is, please?

 

11         A.  This is the letter that I misthought of

 

12   this morning, which I thought was dated February but

 

13   it’s May 3rd, 1954, which –

 

14         Q.  And who’s that letter from and to, sir?

 

15         A.  It’s from Parmele to Dr. Fullam, Mr.

 

16   Fullam –

 

17         Q.  Okay.

 

18         A.  – dated May 3rd, ’54.

 

19         Q.  And what does Dr. Parmele say in that

 

20   letter?

 

21         A.  He thanks him for the letter of May 2nd,

 

22   for the set of cigarette samples he just received.

 

23   And if we remember, we were sent — we sent some to

 

24   him in end of April based on the stuff we looked at

 

25   earlier.  We note from your initial experiment with

 

 

                                                                   322

 1   regular Kents that using the shortcut technique

 

 2   which we thought might work, that you were unable to

 

 3   observe any silicate fibers in the specimens so

 

 4   prepared.

 

 5         Q.  Thank you, Doctor.  Now, is this the letter

 

 6   that you were referring to earlier today when you

 

 7   were talking about February samples and May test

 

 8   results that we had trouble putting our fingers on?

 

 9         A.  Yes, yes.

 

10         Q.  Okay.

 

11         A.  This would be the samples sent to him after

 

12   the contract was signed in February, I believe.

 

13         Q.  Okay.  Thank you, Doctor.  Dr. Reinert,

 

14   when did Lorillard switch from using the original

 

15   asbestos-containing filter material on Kents to the

 

16   crimped cellulose acetate that you’ve referred to?

 

17         A.  May of 1956.

 

18         Q.  And why did Lorillard make that change?

 

19         A.  I mentioned, I think, most of them today,

 

20   but the cigarettes weren’t selling, price was

 

21   prohibitive, 31 cents versus 25 cents.  They were

 

22   continuing to have issues with the draw, which made

 

23   it difficult to smoke.  They were continuing,

 

24   therefore, to have taste issues.  The amount of

 

25   waste during manufacture at Lorillard’s plants was

 

 

                                                                   323

 1   11 to 13 percent.  There are a lot of places where

 

 2   the waste occurred.  It was also manpower intensive.

 

 3   You had to change a roll four times a shift.  The

 

 4   crimped cellulose acetate ran for one shift.  It’s

 

 5   like 109 miles of crimped cellulose acetate in a

 

 6   four by four by four box.  It’s pretty amazing

 

 7   actually when you think about it.  And it was just

 

 8   the sales and the price and the — and the draw and

 

 9   the taste and so on.

 

10         Q.  Okay.  What was the market share of the

 

11   original Kent like?

 

12         A.  It was never more than one percent of the

 

13   total cigarette market.  And in ’53 or so it was –

 

14   although the market was pretty small for filter

 

15   cigarettes, it was about 23 percent but then tanked.

 

16         Q.  Okay.  Was the original Kent cigarette a

 

17   popular cigarette?

 

18         A.  No.  It didn’t take off.  The first year it

 

19   took off a little bit and then the second year it

 

20   did some, but after that it pretty much tanked.

 

21         Q.  By 1955 and — let me strike that.  Have

 

22   you previously looked at sales figures related to

 

23   both the original Kent cigarette and the new Kent

 

24   cigarette that replaced it?

 

25         A.  Yes.  I have.

 

 

                                                                   324

 1         Q.  Okay.  And by 1955, 1956 was the original

 

 2   Kent cigarette gaining or losing market share?

 

 3         A.  It was losing and we were losing money,

 

 4   too.

 

 5         Q.  And what happened to the sales of the — of

 

 6   Kent cigarettes after they switched to the cellulose

 

 7   acetate filter and introduced the new Kent

 

 8   cigarette?

 

 9         A.  Pretty much in the second half of 1956 when

 

10   the crimped cellulose acetate was put on the market,

 

11   the sales almost equaled the previous year.  And

 

12   then in the year after that we made another change

 

13   to the E60 process, which was crimped cellulose

 

14   acetate and alpha cellulose powder, better balancing

 

15   the draw and taste again.  And it took off

 

16   exponentially along with the rest of the filter

 

17   market.

 

18         Q.  Okay.  I’m going to change topics on you.

 

19   We have talked earlier today about various

 

20   publications in the literature about what was known

 

21   about the health risks of asbestos.  And just to be

 

22   clear, when Lorillard introduced the original Kent

 

23   filter what was published — what were the known

 

24   risks, health risks for exposure to asbestos?

 

25             MR. PANATIER:  I’m going to object to

 

 

                                                                   325

 1   form.

 

 2             THE WITNESS:  Well, the information

 

 3   available at the time and, of course, it was

 

 4   introduced in ’52, was that you had to have

 

 5   typically high levels of asbestos dust from mining,

 

 6   milling, textile manufacture and things of that

 

 7   nature for some period of time and then creating

 

 8   asbestosis, which is a fibrotic-type disease of the

 

 9   lung.

 

10             And then once you got asbestosis, you were

 

11   predisposed to getting lung cancer.  Whether it was

 

12   straight up lung cancer or pleural, you were

 

13   predisposed to getting that; but again, it was high

 

14   levels of exposure over longer periods of time

 

15   typically.

 

16         Q.  (By Mr. Berger)  Okay.  And these published

 

17   studies in the 1940s and 1950s, what kinds of work

 

18   situations were they studying?  Do you understand my

 

19   question?

 

20         A.  Typically working with the raw asbestos –

 

21         Q.  Okay.

 

22         A.  – or mining the raw asbestos.

 

23         Q.  Okay.  Have you seen any studies from the

 

24   1940s or 1950s that were done on people exposed to

 

25   asbestos in a consumer product?

 

 

                                                                   326

 1         A.  No, and I believe we talked about that.

 

 2         Q.  Was there a generally known standard in the

 

 3   1940s or 1950s for asbestos exposure in the

 

 4   workplace?

 

 5             MR. PANATIER:  Objection.

 

 6             THE WITNESS:  Yes.

 

 7         Q.  (By Mr. Berger)  And what was that?

 

 8         A.  Driesen in ’38 set up a maximum acceptable

 

 9   limit, MAL, of five million particles per cubic foot

 

10   and then that was adopted in 1946 by the American

 

11   Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists,

 

12   ACGIH, and they accepted the same standard for

 

13   workplace exposure.  And that standard pretty much

 

14   stayed in place until ’70.

 

15         Q.  Okay.  And in the 1940s and 1950s what was

 

16   that standard, whatever it’s called the maximum

 

17   was –

 

18         A.  TLV.

 

19         Q.  – the MAC or the TLV?

 

20         A.  It was the TLV.

 

21         Q.  What was it designed to prevent?

 

22         A.  It was an empirically based standard, which

 

23   means it’s based on observation.  Above five million

 

24   particles per cubic foot you had a tendency to get

 

25   asbestosis.  Below five million particles per cubic

 

 

                                                                   327

 1   foot, you did not.  And that’s how it was set.

 

 2         Q.  Okay.  So is it fair to say that in the

 

 3   1940s and 1950s the idea was to protect the workers

 

 4   and prevent them from developing asbestosis and if

 

 5   you could do that, that would prevent them from

 

 6   developing subsequent diseases?

 

 7             MR. PANATIER:  Form.

 

 8         Q.  (By Mr. Berger)  Strike that.  Is it fair

 

 9   to say that the MAC and the TLV were designed to

 

10   prevent workers from developing asbestosis?

 

11         A.  That’s what the number was based on.

 

12         Q.  Okay.  And in the 1940s and ’50s was

 

13   asbestosis believed to be the predicate disease that

 

14   you needed for developing cancer?

 

15         A.  Yes.  It sure was.

 

16             MR. BERGER:  All right.  Dr. Reinert, I

 

17   want to switch again to the last area of questions.

 

18   Let me mark this as Exhibit 55, please.  You can

 

19   cover it up.  That’s fine.

 

20             (Exhibit Number 55 was marked for

 

21   identification.)

 

22         Q.  (By Mr. Berger)  Okay.  Doctor, earlier

 

23   today you were asked some questions about Exhibit

 

24   Number 48, which was an article published by Dr.

 

25   Longo in 1995.  Do you remember that?

 

 

                                                                   328

 1         A.  Yes.

 

 2         Q.  Okay.  And in the 1995 article Dr. Longo is

 

 3   describing tests that he did in the 1990s on Kent

 

 4   cigarettes; right?

 

 5         A.  That’s correct.

 

 6         Q.  Now, the Kent cigarettes that Dr. Longo was

 

 7   testing in the 1990s, when were they manufactured?

 

 8         A.  Well, the ones from his ’95 — ’91 study

 

 9   were from ’53 and ’55, I believe.  This is –

 

10         Q.  Okay.

 

11         A.  This is one from pre-’54 or middle of ’54

 

12   because it has the three paragraphs on the back.

 

13         Q.  Okay.  Let me break that up a little bit.

 

14         A.  Sure.

 

15         Q.  You’re holding that up.  Now, you’re

 

16   holding up Exhibit 55 is a picture of a package of

 

17   Kents; correct?

 

18         A.  Regular Kents, 70 millimeter.

 

19         Q.  Okay.  Now, these photographs that you

 

20   have, have you seen them before or ones very similar

 

21   to those?

 

22         A.  I’ve seen them in Longo’s records and in

 

23   some of those reports.

 

24         Q.  Okay.  And from looking at those

 

25   photographs can you tell us are those photographs

 

 

                                                                   329

 1   similar — well, strike that.  Can you tell us from

 

 2   looking at those photographs when the package of

 

 3   Kents that’s in that photo was manufactured?

 

 4         A.  Yes.  This was –

 

 5         Q.  And how can you do that?

 

 6         A.  19 — near the end of 1954 these three

 

 7   paragraphs had to be removed according to FTC.  At

 

 8   least that’s my understanding.  And so anything that

 

 9   has these three paragraphs, one would be a regular

 

10   pack because the king-size never had the three

 

11   paragraphs.  And two, it had to be sometime

 

12   September or earlier in ’54 to March of ’52 that

 

13   this would have been produced.

 

14         Q.  Okay.  Let me ask you a few questions to

 

15   clarify.  In 1954 did Lorillard have different sizes

 

16   of Kents available on the market?

 

17         A.  ’54 the king-size was introduced, which was

 

18   85 millimeter.

 

19         Q.  Okay.  And before 1954 what size of Kent

 

20   was available?

 

21         A.  The regular size, 70 millimeter.

 

22         Q.  Okay.  And in 1954 when king-size was

 

23   introduced, was there a difference in the packaging

 

24   between the king-size Kent and the original,

 

25   shorter, 70-millimeter Kent?

 

 

                                                                   330

 1         A.  Well, in ’54 up to about September the

 

 2   regular had these three paragraphs.  The king-size

 

 3   never had these three paragraphs.

 

 4         Q.  Okay.

 

 5         A.  The other thing that was different on the

 

 6   — the regular had the “with the Micronite filter.”

 

 7         Q.  You can hold that up so we can see it.

 

 8         A.  And the king-size had new — “exclusive

 

 9   Micronite filter” and the regular stayed with “with

 

10   the Micronite filter,” but the king-size said

 

11   “exclusive Micronite filter.”

 

12         Q.  Okay.

 

13         A.  And this is a regular.

 

14         Q.  Okay.  So the king-size packs never had the

 

15   three sentences on the back; right?

 

16         A.  Three — well, I guess maybe they’re

 

17   sentences.  They are sentences.  I always call them

 

18   paragraphs.

 

19         Q.  And the regular size Kent only had those

 

20   three sentences up through some point in 1954?

 

21         A.  Right.  That’s correct.

 

22         Q.  Dr. Reinert, the cigarettes that you

 

23   examined photographs and testimony regarding the

 

24   cigarettes that Dr. Longo tested are 1990s; correct?

 

25         A.  Yes, sir.

 

 

                                                                   331

 1         Q.  And do you believe those are representative

 

 2   of fresh Kent cigarettes manufactured in the 1950s?

 

 3             MR. PANATIER:  Objection to form.

 

 4             THE WITNESS:  No, no.  They’re not.

 

 5         Q.  (By Mr. Berger)  Okay.  And have you

 

 6   examined photographs and testimony regarding the

 

 7   cigarettes that Dr. Longo tested in 2012?

 

 8         A.  Yes.  I have.

 

 9         Q.  Okay.  And do you believe that the

 

10   cigarettes Dr. Longo tested in 2012 are

 

11   representative of fresh Kent cigarettes manufactured

 

12   in the 1950s?

 

13             MR. PANATIER:  Form.

 

14             THE WITNESS:  They are not.

 

15             MR. BERGER:  Okay.

 

16             THE WITNESS:  They only had a three-month

 

17   shelf life.  That’s a longer, longer period of time.

 

18         Q.  (By Mr. Berger)  Okay.  The last question,

 

19   Doctor, in light of the state of the art and the

 

20   state of knowledge regarding the high levels of

 

21   asbestos exposure that were necessary to cause

 

22   asbestosis in the 1950s, in light of the test

 

23   results that Lorillard had that showed no to trace

 

24   or three fiber release from the Kent cigarettes,

 

25   would Lorillard have had a reason to place a warning

 

 

                                                                   332

 1   on Kents regarding the presence of asbestos in the

 

 2   filter?

 

 3             MR. PANATIER:  Objection to form.

 

 4             THE WITNESS:  As we discussed earlier, the

 

 5   zero to trace to three fibers was far, far below the

 

 6   state of the art at the time, which really talked

 

 7   about having asbestosis first and then potential for

 

 8   lung cancer or pleural cancer, as they called it

 

 9   then, second.

 

10             MR. BERGER:  Doctor, that’s all I have for

 

11   you.  Thank you very much.

 

12             MR. PANATIER:  I have a couple of

 

13   follow-ups for you, sir.

 

14                    FURTHER EXAMINATION

 

15   BY MR. PANATIER:

 

16         Q.  Sir, do you agree that if, scientifically

 

17   speaking, if you are looking for something, you have

 

18   to have a tool that you expect has enough power to

 

19   find what you’re looking for?

 

20         A.  That’s typical, yes.

 

21         Q.  Right.  If you want to see whether or not

 

22   someone is standing on the horizon, you may not be

 

23   able to see them with your naked eyes, but if you

 

24   have binoculars or a telescope you may be able to

 

25   see them; right?

 

 

                                                                   333

 1         A.  Yes.

 

 2         Q.  Similarly, if you want to see what’s going

 

 3   on in somebody’s cells, you can’t just look at

 

 4   someone’s face and say I can see your cells.  You

 

 5   have to take a sample and you have to look at it

 

 6   under a microscope; right?

 

 7         A.  That’s correct.

 

 8         Q.  And depending on what you’re looking at,

 

 9   that microscope has to have sufficient power to see

 

10   what you’re looking for; right?

 

11         A.  It would have to be of the appropriate

 

12   type.

 

13         Q.  Sir, with regard to Killian’s tests that he

 

14   did, he never once said he was looking for asbestos;

 

15   correct?

 

16         A.  He was looking for silicates.

 

17         Q.  And the word asbestos never even appears in

 

18   his reports; correct?

 

19         A.  That’s correct.  However, there are no

 

20   reports that’s in the information that we have

 

21   available.

 

22         Q.  Right.  Again, we don’t have his actual

 

23   reports; right?

 

24         A.  No.  We do not.

 

25         Q.  Okay.  Now, you know that there are well

 

 

                                                                   334

 1   over 200 different substances categorized as

 

 2   silicates?

 

 3         A.  Silicates are a very broad group of which

 

 4   asbestos and asbestos foreign bodies are parts of

 

 5   that group.

 

 6         Q.  There were other items in the filter

 

 7   material for Kent that would be classified as

 

 8   silicates; correct?

 

 9             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

10             THE WITNESS:  It depends whether some of

 

11   those were carried along in manufacture or not.

 

12         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Okay.  Now, with regard

 

13   to Mr. Kendall, regardless of what you’ve testified

 

14   about looking at his papers, Mr. Kendall himself

 

15   testified as to the detection limit of his technique

 

16   and you were shown that today; correct?

 

17         A.  He showed me his testimony, that’s correct.

 

18         Q.  Do you have more experience with his

 

19   technique of measurement than he does or he did?

 

20             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

21             THE WITNESS:  I read his report, which is

 

22   consistent with the time frame that we’re talking

 

23   about and that says more detail than the

 

24   hypotheticals that are portrayed in that testimony.

 

25         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Well, and my question,

 

 

                                                                   335

 1   sir, is do you have more experience in using his

 

 2   measurement technique, Mr. Kendall’s, than he does?

 

 3             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

 4             THE WITNESS:  He was a spectroscopist and

 

 5   I am not.

 

 6         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  He was an expert in it

 

 7   and you are not; correct?

 

 8         A.  That’s correct.

 

 9         Q.  I want to show you, this is Exhibit 54.

 

10   That’s what you were just shown from Mr. Fullam.

 

11   That’s from May of 1954 and it says he makes –

 

12   Parmele refers to a shortcut technique.  What is

 

13   that?

 

14         A.  We’re not exactly sure, but we do know that

 

15   Parmele smoked the cigarettes and sent the acetone

 

16   from those cigarettes that were smoked to Fullam.

 

17   It may or may not be that.  I don’t know.

 

18         Q.  Okay.  So this is the study you told me

 

19   that Fullam did where whole cigarettes were smoked

 

20   and he was asked to count the asbestos in it; right?

 

21         A.  He was asked to do electron microscopy on

 

22   it and found nothing.

 

23         Q.  And it doesn’t say, there’s nothing that

 

24   says Dr. Fullam was asked to count the quantity of

 

25   asbestos fibers; correct?

 

 

                                                                   336

 1         A.  It says silicate fibers which, again, we’ve

 

 2   probably talked about this earlier where silicate

 

 3   was used interchangeably in the ’50s.

 

 4         Q.  Even assuming that that’s asbestos, there’s

 

 5   no evidence he was actually asked to quantify the

 

 6   total amount of asbestos from a cigarette; correct?

 

 7   It doesn’t say that?

 

 8         A.  His contract talks about, and we didn’t

 

 9   look at it today, but his contract does talk about

 

10   if you find asbestos, you need to identify it using

 

11   XAED or SAED.

 

12         Q.  Identification is different than

 

13   quantification; correct?

 

14         A.  But he didn’t find any, so he didn’t

 

15   identify any.

 

16         Q.  Well, and that’s the next issue, which is

 

17   you don’t know what the shortcut technique is?

 

18             MR. BERGER:  Objection, asked and

 

19   answered.

 

20         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Correct?

 

21         A.  I don’t know specifically what it is,

 

22   that’s correct.

 

23         Q.  Okay.  And then, sir, this is from a week

 

24   or two earlier the same year where Mr. Parmele makes

 

25   reference to the fact that Mr. Fullam did find

 

 

                                                                   337

 1   asbestos in smoke of Kents; correct?

 

 2         A.  Yes.

 

 3         Q.  Okay.  Lorillard said — we saw those

 

 4   documents.  Lorillard was worried about a whisper

 

 5   campaign by its competitors regarding hazards of

 

 6   asbestos.  Do you recall that?

 

 7         A.  A rumor campaign, whisper campaign, yes.

 

 8         Q.  Okay.  And did Lorillard ever in any

 

 9   document that you’ve actually seen dispute that

 

10   asbestos could cause those disease?

 

11         A.  I don’t believe they’ve disputed it nor did

 

12   they mention that it could.

 

13         Q.  Did you ever see in any document where

 

14   Lorillard stated — I’ll move on.  You remember

 

15   talking about the Journal of the American Medical

 

16   Association; correct?

 

17         A.  Yes.

 

18         Q.  Did Lorillard ever tell JAMA, hey, we found

 

19   asbestos in the smoke from our cigarette?

 

20             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

21             THE WITNESS:  I don’t believe I’ve seen

 

22   that.

 

23         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Okay.  Sir, you know

 

24   that the threshold limit value that was a workplace

 

25   standard was never designed to protect against

 

 

                                                                   338

 1   carcinogens?  Do you understand that?

 

 2         A.  Well, it’s listed to protect according to

 

 3   OSHA these days and ACGIH at the ten to the minus

 

 4   three to ten to the minus four level, and it

 

 5   specifically says that in their documents.  It

 

 6   doesn’t protect them to no risk.

 

 7         Q.  Right.  And certainly during the 1940s the

 

 8   TLV was never considered protective for carcinogens;

 

 9   correct?

 

10             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form, misstates

 

11   testimony, lack of foundation.

 

12             THE WITNESS:  As I said before, the TLV

 

13   was based on as protection from asbestosis due to

 

14   the state of the art.

 

15         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Right.  Not cancer;

 

16   correct?

 

17         A.  That’s correct.

 

18         Q.  Sir, this is Exhibit 55 which you looked

 

19   at.  Can you hold that up again for a moment for the

 

20   jury?  And you talked about the three paragraphs on

 

21   the back; right?

 

22         A.  Yes.

 

23         Q.  And what it says is scientifically the most

 

24   effective filter ever developed to free cigarette

 

25   smoke of impurities, removes nicotine and tar

 

 

                                                                   339

 1   particles, no other cigarette approaches such a

 

 2   degree of health and protection and taste

 

 3   satisfaction; right?  It says those things; correct?

 

 4         A.  That’s what it says.

 

 5         Q.  Okay.  Those are essentially what Lorillard

 

 6   was saying in a lot of its advertising; correct?

 

 7         A.  In some way, shape or form, that is

 

 8   correct.

 

 9         Q.  Okay.  Lastly, Dr. Longo has done at least

 

10   three separate tests of Kent cigarettes that contain

 

11   asbestos; correct?

 

12         A.  Well, all decrepit, nonrepresentative Kent

 

13   cigarettes, yes.  That’s correct.

 

14         Q.  You know, we’ve heard you say that.  I

 

15   appreciate that that’s your opinion.  I’m going to

 

16   object to nonresponsive.  Dr. Longo has done three

 

17   tests at least of vintage Kent cigarettes from the

 

18   era when they contained asbestos; correct?

 

19             MR. BERGER:  Objection to the form, asked

 

20   and answered.

 

21             THE WITNESS:  They’re from the era.

 

22         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  And each time he has

 

23   found extremely high levels of crocidolite.  Would

 

24   you agree with that?

 

25             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

 

                                                                   340

 1             THE WITNESS:  I would have expected to

 

 2   find it in those degraded cigarettes.

 

 3         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Sir, Dr. Longo found

 

 4   very high levels of crocidolite in the studies he

 

 5   did; correct?

 

 6             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

 7             THE WITNESS:  They’re higher than we found

 

 8   in our studies even with electron microscopy in the

 

 9   ’50s.

 

10             MR. PANATIER:  Objection, nonresponsive.

 

11         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Sir, Dr. Longo even

 

12   looked at the crepe paper; correct?

 

13         A.  Yes.

 

14         Q.  Didn’t crumble when they pulled it with

 

15   tweezers; did it?

 

16         A.  According to what he videotaped, that’s

 

17   correct.

 

18         Q.  Okay.  And they even rehumidified those

 

19   cigarettes; didn’t they?

 

20         A.  Well, that’s what they say they do, but

 

21   that’s not the way it normally occurs.  You don’t

 

22   dry them out and then rehumidify.

 

23         Q.  Well, sir –

 

24         A.  They’re kept at a constant humidity and

 

25   then tested.

 

 

                                                                   341

 1             MR. PANATIER:  Objection, nonresponsive.

 

 2         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Dr. Longo rehumidified

 

 3   the cigarettes; right?

 

 4             MR. BERGER:  Objection to form.

 

 5             THE WITNESS:  To some unknown level,

 

 6   that’s correct.

 

 7         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  And Lorillard has never

 

 8   despite having the resources reconstructed any of

 

 9   the Kent cigarettes to verify or dispute Dr. Longo’s

 

10   studies; correct?

 

11             MR. BERGER:  Objection to the form, lack

 

12   of foundation, assumes facts.

 

13             THE WITNESS:  Not to my knowledge.

 

14         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Can you find out how

 

15   much it would cost to do that?

 

16             MR. BERGER:  Objection to lack of

 

17   foundation, calls for speculation and assumes facts.

 

18             THE WITNESS:  I wouldn’t know how to do

 

19   that.

 

20         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  There’s no one at

 

21   Lorillard you can talk to about, hey, what would we

 

22   need to do, how much would it cost to try to do this

 

23   project to reconstitute Kent cigarettes from the

 

24   era?

 

25             MR. BERGER:  I object.  It’s assuming

 

 

                                                                   342

 1   facts.  It’s all misstating testimony because the

 

 2   witness has testified you can’t do it.

 

 3             MR. PANATIER:  You want to testify?

 

 4         Q.  (By Mr. Panatier)  Sir, can you answer the

 

 5   question?

 

 6         A.  I don’t know if anybody’s there or not that

 

 7   can do that.

 

 8         Q.  Sir –

 

 9         A.  The information doesn’t exist to recreate

 

10   these things.

 

11         Q.  So you don’t have that information on the

 

12   recipes?

 

13         A.  Do not.

 

14         Q.  Where did that go?

 

15         A.  I don’t know.  I’ve asked.

 

16         Q.  Sir, Lorillard sold 13 billion Kent

 

17   cigarettes containing the Micronite filter with

 

18   asbestos.  You told me that at the beginning of this

 

19   deposition; correct?

 

20         A.  That is correct.

 

21         Q.  Divided by 20 cigarettes, that’s 650

 

22   million packs; correct?

 

23         A.  I haven’t done the math, but if that’s the

 

24   math, then that would be fine.

 

25         Q.  Well, if you divide 13 billion by ten, you

 

 

                                                                   343

 1   get 1.3 billion; right?

 

 2         A.  That’s true.

 

 3         Q.  Divide it one more time, you get 650 — 650

 

 4   million?

 

 5         A.  Okay.  Well, at this point in time I’m

 

 6   having a little difficulty with the math.

 

 7         Q.  Sir, is that correct that if they sold 13

 

 8   billion Kent cigarettes with asbestos, that means

 

 9   they sold 650 million packs of Kent cigarettes with

 

10   asbestos?

 

11             MR. BERGER:  Objection, asked and

 

12   answered.

 

13             THE WITNESS:  And, again, I’m not able to

 

14   do the math in my head at this point of the day.  If

 

15   13 billion divided by 20 is what you say, then

 

16   that’s what — how many packs there are.

 

17             MR. PANATIER:  There’s a calculator.

 

18             MR. BERGER:  Do we need to waste time

 

19   disputing this?  He just agreed that he’s not going

 

20   to dispute.

 

21             MR. PANATIER:  No.  He’s not.  No.  I want

 

22   to make sure that my math is correct, so he can do

 

23   the calculation.

 

24             MR. BERGER:  Okay.

 

25             THE WITNESS:  Six hundred and fifty

 

 

                                                                   344

 1   million.

 

 2             MR. PANATIER:  All right.  Thank you, sir.

 

 3   No further questions.

 

 4             MR. BERGER:  I don’t have anything else

 

 5   either.

 

 6             MR. PANATIER:  Okay.

 

 7             MR. BERGER:  We will read and sign.  Oh,

 

 8   hang on.  We’ve got a California thing we’ve got to

 

 9   do.

 

10             MR. PANATIER:  We can go off the video.

 

11   That’s fine.

 

12             MR. BERGER:  Okay.  Let’s go off video.

 

13             THE VIDEOGRAPHER:  Give me just a second.

 

14   Off the video record.  End of the deposition at

 

15   5:12 p.m.  Staying on the written record.

 

16             MR. BERGER:  Okay.  Rick?

 

17             MR. SHACKELFORD:  Since the California

 

18   code would otherwise require certain obligations of

 

19   our court reporter, I propose that the original of

 

20   the transcript be prepared, typed up, sent to Mr.

 

21   Berger so that it can be forwarded to the witness so

 

22   that he can read it, correct it to the extent

 

23   necessary, sign it under penalty of perjury and that

 

24   he have 30 days within which to accomplish that

 

25   task, which is his prerogative under the code, and

 

 

                                                                   345

 1   that once — that the parties stipulate that once

 

 2   the court reporter has delivered the transcript to

 

 3   Mr. Berger, she would be freed of any of her other

 

 4   statutory obligations under the California Code of

 

 5   Civil Procedure.

 

 6             Mr. Berger will undertake to advise

 

 7   counsel of the fact that the transcript has been

 

 8   read, corrected and signed and will also notify them

 

 9   of any changes.  Is that agreeable?

 

10             MR. PANATIER:  Yes.

 

11             MR. BERGER:  Agreeable to me.

 

12             MR. JONES:  Who’s going to maintain the

 

13   original?

 

14             MR. SHACKELFORD:  The original will be

 

15   maintained –

 

16             MR. JONES:  A certified copy can be used.

 

17             MR. SHACKELFORD:  Yeah, and that’s fine.

 

18             MR. PANATIER:  A certified copy can be

 

19   used and all that stuff if we don’t have the

 

20   original; right?

 

21             MR. SHACKELFORD:  Lorillard and its

 

22   counsel will maintain a copy of the original and if

 

23   for any reason the certified — the original is

 

24   unavailable, a certified copy may be used for any

 

25   purpose that the original could be used for.

 

 

                                                                   346

 1   Agreeable?

 

 2             MR. PANATIER:  I think I’m supposed to

 

 3   keep the original since I noticed the depo, so I’d

 

 4   like to keep the original because it’s my depo.

 

 5             MR. SHACKELFORD:  That’s fine.  Once it’s

 

 6   signed Mr. Berger will return the original to you,

 

 7   but he has to get that in order for the witness –

 

 8             MR. PANATIER:  Yeah, yeah.  I get that.

 

 9             (Reading and signing of the deposition by

 

10   the witness was reserved and the deposition was

 

11   concluded at 5:13 p.m.)

 

12                           -oOo-

 

13   

 

14   

 

15   

 

16   

 

17   

 

18   

 

19   

 

20   

 

21   

 

22   

 

23   

 

24   

 

25   

 

 

                                                                   347

     STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA   C E R T I F I C A T E

 

     COUNTY OF GUILFORD

 

 

 

           I, K. Denise Neal, RPR, Registered Professional

 

     Reporter and Notary Public, do hereby certify that

 

     KEVIN H. REINERT, PH.D. was duly sworn by me prior

 

     to the taking of the foregoing deposition, that said

 

     deposition was taken and transcribed under my

 

     supervision, and that the foregoing pages are a true

 

     and accurate transcription of the testimony of the

 

     said deponent.

 

           I further certify that review and signing of

 

     the transcript by the witness was reserved.

 

           I further certify that the persons were present

 

     as stated.

 

           I further certify that I am not related to, of

 

     counsel for or in the employment of any of the

 

     parties to this action, nor am I interested in the

 

     outcome of this action.

 

           This, the 23rd day of April, 2013.

 

 

 

 

 

 

                      K. Denise Neal, RPR

 

                      Registered Professional Reporter

 

                      Notary Public No. 200517500101

 

Lorillard Executive Admits Asbestos Once Included in Kent Filters

Most people have no idea that during the early to mid 1950s Kent Micronite filters contained asbestos. This is the basis for many current mesothelioma cases. My friend and colleague Chris Panatier recently took a deposition laying out the story. The deposition in its entirety is set forth below.

 

     STATE OF MINNESOTA                     DISTRICT COURT

 

     COUNTY OF RAMSEY             SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT

 

                     PERSONAL INJURY/ASBESTOS/VAN DE NORTH

 

     Curtis Geatz and           Court File No.: 62CV124946

    Judith Geatz,

 

 

              Plaintiffs,

 

 

    V.

 

 

    Benjamin Moore & Co.,

 

     et al.,

 

               Defendants.

 

 

          SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

 

                 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

 

 

    Coordinated Proceeding       )  J.C.C.P. No. 4674

 

     Special Title (Rule 3.550)   )

                                 )  Los Angeles

 

     LAOSD ASBESTOS CASES         )  Superior Court

                                 )  No. BC495326

 

                                  )

    TONI LAURENDEAU,             )  Assigned for All

 

                                  )  Purposes to:

              Plaintiff,         )  Honorable Emilie H.

 

                                  )  Elias

         vs.                     )  Dept. 324

 

                                  )

    CALAVERAS ASBESTOS, LTD;     )

 

     et al.,                      )

                                 )

 

               Defendants.        )

                                 )

 

 

 

                    TELEPHONIC AND VIDEOTAPE

                    30(B)(6) DEPOSITION OF

 

                   LORILLARD TOBACCO COMPANY

 

             THROUGH ITS CORPORATE REPRESENTATIVE,

 

                    KEVIN H. REINERT, PH.D.

 

 

                                                                     2

 1         SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

 

 2   

 

 3   Coordinated Proceeding       )  J.C.C.P. No. 4674

    Special Title (Rule 3.550)   )

 

 4                                )  Los Angeles

    LAOSD ASBESTOS CASES         )  Superior Court

 

 5                                )  No. BC494461

                                 )

 

 6   HELEN CARON,                 )  Assigned for All

                                 )  Purposes to:

 

 7             Plaintiff,         )  Honorable Emilie H.

                                 )  Elias

 

 8        vs.                     )  Dept. 324

                                 )

 

 9   AUTOZONE, INC.; et al.,      )

                                 )

 

10             Defendants.        )

                                 )

 

11   

 

12         SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                  FOR THE COUNTY OF VENTURA

 

13   

 

14   GERALD BUCK and JOYCE BUCK,  )  Case No. 56-2012-

                                 )  00427135-CU-AS-VTA

 

15             Plaintiff,         )

                                 )  Assigned for all

 

16        vs.                     )  purposes to

                                 )  The Honorable

 

17   AUTOZONE, INC.; et al.,      )  Harry Walsh

                                 )  Department 42

 

18             Defendants.        )

                                 )

 

19   

 

20   

 

21   

 

22   

 

23   

 

24   

 

25   

 

 

                                                                     3

 1         SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

 

 2   

 

 3   Coordinated Proceeding       )  J.C.C.P. No. 4674

    Special Title (Rule 3.550)   )

 

 4                                )  Los Angeles

    LAOSD ASBESTOS CASES         )  Superior Court

 

 5                                )  No. BC496185

                                 )

 

 6   WILLIAM LEWINSTEIN,          )  Hon. Emilie H. Elias

                                 )  Dept. 324

 

 7             Plaintiff,         )

                                 )

 

 8        vs.                     )

                                 )

 

 9   AMCORD, INC. (sued           )

    individually and as          )

 

10   successor-in-interest to     )

    RIVERSIDE CEMENT COMPANY);   )

 

11   et al.,                      )

                                 )

 

12             Defendants.        )

                                 )

 

13   

 

14                            Greensboro, North Carolina

 

15                           Wednesday, April 17, 2013

 

16             Videotaped and Telephonic 30(b)(6)

 

17   Deposition of LORILLARD TOBACCO COMPANY through its

 

18   corporate representative, KEVIN H. REINERT, PH.D., a

 

19   witness herein, called for examination by counsel

 

20   for the Plaintiffs in the above-entitled matter,

 

21   pursuant to notice, the witness being duly sworn by

 

22   K. DENISE NEAL, Registered Professional Reporter and

 

23   Notary Public in and for the State of North

 

24   Carolina, taken at the law offices of Brooks Pierce

 

25   McLendon Humphrey & Leonard, LLP, 230 North Elm

 

 

                                                                     4

 1   Street, 1900 Renaissance Plaza, Greensboro, North

 

 2   Carolina, at 9:09 a.m., on Wednesday, April 17,

 

 3   2013, and the proceedings being taken down by

 

 4   Stenotype by K. DENISE NEAL and transcribed under

 

 5   her direction.

 

 6   

 

 7   APPEARANCES:

 

 8   

 

 9        On behalf of the Plaintiffs (Geatz case):

 

10             CHRIS PANATIER, ESQ.

 

11             Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett

 

12             3232 McKinney Avenue, Suite 610

 

13             Dallas, Texas  75204

 

14             (214) 276-7680

 

15   

 

16        On behalf of the Defendant Lorillard

 

17        Tobacco Company (Geatz case):

 

18             JAMES E. BERGER, ESQ.

 

19             Hughes Hubbard & Reed, LLP

 

20             2345 Grand Boulevard

 

21             Kansas City, Missouri  64108-2663

 

22             (816) 709-4125

 

23   

 

24   

 

25   

 

 

                                                                     5

 1   APPEARANCES (Continued):

 

 2        On behalf of the Defendant Lorillard

 

 3        Tobacco Company (Laurendeau, Buck, Caron

 

 4        and Lewinstein cases):

 

 5             RICK L. SHACKELFORD, ESQ.

 

 6             Greenberg Traurig, LLP

 

 7             1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900

 

 8             Los Angeles, California  90067

 

 9             (310) 586-3878

 

10   

 

11        On behalf of the Defendant Cyprus Amax

 

12        Minerals Company:

 

13             MICHAEL H. BAILEY, ESQ. (By Telephone)

 

14             Baker, Keener & Nahra

 

15             633 West 5th Street, Suite 5400

 

16             Los Angeles, California  90071

 

17             (213) 241-0900

 

18   

 

19        On behalf of the Defendant Ford Motor

 

20        Company (Lewinstein and Buck cases):

 

21             PATRICIA E. BALL, ESQ. (By Telephone)

 

22             Yukevich Cavanaugh

 

23             355 South Grand Avenue, 15th Floor

 

24             Los Angeles, California  90071

 

25             (213) 362-7777

 

 

                                                                     6

 1   APPEARANCES (Continued):

 

 2        On behalf of the Defendant BNSF

 

 3        (Geatz case):

 

 4             RALPH G. GODSY, ESQ. (By Telephone)

 

 5             Boyle Brasher, LLC

 

 6             One Metropolitan Square

 

 7             211 North Broadway, Suite 2300

 

 8             St. Louis, Missouri  63102

 

 9             (314) 621-7700

 

10   

 

11        On behalf of the Defendants Genuine Parts

 

12        Company (Caron case) and Familian

 

13        Corporation (Laurendeau case):

 

14             ANN I. PARK, ESQ. (By Telephone)

 

15             Pond North, LLP

 

16             350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3300

 

17             Los Angeles, California  90071

 

18             (213) 617-6170

 

19   

 

20   

 

21   

 

22   

 

23   

 

24   

 

25   

 

 

                                                                     7

 1   APPEARANCES (Continued):

 

 2        On behalf of the Defendants Pneumo Abex,

 

 3        LLC (Caron case), Kaiser Gypsum Co., Inc.

 

 4        (Caron and Lewinstein cases) and Vanderbilt

 

 5        Minerals LLC (Caron, Laurendeau and

 

 6        Lewinstein cases):

 

 7             SALIN EBRAHAMIAN, ESQ. (By Telephone)

 

 8             DeHay & Elliston, L.L.P.

 

 9             707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 4300

 

10             Los Angeles, California  90017

 

11             (213) 271-2722

 

12   

 

13        On behalf of the Defendants Calaveras

 

14        Asbestos, Ltd. (Buck and Laurendeau cases)

 

15        and The Henry Co. (Lewinstein case):

 

16             MORGAN McCALL, ESQ. (By Telephone)

 

17             Foley & Mansfield

 

18             300 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2800

 

19             Los Angeles, California  90071

 

20             (213) 283-2124

 

21   

 

22   

 

23   

 

24   

 

25   

 

 

                                                                     8

 1   APPEARANCES (Continued):

 

 2        On behalf of the Defendant Union Carbide

 

 3        Corporation (Caron, Buck, Laurendeau and

 

 4        Lewinstein cases):

 

 5             JOSEPH GREENSLADE, ESQ. (By Telephone)

 

 6             McKenna Long & Aldridge, LLP

 

 7             300 South Grand Avenue, 14th Floor

 

 8             Los Angeles, California  90071

 

 9             (213) 243-6120

 

10   

 

11        On behalf of the Defendant Parex USA,

 

12        Inc. (Lewinstein case):

 

13             VANTHARA MEAK, ESQ. (By Telephone)

 

14             Howard Rome Martin & Ridley, LLP

 

15             1775 Woodside Road, Suite 200

 

16             Redwood City, California  94061-3436

 

17             (650) 365-7715

 

18   

 

19        On behalf of the Defendant Westburne

 

20        Supply, Inc. (Buck case):

 

21             V. PHILLIP HILL, IV, ESQ. (By Telephone)

 

22             Walsworth Franklin Bevins & McCall, LLP

 

23             707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 3280

 

24             Los Angeles, California  90017-3538

 

25             (213) 489-4820

 

 

                                                                     9

 1   APPEARANCES (Continued):

 

 2        On behalf of the Defendants L&B Pipe &

 

 3        Supply Company and MS2G, Inc. (Laurendeau

 

 4        case):

 

 5             TONY HSU, ESQ. (By Telephone)

 

 6             Prindle, Amaro, Goetz, Hillyard, Barnes

 

 7             & Reinholtz, LLP

 

 8             310 Golden Shore Parkway, 4th Floor

 

 9             Long Beach, California  90802

 

10             (562) 436-3946

 

11   

 

12        On behalf of the Defendant BorgWarner Morse

 

13        TEC, Inc. as successor-by-merger to

 

14        Borg-Warner Corporation (Caron case):

 

15             BARTEK R. REJCH, ESQ. (By Telephone)

 

16             Booth, Mitchel & Strange, LLP

 

17             707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 4450

 

18             Los Angeles, California  90017

 

19             (415) 205-0952

 

20   

 

21   

 

22   

 

23   

 

24   

 

25   

 

 

                                                                    10

 1   APPEARANCES (Continued):

 

 2        On behalf of the Defendants Lincoln

 

 3        Electric Company and Hobart Brothers

 

 4        Company (Buck case):

 

 5             MENGSU LIU, ESQ. (By Telephone)

 

 6             The Rasmussen Law Firm, LLP

 

 7             6033 West Century Boulevard, Suite 444

 

 8             Los Angeles, California  90045

 

 9             (310) 641-1400

 

10   

 

11        On behalf of the Defendant Hill Brothers

 

12        Chemical Company (Lewinstein case):

 

13             DAVID J. MANN, ESQ. (By Telephone)

 

14             Vasquez Estrada & Conway, LLP

 

15             1000 Fourth Street, Suite 700

 

16             San Rafael, California  94901

 

17             (415) 453-0555

 

18   

 

19        On behalf of the Defendant Maremont

 

20        Corporation (Lewinstein case):

 

21             LAUREN E. WOOD, ESQ. (By Telephone)

 

22             Hawkins Parnell Thackston & Young, LLP

 

23             4514 Cole Avenue, Suite 500

 

24             Dallas, Texas  75205-5412

 

25             (214) 780-5214

 

 

                                                                    11

 1   APPEARANCES (Continued):

 

 2        On behalf of the Defendant Jones Lumber

 

 3        (Laurendeau case):

 

 4             TREDWAY, LUMSDAINE & DOYLE, LLP

 

 5             (By Telephone)

 

 6             One World Trade Center, Suite 2550

 

 7             Long Beach, California  90831

 

 8             (562) 901-3050

 

 9   

 

10        On behalf of the Defendant NMBFIL, Inc.

 

11        (Buck, Caron and Lewinstein cases):

 

12             KNIGHT S. ANDERSON, ESQ. (By Telephone)

 

13             Tucker Ellis, LLP

 

14             925 Euclid Avenue, Suite 1150

 

15             Cleveland, Ohio  44115

 

16             (216) 592-5000

 

17   

 

18        On behalf of the Defendant DAP, Inc.

 

19        (Caron, Buck, Laurendeau and Lewinstein

 

20        cases):

 

21             ALLAN D. GUTSCHE, ESQ. (By Telephone)

 

22             Jackson Jenkins Renstrom, LLP

 

23             55 Francisco Street, 6th Floor

 

24             San Francisco, California  94133

 

25             (415) 982-3600

 

 

                                                                    12

 1   APPEARANCES (Continued):

 

 2        On behalf of Intervenors for Rich-Tex, Inc.

 

 3        (Laurendeau case):

 

 4             KIMBERLY M. PILE, ESQ. (By Telephone)

 

 5             Imai, Tadlock, Keeney & Cordery, LLP

 

 6             100 Bush Street, 13th Floor

 

 7             San Francisco, California  94104

 

 8             (415) 675-7000

 

 9   

 

10        On behalf of the Defendants The Pep Boys

 

11        Manny Moe & Jack of California (Caron and

 

12        Lewinstein cases) and Keenan Properties,

 

13        Inc. (Laurendeau case):

 

14             CHRISTINE D. CALARESO, ESQ. (By Telephone)

 

15             Selman Breitman, LLP

 

16             6 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 1100

 

17             Santa Ana, California  92707-5755

 

18             (714) 647-2506

 

19   

 

20   

 

21   

 

22   

 

23   

 

24   

 

25   

 

 

                                                                    13

 1   APPEARANCES (Continued):

 

 2        On behalf of the Defendant Hajoca

 

 3        Corporation (Laurendeau case):

 

 4             DAVID A. WARREN, ESQ. (By Telephone)

 

 5             Cooley Manion Jones, LLP

 

 6             201 Spear Street, 18th Floor

 

 7             San Francisco, California  94105

 

 8             (415) 512-4381

 

 9   

 

10        On behalf of the Defendant Crenshaw

 

11        Lumber Co. (Laurendeau case):

 

12             SAMANTHA E. KOHLER, ESQ. (By Telephone)

 

13             Wood, Smith, Henning & Berman, LLP

 

14             5000 Birch Street, Suite 8500

 

15             Newport Beach, California  92660

 

16             (949) 757-4507

 

17   

 

18        On behalf of the Defendant Honeywell

 

19        (Lewinstein case):

 

20             DAVID Q. McCLURE, ESQ. (By Telephone)

 

21             Perkins Cole, LLP

 

22             1888 Century Park East, Suite 1700

 

23             Los Angeles, California  90067-1721

 

24             (310) 788-9900

 

25   

 

 

                                                                    14

 1   APPEARANCES (Continued):

 

 2        On behalf of the Defendant Graves

 

 3        Automotive Supply (Caron case):

 

 4             SHARI I. WEINTRAUB, ESQ. (By Telephone)

 

 5             Gordon & Rees, LLP

 

 6             101 West Broadway, Suite 2000

 

 7             San Diego, California  92101

 

 8             (619) 230-7766

 

 9   

 

10        On behalf of the Defendant Mortex

 

11        Manufacturing Co., Inc. (Lewinstein case):

 

12             JEREMY D. HUIE, ESQ. (By Telephone)

 

13             Bassi Edlin Huie & Blum, LLP

 

14             500 Washington Street, Suite 700

 

15             San Francisco, California  94111

 

16             (415) 403-4429

 

17   

 

18                           -oOo-

 

19   

 

20                      C O N T E N T S

 

21   THE WITNESS               EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOR

 

22   KEVIN H. REINERT, PH.D.   PLAINTIFFS      DEFENDANTS

 

23     By Mr. Panatier             21

 

24     By Mr. Berger                              308

 

25     By Mr. Panatier            332

 

 

                                                                    15

 1                      E X H I B I T S

 

 2   PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION EXHIBIT              MARKED

 

 3     1 – Plaintiff’s notices of deposition       20

 

 4     2 – Reinert curriculum vitae                39

 

 5     3 – 1952 agreement between Lorillard

 

 6         and Hollingsworth & Vose                40

 

 7     4 – United States Tobacco Journal

 

 8         article – 3-24-52                       43

 

 9     5 – Tenth AEC air cleaning conference

 

10         proceedings – 8-28-68                   54

 

11     6 – JAMA editorial                          59

 

12     7 – Newsweek article – 5-15-50              65

 

13     8 – Letter dated 6-2-50                     67

 

14     9 – Letter dated 2-16-51                    70

 

15    10 – Letter dated 2-19-51                    74

 

16    11 – Letter dated 8